Thirdly, I think, is to have some sort of an overall 
management institution put into place right away to manage the 
process that is made up of the relevant levels of government and 
appropriate private sector representation. 
Dr. Thomas: I think we've been very encouraged from 
NOAA's standpoint to see the kind of networking and interaction 
occurring between the Federal agencies and the states and so 
on. I certainly feel that we feel that to clean up costs money, 
costs a great deal of money. And the cleanup needs to be 
directed or guided to clean up the right kinds of things in the 
right amounts at the right locations. 
And while it's certainly easier theoretically to mount a 
massive cleanup, that is, to cut out all loadings from all 
sources and so on, with today's tight economic times it probably 
makes better sense, provided we can get the knowledge we need 
to, because I think it requires more skill, to, make a linkage 
between habitat and either the anthropogenic influence to 
habitat or take the climatically, naturally influenced habitat, 
but to make that linkage the habitat and the living marine 
resources so that the portion that man is having some impact on, 
the anthropogenic loadings that we control, that we can tell 
what these impacts are in regard to the living marine resources. 
And then regulate those things for desirable ends rather than 
strictly across the board cleanup on all issues. 
It is quite difficult and it will cost money and it will 
take time. 
Dr. D'Elia: I sort of agree and sort of disagree with 
Bill Eichbaum. I think that one of the things I've been most im¬ 
pressed with in the last 8 years I've been working in the system 
is that we are defining the questions much better than we ever 
have before in seeking the answers. 
I'm not convinced that the monitoring program, for example, 
is always put in the context of answering questions. Very often 
monitoring seems to be the end and not just the means. I think 
it's very important that we always try to have a reason for doing 
anything. I'm not disputing the need to monitor; I think the 
need is there. But we always need to focus on why we do it. 
So I would say that what we've done best is really started 
to define the questions and tried to develop some public sense of 
what we want out of the Chesapeake Bay, which is really the 
bottom line. 
I think I'll stop my comments there. But I see Gene Cronin 
squirming in his seat. I knew that we couldn't have that kind of 
question asked and not include Gene. Do you have any comment? 
181 
