Ill 



EVALUATION OF CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 



1. Contingency Planning: 



The r»qu»5t for mrtlgation measures, including tertiary treatment optione, 

 to be sutxnitted by EPA/COA prior to issuance of the NPDES permit is laudablt, 

 as Is the Request for development of an ElS for tertiary treatment options, 



A conspicuous omission Is the failure to hold the Massachusetts Water 

 Resources Authority (MWRA) responsible for preparation and dissemination for 

 review of a contingency plan revealing what procedures and criteria will be 

 used by MWRA to detect and mitigate against potential effluent-impact effects 

 jeopardizing endangered species. Therefore, MWRA should be required to 

 prepare and to disseminate a Quality Assurance Statement documenting how 

 online and proposed monitoring efforts relevant to the Deer Island project will 

 be able to distinguish between events reflective of natural variability vs. 

 adverse, degradative or favorable events resulting from effluent discharge from 

 the proposed outfall. Procedures to be followed in retrofitting actions, if needed 

 for negative impact mitigation, are to be described. 



2. Additional Studies 



The recommended studies, with the exclusion of an undefined pathogen 

 effort and marine mammal response to diffuser noises, deal primarily with 

 physical and chemical issues. The conspicuous omission of biological studies, 

 otherwise, is puzzling, particularly given concern over biotic responses, toxicity 

 outbreaks, foodweb vectoring of toxins, and the need for quantitative, process 

 oriented analyses of trophic responses, both direct and indirect ones, to 

 anticipated nutrient loading and dispersal. It is noteworthy that the biological 

 conclusions presented (pp. 58'&9) in the Biological Opinion are based on 

 interpretations from a very incomplete data set and generalized extrapolations. 

 It is remiss of NOAA not to require validation of some of the more relevant 

 conclusions, through rigorous field and experimental testing of these employing 

 quantitative approaches with suitable replication. The need for such biological 

 studies is further evident on pp. 39-47 of the Biological Opinion, which 

 redounds in cautionary statements and expressions of uncertainty In reaching 

 conclusions as to the biological impact of the Deer Island facility, 



3. Monitoring 



Monitoring programs are pro forma activities associated with evaluation 

 of impacts of environmental assaults. The recommended monitoring effort Is 

 therefore not unexpected, including specific recommendations that would 

 engage NOAA elements. Based on the specific monitoring activities listed, 

 however, the monitoring program recommended is remarl<ably insensitive to the 

 issues addressed and need for essential data established during the 

 contentious discussions prior to issuance of the Biological Opinion. NOAA and 

 EPA should take cognizance of the statement on p. 39 on the Biological Opinion 

 that planktonic 'responses may only be confirmed through undertaking of a 



