peake Bay Data Bank, employing common and accepted data units, terms, and 

 programs, plus local or institutional specialized data systems as compatible as 

 possible with each other and with the Primary Bank (Cronin et at., 1979). This has 

 not been achieved and is not in sight. 



The most recent effort to unify consideration and study of Chesapeake Bay is the 

 "Chesapeake Bay Research Coordination Act of 1980" introduced by Senator C. 

 McC. Mathias and Representative Robert Bauman, both of Maryland. It is 

 intended to assure effective research planning and coordination of all Bay-related 

 research supported by federal funds (Congress of the United States, 1980). The law 

 did not go into effect until October 1981. 



Summaries and syntheses are increasingly available. In addition to, or as part of, 

 the conference reports noted above: 



• Individual authors have presented overviews of the physical, chemical, and bio- 

 logical knowledge of the Bay and commented on its condition (Cronin, L., 1967; 

 Cronin, L., 1978; Cronin et al., 1977; Lippson and Lippson, 1979; Pheiffer et al., 

 1972; Schubel, 1972). 



• Two atlases have been completed, presenting general data on the biota and envi- 

 ronment of the Maryland portion of the Bay and detailed information on the 

 Potomac River estuary (Lippson, 1973; Lippson et al., 1980). 



• Teams have developed concensus summaries, interpretations, and recommen- 

 dations on various problem areas and on the "condition" of the Bay (Cronin et 

 al., 1977; Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1969; Fish and 

 Wildlife Service, 1970; Hess et al., 1977; Hugget et al., 1977; Lynch et al., 1977; 

 Sullivan et al., 1977). 



• Historical trends have been examined (Heinle et al., in press). 



• One valiant description has been completed of the present (ca. 1973) and future 

 (2000 and 2020) conditions of the Bay "including, but not limited to the 

 following: navigation, fisheries, flood control, noxious weeds, water pollution, 

 water quality control, beach erosion, and recreation" (Corps of Engineers, 

 Baltimore District, 1974, 1977). 



Federal law treats the Chesapeake Bay as a unit, but administrative practices do 

 not always do so. The tidal Chesapeake system is in one region ( 1 1 1) for many federal 

 agencies, divided between two in several, and split into three districts of the Corps of 

 Engineers (Friedlander, 1979). The State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of 

 Virginia know well where the boundaries are, but each frequently refers to its portion 

 of the system as "the Chesapeake Bay" (Wallace et al., 1972). 



IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF POLLUTION 



Since implementation of The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 

 92-500) and its amendments, major changes have occurred in the management of 

 pollutants in and around Chesapeake Bay. Maryland and Virginia are "designated" 

 states, with programs accepted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

 therefore hold primary responsibilities for water quality. Virginia created a State 

 Water Control Board in 1972 that has expanded substantially and has vigorously 

 attacked Bay problems. Maryland has undergone several administration changes, 

 and primary responsibility for water quality was recently placed in a new Office of 

 Environmental Programs in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which 

 is also responsible for air quality, hazardous substances, and waste management. 

 Both states are negotiating agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection 

 Agency for more efficient planning, management, and technical assistance. Efficient 

 meshing of federal and state responsibilities, action, and funding is difficult, but it is 

 being seriously attempted. 



In the last decade, the federal government has made three major attempts to 

 improve understanding and management of waterquality in the Chesapeake region. 

 The Corps of Engineers' Chesapeake Bay Study, authorized in 1965, assembled its 



36 



