121 



u XT, ^^^ ^^ ^^^ Studies or data that were no: cited in the Assessment, that would be helpful to 

 the NMFS for preparation of their Biological Opinion? 



FINDINGS 



The pnmaiy findings of the SAP are summarized here. In general, the Assessment 

 represents a relanvely complete summary of existing literature on endangeitd species in tlie reieon 

 and provides a useful overview of the oceanography of the area based on recenUy published 

 studies by vanous external investigators. Detailed comments by the members of the SAP are 

 included, as attachments to this document. These detailed comments include specific details 

 addressing item (3) in Scope of Analysis. 



Some of the findings of note are listed below: 



I) The Assessment has changed markedly from the original Work Plan submitted for 

 conip etion of the Biological Assessment The most critical variations from the Work Plan include 

 the following: 



a) The use of null hypotheses was eliminated from the work producL 



b) Less reliance on the numerical model results for both circulation and water 

 quality was possible, due to the ongoing development and work on the models that made the final 

 results unavailable for this study. 



<^ '^^ '^^ ^PP^"^°" °^'^°^^"''"P°"^^ ™^^°^°'°S>' ^25 ^^rgely eliminated because 

 of lack of sufficient data in the marine environmenL 



. . d) One complete sector of the Work Plan, the review of the MWRA's Outfall 



Moratonng Plan and Contingency Plan, was omitted for reasons not explained in the Assessment. 



e) The Work Plan indicated a separate repon would be prepared by Dr Thomas 

 Malone cnnquing the earlier work of Dr. Smayda regarding the nutrient issues. The SAP has not 

 yet received this report for review. 



A,. K ^^ The Assessment is a relatively complete review (with exceptions noted in the 

 f^^^f?.^ 7^1^^ °^ ^^ 'T' °'" Massachusetts Bay oceanography and ecosystem health, 



and of the poiennal effects from the outfall pipe operation on the ecosystem and oceanographic 



^ rur./] "^^ Assessment relies heavily on qualitative terminology rather than quantitative 

 methodology to achieve its opinion that the MWRA tunnel effluent is unlikely to jeopardize 

 endangered species and their habitat ^ "i'.uui^t 



,nH ru '*^ """^ Assessment draws parallels between the zones of impact of the present outfall pipe 

 ^lonhThnt T^ ^T\ "^"^ *' ^plication that any improvement over the present situation 

 is worthwhile. This parallel is flawed in that the proposed outfall is closer to the endangered 

 species habitat than the present outfall, the effects now wiU be concentrated in deeper wateTdoser 

 to the Gulf of Maine inflow (a possible source of toxic algal blooms), and the increase in nitrogen 

 loading will be measurably above background levels for some distance from the outfall (735 km2 

 at least). This parallel also begs the question about whether the Endangered Species Act wiU 



i 



