PANEL DISCUSSION 
B. Brown: There are many areas where we still have information gaps that are 
important in making management decisions in the Boston Harbor/Massachusetts Bay area. 
I'd like to ask some of the speakers to address what they think are the data gaps still 
missing. I'll start with Gene Gallagher. 
G. Gallagher: I think the physical oceanography of Boston Harbor and 
Massachusetts Bay is first and foremost. It was pointed out to me during the break that 
there are existing models of the circulation in Massachusetts Bay. The major one that has 
been used is called CAFE. It was developed at MIT, and used by the MDC section 301(h) 
waiver. 
We need more sophisticated modeling efforts for understanding the currents in 
Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay. We need to know the sources of the pollutants, but 
we also need to know the mechanisms of transport. We must understand the physical 
oceanography to look at the exchange between the Inner Harbor in Boston and the Outer 
Harbor as a major source of pollution as well as the exchange processes between Boston 
Harbor and Massachusetts Bay. 
The reason sophisticated models are needed is that what we know about 
circulation is very complex. The Harbor is very shallow, and also circulation is dominated 
by tidal forcing and wind effects. So we need models to incorporate wind sheer stress. 
In the last 5 or 6 years, there have been tremendous advancements in the field 
of physical oceanography in putting together both finite element difference models which 
could handle wind sheer stress. I think the major thing limiting our understanding of 
Massachusetts Bay is the physical oceanography. Once we begin putting those pieces 
together, it will help us look at coupling the output. If we know the output of pollutants, 
we will know more about determining where they are going and their effects. 
B. Brown: Leigh Bridges? 
L. Bridges: Well, from the point of view of the fisheries, I think our 
understanding of the contamination problem manifested by the carcinoma in flounder has 
to be broadened. The second species that needs to be looked at is lobster, and that should 
be done immediately. Moreover, I think Dr. Murchelano indicated that the fish that have 
been studied, to date, have been looked at or sampled on the basis of trying to find a 
flounder in this condition. 
We have to establish a sampling program that would be less biased in terms of 
discovering what percentage of the population is affected. Secondly, we should 
determine, if possible, what long-term effect pollution might have on the population of 
winter flounder and lobster if they are affected. At this point in time, we don't know 
whether they are affected, but quite possibly that they are. 
103 
