32 



with EPA, with the Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies; 

 but we are doing it through the consultation process, not through 

 an overall research program right now. 



Mr. Studds. Feel free. 



Mr. Kraus. I think I am all set. Thank you. 



Mr. Studds. You may never again get the chance to have these 

 people all held captive. 



Mr. Kraus. I know where they live. 



Mr. Studds. In fairness, is there anyone else on the panel who 

 would like to address — would you like to say something to these 

 scientists who have been harassing you, Mr. Kotelly? 



Mr. Kotelly. I do not feel harassed. Congressman. One of the 

 issues you raised earlier is secondary treatment, when it comes 

 online. One of the recommendations by NMFS is that secondary 

 treatment be built expeditiously. We agree with that. So, to the 

 MWRA's credit, they have in fact moved up one of the batteries of 

 secondary to 1996. Originally, in the beginning, there was just pri- 

 mary in 1995 and secondary in 1999. Then, during the process, we 

 moved up one battery, to 1996, and then the MWRA volunteered a 

 second battery. So, in 1996, we should have two batteries of second- 

 ary online, which is much ahead of schedule. So, it is possible, if in 

 fact the tunnel is delayed one year, and there is, as Doug says, a 

 50/50 chance, I think it is more like 80/20, it is possible. 



Mr. Studds. Keep going. This is very encouraging testimony. 



Mr. Kotelly. It is possible that when the outfall is ready that 

 the two batteries will also be ready. 



Mr. Studds. Poor Mr. MacDonald. Everybody is sitting here 

 praying for him to be inefficient in at least one respect. 



Anyone else who would like to — we will give everyone a chance 

 to make a final observation. Mr. Butman? 



Mr. Butman. I just wanted to make one comment about the 

 monitoring program. I would like to hear what Scott and Stormy 

 have to say about this. I think it is important in whatever monitor- 

 ing program is designed, especially in the far field, that it includes 

 not just what we call — might think of monitoring, counting of ani- 

 mals or assessments of populations, but really to understand the 

 processes by which these animals are affected and contaminants 

 are transported through the system. That predictive capability is 

 really what is going to help us in the long term for management 

 decisions. As I say, I am not sure what the monitoring program ac- 

 tually has in mind. I think the process-oriented research is equally 

 as important to understand the monitoring results as the monitor- 

 ing results themselves. 



Dr. Mayo. I share that view. I do not think that — there is a need 

 to — I do not know if it is to count animals, but to take a pretty 

 close look at them, because it is that interaction that is the focus of 

 the opinion and of our concern. I certainly share your view that 

 without knowledge of the process — without attention to that — strict 

 attention to it, we do not contribute anything to an ability to miti- 

 gate problems in the future to turn to EPA and complain or what- 

 ever it is, or in fact to congratulate MWRA on a well-done job, 

 which is another possible reflection of the monitoring program. 



Mr. Studds. Ms. Ritchie? 



