Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program: National Park Service Needs	 
Better Accountability and Oversight of Grantees and Gateways	 
(14-SEP-06, GAO-06-1049).					 
                                                                 
In 1998, Congress passed the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act to	 
establish a linked network of locations, such as parks, historic 
seaports, or museums--known as gateways--where the public can	 
access and experience the bay. The National Park Service (Park	 
Service) provides support to the gateways through a related grant
program. In 2005, congressional concerns were raised about the	 
Park Service's management of the program. GAO was asked to	 
determine the extent to which the (1) criteria for selecting	 
gateways are transparent and consistently applied; (2) grants	 
have been awarded to support the program goals of conserving and 
restoring, interpreting, and accessing bay-related resources; and
(3) Park Service has taken action to improve program management  
and oversight. To conduct this work, GAO, among other things,	 
examined Park Service files and interviewed Park Service	 
officials, as well as other officials involved in the program.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-1049					        
    ACCNO:   A60906						        
  TITLE:     Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program: National Park Service   
Needs Better Accountability and Oversight of Grantees and	 
Gateways							 
     DATE:   09/14/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Cooperative agreements				 
	     Evaluation criteria				 
	     Grant administration				 
	     Grant monitoring					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Recreation areas					 
	     Federal grants					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     Transparency					 
	     Chesapeake Bay					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-1049

     

     * Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
       Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of
       Representatives
          * September 2006
     * CHESAPEAKE BAY GATEWAYS PROGRAM
          * National Park Service Needs Better Accountability and Oversight
            of Grantees and Gateways
     * Contents
          * Results in Brief
          * Background
               * Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
               * Grant Program
          * Criteria Used to Select Gateways Are Not Always Transparent and
            May Not Be Consistently Applied
          * The Park Service Awarded Grants Primarily for Interpretation of
            and Access to Bay-Related Resources, but It Has Not Yet
            Determined Grants' Effectiveness in Meeting Program Goals
               * The Vast Majority of Grants Reviewed Were Awarded for
                 Interpretation and Access
               * 39 Gateways Received Multiple Grants to Support
                 Interpretation and Access
               * The Park Service Has Not Yet Determined Grants'
                 Effectiveness in Meeting Program Goals
          * The Park Service Has Taken Steps to Manage and Oversee Grants
            More Effectively but Still Needs to Address Oversight and
            Accountability Weaknesses
               * The Park Service Has Made Progress in Implementing Actions
                 in Its Plan to Improve Grant Program Management
               * Several Management Problems Remain
          * Conclusions
          * Recommendations for Executive Action
               * Gateway selection and network membership:
               * Grant management:
          * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
     * Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Working Group Member Organizations
     * Gateways in the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
     * Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Gateway Selection Process
     * Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Grant Application, Review, and Award
       Process
     * Comments from the Department of the Interior
     * GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives

September 2006

CHESAPEAKE BAY GATEWAYS PROGRAM

National Park Service Needs Better Accountability and Oversight of
Grantees and Gateways

Contents

Tables

Figures

September 14, 2006Letter

The Honorable Charles H. Taylor Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment,     and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of
Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Chesapeake Bay, the nation's largest estuary, is a critical economic,
historical, and ecological resource for the roughly 16 million people who
live in its 64,000 square-mile watershed, which includes parts of six
states and the District of Columbia. Over time, the bay area's population
has grown dramatically and the land surrounding the bay has become
increasingly developed, which has limited public access to the bay and
contributed to deteriorating water quality. In 1998, Congress passed the
Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act to establish a linked network of state
parks, federal parks, or refuges; historic seaports; archaeological,
cultural, historical, or recreational locations; or other public access
and interpretive locations, where the public can access and experience the
bay.1 These locations are known as gateways. The gateways program was
reauthorized in December 2002 for 5 years.2

The act directs the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other
federal agencies, state and local governments, nonprofit organizations,
and the private sector, to create this network and provide technical
assistance. It also directs the Secretary to establish a grant program to
provide funds to aid state and local governments, local communities,
nonprofit organizations, and the private sector in conserving, restoring,
and interpreting important historical, cultural, recreational, and natural
resources within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Within the Department of
the Interior (Interior), the National Park Service (Park Service) is
responsible for implementing and overseeing the Chesapeake Bay Gateways
Network (CBGN) and its related grant program. Between fiscal years 2000
and 2006, congressional conference reports allocated approximately $11
million to implement and manage the network and grant program. To help
guide the formation and management of the network and grant program, the
Park Service assembled the CBGN working group, an advisory body of 17
bay-related agencies and organizations, including the Park Service.3 (See
app. II for a list of working group member organizations.)

The Park Service has created a network of 152 Chesapeake Bay gateways,
including one hub in St. Michaels, Maryland, that provides an overview of
the network; eight regional information centers; 27 connecting routes-21
water trails, five land trails, and one scenic byway; and 116 sites, such
as museums and wildlife refuges. (See app. III for a complete list of
gateways in the CBGN.) To determine whether a location should become part
of this network, the Park Service developed a checklist of eligibility
criteria that locations must meet to become a gateway. Starting in 2000,
the Park Service solicited gateway applications and began accepting
gateways that met these criteria. Once a location is approved as a gateway
and has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Park Service, its
managing organization is eligible to apply for grant funding through
CBGN's grant program.

Between fiscal years 2000 and 2005, the Park Service awarded 189 grants to
119 gateways, for a total of approximately $6.28 million.4 The grant
awards ranged from $5,000 to $150,000; the average award was $33,221; and
the median award was $20,000. These grants, which must be matched by an
equal amount of nonfederal support, have been awarded for three primary
program goals, as defined by the Park Service: conservation and
restoration, interpretation, and access.5

Although the Park Service had established the network and grant program as
directed by the act, in 2005, the Surveys and Investigations staff for the
House Committee on Appropriations identified problems with the management
of the program, including concerns about gateway selection, the types of
projects funded, and the Park Service's oversight of the program. In this
context, you asked us to determine the extent to which the (1) criteria
for selecting gateways are transparent and consistently applied; (2)
grants have been awarded to support the program goals of conserving and
restoring, interpreting, and accessing important resources within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed; and (3) Park Service has taken action to improve
its management and oversight of the program.

To address the three objectives, we analyzed Park Service and other
documents, including the procedures and practices the Park Service uses to
select gateways; the CBGN strategic plan for 2006 through 2008; recent
reports issued by Interior's Office of Inspector General; and the Park
Service's planned actions to address management and oversight concerns
raised by the Surveys and Investigations staff for the House Committee on
Appropriations. In addition, we met with Park Service officials and
members from most of the 17 organizations in the CBGN working group to
obtain their perspectives on network membership and the grant program.6 We
also observed four CBGN working group meetings, including the gateway and
grant selection meetings.

In addition, to respond to the first objective, we reviewed documents from
the files for the 63 locations that were denied gateway membership during
2000 through 2006. We also reviewed 102 checklists of eligibility criteria
that were either provided by the Park Service or in network application
files for the 152 locations that were designated as gateways between 2000
and 2006. For the second objective, we reviewed Park Service data that
identified the primary program goal for each grant awarded and determined
how many gateways received multiple grants for the same primary goal. For
these gateways, we selected a nonprobability sample of 16 gateways
covering 49 grant files.7 We selected our sample to include gateways that
received multiple grants for the same primary program goal and to
incorporate a variety of gateway types. Using a data collection
instrument, we reviewed these grant files to determine the extent to which
projects under each grant to the same gateway differed. We also visited
seven gateways that received multiple grants for the same primary goal to
discuss differences in their projects. We selected our site visit sample
based on the number of grants awarded for the same primary goal, the type
of gateway, the state in which the gateway is located, and the total grant
dollars received. For the third objective, we used a data collection
instrument to review Park Service files for the 27 grants awarded in
fiscal year 2005 to determine the extent to which corrective actions have
been implemented. In addition, while conducting our audit work, including
visiting gateways in our nonprobability sample that received multiple
grants and meeting with working group members, we visited nine nearby
gateways that had not received any grants to see if the gateways were
fulfilling their basic commitments for network membership. A more detailed
description of our objectives, scope, and methodology is presented in
appendix I. We conducted our work between December 2005 and August 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief

The Park Service and the CBGN working group use criteria in selecting
gateways for the network that are not always transparent and may not be
consistently applied. With respect to transparency, applicants are not
always aware of all the criteria that the Park Service and the CBGN
working group use to select gateways because not all the criteria are
published. For example, the full definition of the access criterion-that
the gateway has to be open to the public for a certain number of days per
week-is not publicly stated for gateway sites. The Park Service and CBGN
working group also may not be consistently applying the criteria used to
select gateways. For example, some applicants were approved even though
they did not meet all the selection criteria included in the checklist,
while others were denied gateway status even though they met all these
criteria. Since the criteria are not always transparent and may not be
consistently applied, the Park Service cannot be assured that its process
for selecting gateways is always fair and open.

The Park Service awarded almost all of its fiscal years 2000 through 2005
grants, totaling $6.28 million, to support the grant program goals of
interpretation of and access to bay-related resources, but it does not yet
have a process in place to evaluate whether its grants are effectively
meeting the program's goals. During the period, the Park Service awarded
189 grants: 117 for interpretation, 68 for access, and 4 for conservation
and restoration. Key CBGN program documents state that the interpretation
of and access to bay-related resources will help the public understand the
need to protect and restore the bay. Of the 189 grants awarded, 110 went
to 39 gateways that received more than 1 grant for either interpretation
or access, with several gateways receiving up to 4 grants for
interpretation. According to Park Service staff, several grantees, and our
analysis, these grants are for distinct projects or phases of larger
projects. For example, the Adkins Arboretum gateway (in Ridgely, Maryland)
received two grants for interpretation, each of which supported distinct
projects: (1) the development of an orientation exhibit, an orientation
video, and a self-guided audio tour and (2) the creation of a wetlands
boardwalk and overlook platform. Alternatively, the two grants for
interpretation for the Underground Railroad Scenic Byway (from Dorchester
County, Maryland, through Caroline County, Maryland) each supported a
separate phase of the development of a trail that highlights the life and
contributions of Harriet Tubman8 to the Underground Railroad in the
Chesapeake Bay region. Although the Park Service records the program
goal(s) associated with each grant project, it does not yet have a process
in place to determine the effectiveness of its grants in meeting the goals
of conserving and restoring, interpreting, and accessing bay-related
resources. The Park Service has a strategic plan that describes program
priorities and effectiveness measures, but we found several weaknesses in
the plan, including a lack of benchmarks to assess progress toward
achieving the plan's goals and the use of measures that are difficult to
quantify.

The Park Service has made progress in outlining and implementing a number
of actions to respond to the management and oversight concerns first
identified in February 2005, but several accountability and oversight
weaknesses continue. In March 2005, the Park Service developed an action
plan that outlined 27 corrective actions and associated time frames to
improve program management.9 The Park Service has implemented 16 of these
actions-such as holding a financial management workshop for new grantees
and contracting for an external audit of 10 percent of past grants to
determine compliance with financial requirements. However, 11 actions,
mostly to improve oversight, have not been fully implemented. Although the
Park Service has made progress in implementing the actions in its plan, we
identified the following five remaining management problems:

o Inadequate training. While the Park Service committed in its action plan
to providing additional grant management training for CBGN staff, it
provided federal grant and cooperative agreement training only to its CBGN
Administrative Officer; and this officer left the program in August 2006.
None of the CBGN project coordinators, who are responsible for reviewing
grant proposals and monitoring the progress of grant projects, have
received such training. According to the CBGN Director, he plans to
provide grant management training to his staff in September 2006.

o Lack of timely grantee reporting. The Park Service committed in its
action plan to stringently enforcing its requirement for grantees to
report quarterly on progress and finances. However, we found that,
approximately 2 months after the reports were due, only 8 of the 27 files
for grants awarded in fiscal year 2005 contained both the quarterly
progress and financial reports for the reporting period we reviewed.

o Inappropriate awards. The Park Service committed in its action plan to
prohibiting the award of a fiscal year 2005 grant to any applicant with an
incomplete or delayed grant project or that failed an assessment of
whether the capacity existed for completing a new grant on schedule.
However, we found that 2 of the 27 grants awarded in fiscal year 2005 were
awarded to such applicants.

o Backlog of uncompleted grants. According to the Park Service, as of June
30, 2006, 63 of the 162 grants awarded between fiscal years 2000 and 2004
had not been completed or closed out. Completing and closing out existing
grants is now the CBGN's highest priority, according to the CBGN Director.

o Underperforming gateways. The Park Service does not regularly review
gateways to ensure that they are meeting basic requirements for CBGN
membership, as laid out in their memorandums of understanding with the
Park Service. This lack of oversight may have led, in some instances, to
underperforming gateways that reflect poorly upon the network. For
example, during a visit to the Dogwood Harbor Gateway (on Tilghman Island,
Maryland), we observed that the site lacked the required CBGN logo sign
indicating the site's connection to the network, as well as any
information or staff to relay this connection.

We are recommending that the Secretary of the Interior take steps to
enhance accountability and oversight of the CBGN program by improving the
gateway selection process and its grant management. In responding to a
draft report, Interior stated that it concurred with the recommendations
in the report and described actions it plans to take to implement them.

Background

The Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 directed the Secretary of the
Interior to establish (1) a network of state or federal parks or refuges;
historic seaports; archaeological, cultural, historical, or recreational
locations; or other public access and interpretive locations where the
public can access and experience the bay and (2) a grant program to aid
state and local governments, local communities, nonprofit organizations,
and the private sector in accomplishing the act's objectives. The
Secretary delegated responsibility of the CBGN and grant program to the
Park Service, which administers and oversees the program from the
Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program Office located in
Annapolis, Maryland.10 Program staff include a Director, an Administrative
Officer, and six full- and part-time project coordinators.11 At the time
of our review, the Administrative Officer's duties included maintaining
grant files and processing grant payments.12 The project coordinators,
among other things, review gateway and grant applications, work with
grantees to ensure that they adhere to the terms of the grant, and provide
technical assistance to the gateways. As directed by the act, the Park
Service provides technical assistance, such as offering workshops and
conferences and training opportunities to gateways, working with gateways
to determine what interpretive elements could enhance the gateway's
offerings, and organizing networking meetings for the gateways.

For fiscal years 2000 through 2005, congressional conference reports
allocated approximately $9.5 million to the program. An additional $1.5
million was allocated in fiscal year 2006. As table 1 shows, during fiscal
years 2000 through 2005, overall, about two-thirds of the program's funds
were for the grants, and about one-third for other network costs,
including providing a CBGN logo sign for each gateway, the CBGN map
identifying the locations of the gateways, technical assistance, and
administrative costs.

Table 1: Annual Allocations of CBGN Budget Authority and Breakdown between
Grants and Other Network Activities, Fiscal Years 2000-2005

Fiscal Allocations CBGN grantsb Percentage        Dollar     Percentage of 
year     of budget                of total   amounts for   total for other 
           authoritya              for grants other network           network 
                                                activitiesc        activities 
2000      $594,000     $386,644        65%      $207,356               35% 
2001      798,300d      556,582         70       241,718                30 
2002     1,200,000      828,895         69       371,105                31 
2003     1,987,000    1,381,206         70       605,794                30 
2004     2,469,000    1,516,560         61       952,440                39 
2005     2,465,000    1,608,931         65       856,069                35 
Total   $9,513,300   $6,278,818        66%    $3,234,482               34% 

Source: Park Service.

aAllocations of budget authority are the amounts presented in the Park
Service's budget justification documents.

bPark Service grant obligation information.

cDollar amounts for other network activities were calculated by
subtracting the grant obligations for each year from the total allocation
of budget authority.

dThe total allocation of budget authority for the CBGN program in fiscal
year 2001 was $2,295,000. Within this amount, $798,300 was provided for
CBGN grants and technical assistance, and $1,496,700 was provided for the
purchase of the Holly Farm Beach property.

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network

As of July 2006, the Park Service designated 152 gateways that included
state parks, federal refuges, museums, and water trails.13 The majority of
these gateways are nonprofit organizations. Figures 1 and 2 show the
locations of the gateways. Most of the gateways are located within or
adjacent to the "fall line"-the upper limit of the tidal reaches of the
bay. Likewise, most of the gateways are in Maryland and Virginia, as
figure 3 shows. (App. III provides detailed information on the gateways.)

Figure 1: Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Gateways beyond the Fall Line

Figure 2: Chesapeake Bay and Gateways Within and Adjacent to the Fall LIne

Note: Some dots represent more than one gateway. For example, one dot in
the City of Baltimore represents eight gateways.

Figure 3: Distribution of Gateways among States and the District of
Columbia

Note: For the four gateways that are located in multiple states (or in
multiple states and the District of Columbia), we counted the gateway as
being in each of the relevant locations.

To join the network, an applicant applies to become one of the following
four types of gateways:

o Hub. Hubs are centers in locations that receive a large number of
visitors. The hubs introduce visitors to baywide themes and provide key
orientation information to the entire network.

o Regional information center. Regional information centers provide key
information to facilitate visitor access to a particular region and other
gateways within the vicinity.

o Connecting route. Connecting routes are water and land trails and other
connections that link gateways through a network of boating, hiking,
walking, biking, or driving routes.

o Site. Sites are the primary places to which visitors are directed in
order to experience and learn about a particular bay-related natural,
cultural, historical, or recreational resource and its role in the story
of the bay.

The Park Service reviews the application using a checklist that lists
multiple criteria. Depending on the type of gateway application, the
checklist contains 6 to 10 specific criteria. Regardless of the type of
gateway, the Park Service considers 7 broad criteria: represents important
bay-related resources, themes, and stories; provides public access to
these resources; demonstrates community support for gateway status;
demonstrates the organizational and operational current and future
management capacity for a gateway; advances network goals, as described in
the CBGN's framework and strategic plan;14 interprets bay-related
themes;15 and meets the particular characteristics of one of the four
types of network gateways. After the Park Service completes its review,
the CBGN working group reviews this checklist and discusses whether the
application should be designated for gateway status. Based upon its review
and the CBGN working group's discussion, the Park Service notifies the
applicant of the agency's final decision. For those applications approved
for designation, the Park Service establishes a memorandum of
understanding with the gateway's managing organization. For additional
details about the selection criteria and process, see appendix IV.

Grant Program

Between fiscal years 2000 and 2005, the Park Service awarded 189 grants,
totaling about $6.28 million, to 119 gateways. To implement the grant
program, the Park Service enters into cooperative agreements with
recipients-either a gateway's managing organization or a partner
organization, such as Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. A
cooperative agreement is a type of federal assistance agreement used when
the federal government will be substantially involved in the project.
Because such involvement was anticipated in CBGN projects, the Park

Service chose to use cooperative agreements instead of grants.16 These
awards, which require an equal nonfederal match and currently allow for an
18-month project period, were made to four types of grant recipients, as
shown in figure 4.

Figure 4: Distribution of CBGN Grants among the Types of Grant Recipients

Note: For the four grants that were awarded to more than one grant
recipient, we counted the grant as going toward each of the grant
recipients and their respective types.

The Park Service offers grants for the following three program
goals-conservation and restoration, interpretation, and access:

o Conservation and restoration: the development of restoration projects
for high-priority natural habitat; restoration and conservation of
bay-related cultural or historic resources that are central to depicting a
gateway's connection to the bay; and the development of programs that
allow volunteers, including visitors, to participate in restoration and
conservation work at the site.

o Interpretation: wayside exhibits and signs; interior and exterior
interpretive exhibits; audiovisual productions; development of guided or
live interpretive programs; interpretive brochures, maps, and guides;
educational programs for kindergarten through twelfth-grade students; and
creation of an interpretive plan for a gateway or group of gateways.

o Access: environmentally-friendly improvements that provide access to
bay-related resources, the creation of water access points, and the
development of maps or guides that help people use the location.

To receive a grant, a gateway's managing organization or a partner
organization designated to carry out the project must first submit an
application package that includes the application form and a proposed
budget, among other things. The Park Service and CBGN working group then
conduct concurrent reviews using checklists to review the application on a
number of criteria, including whether the applicant has long-term
management plans for the project and whether the project would
significantly and measurably enhance interpretation of bay-related themes.
After these reviews, the Park Service and CBGN working group meet to
discuss whether the applicant should be awarded a grant. If the CBGN
working group and the Park Service determine that modifications, such as
changes to the scope of work or budget, are necessary, the Park Service
contacts the applicant to discuss these changes. Based upon the
discussions with the CBGN working group and the applicant, the Park
Service then makes a final decision, notifies the applicant, and signs an
agreement. For additional details about the selection process, see
appendix V.

Criteria Used to Select Gateways Are Not Always Transparent and May Not Be
Consistently Applied

The criteria the Park Service and CBGN working group use to select
gateways are not always transparent and may not be consistently applied
and, as a result, the Park Service cannot be assured that its gateways
selection process is always fair and open. The Park Service established
and published selection criteria that applicants are to meet in order to
be recognized as a Chesapeake Bay gateway. The checklist the Park Service
uses to review gateway applications states that applicants must meet all
the criteria on the checklist to be designated as a gateway.

However, we found that the Park Service and CBGN working group use
additional criteria, beyond those included in the checklist, in deciding
on whether to accept an applicant as a gateway but have not published this
information in their application materials. Specifically, we found the
following:

o One of the stated criteria for a gateway site is that it be open to the
public "for the maximum number of days per week feasible, allowing for
seasonal visitation patterns." However, the Park Service and CBGN working
group decided that in order to meet this criterion, gateway sites must be
open at least 4 days a week, including both weekend days, but they have
not included this information in the gateway site application materials.
In contrast, in the application materials for proposed regional
information centers and hubs, the Park Service and CBGN working group lay
out the minimum number of days per week the locations need to be publicly
accessible.

o The Park Service and CBGN working group decided that an environmental
education resource center cannot be designated as a gateway, but the Park
Service has not published this exclusion in its gateway application
materials. The Park Service and the CBGN working group determined that
environmental education centers do not fit into the network concept
because they are not historical, cultural, natural, or recreational
bay-related resources. Some Park Service officials also stated that
because of the large number and similarity of these centers, it would be
difficult to choose among them for gateway status. Although the Park
Service and the CBGN working group documented their decision to exclude
the environmental education center category from gateway eligibility in an
applicant's denial letter, they have not published this exclusionary
criterion in their application materials.17 According to these Park
Service officials, although the centers, standing alone, cannot be
gateways, they are permitted in the network as part of another gateway
(e.g., as part of a state park). However, this possibility is not clearly
stated in the application materials.

o The Park Service and CBGN working group consider a location's degree of
development when making selection decisions but have not established
development as a criterion. While the Park Service and CBGN working group
have discussed the possibility of modifying selection criteria to either
clarify the degree to which a potential location must be sufficiently
ready to operate as an effective gateway or to potentially allow for some
less-developed sites with high potential to be designated and then
developed further, the Park Service and CBGN working group have not
decided whether to undertake such a modification.18

In addition, the CBGN has recently shifted its focus from trying to
establish a network to refining the network, but this change is not always
clearly stated in the application materials. Furthermore, a 2005 Park
Service study recommended that the selection criteria for gateway status
need to be revisited to determine if the criteria are aligned with the
program's direction and target thematic and location gaps in the
network.19 For example, although part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed is
in Delaware, currently, there are no designated gateways in the state. As
of July 2006, the Park Service and the CBGN working group had not acted on
this recommendation.

Without clearly defined, transparent criteria, the Park Service and the
CBGN working group cannot be assured that they are consistently applying
all the criteria used in making selection decisions. For example, during
our review of documents, including checklists, that the Park Service
provided for applications accepted into the network and files for
applications that were denied membership, we found instances in which
applicants were denied gateway status because a location was not
sufficiently developed at the time of application review, and other
instances in which applicants were designated as gateways while still
being developed, thereby raising questions about the consistent
application of this unpublished criterion.20 For example, in 2001, one
gateway-a museum in Maryland-was accepted, although the Park Service
reviewer indicated that the site should be designated as a "developmental"
site. Conversely, in 2005, the Park Service and CBGN working group denied
an application because the proposed site-a 1-acre waterfront park along
the Potomac River in Washington, D.C.-was not sufficiently developed,
although they believed it had potential as a gateway and recommended
reconsideration of the nomination once development plans were complete.21

In addition, our review raises questions about whether the criteria in the
checklist reflect all the factors that are considered when accepting
applicants as gateways and whether these factors are consistently applied.
Specifically, we found that some applicants were approved even though they
did not meet all the selection criteria included in the checklist, and
others were denied gateway status even though they met all these criteria.
For example, the museum designated as a gateway in 2001, which the Park
Service had recommended as a developmental site, also did not meet three
of the required minimum criteria in the checklist-stewardship, long-term
management capability of the managing organization, and public support.
CBGN working group members also explained that some criteria are more
important than others during the selection process but provided differing
views as to which criteria were the most critical for gateway status or
denial.

The Park Service Awarded Grants Primarily for Interpretation of and Access
to Bay-Related Resources, but It Has Not Yet Determined Grants'
Effectiveness in Meeting Program Goals

The Park Service awarded the vast majority of its grants to support the
program goals for interpretation of and access to bay-related resources,
with 39 gateways receiving multiple grants to support interpretation and
access. Although the Park Service has a strategic plan for fiscal years
2006 through 2008 and records the primary and, if applicable, the
secondary and tertiary program goals, associated with each grant project,
it does not yet have a process in place to determine the effectiveness of
its awarded grants in meeting the program goals.

The Vast Majority of Grants Reviewed Were Awarded for Interpretation and
Access

During fiscal years 2000 through 2005, the Park Service awarded 189 grants
to 119 gateways: 117 grants with the primary program goal of
interpretation, 68 for access, and 4 for conservation and restoration. Of
the approximately $6.28 million awarded, $3.68 million was for grants with
the primary program goal of interpretation, $2.35 million for access, and
$240,000 for conservation and restoration. (See fig. 5.)

Figure 5: Distribution of CBGN Grants by Primary Program Goal, Fiscal
Years 2000-2005

Most of the grants-152-had one primary program goal; another 36 grants had
primary and secondary program goals; and 1 grant had primary, secondary,
and tertiary program goals. When the secondary and tertiary program goals
for the 189 grants awarded from fiscal years 2000 through 2005 are taken
into consideration, 145 grants had interpretive elements, 72 had access
elements, and 10 had conservation and restoration elements. For example,
the 2005 grant for the Rappahannock River Water Trail (in Fredericksburg,
Virginia)-for $130,825-had a primary program goal of access, secondary
goal of conservation and restoration, and tertiary goal of interpretation.
Access activities included extending the water trail to the mouth of the
Chesapeake Bay, creating an overview map, and developing five
interpretive, self-guided tours of the lower section of the Rappahannock
River. Conservation and restoration activities included developing
stewardship programs to involve volunteers in creating low-impact
campsites for overnight paddlers. Lastly, interpretive activities included
renovating an existing facility to establish an on-site visitor
orientation center and expanding the gateway's existing education
curriculum.

While most of the grants awarded to date have been for interpretation and
access, the Park Service's priorities among the three primary goals are
not explicitly stated. Key program documents, such as the CBGN's framework
(June 2000) and the most recent strategic plan for 2006 through 2008,
state that the interpretation of and access to bay-related resources will
help the public understand the need to protect and restore the bay. Park
Service staff, CBGN working group members, and grantees cited the
following other reasons for focusing on interpretation and access:

o One of the Park Service's primary areas of expertise is interpretation,
and most of the CBGN project coordinators have this expertise.

o Interpretation is the logical first step for a site in the CBGN because
interpretation of a site's bay-related resources allows visitors to
understand the site's larger connection to the Chesapeake Bay.

o Fewer funding sources are available for interpretive projects compared
with the funding sources available for conservation and restoration. For
example, grant funding is available from federal, state, private, and
nonprofit sources for conservation and restoration, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants
Program, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's Water Quality
Improvement Fund, and the Chesapeake Bay Trust's stewardship grants.

o According to the Park Service, present estimates are that only 1 to 2
percent of the Chesapeake Bay's shoreline is publicly accessible;
therefore, CBGN emphasizes projects that increase public access to the
bay.

o Fewer gateway sites apply for conservation and restoration grants, in
part because conservation and restoration projects take more time and are
more expensive.

39 Gateways Received Multiple Grants to Support Interpretation and Access

Of the 189 grants awarded during fiscal years 2000 through 2005 to 119
gateways, 110 grants went to 39 gateways that received more than 1 grant
for either interpretation or access, with several gateways receiving up to
4 grants for interpretation. We visited 7 of these 39 gateways to
understand the types of projects funded, particularly in cases where a
gateway received more than 1 grant for interpretation or access.
Collectively, the seven gateways received 21 grants-11 for interpretation,
8 for access, and 2 for conservation and restoration-with a total value of
$1,019,368. (Table 2 lists the seven gateways, the primary program goal,
the dollar amount of each of the grants the gateway received, the
percentage of nonfederal match contributed, and a description of each
project.)

Table 2: Grant Projects at Seven Selected Gateways That Received More Than
One Grant for Either Interpretation or Access, Fiscal Years 2000-2005

                                        

       Gateway        Grant    Primary          Grant Nonfederal      Project     
                      year   program goal      amount      match    description   
                                                      percentage  
                                                       in ranges  
                                                                  
                                                            (100  
                                                      percent is  
                                                            even  
                                                         match)a  
Adkins                2001  Access            $23,100   100-149%  One-page        
Arboretum-Ridgley,                                                visitor         
Md.                                                               orientation map 
                                                                  and guide       
A  400-acre preserve                                              brochure and    
on Tuckahoe Creek on                                              six             
the Eastern Shore of                                              interpretive    
Maryland. The area                                                signs on native 
includes forested                                                 plant           
wetlands, maturing                                                communities.    
forests, and meadows. 2002  Interpretation     31,000    300-349  Wetlands        
The gateway focuses                                               boardwalk and   
on conserving native                                              overlook        
plants in the                                                     platform.       
Mid-Atlantic coastal  2004  Interpretation     61,569    100-149  Orientation     
plain and has over                                                exhibit,        
600 species of native                                             orientation     
shrubs, trees,                                                    video, and      
wildflowers, grasses,                                             self-guided     
and ferns.                                                        audio tour.     
                      2005  Conservation      120,000   300-349%  Development of  
                            and                                   a low-impact    
                            restoration                           and pervious    
                                                                  parking lot and 
                                                                  replacement of  
                                                                  the paved lot   
                                                                  with a native   
                                                                  garden with     
                                                                  interpretive    
                                                                  displays.       
Total CBGN grant                             $235,669             
funding                                                           
Blackwater National   2000  Interpretation    $15,000   100-149%  New             
Wildlife                                                          interpretive    
Refuge-Cambridge, Md.                                             exhibits on     
                                                                  refuge wildlife 
A wildlife refuge                                                 and habitats in 
located in the                                                    Visitor Center. 
Blackwater and        2001  Access             20,000   100-149b  Development of  
Nanticoke River                                                   two water       
watersheds on the                                                 trails, water   
Eastern Shore of                                                  trail map and   
Maryland. It                                                      guides, and two 
preserves over 26,000                                             wayside signs   
acres as a wintering                                              with safety     
area for vast numbers                                             information.    
of migratory birds.   2002  Access             33,000    100-149  Development of  
It also serves as a                                               two nature      
haven for several                                                 trails with     
threatened or                                                     interpretive    
endangered species,                                               kiosks and      
including one of the                                              trail guides.   
largest               2004  Conservation       27,500   100-149%  Partnership     
concentrations of           and                                   with National   
nesting bald eagles         restoration                           Aquarium in     
along the Atlantic                                                Baltimore for a 
Coast. While                                                      1.5-acre        
primarily a tidal                                                 community,      
marsh, the refuge                                                 volunteer-based 
also includes a                                                   wetlands        
mature pine forest.                                               restoration     
                                                                  project.        
Total CBGN grant                              $95,500             
funding                                                           
Chesapeake Bay        2000  Interpretation    $40,000   100-149%  Two             
Maritime Museum-St.                                               interpretive    
Michaels, Md.                                                     kiosks          
                                                                  highlighting    
The hub and one of                                                bay themes,     
the few                                                           interpretive    
indoor/outdoor                                                    brochures and   
museums focusing on                                               maps of         
the history and                                                   thematic routes 
traditions of the                                                 linking gateway 
Chesapeake Bay. The                                               sites, and a    
museum is located on                                              revision of the 
18 acres of land                                                  museum's docent 
along the Miles River                                             manual and      
and the complex                                                   training        
houses examples of                                                program.        
historic bay working  2001  Interpretation     19,200    150-199  Development of  
boats, numerous                                                   an ongoing,     
exhibits, guns,                                                   costumed, live  
decoys, ship models,                                              interpretive    
and the 1879 Hooper                                               program on      
Strait Lighthouse.                                                watermen's life 
                                                                  and culture.    
                      2003  Interpretation    100,000    400-449  Development of  
                                                                  a new,          
                                                                  extensive,      
                                                                  permanent       
                                                                  exhibit, "At    
                                                                  Play on the     
                                                                  Bay," which     
                                                                  highlights the  
                                                                  increasing      
                                                                  recreational    
                                                                  activities of   
                                                                  the bay, such   
                                                                  as the history  
                                                                  of recreation,  
                                                                  and the effects 
                                                                  of growth on    
                                                                  the bay         
                                                                  environment.    
                      2005  Access            150,000   150-199%  CBGN Regional   
                                                                  Contact Center  
                                                                  to provide      
                                                                  information to  
                                                                  visitors on how 
                                                                  to explore the  
                                                                  bay through the 
                                                                  CBGN.           
Total CBGN grant                             $309,200             
funding                                                           
Patuxent River        2002  Interpretation     $5,000   100-149%  Creation of a   
Park-Jug Bay Natural                                              self-guided     
Area-Upper Marlboro,                                              driving,        
Md.                                                               hiking, and     
                                                                  biking tour     
A 2,000-acre tract of                                             brochure.       
land comprised of                                                 
various natural                                                   
habitats that buffer                                              
the Patuxent River.                                               
Jug Bay is an                                                     
important freshwater                                              
tidal estuary in the                                              
bay region and it is  2004  Interpretation     17,550   100-149%  10 interpretive 
a component of the                                                wayside signs   
Chesapeake Bay                                                    and a brochure  
National Estuarine                                                on the          
Research Reserve, a                                               archeological   
nationwide network of                                             and historical  
coastal estuaries                                                 resources on    
that serve as                                                     the Mt. Calvert 
laboratories for                                                  site.           
scientific research,                                              
education, and                                                    
monitoring. More than                                             
250 species of birds                                              
have been recorded in                                             
the area.                                                         
Total CBGN grant                              $22,550             
funding                                                           
Rappahannock River    2004  Access           $109,674   100-149%  Development of  
Water                                                             a water trail,  
Trail-Fredericksburg,                                             creation of an  
Va.                                                               interpretive    
                                                                  water trail map 
The Rappahannock                                                  and guide and   
River is the longest                                              Web-based       
free-flowing river in                                             version, four   
the Chesapeake Bay                                                wayside signs,  
watershed and extends                                             and six         
184 miles from its                                                interpretive    
origin at Chester Gap                                             kiosks on       
in the Shenandoah                                                 safety and      
National Park of                                                  conservation of 
western Virginia to                                               the water       
Stingray Point in the                                             trail.          
Chesapeake Bay. The   2005  Access            130,825   100-149%  Expansion of    
water trail includes                                              the water trail 
historic areas from                                               to the mouth of 
Kelly's Ford to the                                               the river;      
Fredericksburg City                                               creation of a   
Docks-the middle                                                  new overview    
section of the river.                                             map and five    
While there are many                                              interpretive,   
locations along the                                               self-guided     
Rappahannock that are                                             tours of the    
accessible for                                                    lower           
paddling and boating,                                             Rappahannock;   
the water trail is                                                renovation of   
still under                                                       an existing     
development.                                                      facility to     
                                                                  establish an    
                                                                  on-site visitor 
                                                                  orientation     
                                                                  center;         
                                                                  expansion of    
                                                                  existing        
                                                                  education       
                                                                  curriculum; and 
                                                                  development of  
                                                                  stewardship     
                                                                  programs to     
                                                                  involve         
                                                                  volunteers in   
                                                                  conservation    
                                                                  and restoration 
                                                                  work, such as   
                                                                  developing      
                                                                  low-impact      
                                                                  campsites for   
                                                                  overnight       
                                                                  paddlers.       
Total CBGN grant                             $240,499             
funding                                                           
Susquehanna River     2000  Access            $20,000  300-349b%  Development of  
Water Trail-Lower                                                 an interpretive 
Section-water trail                                               framework and   
from Harrisburg, Pa.,                                             signage plan    
south to Havre de                                                 identifying 21  
Grace, Md.                                                        key sites along 
                                                                  the river,      
The Susquehanna River                                             design and      
is the largest                                                    fabrication of  
tributary of the                                                  14 wayside      
Chesapeake Bay. The                                               signs, and an   
lower section of the                                              interpretive    
water trail spans 65                                              water trail map 
miles from                                                        and guide to    
Harrisburg, Pa. to                                                the             
Havre de Grace, Md.                                               Pennsylvania    
The Lower Susquehanna                                             portion of the  
Water Trail helps                                                 trail's lower   
users explore the                                                 section.        
river's diversity of  2001  Interpretation     10,500    300-349  Addition of     
natural and built                                                 seven           
environments, as well                                             interpretive    
as contrast the                                                   wayside signs   
wilderness and uses                                               at key public   
of the river for                                                  launches in     
work.                                                             Pennsylvania.   
                      2002  Access             18,000  100-149c%  Printing and    
                                                                  production of a 
                                                                  water trail map 
                                                                  and guide       
                                                                  focused on the  
                                                                  Maryland        
                                                                  portion of the  
                                                                  river.          
Total CBGN grant                              $48,500             
funding                                                           
Underground Railroad  2003  Interpretation    $30,000   100-149%  "Finding a Way  
Scenic Byway-                                                     to Freedom"     
Dorchester County                                                 driving route   
north through                                                     guide, design   
Caroline County, Md.                                              of three        
                                                                  exhibits to be  
This  64-mile driving                                             placed at       
route highlights the                                              locations along 
life of Harriet                                                   the Byway, and  
Tubman, an                                                        installation of 
abolitionist who                                                  one exhibit in  
served as a conductor                                             The Museum of   
on the Underground                                                Rural Life (in  
Railroad, and key                                                 Denton, Md.).   
places connected with                                             
her in the Chesapeake 2005  Interpretation     37,450   100-149%  Fabrication and 
Bay region. From                                                  installation of 
Dorchester County,                                                two exhibits    
the area she grew up                                              designed with   
in, the trail can be                                              the 2003 grant, 
followed north                                                    creation of     
through Caroline                                                  three wayside   
County, where many                                                signs, and      
Maryland free blacks                                              development of  
and white                                                         an interpretive 
abolitionists                                                     plan for the    
supported the cause                                               Sailwinds       
of freedom.                                                       Visitor Center. 
Total CBGN grant                              $67,450             
funding                                                           
Total CBGN grant                           $1,019,368             
funding for the seven                                             
gateways                                                          

Sources: Park Service documents, gateway documents, and information
provided by grantees.

aThese nonfederal match ranges are based on estimates provided by the
grantees. For grants that have not been completed, the estimates represent
the anticipated match.

bThe nonfederal match estimate does not include in-kind contributions.

cThis project is not yet complete due to turnover in the project's
managing organization. The current managing organization provided an
estimate of the current match percentage but was not able to estimate the
anticipated match for the entire project.

According to Park Service staff, some working group members, several
grantees, and our analysis, these grants funded distinct projects or
phases of a larger project. For example, the Adkins Arboretum gateway
received two grants for interpretation, each of which supported distinct
projects: (1) the development of an orientation exhibit, an orientation
video, and a self-guided audio tour and (2) the creation of a wetlands
boardwalk and overlook platform. (See fig. 6.)

Figure 6: Projects Funded by CBGN Grants at Adkins Arboretum

Alternatively, gateways sometimes break up a larger project into
manageable phases in order to complete the project in the allowed 18-month
time frame and meet the matching requirement. For instance, the
Underground Railroad Scenic Byway's two grants for interpretation each
supported a separate phase of the development of a trail that highlights
the life and contributions of Harriet Tubman to the Underground Railroad
in the Chesapeake Bay region.

The Park Service Has Not Yet Determined Grants' Effectiveness in Meeting
Program Goals

Although the Park Service tracks the program goal(s) for each grant, it
does not have a process to determine the effectiveness of the grants in
meeting its program goals of conservation and restoration, interpretation,
and access. In October 2005, the Park Service issued its strategic plan
for 2006 through 2008, which describes program priorities and
effectiveness measures. However, we have identified the following
weaknesses in this plan:

o The plan does not have benchmarks to assess progress toward achieving
its goals. For example, one of the goals-to "increase awareness and use of
the Gateways Network"-has a target of increasing the number of visitors
who participate in grant-funded programming, exhibits, and events, but the
CBGN program does not have a baseline from which to measure the attainment
of this target.

o The Park Service is not collecting data to establish benchmarks or
measure its progress in achieving its goals. For example, one of the
goals-to "increase the number of gateways providing opportunities for
visitors/volunteers to participate in on-site stewardship
activities"-targets an increase in the number of stewardship actions taken
by visitors at gateways by 20 percent by 2008. According to the plan, the
Park Service will determine the attainment of this goal by measuring the
number of volunteers and the amount of time they spend participating in
grant-funded activities. However, according to the Park Service, it does
not track the number of volunteers or volunteer hours that contribute
toward achieving its strategic goals.

o Some of the measures included in the strategic plan are difficult to
quantify. For example, to assess its effectiveness in increasing the
number of people who understand the Chesapeake Bay story, the Park Service
plans to measure the number of visitors who demonstrate understanding of
Chesapeake Bay history, culture, and environment and/or stewardship from
grant-funded gateway experiences. However, as the Park Service recognizes,
measuring such outcomes is difficult. According to a 2005 report by
Interior's Inspector General, 12 Interior grant programs could not
demonstrate results because program goals were not measurable.22 The
Inspector General recognized that while establishing measurable goals for
grant programs can be difficult, such goals are essential to demonstrate
results. We have also reported on the difficulty of measuring outcomes
from grants.23

The CBGN Director expressed similar concerns about the plan's usefulness
for assessing the effectiveness of the grant program and the network as a
whole. In addition to confirming the problems described above, he stated
that he was uncertain as to whether the goals laid out in the strategic
plan are achievable and in line with what he sees as the top priorities
for the CBGN. He plans, in conjunction with his staff, the CBGN working
group, and gateways, to conduct a comprehensive review of the strategic
plan during fiscal year 2007 to determine if the plan's goals are
measurable and achievable, and represent the CBGN's current priorities.

The Park Service Has Taken Steps to Manage and Oversee Grants More
Effectively but Still Needs to Address Oversight and Accountability
Weaknesses

The Park Service developed an action plan to address concerns in several
areas, including planning, financial management, and grantee oversight.
However, as of July 2006, it had only implemented 16 of the 27 actions in
its plan. The remaining 11 actions have not been fully implemented.
Moreover, several management problems-inadequate training, a lack of
timely grantee reporting, inappropriate grant awards, a backlog of
incomplete grant projects, and underperforming gateways-still need to be
addressed.

The Park Service Has Made Progress in Implementing Actions in Its Plan to
Improve Grant Program Management

In March 2005, the Park Service developed an action plan that outlined 27
corrective actions and associated time frames to improve program
management in several areas, including planning, financial management, and
grantee oversight. The Park Service originally had planned to complete all
27 actions by September 2005. As table 3 shows, as of July 2006, the Park
Service had implemented only 16 of these actions.

Table 3: Park Service's 16 Completed Actions to Improve Grant Management,
as of July 2006

Concern                      Action completed                              
Lack of Park Service         o Clarified, strengthened, and documented the 
direction, planning, and     distinction between working group             
setting of priorities.       recommendations and Park Service decisions.   
                                For example, during the grant review process, 
                                Park Service staff analyze applications, the  
                                working group makes recommendations, and the  
                                Park Service makes the final funding          
                                decisions.                                    
                                                                              
                                o Developed annual CBGN program management    
                                plan to establish annual priorities.          
                                                                              
                                o Hired a contractor to analyze geographic    
                                and thematic gaps in the CBGN and estimate    
                                potential network growth through 2008. A      
                                report was issued.a                           
Awarding grants without      o Developed checklist for certifying that     
ensuring that required       modifications have been made before issuing   
modifications to the grant   the grant award.                              
application have been made.                                                
                                o Began using this checklist for fiscal year  
                                2005 grants.                                  
Ineffective coordination     o Revised grant review instructions to        
with state and local         clearly lay out the expectation that state    
governments.                 representatives in the working group will     
                                share relevant information on applications    
                                that are submitted by applicants in their     
                                state.                                        
                                                                              
                                o Modified grant guidelines to require state  
                                applicants to submit a copy of their          
                                application to their state for                
                                intergovernmental review at the time they     
                                apply to CBGN.                                
Lack of Park Service grant   o Reviewed incomplete grants awarded from     
oversight.                   2000 through 2005 to establish grant          
                                completion deadlines and to determine whether 
                                any grants should be terminated. Park Service 
                                identified 11 grants for termination and has  
                                terminated 1 of these-a fiscal year 2000      
                                grant for $20,000-due to a lack of grantee    
                                progress and expiring funds.                  
                                                                              
                                o Instituted a formal process for extending   
                                the time period of the grant.                 
                                                                              
                                o Sent e-mail notices reminding grantees that 
                                their quarterly reports were due.             
                                                                              
                                o Beginning with fiscal year 2005 grants,     
                                clearly stated in grant agreements when funds 
                                will expire.                                  
                                                                              
                                o Established a grant application review      
                                checklist for reviewing programmatic and      
                                financial aspects of the grant application.   
                                                                              
                                o Beginning with fiscal year 2005 grants,     
                                included requirements and instructions in     
                                grant agreements for filing quarterly         
                                financial status reports.                     
                                                                              
                                o Held a financial management workshop for    
                                new grantees.                                 
                                                                              
                                o Hired a contractor to conduct audits of 17  
                                grants to determine compliance with financial 
                                requirements. These audits identified a few   
                                problems.b                                    
Inappropriate awarding of    o Revised grant application guidelines to     
grants to nonfederal         allow only grant applications from nonfederal 
applicants for projects      applicants for projects taking place on       
benefiting federal entities. federal lands when the nonfederal entity is   
                                fully and directly responsible for            
                                implementing and carrying out the ongoing     
                                management of the project.                    

Source: GAO's analysis of Park Service documents.

aReingold Inc. Gap Analysis. 2005.

bReid Consulting, LLC performed the audits, which identified a few
problems including one grantee that submitted a quarterly report
containing unallowable costs, two grantees that were not on schedule to
meet their matching fund requirements, two grantees that lacked accounting
procedures manuals, and one grantee without a formal accounting system.

Table 4 describes the remaining problems the Park Service needs to address
in order to complete the remaining 11 actions in its plan. As the table
indicates, most of these actions remaining are for improving oversight.

Table 4: Eleven Actions the Park Service Needs to Complete and the Status
of These Actions, as of July 2006

                                        

         Concern             Planned actions           Remaining problems     
The proportion of    Starting in fiscal year    In fiscal year 2005, the   
appropriated funds   2005, the Park Service     Park Service met its goal  
spent on overhead    established a goal of      of spending between 65 and 
costs and nongrant   spending between 65 and 75 75 percent of its annual   
activities is too    percent of its annual      allocation of budget       
high relative to the allocation of budget       authority on grants.       
funding spent on     authority on grants.       However, in fiscal year    
grants.                                         2006 it will not meet this 
                        Maintain Park Service      goal. The Park Service     
                        program administration     plans to spend 58 percent  
                        costs at a level not to    of its fiscal year 2006    
                        exceed 5 percent of annual allocation of budget       
                        allocation of CBGN budget  authority on grants        
                        authority but not less     because it is providing    
                        than $90,000 annually.     more resources toward the  
                                                   administrative costs of    
                                                   eliminating the backlog of 
                                                   incomplete grants.         
                                                   According to the CBGN      
                                                   Director, the Park Service 
                                                   does not currently track   
                                                   administrative costs for   
                                                   the program.               
Lack of Park Service Develop a strategic plan   A strategic plan was       
direction, planning, for the CBGN.              issued in 2005, but the    
and setting of                                  Park Service plans to      
priorities.                                     revise it in 2007 because  
                                                   of concerns about whether  
                                                   the goals laid out in the  
                                                   2005 plan are achievable   
                                                   and measurable and         
                                                   represent current CBGN     
                                                   priorities.                
Lack of measures for Establish an outcome       The Park Service           
program              measurement process for    contracted out for the     
effectiveness.       evaluating the             development of a process   
                        effectiveness of CBGN      to evaluate program        
                        grants on a programmatic   effectiveness, but does    
                        basis and prepare initial  not believe the proposed   
                        report. The process will   process is usable. The     
                        be linked to the strategic Park Service plans to      
                        plan outlining CBGN        enter into a cooperative   
                        objectives and priorities. agreement with a           
                                                   university to conduct a    
                                                   qualitative evaluation of  
                                                   network effectiveness and  
                                                   plans to fold in some      
                                                   aspects of the previous    
                                                   contractor's product.      
Lack of Park Service Ensure that all grant      As a principal action, the 
grant oversight.     agreements are in          Park Service has developed 
                        compliance with the        an Operating Procedures    
                        directives in Office of    Manual specifying          
                        Management and Budget      procedures that            
                        (OMB) circulars on program incorporate the guidelines 
                        management and oversight   and requirements of OMB    
                        responsibilities.          circulars to the CBGN's    
                                                   grant program. The Park    
                                                   Service is in the process  
                                                   of completing the other    
                                                   steps to improve           
                                                   oversight, which also      
                                                   address adherence to OMB   
                                                   circulars.                 
                        Organize Park Service      The files have been        
                        grant files on a grant     reorganized by grant, but  
                        basis, rather than by      the Park Service has not   
                        gateway, for better        finished updating them.    
                        documentation and tracking 
                        of grant projects and      
                        expenditures.              
                        Maintain stringent         The Park Service has not   
                        enforcement of quarterly   maintained stringent       
                        reporting requirements by  enforcement of quarterly   
                        grantees, including        reporting requirements.    
                        restricting payments       However, it made some      
                        unless reporting is        revisions to the quarterly 
                        current.                   reporting procedure to     
                                                   streamline it. The Park    
                                                   Service has signed a       
                                                   cooperative agreement with 
                                                   a nonprofit organization   
                                                   to facilitate completion   
                                                   of required reports, as    
                                                   well as grantee projects.a 
                        Require fully documented   The Park Service plans to  
                        detailed expenditure       implement this action by   
                        reports for both matching  comparing invoices with    
                        and grant funds with all   quarterly reports.         
                        invoices.                  
                        Beginning in fiscal year   While the Park Service     
                        2005, require more         incorporated detailed      
                        detailed explanations of   descriptions in the scope  
                        the scope of work in new   of work in new grant       
                        grant agreements,          agreements, the lack of    
                        including linking payments quarterly reports prevents 
                        to specific project        the Park Service from      
                        milestones.                always linking payments to 
                                                   specific project           
                                                   milestones.                
                        Provide additional grant   While the CBGN             
                        management training for    Administrative Officer     
                        Park Service staff.        completed additional       
                                                   federal grant and          
                                                   cooperative agreement      
                                                   management training, other 
                                                   Park Service staff         
                                                   overseeing the grants have 
                                                   not received such          
                                                   training. According to the 
                                                   CBGN Director, he plans to 
                                                   provide grant management   
                                                   training to his staff in   
                                                   September 2006.            
                        Prohibit award of a 2005   While the Park Service     
                        CBGN grant to any          developed and used a       
                        applicant with an          checklist to implement     
                        incomplete outstanding     this action, it did not    
                        grant: from 2000-2003, as  fully enforce it for       
                        of July 30, 2005; from     fiscal year 2005 grants.   
                        2004 that is not fully on  The Park Service said it   
                        schedule; or that fails a  would enforce this action  
                        specific assessment of     for fiscal year 2006.      
                        whether the capacity       
                        exists for completing a    
                        new grant on schedule.     

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service documents.

aThis work will be done by the Association of Partners for Public Lands.

Several Management Problems Remain

Although the Park Service has made progress in implementing the actions in
its plan, we identified the following five remaining management problems:

o Inadequate training. While the Park Service committed in its action plan
to providing additional grant management training for CBGN staff, it
provided federal grant and cooperative agreement training only to its CBGN
Administrative Officer, and this officer left the program in August 2006.
None of the CBGN project coordinators, who are responsible for reviewing
grant proposals and monitoring the progress of grant projects, have
received such training. However, according to the CBGN Director, project
coordinators have had limited training that includes attending a grant
recipient workshop on financial management. This lack of training is not
unique to the CBGN program. In 2005, Interior's Inspector General reported
that over two-thirds of the grant managers and administrators they
surveyed departmentwide had not received any grant-related training in the
last 4 years.24 The Inspector General concluded that these staff generally
lacked sufficient training to effectively award and monitor grants.
According to the CBGN Director, he plans to provide grant management
training to his staff in September 2006.

o Lack of timely grantee reporting. The Park Service committed in its
action plan to stringently enforcing its requirement for grantees to
report quarterly on progress and finances. However, we found that,
approximately 2 months after the reports were due, only 8 of the 27 files
for grants awarded in fiscal year 2005 contained both the quarterly
progress and financial reports for the reporting period we reviewed.
Furthermore, despite the commitment in the CBGN action plan to restrict
reimbursements to grantees who had not yet submitted their quarterly
reports, one grantee who had not submitted a complete report was
reimbursed $3,615.61. Interior's Inspector General raised similar concerns
in its August 2005 report.25 The Inspector General reported that nearly
half of the 92 files reviewed across the department did not contain the
required performance and financial status reports. According to the CBGN
Director, he is going to review the reporting requirement to determine if
reporting on a quarterly basis is too stringent.

o Inappropriate awards. The Park Service committed in its action plan to
prohibiting the award of a fiscal year 2005 CBGN grant to any applicant
with an incomplete or delayed grant project or that failed an assessment
of whether the capacity existed for completing a new grant on schedule.
However, we found that 2 of the 27 grants awarded in fiscal year 2005 were
awarded to such applicants: one grant was awarded to an applicant with a
2004 grant not expected to be completed on time and one to an applicant
that, according to the Park Service reviewer, "has not shown the capacity
to accomplish its previous grant project in a timely manner."

o Backlog of uncompleted grants. According to the Park Service, as of June
30, 2006, 63 of the 162 grants awarded between fiscal years 2000 and 2004
had not been completed or closed out. Completing and closing out existing
grants is the CBGN's highest priority, according to the CBGN Director. In
2006, the Inspector General reported that 18 of 23 CBGN grants (fiscal
year 2001-June 2005) it reviewed had experienced delays ranging from 9
months to 3 years.26 The Inspector General concluded that the Park Service
needs to terminate projects when grantees lack valid reasons for delays.
In its response to the Inspector General's report, the Park Service
committed to eliminating the backlog of incomplete grant projects and
placing all grants on a reasonable and documented time frame for
completion.

o Underperforming gateways. The Park Service does not regularly review
gateways to ensure that they are meeting basic requirements for CBGN
membership, as laid out in their memorandums of understanding with the
Park Service. This lack of oversight may have led, in some instances, to
underperforming gateways that reflect poorly upon the network. For
example, during a visit to the Dogwood Harbor gateway (on Tilghman Island,
Maryland), we observed that the site lacked the required CBGN logo sign
that indicates the site's connection to the network, as well as any
information or staff to explain this connection. (See fig. 7.)

Figure 7: Views at the Dogwood Harbor Gateway

Park Service staff and working group members stated that they have
concerns about gateways that are not fulfilling their commitments, and
they are considering removing some sites from the network. The Park
Service and working group members have started discussing the possibility
of instituting periodic reviews of gateways to ensure they are continuing
to meet the terms of their agreements. Almost all of the working group
members that we interviewed agreed that periodic reviews of gateways are
needed and that, where appropriate, underperforming gateways should be
removed from the network.

Conclusions

The Park Service is struggling to effectively manage and oversee the
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network and grant program. To its credit, the Park
Service has developed an action plan to address congressional concerns and
has completed many of the actions cited in the plan. However, the Park
Service still has to address several weaknesses in accountability and
oversight to be assured that the CBGN is effective. In particular, it
cannot currently ensure that its process for selecting gateways is open
and fair because it bases its decisions, in part, on criteria that are not
published in the application materials. Further, based on our review of
the Park Service documents, the criteria for approving or denying gateway
membership may not have been applied consistently. In addition, the Park
Service does not have a process for overseeing gateways to determine
whether they are meeting the basic requirements for network membership,
for remedying identified problems, or for removing underperforming
gateways from the network. Underperforming gateways could discourage
visitors from going to other gateways, appreciating bay-related resources,
and promoting the stewardship of these resources-the ultimate purpose of
the program. Finally, the Park Service has neither assessed the extent to
which the grants it has awarded are effectively meeting program goals, nor
has it fulfilled its commitments to ensure that staff are adequately
trained in grant management, grantees are submitting reports on time so
that progress and expenditures can be properly monitored, and grants are
only awarded to applicants who have completed previous grants and who have
the capacity for managing them effectively.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To enhance accountability and oversight, we recommend that the Secretary
of the Interior direct the Director of the Park Service to have the
Director of the CBGN implement seven actions in the following areas and be
held accountable for implementing them:

Gateway selection and network membership:

o Take steps to make all criteria used to select gateways publicly
available and then consistently apply them.

o Periodically review gateways to determine whether they are meeting the
basic requirements for network membership.

o Develop procedures for resolving identified problems and, where
appropriate, removing underperforming gateways from the network.

Grant management:

o Develop and implement a process to determine the extent to which grants
are effectively meeting program goals.

o Ensure that CBGN staff responsible for grant management are adequately
trained.

o Ensure that grants are awarded only to applicants who completed grants
or to applicants who have demonstrated the capacity for completing a new
grant on schedule.

o Ensure that grantees submit progress and financial reports in a timely
manner.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the
Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. The
Environmental Protection Agency did not have comments on the report.
Interior stated that it concurred with the recommendations in the report
and described actions it plans to take to implement them. Planned actions
include (1) reviewing  the criteria used to select gateways and posting
any revisions or clarifications to the CBGN  Web site;  (2) completing
procedures for periodically reviewing gateways to determine if they are
meeting the basic requirements for network membership and for terminating
those not in compliance; and (3) having staff attend a grant management
workshop offered by the Environmental Protection Agency in September 2006
and additional training, as necessary. The periodic reviews of gateways
are to begin in October 2006.

We are sending copies of this report to the congressional committees with
jurisdiction over the Department of the Interior and its activities, the
Secretary of the Interior, and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. We also will make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected] . Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix VII.

Sincerely yours,

Robin M. Nazzaro Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This appendix details the methods we used to assess the National Park
Service's (Park Service) Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (CBGN) and its
related grant program. For this assessment, we determined the extent to
which the (1) criteria for selecting gateways are transparent and
consistently applied; (2) grants have been awarded to support the program
goals of conserving and restoring, interpreting, and accessing important
resources within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed; and (3) Park Service has
taken action to improve its management and oversight of the program.

To address the three objectives, we analyzed Park Service and other
documents, including the procedures and practices used to select gateways;
the CBGN strategic plan for 2006 through 2008; recent reports issued by
the Department of the Interior's (Interior) Office of Inspector General;
and the Park Service's planned actions to address management and oversight
concerns raised by the Surveys and Investigations staff for the House
Committee on Appropriations. In addition, we met with Park Service
officials and members from most of the 17 organizations in the CBGN
working group to obtain their perspectives on network membership and the
grant program.1 We also observed four CBGN working group meetings,
including the gateway and grant selection meetings.

In addition, we conducted a reliability review of the Park Service's data
system for the data we received for each of the three objectives and for
presenting background information about the program. Our assessment
consisted of interviews with an official about the data system and
elements and the method of data input, among other areas. We also compared
the electronic data with source documents from the gateway and grant
files, when available. We determined that the data we used were
sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

For the first objective-to determine the extent to which the criteria for
selecting network members are transparent and consistently applied-we
systematically reviewed checklists and denial letters, when available, for
the 63 locations that were denied gateway status during 2000 through 2006.
We obtained these documents from either the files or from Park Service
officials.2 In addition, we reviewed the 102 checklists that were either
provided by the Park Service or in network application files for the 152
locations that were designated as gateways between 2000 and 2006.3 In
reviewing both sets of checklists, there were some items that were
unclear. Therefore, we created a set of decision rules reviewed and agreed
upon by the team to address these cases. For example, if a checklist had a
question mark in the column that indicates the criterion had been met, we
did not count this as having met the particular criterion. Because we
cannot be sure that the accepted checklists we reviewed are the final ones
upon which decisions to designate gateways were based, we compared these
checklists with information received separately from the Park Service
regarding dates of gateway designation in an attempt to verify that we
did, in fact, review the final checklists. In recognition of the multistep
review process used in selecting gateways, we also reviewed the CBGN
working group's meeting minutes, when available, for both accepted and
denied applications to provide additional context for the Park Service's
and the working group's decisions. In the case of denied locations, we
knew some of the files were incomplete so we specifically reviewed
particular documents from the files-the checklists and denial letters-and
meeting minutes, when available.4 We did not find an explanation in all
cases of why an applicant with a checklist that met or did not meet all
criteria was denied or accepted.

For the second objective-to determine the extent to which the Park Service
awarded grants to support the program goals of conserving and restoring,
interpreting, and accessing important resources within the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed-we reviewed Park Service data that identified the primary
program goal for each grant awarded and determined the number of gateways
that received multiple grants for the same primary

program goal.5 From these 39 gateways, we selected a nonprobability sample
of 16 gateways covering 49 grant files.6 We selected our sample to include
gateways that received multiple grants for the same primary program goal
and to incorporate a variety of gateway types. Using a data collection
instrument, we systematically reviewed the 49 grant files to determine
differences among grants awarded to the same gateway for the same primary
program goal. We also conducted interviews with grantees and the Park
Service officials responsible for overseeing the grants. In addition, we
visited 7 gateways, which we selected from the list of 39 based on the
number of grants awarded for the same primary program goal, the type of
gateway, the state in which the gateway is located, and the total grant
dollars received. In choosing the sample, to avoid duplication, we did not
select sites, except for the hub, visited by the Interior's Office of
Inspector General during its recent study.7 During these visits, we
interviewed grantees, observed grant projects, and discussed differences
in their projects.

For the final objective-to determine the extent to which the Park Service
has taken action to improve its management and oversight of the program-we
used a data collection instrument to systematically review Park Service
files for the 27 grants awarded in fiscal year 2005 to determine the
extent to which corrective actions have been implemented. In addition,
while conducting our audit work, including visiting gateways in our
nonprobability sample that received multiple grants for the same primary
program goal and meeting with working group members, we visited 9 nearby
gateways that had not received any grants to see if they were fulfilling
their basic commitments for network membership. We also reviewed Park
Service data on the number of grants awarded from fiscal years 2000
through 2005 that have yet to be closed out.

We conducted our work between December 2005 and August 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Working Group Member Organizations

This appendix presents information on the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
(CBGN) working group member organizations. The following is the list of
member organizations that the National Park Service (Park Service)
provided:

o Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay

o Chesapeake Bay Commission

o Chesapeake Bay Foundation

o Chesapeake Bay Trust

o Friends of Chesapeake Gateways

o Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development, Office of
Tourism Development

o Maryland Department of Natural Resources

o Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Historical Trust

o Maryland Department of Transporation

o Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of
Recreation and Conservation

o Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

o Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

o Virginia Department of Historic Resources

o Virginia Department of Transportation

o Virginia Tourism Corporation

o United States Fish and Wildlife Service

o United States National Park Service

According to the Park Service, this list was updated in March 2006.
However, in our efforts to meet with representatives from each of the CBGN
working group organizations, we learned that the Maryland Department of
Transportation representative no longer participates in the working group,
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's sole representative on the
working group no longer works there. According to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service employee we spoke with, a replacement has been selected,
but that employee had not yet participated in the CBGN working group and
was unaware of any upcoming meetings or activities. In addition, at the
time of our review, the Maryland Historical Trust representative was on
extended leave.

Appendix III
 
Gateways in the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network

This appendix provides information on the 152 gateways in the Chesapeake
Bay Gateways Network (CBGN). It includes the name and location of each
gateway, the year each was designated and its gateway type, the number of
grants for fiscal years 2000 through 2005 the gateway received, and the
total amount of grant funding awarded to the gateway's managing
organization or partner organization during this period. This information
is presented as it was reported by the National Park Service (Park
Service) to us on July 27, 2006. Consequently, the data are of
undetermined reliability and are for informational purposes only.

Table 5: 152 Gateways in the CBGN, Location, Year Designated, Gateway
Type, Number of Grants Received from Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005, and
Total Grant Funding Awarded

                                        

       Gateway         Location        Year    Gateway type  Number Total grant 
                                    designated                   of     funding 
                                                             grants 
                                                             fiscal 
                                                              years 
                                                               2000 
                                                            through 
                                                               2005 
Adkins Arboretum Ridgely, Md.    2001       Site               4    $235,669 
Anacostia Park   Washington,     2002       Site               0           0 
                    D.C.                                            
Anacostia River  Washington,     2000       Site               1      18,600 
Community Park   D.C.                                            
Annapolis and    Annapolis, Md.  2002       Regional           1      12,504 
Anne Arundel                                information          
County                                      center               
Information                                                      
Center                                                           
Annapolis        Annapolis, Md.  2000       Site               5     201,585 
Maritime Museum                                                  
Baltimore and    Annapolis to    2003       Connecting         0           0 
Annapolis Trail  Glen Burnie,               route-land           
Park             Md.                        trail                
Baltimore        Baltimore, Md.  2004       Regional           1     111,500 
Visitor Center                              information          
                                               center               
Battle Creek     Prince          2002       Site               1      11,300 
Cypress Swamp    Frederick, Md.                                  
Belle Isle State Lancaster, Va.  2000       Site               1     28,825a 
Park                                                             
Blackwater       Cambridge, Md.  2000       Site               4     95,500b 
National                                                         
Wildlife Refuge                                                  
Bladensburg      Bladensburg,    2004       Site               0           0 
Waterfront Park  Md.                                             
Caledon Natural  King George,    2002       Site               0           0 
Area             Va.                                             
Calvert Cliffs   Lusby, Md.      2003       Site               0           0 
State Park                                                       
Calvert Marine   Solomons, Md.   2001       Site               3      64,438 
Museum                                                           
Cape Charles     Cape Charles,   2001       Site               1      15,000 
Historic         Va.                                             
District                                                         
Captain Salem    Shady Side, Md. 2002       Site               3      53,625 
Avery House                                                      
Museum                                                           
Chemung Basin    Steuben and     2000       Connecting         3      66,190 
Water Trail      Chemung                    route-water          
                    Counties, N.Y.             trail                
Chesapeake and   Along Potomac   2002       Site               1      56,160 
Ohio Canal       River from                                      
National         Cumberland, Md.                                 
Historical Park  to Washington,                                  
                    D.C.                                            
Chesapeake Bay   Virginia Beach, 2001       Regional           1     28,825a 
Center at First  Va.                        information          
Landing State                               center               
Park                                                             
Chesapeake Bay   Grasonville,    2000       Site               3      48,750 
Environmental    Md.                                             
Center                                                           
Chesapeake Bay   St. Michaels,   2000       Hub                5   421,187 c 
Maritime Museum  Md.                                             
Chesapeake Beach Chesapeake      2002       Site               0           0 
Railway Museum   Beach, Md.                                      
Chesapeake       Solomons, Md.   2001       Site               1      30,058 
Biological                                                       
Laboratory,                                                      
University of                                                    
Maryland Center                                                  
for                                                              
Environmental                                                    
Science                                                          
Chesapeake       Chester, Md.    2002       Regional           1      12,360 
Exploration                                 information          
Center                                      center               
Chickahominy     Williamsburg,   2003       Site               1      51,200 
Riverfront Park  Va.                                             
Chippokes        Surry, Va.      2001       Site               2     33,825a 
Plantation State                                                 
Park                                                             
Choptank and     Caroline and    2000       Connecting         3      70,700 
Tuckahoe Rivers  Talbot                     route-water          
Water Trail      Counties, Md.              trail                
Concord Point    Havre de Grace, 2002       Site               1      20,000 
Lighthouse       Md.                                             
Cross Island     Kent Island,    2002       Connecting         0           0 
Trail            Md.                        route-land           
                                               trail                
Dogwood Harbor   Tilghman        2005       Site               0           0 
                    Island, Md.                                     
Dutch Gap        Chesterfield,   2000       Site               2      34,650 
Conservation     Va.                                             
Area                                                             
Eastern Branch   Virginia Beach  2002       Connecting         1      15,000 
Elizabeth River  and Norfolk,               route-water          
Water Trail      Va.                        trail                
Eastern Neck     Rock Hall, Md.  2002       Site               3    118,974d 
National                                                         
Wildlife Refuge                                                  
Eastern Shore of Cape Charles,   2002       Site               1    88,000 e 
Virginia         Va.                                             
National                                                         
Wildlife Refuge                                                  
Elizabeth River  Norfolk, Va.    2000       Connecting         1      16,000 
Trail                                       route-land           
                                               trail                
Elk Neck State   North East, Md. 2001       Site               1      15,300 
Park                                                             
Fells Point      Baltimore, Md.  2003       Site               1      16,678 
Maritime Museum                                                  
Fells Point      Baltimore, Md.  2004       Site               1      33,135 
National                                                         
Register                                                         
Historic                                                         
District                                                         
First Landing    Virginia Beach, 2001       Site               2     56,325a 
State Park       Va.                                             
Flag Ponds       Lusby, Md.      2002       Site               1     32,050f 
Nature Park                                                      
Fort McHenry     Baltimore, Md.  2001       Site               3      78,880 
National                                                         
Monument and                                                     
Historic Shrine                                                  
Fort Washington  Fort            2002       Site               1     40,500g 
Park             Washington, Md.                                 
Frederick        Baltimore, Md.  2006       Site               0           0 
Douglass-Issac                                                   
Myers Waterfront                                                 
Park                                                             
Galesville       Galesville, Md. 2004       Site               1      89,137 
Heritage Museum                                                  
Geddes-Piper     Chestertown,    2004       Site               1       6,425 
House            Md.                                             
George           Washington      2001       Site               1      14,400 
Washington       Birthplace, Va.                                 
Birthplace                                                       
National                                                         
Monument                                                         
George           Fredericksburg, 2005       Site               0           0 
Washington's     Va.                                             
Ferry Farm                                                       
Gloucester Point Gloucester      2001       Site               2      68,698 
Park             Point, Va.                                      
Great Bridge     Chesapeake, Va. 2003       Site               2      83,020 
Lock Park                                                        
Great Falls Park McLean, Va.     2002       Site               1     20,000h 
Greenwell State  Hollywood, Md.  2002       Site               1      11,715 
Park                                                             
Gunpowder Falls  Kingsville, Md. 2001       Site               1       9,600 
State Park                                                       
Gwynns Falls     Baltimore, Md.  2002       Connecting         2     152,000 
Trail and                                   route-land           
Greenway                                    trail                
Havre de Grace   Havre de Grace, 2002       Site               2      95,000 
Decoy Museum     Md.                                             
Historic         Annapolis, Md.  2001       Site               3      31,290 
Annapolis                                                        
Gateway-City                                                     
Dock                                                             
Historic London  Edgewater, Md.  2002       Site               2     159,000 
Town and Garden                                                  
Historic St.     St. Mary's      2001       Site               3    157,072c 
Mary's City      City, Md.                                       
Hoffler Creek    Portsmouth, Va. 2000       Site               4      51,149 
Wildlife                                                         
Preserve                                                         
Huntley Meadows  Alexandria, Va. 2002       Site               0           0 
Park                                                             
J. Millard Tawes Crisfield, Md.  2002       Site               0           0 
Historical                                                       
Museum and Ward                                                  
Brothers                                                         
Workshop                                                         
James Mills      Urbanna, Va.    2000       Site               1      14,000 
Scottish Factor                                                  
Store                                                            
Jamestown Island Jamestown, Va.  2001       Site               1      13,050 
Janes Island     Crisfield, Md.  2000       Site               1     20,000i 
State Park                                                       
Jefferson        St. Leonard,    2000       Site               3     106,150 
Patterson Park   Md.                                             
and Museum                                                       
Jones Falls      Baltimore, Md.  2005       Connecting         0           0 
Trail                                       route-land           
                                               trail                
Juniata River    Central Pa.     2004       Connecting         1      74,300 
Water Trail                                 route-water          
                                               trail                
King's Landing   Huntingtown,    2002       Site               1     32,050f 
Park             Md.                                             
Kiptopeke State  Cape Charles,   2001       Site               2 116,825a, e 
Park             Va.                                             
Lawrence Lewis   Charles City,   2005       Site               1      10,970 
Jr. Park         Va.                                             
Leesylvania      Woodbridge, Va. 2001       Site               0           0 
State Park                                                       
Lightship        Baltimore, Md.  2001       Site               1     107,000 
Chesapeake and                                                   
Seven Foot Knoll                                                 
Lighthouse                                                       
Lower James      From Richmond   2002       Connecting         2     103,836 
River Water      to Hampton                 route-water          
Trail            Roads, Va.                 trail                
Mariners' Museum Newport News,   2000       Site               1       8,000 
                    Va.                                             
Marshy Point     Baltimore, Md.  2004       Site               0           0 
Park (formerly                                                   
Dundee and                                                       
Saltpeter Creek                                                  
Park)                                                            
Martinak State   Denton, Md.     2002       Site               1      16,500 
Park                                                             
Mason Neck       Lorton, Va.     2002       Site               0           0 
National                                                         
Wildlife Refuge                                                  
Mason Neck State Lorton, Va.     2001       Site               1     28,825a 
Park                                                             
Mathews Blueways Mathews County, 2002       Connecting         2      69,110 
Water Trail      Va.                        route-water          
                                               trail                
Mathews County   Mathews, Va.    2000       Regional           1      26,000 
Visitor and                                 information          
Information                                 center               
Center                                                           
Maury River      Rockbridge      2001       Connecting         0           0 
Water Trail      County, Va.                route-water          
                                               trail                
Merkle Wildlife  Upper Marlboro, 2001       Site               1      5,000j 
Sanctuary        Md.                                             
Monocacy River   Frederick and   2000       Connecting         2      19,605 
Water Trail      Carroll                    route-water          
                    Counties, Md.              trail                
Mount Harmon     Earleville, Md. 2006       Site               0           0 
Plantation                                                       
Myrtle Point     California, Md. 2006       Site               0           0 
Park                                                             
Nassawango Creek Snow Hill, Md.  2002       Site               0           0 
Preserve-Furnace                                                 
Town                                                             
Nathan of        Cambridge, Md.  2002       Site               1      12,850 
Dorchester                                                       
National         Baltimore, Md.  2004       Site               4 261,474b, d 
Aquarium in                                                      
Baltimore                                                        
Nauticus, The    Norfolk, Va.    2002       Site               1     100,000 
National Marine                                                  
Maritime Center                                                  
Norfolk Water    Norfolk, Va.    2001       Connecting         1      23,250 
Trail System                                route-water          
                                               trail                
North Point      Edgemere, Md.   2002       Site               0           0 
State Park                                                       
Occoquan Bay     Woodbridge, Va. 2002       Site               1      16,938 
National                                                         
Wildlife Refuge                                                  
Occoquan Water   Fairfax and     2004       Connecting         1     100,000 
Trail            Prince William             route-water          
                    Counties, Va.              trail                
Pamunkey Indian  King William,   2001       Site               1      32,000 
Reservation      Va.                                             
Parkers Creek    Port Republic,  2003       Site               1       6,596 
Watershed Nature Md.                                             
Preserve                                                         
Patapsco Valley  Ellicott City,  2003       Site               1      26,800 
State Park       Md.                                             
Patuxent         Laurel, Md.     2002       Site               1      14,457 
Research                                                         
Refuge-National                                                  
Wildlife Visitor                                                 
Center                                                           
Patuxent River   Upper Marlboro, 2002       Site               2     22,550j 
Park-Jug Bay     Md.                                             
Natural Area                                                     
Pemberton        Salisbury, Md.  2002       Site               2      34,956 
Historical Park                                                  
Pickering Creek  Easton, Md.     2001       Site               4     152,991 
Audubon Center                                                   
Piney Point      Piney Point,    2001       Site               1     100,000 
Lighthouse       Md.                                             
Museum and Park                                                  
Piscataway Park  Accokeek, Md.   2000       Site               3     69,900g 
Pocomoke River   Snow Hill, Md.  2002       Site               1      45,000 
State Forest and                                                 
Park                                                             
Point Lookout    Scotland, Md.   2001       Site               2      45,820 
State Park                                                       
Potomac Gateway  King George     2000       Regional           1      10,000 
Welcome Center   County, Va.                information          
                                               center               
Potomac River    Washington,     2000       Connecting         1      20,000 
Water Trail      D.C. to the                route-water          
                    Chesapeake Bay             trail                
Powhatan Creek   Williamsburg,   2002       Connecting         1      26,100 
Blueway          Va.                        route-water          
                                               trail                
Pride of         Baltimore, Md.  2001       Site               2      24,987 
Baltimore                                                        
Rappahannock     Warsaw, Va.     2006       Site               0           0 
River Valley                                                     
National                                                         
Wildlife Refuge                                                  
Rappahannock     Fredericksburg, 2002       Connecting         2     240,499 
River Water      Va.                        route-water          
Trail                                       trail                
Raystown Branch  Bedford County, 2002       Connecting         1       7,106 
Juniata River    Pa.                        route-water          
Water Trail                                 trail                
Reedville        Reedville, Va.  2001       Site               2      13,500 
Fisherman's                                                      
Museum                                                           
Richardson       Cambridge, Md.  2002       Site               1      12,706 
Maritime Museum                                                  
Rivanna River    Albemarle and   2000       Connecting         2      24,865 
Water Trail      Fluvanna                   route-water          
                    Counties, Va.              trail                
Riverbend Park   Great Falls,    2003       Site               1     20,000h 
Visitor Center   Va.                                             
and Nature                                                       
Center                                                           
Rock Creek Park  Washington,     2005       Site               1      20,000 
                    D.C.                                            
Sailwinds        Cambridge, Md.  2002       Regional           1     37,450k 
Visitor Center                              information          
                                               center               
Sandy Point      Near Annapolis, 2002       Site               0           0 
State Park       Md.                                             
Sassafras        Kennedyville,   2004       Site               0           0 
Natural Resource Md.                                             
Management Area                                                  
Schooner Sultana Chestertown,    2002       Site               4      44,502 
                    Md.                                             
Shenandoah River Bentonville,    2005       Site               0           0 
State Park       Va.                                             
Smallwood State  Marbury, Md.    2002       Site               0           0 
Park                                                             
Smith Island     Ewell, Md.      2000       Site               4      41,242 
Center                                                           
Smithsonian      Edgewater, Md.  2005       Site               0           0 
Environmental                                                    
Research Center                                                  
Solomons Visitor Solomons, Md.   2001       Regional           1      24,520 
Information                                 information          
Center                                      center               
Sotterley        Hollywood, Md.  2002       Site               2      91,330 
Plantation                                                       
Spruce           Seneca Rocks,   2002       Site               1      19,200 
Knob-Seneca      W.Va.                                           
Rocks National                                                   
Recreation Area                                                  
St. Clement's    Colton's Point, 2000       Site               1      20,000 
Island-Potomac   Md.                                             
River Museum                                                     
Steamboat Era    Irvington, Va.  2006       Site               0           0 
Museum                                                           
Stratford Hall   Stratford, Va.  2002       Site               0           0 
Plantation                                                       
Sturgis Memorial Snow Hill, Md.  2000       Site               1      20,000 
Gateway                                                          
Susquehanna      Havre de Grace, 2001       Site               0           0 
Museum of Havre  Md.                                             
de Grace                                                         
Susquehanna      N.Y. segment of 2000       Connecting         4     165,575 
River Water      the Susquehanna            route-water          
Trail            River's North              trail                
                    Branch, south                                   
                    to Harrisburg,                                  
                    Pa.                                             
Susquehanna      Harrisburg,     2000       Connecting         3      48,500 
River Water      Pa., south to              route-water          
Trail-Lower      Havre de Grace,            trail                
Section          Md.                                             
Susquehanna      Cherry Tree to  2000       Connecting         3      59,000 
River Water      Sunbury, Pa.               route-water          
Trail-West                                  trail                
Branch                                                           
Susquehanna      Jarrettsville,  2001       Site               1      13,700 
State Park       Md.                                             
Swatara Creek    Lebanon, Pa.    2004       Connecting         1      18,150 
Water Trail                                 route-water          
                                               trail                
Terrapin Park    Stevensville,   2001       Site               1      20,000 
                    Md.                                             
Tuckahoe State   Queen Anne, Md. 2002       Site               1      58,100 
Park                                                             
Turner's Creek   Kennedyville,   2004       Site               1      28,640 
Park             Md.                                             
Underground      From Dorchester 2003       Connecting         2     67,450k 
Railroad Scenic  County, north              route-scenic         
Byway            through                    byway                
                    Caroline                                        
                    County, Md.                                     
USS              Baltimore, Md.  2002       Site               2      82,501 
Constellation                                                    
Museum                                                           
Virginia Eastern Saxis, Va.      2004       Connecting         2      67,015 
Shore Water                                 route-water          
Trails                                      trail                
Virginia Living  Newport News,   2003       Site               3     270,053 
Museum           Va.                                             
Ward Museum of   Salisbury, Md.  2000       Site               1      30,000 
Wildfowl Art                                                     
Watermen's       Yorktown, Va.   2001       Site               2      55,498 
Museum                                                           
Westmoreland     Montross, Va.   2001       Site               1     28,825a 
State Park                                                       
Wharves at       Denton, Md.     2002       Site               2      43,100 
Choptank                                                         
Crossing                                                         
Wye Grist Mill   Wye Mills, Md.  2003       Site               0           0 
Wye Island       Queenstown, Md. 2002       Site               0           0 
Natural Resource                                                 
Management Area                                                  
York River State Williamsburg,   2001       Site               1     28,825a 
Park             Va.                                             
York River Water Walkerton, Va.  2001       Connecting         2      95,513 
Trail                                       route-water          
                                               trail                
Yorktown Visitor Yorktown, Va.   2001       Site               1      10,000 
Center and                                                       
Battlefield                                                      
Total CBGN grant                                                 $6,278,818l 
funding                                                          

Source: GAO summary of Park Service documents.

Note: When a grant is awarded to more than one gateway, it is reflected in
both the total number of grants and total grant amount.

aOne grant for $28,825 was awarded to eight gateways in Virginia state
parks: Belle Isle, Chesapeake Bay Center, Chippokes, First Landing,
Kiptopeke, Mason Neck, Westmoreland, and York River.

bOne grant for $27,500  was awarded to the Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge and the National Aquarium in Baltimore.

cOne grant for $111,987  was awarded to the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum
and Historic St. Mary's City.

dTwo grants for $30,562 and $53,412 were a partnership between Eastern
Neck National Wildlife Refuge and the National Aquarium in Baltimore.

eOne grant for $88,000 was awarded to the Eastern Shore of Virginia
National Wildlife Refuge and Kiptopeke State Park.

fOne grant for $32,050  was awarded to Flag Ponds Nature Park and King's
Landing Park.

gOne grant for $40,500 was awarded to Fort Washington Park and Piscataway
Park.

hOne grant for $20,000 was awarded to Great Falls Park and Riverbend Park.

iThis grant was awarded and then terminated after CBGN determined the
grantee could not complete the grant project.

jOne grant for $5,000 was awarded to Merkle Wildlife Sanctuary and
Patuxent River Park-Jug Bay Natural Area.

kOne grant for $37,450 was awarded to the Sailwinds Visitor Center and
Underground Railroad Scenic Byway.

lThe total amount awarded column will not add up to the total CBGN funding
amount because the grants that were awarded to more than one gateway are
reflected in the total amount awarded to each of the gateways that
received those grants.

Appendix IV

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Gateway Selection Process

Appendix V

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Grant Application, Review, and Award
Process

Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix VII

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Robin M. Nazzaro (202) 512-3841

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Andrea Wamstad Brown, Assistant
Director; Laura Gatz; Catherine Kim; Lisa Vojta; Barbara Patterson;
Rebecca Shea; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; and Omari Norman made key
contributions to this report.

(360650)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-1049 .

To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-1049 , a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives

September 2006

CHESAPEAKE BAY GATEWAYS PROGRAM

National Park Service Needs Better Accountability and Oversight of
Grantees and Gateways

In 1998, Congress passed the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act to establish a
linked network of locations, such as parks, historic seaports, or
museums-known as gateways-where the public can access and experience the
bay. The National Park Service (Park Service) provides support to the
gateways through a related grant program. In 2005, congressional concerns
were raised about the Park Service's management of the program.

GAO was asked to determine the extent to which the (1) criteria for
selecting gateways are transparent and consistently applied; (2) grants
have been awarded to support the program goals of conserving and
restoring, interpreting, and accessing bay-related resources; and (3) Park
Service has taken action to improve program management and oversight. To
conduct this work, GAO, among other things, examined Park Service files
and interviewed Park Service officials, as well as other officials
involved in the program.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making a number of recommendations aimed at ensuring that
accountability and oversight is improved. In commenting on a draft of this
report, Interior stated that it concurred with GAO's recommendations and
described actions it plans to take to implement them.

The Park Service and the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (CBGN) working
group-an advisory body of 17 bay-related agencies and organizations,
including the Park Service-use criteria in selecting gateways for the
network that are not always transparent and may not be consistently
applied. As a result, the Park Service cannot be assured that its process
for selecting gateways is always fair and open. Regarding transparency,
applicants are not always aware of all the criteria that the Park Service
and the CBGN working group use to select gateways because not all the
criteria are published. The Park Service and CBGN working group also may
not be consistently applying the criteria used to select gateways. For
example, some applicants were denied gateway status although they had met
all the selection criteria included in the checklist the Park Service uses
to review gateway applications, while others were approved although they
did not meet all these criteria.

The Park Service awarded almost all of its fiscal years 2000 through 2005
grants, totaling $6.28 million, to support the grant program goals of
interpretation of and access to bay-related resources but does not yet
have a process in place to evaluate whether grants are effectively meeting
these program goals, as well as the other program goal of conservation and
restoration. During this period, the Park Service awarded 189 grants: 117
for interpretation, 68 for access, and 4 for conservation and restoration.
Of the 189 grants, 110 went to 39 gateways that received more than 1 grant
for either interpretation or access, with several gateways receiving up to
4 grants for interpretation. According to Park Service staff, several
grantees, and GAO's analysis, these grants are for distinct projects or
phases of larger projects. Although the Park Service records the program
goal(s) associated with each grant project, it does not yet have a process
in place to determine the effectiveness of its grants in meeting these
goals. The Park Service has a strategic plan that describes program
priorities and effectiveness measures, but GAO found several weaknesses in
the plan.

The Park Service has made progress in outlining and implementing a number
of actions to respond to management and oversight concerns first
identified in February 2005, but accountability and oversight weaknesses
continue. In March 2005, the Park Service developed an action plan that
outlined 27 corrective actions and associated time frames to improve
program management. The Park Service has implemented 16 of these
actions-such as holding a financial management workshop for new grantees
and contracting for an external audit of 10 percent of past grants to
determine compliance with financial requirements-but 11 actions, mostly to
improve oversight, have not been fully implemented. In addition, the
following management problems remain: inadequate training, lack of timely
grantee reporting, inappropriate grant awards to applicants with
incomplete projects or lack of capacity to complete projects on time, a
backlog of uncompleted grants, and underperforming gateways.
*** End of document. ***