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. ***