is based on one sample taken at one time. Certainly, more needs to be done before any 
quantitative statements can be made. 
P. Boehm: I think that the bulk of all the material would enter the system 
during a heavy rainstorm; a time when people gather information least. 
G. Wallace: I'd just like to echo what Gene and Paul said about physical 
oceanography, because none of us can look at geochemical cycling and transport unless we 
understand the basic physics of the system. That's going to be a big concern for 
management. I've already mentioned the problems with copper. Some of the other metals 
are at or would violate the revised clean water standards. In addition, unless we know 
what to expect if we go to secondary treatment and reduce that particulate loading on the 
Harbor water quality and, therefore, can predict what the maximum permissible loading 
was, we're potentially faced with building an extended outfall which is not a trivial 
undertaking. I don't know what the cost would be; I would imagine it would be in the 
hundreds of millions of dollars. 
Question: Somebody mentioned that there are a lot of academic institutions in 
that area, and yet there doesn't seem to be a tremendous amount of involvement in that 
area in terms of research. Is this because the area is small, or the problem is not 
recognized? Why do you think this is the case? 
G. Wallace: May I answer that? I'm glad you asked. MIT, for example, is a 
Sea Grant organization that has tried to put a comprehensive program together for the 
Harbor, and it just wasn't interesting to any of the funding agencies. We've only been 
there for 3 years, and we have several grants now that are actively involved with work in 
the Harbor in one aspect or another. 
Most people at MIT, in terms of my field of geochemistry, are interested in 
offshore, blue-water work. That's the same for Woods Hole. And that's where additional 
funding has gone. The suffering that goes along with trying to get funding for inshore 
coastal work is incredible. For some of us, it's hardly worth the effort in terms of ease of 
funding and acquiring the funds. It's an extremely complex environment that requires a 
multi-disciplinary approach. It requires generally large funding bases to do meaningful 
studies that address the kinds of questions being asked here. I find that financial support 
is really tough to come by with the current status of funding to the agencies. 
P. Boehm: Your question really has to be directed to the funding agencies not 
to the universities. I think this is a system that everybody—including most Federal 
agencies—has assumed is somebody else's problem or it's getting a very limited approach 
like in the 301(h). There's been a lot of 301(h) activity, but research activity extends to 
the zone of initial dilution. Many chemists have linked one 301(h) study with another one 
several miles away. 
106 
