After reading articles published in the Baltimore Sun on the complex issues that feed into the deteriorating condition of the Chesapeake Bay, Government Accountability Office reports on the actions, or lack thereof, in restoring the Bay, and speaking to a Maryland-based biologist whose work involves environmental issues, I have reached the conclusion that cleaning up the Bay is about as easy as ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Billions of dollars have been poured into this effort, thousands of people are working on the issue, and millions more are involved in one way or another – from suburban developers and farmers in six states to the Maryland watermen whose livelihood depends on the Bay.

Yet somehow, very little seems to have been accomplished.

The latest GAO report dates from August 28, 2008, and appears to have been produced at the request of Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski. As with its earlier reports, dating from 1999, the GAO investigated progress to restore the Bay and concluded that there had been: “Positive Steps Toward More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, but Additional Steps Are Needed”.

In 1999, the GAO’s report was on the “Federal Role in Addressing and Contributing to Nonpoint Source Pollution”.  In 2005 it concluded: “Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress”. In 2006, it had said: “Improved Strategies Needed to Better Guide Restoration Efforts”. By July 2008, the Office reported that: “Recent Actions Are Positive Steps Toward More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort”.

According to the GAO, eleven federal agencies, along with the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia and the District of Columbia have provided almost $3.7 billion (in constant 2004 dollars) in direct funding to restore the Bay. Another $1.9 billion was provided by 10 federal agencies, Pennsylvania and D.C. for activities that have an “indirect impact” on the Bay’s restoration.

That’s a lot of money.

To put it into perspective: The amount spent so far on restoring the Chesapeake is about a quarter of the U.S. budget to restore the entire nation of Iraq after a war decimated that country ($20 billion); it is two-thirds of the money raised around the world to help the Asian countries after the devastating 2005 tsunami that left hundreds of thousands dead and homeless ($7 billion). Ironically, it seems to have been as effectively spent here as it was overseas.

The GAO report gives a good outline of the “road map” laid out to better track how the five broad restoration goals set out by the Chesapeake Bay Program are being met, and how the management, coordination, and reporting mechanisms used by the Bay Program can be improved.

The goals are to: reduce pollution; restore habitats, manage fisheries; protect watersheds; foster stewardship.

Sounds good.

In 2005, the GAO said the Bay Program had developed more than 100 measures of restoration, but lacked “an integrated approach for measuring the progress being made”. The Program also reported on individual species and pollutants, “but lacked independent and credible mechanisms to report on overall Bay health”. It had developed numerous plans, but “lacked a comprehensive strategy” to fulfill its own goals and it used limited funding resources to develop plans “that could not be implemented within available funding.”

What is going on over there?

The GAO recommended the Bay Program take six actions:

• Develop and implement an integrated approach for measuring overall restoration progress
• Revise its reporting to include an assessment of key ecological attributes that reflect the Bay’s health
• Report separately on the health of the Bay and the progress in management actions
• Establish an independent and objective reporting process
• Have a coordinated implementation strategy
• Establish a means to better target limited resources to cost-effective restoration activities.

In short – get your act together.

In December 2007, Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency to implement these recommendations.

The 2008 report addressed progress made on that implementation. There is good news, and not so good news. Action is being taken on three of the six recommendations, the GAO remains concerned about the “lack of independence” in the reporting process, points out that the Bay Program still does not identify the activities, resources or partners needed to reach its goals, and has yet to clearly lay out its priorities.

The GAO concludes: “Without a clear set of priorities linked to each of the annual targets, we believe that the partners will not be able to focus limited resources on those activities that provide the greatest benefit to the health of the Bay.”

For those who want to pursue this in more depth, the GAO reports are available online.

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/locate?searched=1&keyword=EPA%20Chesapeake%20Bay%20Program

The Chesapeake Bay Program can be found here, and it has established a database to collect information on the amount and source of funding being used and planned for restoration activities.

The EPA can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/.