174 



BARNSTABLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 



BOSTON HARBOR OUTFALL PIPE 



SCIENCE ADVISORY PANEL 



ROBERT D. KENNEY, PH.D. 



22 SEPTEMBER 1992 



This document outlines a work plan for development of an Endangered Species Technical 

 Memorandum (ESTM), by Arthur D. Little in cooperation with EPA, relative to a proposed 

 sewage outfall offshore of Boston, Massachusetts. The ESTM will provide background 

 sciennfic information underlying a required Biological Impact Assessment (BIA) of the potential 

 impacts of the proposed outfall on endangered and/or threatened marine species. Because of my 

 own area of expenise, my review will focus primarily on the details of potential impacts on the 

 endangered species themselves, rather than at lower trophic levels. The latter will be addressed 

 more completely by the other Science Advisory Panel members. 



There is some lack of clarity in the work plan as to the differences between the ESTM, the formal 

 BIA process, and the biological assessment section of the ESTM. For example, the title 

 indicates that the BIA is done in suppon of the ESTM, when it seems to me that the reverse is 

 true. Overall, the work plan seems to be largely adequate if it is simply the plan for the ESTM. 

 It describes the expected content of the ESTM (section 1.0), and outlines the components of a 

 BIA which are suggested by the Endangered Species Act (section 2.0), with the remainder of the 

 plan devoted to description of the various tasks to be undenaken to prepare the ESTM. On the 

 other hand, as a plan for a BIA, it is woefully inadequate. The hypotheses are too general, and 

 the method used to test each hjTJOthesis is qualitative, not statistically rigorous, and based on 

 criteria which may be difficult or impossible to define. There is little or no discussion of what 

 course of action will be followed in the event that null hj'potheses are rejected or that insufficient 

 data exist for evaluation. Will additional studies be conducted as part of the BIA to fill critical 

 data gaps (Section 2.0, item f)? There is also no indication that the BIA will include any 

 discussion of alternative actions (Section 2.0, item e). 



The first two tasks - literature review (section 2.1) and consultation with recognized expens 

 (section 2.2) are relatively straight-forward. There does seem to be a lack of individuals in the 

 list of consultants with expenise in endangered species other than cetaceans. This seems to me a 

 general weakness in the entire document - the tasks seem concentrated on potential impacts on 

 The three endangered whales commonly found in the area while ignoring other species. The plan 

 does mention Aree sea tunle species and the short-nosed sturgeon in other places. There are 

 other sea tunles species documented for Massachusetts waters, as well as endangered birds, and 

 the endangered blue and sei whales are also known from Massachusetts Bay. I must confess 

 profound Ignorance about the sturgeon, but my knowledge of the other species suggests that it 

 may, in facT, be justifiable to conclude that potential impacts on them would be negligible. 

 However at the stage of developing a work plan it seems to be acting in some haste. There 

 should at least be a literature/data review and consultation process prior to making any 

 conclusions. It should be the BIA which determines that there is little or no likelihood of impact, 

 not the work plan for an ESTM in suppon of said assessment. 



Section 2.3 comprises the bulk of the work plan, outlining the assessment of potential impacts 

 from the outfall. The plan considers two sources of potential impacts, primary nutrients and 

 toxic chemicals, with cumulative impacts of the proposed outfall with other actions treated as a 

 third source of potential impact. The work plan's proposed scheme is to conceptualize each route 



