    Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better
    Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress (28-OCT-05,
    GAO-06-96).

    The Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay Program) was created in 1983 when
    Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the
    Chesapeake Bay Commission, and EPA agreed to establish a
    partnership to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Their most recent
    agreement, Chesapeake 2000, sets out an agenda and five broad
    goals to guide these efforts through 2010 and contains 102
    commitments that the partners agreed to accomplish. GAO was asked
    to examine (1) the extent to which appropriate measures for
    assessing restoration progress have been established, (2) the
    extent to which current reporting mechanisms clearly and
    accurately describe the bay's overall health, (3) how much
    funding was provided for the effort for fiscal years 1995 through
    2004, and (4) how effectively the effort is being coordinated and
    managed.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-96
        ACCNO:   A40561
      TITLE:     Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to
    Better Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress
         DATE:   10/28/2005
      SUBJECT:   Data integrity
    	     Environmental monitoring
    	     Federal/state relations
    	     Financial analysis
    	     Funds management
    	     Performance appraisal
    	     Performance measures
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Program management
    	     Reporting requirements
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Water pollution
    	     Water quality
    	     Water resources conservation
    	     Wildlife conservation
    	     Environmental restoration
    	     Program goals or objectives
    	     Chesapeake Bay
    	     EPA Chesapeake Bay Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-06-96

         * Contents
              * Results in Brief
              * Background
              * The Bay Program's Measures Have Not Been Integrated to Assess
                Overall Restoration Progress
                   * The Bay Program Has Established 101 Measures for Some of its
                     Commitments
                   * The Bay Program Lacks an Integrated Approach for Assessing
                     Progress Toward Goals
              * The Bay Program's Reports Do Not Effectively Communicate the
                Status of the Bay's Health
                   * Bay Program Reports Do Not Effectively Communicate the
                     Current Health Status of the Bay
                   * Bay Program Reports Lack Credibility
                        * Bay Program Commingles Data on the Bay's Health with
                          Other Data
                        * The Bay Program Lacks an Independent Report Review
                          Process
              * Federal Agencies and States Have Provided Billions of Dollars in
                Both Direct and Indirect Funding for Restoration Activities
                   * Direct Funding for Restoration Activities
                   * Indirect Funding for Activities That Affect the Restoration
                     Effort
              * The Bay Program Has Not Always Effectively Coordinated and
                Managed the Restoration Effort
                   * The Bay Program Lacks a Coordinated Implementation Strategy
                   * The Bay Program Is Limited in Its Ability to Strategically
                     Target Resources
              * Conclusions
              * Recommendations for Executive Action
              * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
         * Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
         * Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000
              * Living Resource Protection and Restoration Goal
                   * Oysters
                   * Exotic Species
                   * Fish Passage and Migratory and Resident Fish
                   * Multispecies Management
                   * Crabs
              * Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration Goal
                   * Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
                   * Watersheds
                   * Wetlands
                   * Forests
              * Water Quality Protection and Restoration Goal
                   * Nutrients and Sediments
                   * Chemical Contaminants
                   * Priority Urban Waters
                   * Air Pollution
                   * Boat Discharge
              * Sound Land Use Goal
                   * Land Conservation
                   * Development, Redevelopment, and Revitalization
                   * Transportation
                   * Public Access
              * Stewardship and Community Engagement Goal
                   * Education and Outreach
                   * Community Engagement
                   * Government by Example
                   * Partnerships
         * Chesapeake Bay Program Partners
              * Federal Agencies
              * States
              * Tristate Legislative Commission
              * Academic Institutions
              * Others
         * Funding Information
         * Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
         * Comments from the Chesapeake Bay Commission
         * Comments from the Commonwealth of Virginia
         * Comments from the District of Columbia
         * Comments from the State of Maryland
         * Comments from the State of Pennsylvania
         * GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
         * app4.pdf
              * Summary of Expert Panel Observations on Assessing and Reporting
                on Restoration Progress
                   * Members of Our Expert Panel
                   * Summary of Panel Observations
                   * Assessing the Health of an Ecosystem
                        * Discussion Topic 1: Core Set of Ecosystem
                          Characteristics
                        * Discussion Topic 2: Key Indicators
                        * Discussion Topic 3: Overarching Indices
                   * Reporting the Health of an Ecosystem
                        * Discussion Topic 4: Reporting the Health of the
                          Chesapeake Bay
                        * Discussion Topic 5: Characteristics of Effective
                          Reporting
                        * Discussion Topic 6: Reporting Methods
                   * Assessing Progress of a Restoration Effort
                        * Discussion Topic 7: Information Needed to Determine
                          Progress
                        * Discussion Topic 8: Complicating Factors

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

                                      October 2005

    CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM

    Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration
                                        Progress

                                           a

    CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM

    Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better Assess, Report, and Manage
    Restoration Progress

      What GAO Found

    The Bay Program has over 100 measures to assess progress toward meeting
    certain restoration commitments and providing information to guide
    management decisions. However, the program has not yet developed an
    integrated approach that would allow it to translate these individual
    measures into an assessment of overall progress toward achieving the five
    broad restoration goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000. For example, while
    the Bay Program has appropriate measures to track crab, oyster, and
    rockfish populations, it does not have an approach for integrating the
    results of these measures to assess progress toward the agreement's goal
    of protecting and restoring the bay's living resources. The Bay Program
    has recognized that it may need an integrated approach for assessing
    overall progress in restoring the bay and, in November 2004, a task force
    began working on this effort.

    The State of the Chesapeake Bay reports are the Bay Program's primary
    mechanism for reporting the current health status of the bay. However,
    these reports do not effectively communicate the bay's current conditions
    because they focus on the status of individual species or pollutants
    instead of providing information on a core set of ecosystem
    characteristics. Moreover, the credibility of these reports has been
    negatively impacted because the program has commingled various kinds of
    data such as monitoring data, results of program actions, and the results
    of its predictive model without clearly distinguishing among them. As a
    result, the public cannot easily determine whether the health of the bay
    is improving or not. Moreover, the lack of independence in the Bay
    Program's reporting process has led to negative trends being downplayed
    and a rosier picture of the bay's health being reported than may have been
    warranted. The program has recognized that improvements are needed and is
    developing new reporting formats.

    From fiscal years 1995 through 2004, the restoration effort received about
    $3.7 billion in direct funding from 11 key federal agencies; the states of
    Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the District of Columbia. These
    funds were used for activities that supported water quality protection and
    restoration, sound land use, vital habitat protection and restoration,
    living resource protection and restoration, and stewardship and community
    engagement. During this time period, the restoration effort also received
    an additional $1.9 billion in indirect funding.

    The Bay Program does not have a comprehensive, coordinated implementation
    strategy to better enable it to achieve the goals outlined in Chesapeake
    2000. Although the program has adopted 10 key commitments to focus
    partners' efforts and developed plans to achieve them, some of these plans
    are inconsistent with each other or are perceived as unachievable by
    program partners. The limited assurances about the availability of
    resources beyond the short term further complicate the Bay Program's
    ability to effectively coordinate restoration efforts and strategically
    manage its resources.

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    Contents

    Letter 1
    Results in Brief 4
    Background 7
    The Bay Program's Measures Have Not Been Integrated to Assess Overall
    Restoration Progress 13
    The Bay Program's Reports Do Not Effectively Communicate the Status of the
    Bay's Health 17
    Federal Agencies and States Have Provided Billions of Dollars in Both
    Direct and Indirect Funding for Restoration Activities 22
    The Bay Program Has Not Always Effectively Coordinated and Managed the
    Restoration Effort 30
    Conclusions 35
    Recommendations for Executive Action 36
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36
    Appendixes
                                           :Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 39
                                     :Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000 42
                                              :Chesapeake Bay Program Partners 54
    : Summary of Expert Panel Observations on Assessing and Reporting on
    Restoration Progress 59
                                    : Funding Information 64 72 74 76 79 81 84 87
                               :Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
                                     :Comments from the Chesapeake Bay Commission
                                      :Comments from the Commonwealth of Virginia
                                         : Comments from the District of Columbia
                                            : Comments from the State of Maryland
                                        : Comments from the State of Pennsylvania
                                           :GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    Tables

    : Direct Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies, States, and District of
    Columbia, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004,
    in Constant 2004 Dollars

    Page i GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    Table 2: Indirect Funding Provided for the Chesapeake Bay
                Restoration Effort, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in
                Constant 2004 Dollars                                          27
    Table 3: Direct Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies
                According to Primary Commitment Addressed, Fiscal
                Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars              64
    Table 4: Indirect Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies
                According to Primary Commitment Addressed, Fiscal
                Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars              68
    Table 5: Direct Funding Provided by the States and the District of
                Columbia According to Primary Commitment Addressed,
                Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004
                Dollars                                                        70
    Table 6: Indirect Funding Provided by the States and the District of
                Columbia According to Primary Commitment Addressed,
                Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004
                Dollars                                                        71

    Figure 1:

      Figures

    Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7:

    Chesapeake Bay Watershed 8 Examples of Sources of Pollution in the Bay
    Ecosystem 10 Chesapeake Bay Program Organizational Chart 12 Direct Funding
    Provided by the Federal Agencies, States, and the District of Columbia,
    Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars 23 Percentage of
    the Total Direct Funding Provided for Addressing Each of the Five
    Chesapeake 2000 Goals, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004 25 Indirect Funding
    Provided by Federal Agencies, States, and the District of Columbia, Fiscal
    Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars 26 Percentage of the
    Total Indirect Funding Provided for Addressing Each of the Five Chesapeake
    2000 Goals, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004 28

        Abbreviations

    EPA Environmental Protection Agency SAV submerged aquatic vegetation

          Page ii GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
    work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
    separately.

    A

    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

    October 28, 2005

    The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Justice, and Science Committee on Appropriations United States
    Senate

    The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes United States Senate

    The Honorable John W. Warner United States Senate

    Recognized by Congress as a national treasure, the Chesapeake Bay is the
    nation's largest estuary, with its watershed spanning 64,000 square miles,
    including parts of six states and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake
    Bay is also biologically diverse, providing habitat for more than 3,600
    species of plants, fish, and shellfish. With the highest land-to-water
    ratio of any estuary in the world, the bay is particularly susceptible to
    activities that take place on surrounding lands. For example, urban sprawl
    significantly affects the bay's ecosystem. From 1950 to 2000, the
    population in the watershed nearly doubled, from just over 8 million to
    nearly 16 million. By 2020, it is estimated that the population in the
    bay's watershed will reach approximately 18 million.

    Concerns about the bay's overall health surfaced as early as the 1930s.
    Signs of deterioration in the bay's condition-declines in water clarity,
    oyster populations, and underwater grasses that provide habitat for
    shellfish-became even more apparent in the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1970s
    and early 1980s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that
    excess nutrients from agricultural development, population growth, and
    discharges from sewage treatment plants were the primary causes for the
    decline in the bay's condition.

    Responding to the public outcry about the degraded state of the Chesapeake
    Bay, the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the District of
    Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission-a tristate legislative assembly
    representing Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and EPA agreed in 1983
    to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. Their agreement established the
    Chesapeake Executive Council and resulted in the Chesapeake Bay Program
    (Bay Program) a partnership that directs and conducts the restoration of
    the bay. The Bay Program currently includes partners at the federal,
    state, and local levels, as well as academic institutions and nonprofit
    organizations. EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office provides support to the
    Chesapeake Executive Council and, among other things, is responsible for
    developing and providing information on the environmental quality and
    living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. In addition, the
    Chesapeake Bay Program Office is responsible for coordinating EPA's
    activities with other federal agencies and state and local authorities
    participating in the restoration effort.

    Subsequent agreements in 1987, 1992, and 2000 reaffirmed the signatories'
    commitment to bay restoration. The most recent, Chesapeake 2000, envisions
    a Chesapeake Bay watershed that includes abundant, diverse populations of
    living resources and healthy, clean streams and rivers that can sustain
    strong local and regional economies. Chesapeake 2000- identified by the
    Bay Program as its strategic plan-sets out an agenda and goals to guide
    the restoration and protection efforts through 2010 and beyond. In
    Chesapeake 2000, the signatories agreed to 102 commitments- including
    management actions, such as assessing trends of particular species, as
    well as actions that directly affect the health of the bay. These
    commitments are organized under the following five broad restoration
    goals:

         o Protecting and restoring living resources-14 commitments to restore,
           enhance, and protect the finfish, shellfish and other living
           resources, their habitats and ecological relationships to sustain all
           fisheries and provide for a balanced ecosystem;
         o Protecting and restoring vital habitats-18 commitments to preserve,
           protect, and restore those habitats and natural areas that are vital
           to the survival and diversity of the living resources of the bay and
           its rivers;
         o Protecting and restoring water quality-19 commitments to achieve and
           maintain the water quality necessary to support the aquatic living
           resources of the bay and its tributaries and to protect human health;
         o Sound land use-28 commitments to develop, promote, and achieve sound
           land use practices that protect and restore watershed resources and
           water quality, maintain reduced pollutant loadings for the bay and its
           tributaries, and restore and preserve aquatic living resources; and
         o Stewardship and community engagement-23 commitments to promote
           individual stewardship and assist individuals, community-based
           organizations, businesses, local governments and schools to undertake
           initiatives to achieve the goals and commitments of the agreement.

    Over time, the Bay Program has been lauded as a model for
    intergovernmental cooperation and for its extensive studies on the bay and
    its problems. Recently, however, the Bay Program has come under increasing
    scrutiny as some have questioned whether the Bay Program has overstated
    the progress made in restoring the bay's health.

    In this context, you asked us to examine (1) the extent to which the Bay
    Program has established appropriate measures for assessing restoration
    progress, (2) the extent to which the reporting mechanisms the Bay Program
    uses clearly and accurately describe the bay's overall health, (3) how
    much funding was provided for restoring the Chesapeake Bay for fiscal
    years 1995 through 2004 and for what purposes, and (4) how effectively the
    restoration effort is being coordinated and managed.

    To determine the extent to which the Bay Program has established
    appropriate measures for assessing progress and clearly and accurately
    reporting on the bay's health, we obtained and analyzed documents on
    measures the Bay Program uses to assess progress in restoring the bay's
    health, and we reviewed Bay Program reports. In addition, we convened a
    panel of nationally recognized ecosystem assessment and restoration
    experts. The panel discussed (1) critical elements of an effective
    assessment process, (2) how progress in restoring an ecosystem should be
    assessed, and (3) key attributes of effective reports on ecosystem health.
    To determine the amount of funding provided for the restoration effort
    from fiscal years 1995 through 2004, we obtained and analyzed financial
    information from key federal agencies,1 Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
    and the District of Columbia. Key federal agencies were identified as
    those that participated in Chesapeake Bay Program committees or that
    provided more than $250,000 annually, on average, in direct funding. For
    the purposes of this report, we defined direct funds as those that are

    1Key federal agencies include the Department of Agriculture's Farm Service
    Agency, U.S. Forest Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service;
    Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
    Department of Defense's Army, Army Corps of Engineers, and Navy/Marine
    Corps; Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
    Geological Survey, and National Park Service; and EPA.

          Page 3 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    provided exclusively for bay restoration activities (e.g., increasing the
    oyster population) or those that would no longer be made available in the
    absence of the restoration effort. To determine how effectively the
    restoration effort is being coordinated and managed, we obtained and
    analyzed planning documents and agreements from Bay Program partners. In
    addition, to address all of our objectives, we interviewed a wide range of
    program partners, including representatives of federal, state, and local
    agencies; the Chesapeake Bay Commission; interest groups, such as the
    Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay; and
    academia. We also interviewed nonpartner groups, such as the Maryland
    Watermen's Association. In addition, we reviewed associated studies. A
    more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology is
    presented in appendix I. We performed our work between October 2004 and
    October 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
    standards.

    The Bay Program has established a large number of measures to assess

      Results in Brief

    progress for some of the commitments in Chesapeake 2000, but it has not
    yet developed an approach that would allow it to integrate these measures
    and assess overall progress toward achieving the five broad restoration
    goals. Specifically, the Bay Program has developed 46 measures that are
    appropriate to assess progress toward meeting those restoration
    commitments that are quantifiable. For example, the program has
    established measures that are appropriate to assess changes in (1) the
    oyster population to meet its commitment to achieve a tenfold increase in
    native oysters by 2010 and (2) the acreage of bay grasses, which serve as
    habitat for crabs and other species, for its commitment to restore 185,000
    acres of bay grasses by 2010. In addition, the Bay Program has developed
    55 other measures that do not directly assess progress toward meeting
    specific commitments; instead, they provide information to guide
    management decisions. Despite having over 100 measures, the Bay Program
    lacks an integrated approach that would allow it to collectively determine
    what the individual measures mean for the overall health of the bay and
    the achievement of the five broad restoration goals. For example, while
    the Bay Program has measures to track crab, oyster, and rockfish
    populations, it does not have an approach for integrating the results of
    these measures to assess progress toward the overarching goal of
    protecting and restoring the bay's living resources. The Bay Program has
    recognized that it may need an integrated approach for assessing overall
    progress in restoring the bay and, in November 2004, a task force began
    working on this effort.

    The Bay Program's primary reporting mechanism-a report entitled the State
    of the Chesapeake Bay-is neither an effective reporting tool nor does it
    provide credible information on the bay's current health status. These
    reports are not effective because they do not provide an overall
    assessment of the bay's health; instead, they focus on the status of
    individual species and pollutants. Moreover, the reports do not explain
    the relative impact that opposite trends for different species, such as a
    decreasing oyster population and an increasing rockfish population mean
    for the bay's health. Our expert panel agreed that the reports lacked a
    clear, overall picture of the bay's health. These reports are also not
    credible because they commingle the results of management actions and the
    results of a predictive model with monitoring information on the bay's
    health. Because the results of management actions and the predictive model
    tend to be more positive than the results of monitoring data, such an
    approach tends to downplay any lack of improvement in the condition of the
    bay. Our expert panel noted that the Bay Program reports are overly
    oriented to reporting on the progress of the program's management actions
    at the expense of communicating information on the health status of the
    bay. The credibility of the Bay Program's reports is also impaired by the
    lack of an independent review process. The officials who manage and are
    responsible for the restoration effort also analyze, interpret, and report
    the monitoring data to the public. We believe this lack of independence in
    reporting has led to the Bay Program projecting a rosier view of the
    health of the bay than may have been warranted. Our expert panelists
    believe that either establishing an independent review panel to review the
    State of the Chesapeake Bay reports before they are issued or establishing
    an independent group to analyze and report on the bay's health would
    significantly improve the credibility of the Bay Program's reports. The
    Bay Program has recognized that improvements in its current reporting
    approach are needed and is developing new reporting formats that it hopes
    will more clearly describe the bay's current health and the status of the
    restoration effort.

    About $3.7 billion in direct funding was provided for the restoration
    effort (as reported by 11 key federal agencies; the states of Maryland,
    Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the District of Columbia) from fiscal
    years 1995 through 2004. This funding was used for the following purposes:

         o $1.7 billion for water quality protection and restoration activities,
           such as upgrades to wastewater treatment plants and technical
           assistance for the implementation of agricultural best management
           practices;
         o $1.1 billion for sound land use activities, such as land acquisition
           and support for smart growth initiatives;
         o $491 million for vital habitat protection and restoration activities,
           such as wetland restoration and studies for determining the best
           methods for protecting and restoring submerged aquatic vegetation;
         o $233 million for living resource protection and restoration
           activities, such as oyster studies and creating fish passages in areas
           of blockage; and
         o $156 million for stewardship and community engagement activities, such
           as educational programs, publications, and informational forums.

    An additional $1.9 billion in indirect funding-which we define for the
    purposes of this report as funds not provided exclusively for bay
    restoration (e.g., activities that are part of a broader agency effort)
    and that would continue to exist in the absence of the restoration
    effort-was provided for activities that contribute to the restoration
    effort. For example, the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
    Conservation Service provides funding for programs that help farmers
    implement agricultural best management practices. This assistance is part
    of the agency's nationwide efforts and would continue even if the bay
    restoration effort did not exist.

    The Bay Program does not have a comprehensive, coordinated implementation
    strategy, which has impacted its ability to achieve the goals laid out in
    the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. Although the Bay Program has focused its
    efforts on developing plans to implement 10 key commitments, some of these
    plans are inconsistent with each other and are often perceived to be
    unachievable within the 2010 time frame. As a result, Bay Program partners
    have been left without a clear understanding of which work plan should be
    followed or what actions need to be taken. Moreover, the Bay Program is
    limited in its ability to strategically target resources because it has no
    assurance about the level of funds that may be available beyond the short
    term. Nonetheless the program has, in some cases, used its limited
    resources to develop work plans that ultimately could not be implemented
    because funds were not available. More importantly, the plans describe the
    actions that are needed to restore the bay but may not reflect what can be
    realistically accomplished by the program with available resources.

    To improve the Bay Program's ability to assess, report, and manage the
    restoration effort, we are recommending that the Administrator of EPA
    instruct the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to (1) complete its efforts to
    develop and implement an integrated assessment approach; (2) revise its
    reporting approach; and (3) work with Bay Program partners to develop a
    comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy that takes into account
    available resources. In commenting on our report, the signatories to the
    Bay Program generally agreed with our recommendations.

    The Chesapeake Bay is the largest of the nation's estuaries, measuring

      Background

    nearly 200 miles long and 35 miles wide at its widest point and, with its
    tributaries, the bay covers more than 4,500 square miles. However, the bay
    is relatively shallow, averaging only 21 feet deep. Roughly half of the
    bay's water comes from the Atlantic Ocean, and the other half is
    freshwater that drains from the land and enters the bay through its many
    rivers and streams in the watershed basin. The Susquehanna River, which
    flows through Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania, provides about 50
    percent of the freshwater that enters the bay. As shown in figure 1, the
    bay's watershed covers 64,000 square miles and spans parts of six
    states-Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West
    Virginia-and the District of Columbia.

    Figure 1: Chesapeake Bay Watershed

    Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program Office and GAO.

    The Chesapeake Bay is also biologically diverse, providing habitat for a
    wide variety of fish, shellfish, other animals, and plants. Blue crab,
    ducks, herring, oysters, shad, and striped bass are just some of the
    resources that live in or on the bay.

    Over time, the bay's ecosystem has deteriorated. The bay's "dead zones"-
    where too little oxygen is available to support fish and shellfish-have
    increased, and many species of fish and shellfish have experienced major
    declines in population. The deterioration has occurred primarily because
    of excess amounts of nutrients entering the bay, which damage species and
    plant populations; the single largest source of these pollutants is
    agricultural runoff. Overharvesting key species, such as oysters and
    crabs, has also contributed to the deterioration of the ecosystem. In
    addition, population growth and development have further stressed the
    ecosystem. For example, in the past decade, the amount of land in the
    watershed covered by impervious surfaces-surfaces through which water
    cannot flow-increased by about 41 percent, increasing the amount of
    polluted runoff that enters into streams and rivers and eventually runs
    into the bay.2 With a very high land-to-water ratio, the bay is
    particularly sensitive to activities on land. Figure 2 shows some of the
    land activities that contribute to pollution in the bay's ecosystem.

    2For a fuller discussion of the effects of development on ecosystems, see
    GAO,

    Environmental Protection: Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use
    That Protects Air and Water Quality, GAO-02-12 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31,
    2001).

    Page 9 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    Figure 2: Examples of Sources of Pollution in the Bay
    Ecosystem
           Air deposition
                                                                   Precipitation
                    Industrial                                      Agricultural
                    facilities                                         lands
                                                                      Runoff
                                         Tributary feeding the
                                              Chesapeake Bay

    Source: GAO (data), Art Explosion (images).

    The decline in the bay's living resources has been cause for a great deal
    of public and political attention. Efforts to manage the bay's ecosystem
    and protect its living resources began as early as the 1930s and have
    continued through the present. In 1980, Maryland and Virginia, later
    joined by Pennsylvania, established the Chesapeake Bay Commission to serve
    as an advisory body on the Chesapeake Bay to their state legislatures and
    as a liaison to Congress. On December 9, 1983, the Governors of Maryland
    and Virginia; the Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania; the Mayor of the
    District of Columbia; the Administrator of EPA; and the Chair of the
    Chesapeake Bay Commission signed the first Chesapeake Bay agreement. Their
    agreement resulted in the Chesapeake Bay Program, a partnership that
    directs and conducts the restoration of the bay. The signatories to the
    agreement reaffirmed their commitment to restore the bay in 1987 and again
    in 1992. They signed the most current agreement, Chesapeake 2000, on June
    28, 2000.

    Chesapeake 2000 envisions an ecosystem with abundant, diverse populations
    of living resources fed by healthy streams and rivers that sustain strong
    local and regional economies and a unique quality of life. The agreement
    has served as the Bay Program's strategic plan, and it outlines five broad
    goals and 102 commitments for the restoration effort. Appendix II lists
    the goals and commitments outlined in Chesapeake 2000.

    The Bay Program, led by the Chesapeake Executive Council, has many
    partners, including federal agencies, states, academic institutions, and
    others (see app. III for a list of partners). While the Chesapeake Bay
    Program is a voluntary partnership among the states and the federal
    government, some activities of the Chesapeake Bay Program are implemented
    to meet the requirements of federal or state law. For example, the
    responsibility to establish water quality standards is both a commitment
    under the Chesapeake 2000 agreement and a requirement under the federal
    Clean Water Act.

    The Bay Program has seven committees and eight subcommittees, which form
    the organizational and planning structure for the restoration effort. In
    addition, the subcommittees have many work groups that plan and implement
    various aspects of the restoration effort. The organizational structure of
    the Bay Program is shown in figure 3.

                 Figure 3: Chesapeake Bay Program Organizational Chart

                              Chesapeake Executive Council

    Citizens Advisory Principals' Staff Committee Committee

    Local Government Advisory Committee

    Scientific and Technical Federal Agencies

    Committee

    Advisory Committee Implementation Committee Budget Steering Committee

                                     Subcommittees

    Monitoring

    and Analysis Modeling Living Land, Growth, and Communications Nutrient
    Toxics

    Resources Stewardship and Education

    Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Office.

    As the only federal signatory to the Chesapeake Bay agreements, EPA is
    responsible for spearheading the federal effort within the Bay Program
    through its Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Amendments to the Clean Water
    Act direct the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to provide support to the
    Chesapeake Executive Council. Specifically, the Chesapeake Bay Program
    Office is to, among other things,

         o develop and make available information about the environmental quality
           and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
         o in cooperation with appropriate federal, state, and local authorities,
           help the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay agreement develop and
           implement specific plans to carry out their responsibilities; and
         o coordinate EPA's actions with those of other appropriate entities to
           develop strategies to improve the water quality and living resources
           in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

    In addition, the Administrator of EPA, in coordination with other members
    of the Chesapeake Executive Council, must ensure that management plans are
    developed and that the signatories implement the plans to achieve and
    maintain, among other things, (1) the nutrient goals for the quantity of

      The Bay Program's Measures Have Not Been Integrated to Assess Overall
      Restoration Progress

    nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed and
    (2) the water quality requirements necessary to restore living resources
    in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The amendments to the Clean Water Act
    also directed the Administrator of EPA to submit a report to Congress
    every 5 years on the condition of the bay's ecosystem.

    Although the Bay Program has established 101 measures, it has not yet
    developed an integrated approach that would allow it to translate these
    individual measures into an assessment of overall progress toward
    achieving the five broad restoration goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000.
    Instead, the Bay Program's measures either assess progress toward
    achieving the restoration commitments that are quantifiable or provide
    information for making management decisions. The Bay Program has
    recognized that it may need an integrated approach to assess the overall
    progress of the restoration effort and established a task team to
    undertake this effort.

        The Bay Program Has Established 101 Measures for Some of its Commitments

    The Bay Program has established 101 measures, of which 46 are appropriate
    for assessing progress made in achieving 18 of the 21 quantifiable
    commitments contained in Chesapeake 2000.3 The number of measures
    associated with each of these commitments varies; the more complex the
    assessment the more measures the Bay Program has developed and uses to
    assess progress. For example, assessing progress toward the commitment of
    correcting the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the Chesapeake
    Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2010 under the Water Quality Protection
    and Restoration goal is complex, requiring the measurement of several
    pollutants and various aspects of water quality. The Bay Program uses 17
    measures to assess progress for this commitment. In contrast, it is less
    complex to assess the commitment under the Sound Land Use goal to, by
    2010, expand by 30 percent the system of public access points to the bay,
    its tributaries, and related resource sites in an environmentally
    sensitive manner. For this commitment, the Bay Program uses only one
    measure to track the number of new and enhanced public access sites within
    the Chesapeake Bay

    3Of the 102 commitments contained in Chesapeake 2000, 21 are quantifiable,
    and 81 are nonquantifiable. The 21 quantifiable commitments are associated
    with four of the five broad goals. The Stewardship and Community
    Engagement goal has no quantifiable commitments.

    Page 13 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    watershed. According to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, because no
    other restoration effort had developed measures that they could use, the
    program had to develop nearly all of the underlying science and
    methodologies for their measures. In addition, to ensure the
    appropriateness of these measures, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office
    requires a rigorous review of all of the measures before they are adopted.
    For the most part, our expert panel agreed that the Bay Program has
    established appropriate measures to assess specific aspects of the
    restoration effort. Several members of the Bay Program's Scientific and
    Technical Advisory Committee echoed this view.

    The remaining three quantifiable commitments, for which the Bay Program
    has not yet established any measures, include the following:

         o By 2010, establish a goal of implementing plans to preserve key
           wetlands while addressing surrounding land use in 25 percent of the
           land area of each state's bay watershed.
         o By 2010, the District of Columbia, working with its watershed
           partners, will reduce pollution loads to the Anacostia River in order
           to eliminate public health concerns and achieve the living resource,
           water quality, and habitat goals of Chesapeake 2000 and past
           agreements.4
         o By 2003, develop partnerships with at least 30 interpretive sites to
           enhance their presentation of bay-related themes.5

    The Bay Program has also developed 55 other measures to provide
    information it needs to make management decisions. For example, under the
    Water Quality Protection and Restoration goal, the Bay Program has made a
    commitment to assess the effects of airborne nitrogen compounds and
    chemical contaminants in the bay ecosystem and to help establish reduction
    goals for these contaminants. To help inform decision making for this
    commitment, the Bay Program has a measure for estimated vehicle emissions
    compared with vehicle miles traveled. In addition, for the

    4Although the Bay Program has not established measures for this
    commitment, the District of Columbia has developed a number of measures
    for assessing its progress in meeting this commitment.

    5Although the Bay Program has not established measures for this
    commitment, the National Park Service, which has responsibility for this
    commitment, has developed a measure for assessing its progress in meeting
    this commitment.

    Page 14 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

        The Bay Program Lacks an Integrated Approach for Assessing Progress Toward
        Goals

    commitment under the Living Resource Protection and Restoration goal to
    restore fish passage to more than 1,357 miles of river, the Bay Program
    has two measures that provide information about fish population levels.
    The Bay Program also uses three measures-the number of residents in the
    Chesapeake Bay watershed, the relationship between this population and the
    amount of municipal wastewater flow, and the volume of river water flowing
    into the Chesapeake Bay-to track general information about the Chesapeake
    Bay watershed.

    While the Bay Program has established measures to assess progress made in
    meeting some of the individual commitments of Chesapeake 2000, it has not
    developed an approach that can be used to assess progress toward achieving
    the five broad restoration goals. For example, the Bay Program has
    measures for determining

         o trends in individual fish and shellfish populations, such as crabs,
           oysters, and rockfish, but it has not yet devised a way to integrate
           those measures to assess the overall progress made in achieving its
           Living Resource Protection and Restoration goal;
         o the acres of bay grasses in the bay, the acres of wetlands restored,
           and the miles of forest buffers restored, but it has not developed an
           approach for integrating those measures to assess the overall progress
           made in achieving its Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration goal;
           and
         o attributes of water quality-such as levels of dissolved oxygen, water
           clarity, and chlorophyll a6-but has not developed an approach for
           combining these measures to determine progress toward achieving its
           goal of Water Quality Protection and Restoration.

    According to our expert panel, in a complex ecosystem restoration project
    like the Chesapeake Bay, overall progress should be assessed by using an
    integrated approach. This approach should combine measures that provide
    information on individual species or pollutants into a few broader scale
    measures that can be used to assess key ecosystem attributes, such as
    biological conditions. One such framework was developed in 2002 by EPA's

    6Chlorophyll a is a measure of aquatic algae, which provides food for fish
    and other organisms. Too much aquatic algae reduces water clarity and
    depletes oxygen.

    Page 15 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    Science Advisory Board and can serve as a tool to assist Bay Program
    officials in deciding what ecological attributes to measure and how to
    aggregate measurements into an understandable picture of ecological
    integrity.7

    In developing such an approach, the Bay Program also faces the challenge
    of finding a way to incorporate the results achieved in implementing the
    81 nonquantifiable commitments contained in Chesapeake 2000 with the
    results achieved in implementing the 21 quantifiable commitments. For
    example, under the Water Quality Protection and Restoration goal, the Bay
    Program has a nonquantifiable commitment to reduce the potential risk of
    pesticides flowing into the bay by educating watershed residents on best
    management practices for pesticide use. Not only does the Bay Program
    currently have no method for measuring the progress made on this
    commitment, but it also has no approach for integrating these results with
    the results of the other 19 commitments listed under the water quality
    goal. Consequently, the program cannot currently assess the progress made
    in meeting the water quality goal.

    According to an official from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, it is
    difficult to assess progress made in restoring an ecosystem that is as
    scientifically complex as the bay. The official also noted that the
    partners have discussed the need for an integrated approach over the past
    several years but have disagreed on whether the Bay Program could develop
    an approach that is scientifically defensible, given their limited
    resources. Recently, however, the partners are more optimistic that an
    integrated approach can be developed that will provide a clearer sense of
    the overall health of the bay, as well as restoration progress.

    In November 2004, a Bay Program task force began an effort to develop,
    among other things, a framework for organizing the Bay Program's measures
    and proposed a structure for how the redesign work would be accomplished
    by the Bay Program's subcommittees. The Bay Program's Implementation
    Committee adopted this framework in April 2005. In July 2005, the Bay
    Program's Monitoring and Analysis Subcommittee created a work group to
    head this effort. The Bay Program plans to have an initial integrated
    approach developed by January 2006.

    7Environmental Protection Agency, A Framework For Assessing and Reporting
    on Ecological Condition: A Science Advisory Board Report (Washington,
    D.C.: June 2002).

    Page 16 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

      The Bay Program's Reports Do Not Effectively Communicate the Status of the
      Bay's Health

    Mirroring the shortcomings in the program's measures, the Bay Program's
    primary mechanism for reporting on the health status of the bay-the State
    of the Chesapeake Bay report-does not provide an effective or credible
    assessment on the bay's current health status. This is because these
    reports

    (1) focus on individual species and pollutants instead of providing an
    overall assessment of the bay's health, (2) commingle data on the bay's
    health attributes with program actions, and (3) lack an independent review
    process. As a result, when these reports are issued, they do not provide
    information in a manner that would allow the public and stakeholders to
    easily determine how effective program activities have been in improving
    the health of the bay. The Bay Program has recognized that improvements in
    its current reporting approach are needed and is developing new reporting
    formats that it hopes will more clearly describe the bay's current health
    and the status of the restoration effort.

        Bay Program Reports Do Not Effectively Communicate the Current Health Status
        of the Bay

    The State of the Chesapeake Bay report has been issued approximately every
    2 to 4 years since 1984 and is intended to provide the citizens of the bay
    region with a snapshot of the bay's health.8 The Bay Program included the
    2002 report as part of its required report to Congress on the status of
    the bay in 2003.9 However, the State of the Chesapeake Bay report does not
    effectively communicate the current health status of the bay because
    instead of providing information on a core set of ecosystem
    characteristics it focuses on the status of individual species or
    pollutants. For example:

         o The 2002 and 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay reports provided data on
           oysters, crab, rockfish, and bay grasses, but the reports did not
           provide an overall assessment of the current status of living
           resources in the bay or the health of the bay. Instead, these data
           were reported for each species individually, with graphics showing
           current levels as well as trends over time.
         o The 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay report shows a graphic that
           depicts oyster harvest levels at historic lows, with a mostly
           decreasing trend over time, and a rockfish graphic that shows a
           generally increasing

    8In the last 10 years, the Bay Program has issued four State of the
    Chesapeake Bay reports. These reports were issued in 1995, 1999, 2002, and
    2004.

    9The first report to Congress on the condition of the Chesapeake Bay
    ecosystem, required by amendments to the Clean Water Act, was submitted in
    2003.

    Page 17 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

        Bay Program Reports Lack Credibility

    Bay Program Commingles Data on the Bay's Health with Other Data

    population trend over time. However, the report does not provide

    contextual information that states how these measures are interrelated

    or explain what the diverging trends mean about the overall health of

    the bay.

    o  The 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay report shows water clarity and
    algae trends in the bay's major tributaries. These data include some
    varying trends, but the report provides no context for how these trends
    relate to one another or what the data show, collectively, about the
    overall health of the bay.

    According to our expert panel, effective reports on the health of an
    ecosystem should contain information on key ecological attributes- derived
    from a broader set of indicators that portray ecosystem conditions. The
    State of the Chesapeake Bay report, however, does not provide such an
    overall assessment of the bay's health. Instead, our expert panel noted
    that the Bay Program has many fine scale indicators that measure
    individual aspects within the ecosystem, such as the oyster population or
    nutrient concentrations. While the expert panel agreed that the 2004
    report was visually pleasing, they thought that it lacked a clear, overall
    picture of the bay's health. They noted that without an overall assessment
    of the bay's health, the public would probably not be able to easily and
    accurately assess the current condition of the bay from the information
    reported.

    The credibility of the State of the Chesapeake Bay reports has been
    undermined by two key factors. First, the Bay Program has commingled data
    from three sources when reporting on the health of the bay. Specifically,
    the reports mix information on the bay's health status with results from a
    predictive model and the results of specific management actions. The
    latter two results do little to inform readers about the current health
    status of the bay and tend to downplay the bay's actual condition. Second,
    the Bay Program has not established an independent review process to
    ensure the objectivity and accuracy of its reports. According to our
    expert panel, establishing such a process would significantly improve the
    credibility of the Bay Program's reports.

    The Bay Program uses the following three kinds of data when preparing the
    State of the Chesapeake Bay reports:

    o  Monitoring data describe the actual status of individual species or
    pollutants in the bay, such as the number of acres of bay grasses or the
    concentration of nutrients in the tributaries. Generally, these data tend
    to show a more negative picture of bay health. For example, monitoring
    data on the blue crab population show that this population is at risk,
    with below-average levels in all but 2 years since 1991. Similarly, water
    clarity, which is critical to the health of underwater grasses that
    provide important habitat for many bay animals, is degrading in 17 areas
    in the bay and its tributaries, improving in only 1 area, and unchanged in
    22 areas. In addition, while trends in the number of acres of bay grasses
    and dissolved oxygen levels have held relatively constant, the rockfish
    population has generally increased.

         o Data on management actions include information on the extent to which
           the Bay Program has met its management commitments, such as the number
           of wetland acres that have been restored and the miles of forest
           buffers that have been established. Generally, these data tend to be
           more positive. For example, the 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay
           reported that the program is over half way toward meeting its
           commitment to restore 25,000 acres of wetlands by 2010. In addition,
           the miles of forest buffers restored have increased every year since
           1996. These actions are important because they contribute to the bay's
           health in the long term. However, they do not immediately affect the
           bay's health and do not describe its current health condition.
         o Results from the Bay Program's predictive model provide estimates of
           the long-term effect that certain management actions may have in
           reducing nutrient and sediment loads in the bay. The results from the
           predictive model are estimates and also tend to depict a positive
           picture. For example, because the model results indicate that loadings
           of phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment have all been reduced since
           1985, the 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay reported that phosphorus
           loading decreased from approximately 27 million pounds per year to
           less than 20 million pounds per year by 2002. These statements,
           however, are based on estimates from the model and are not based on
           actual monitoring data of phosphorus concentrations in the bay. While
           the modeling results provide important forecast data on future impacts
           of various management actions, these results, like the results of
           management actions, do not describe the actual health conditions of
           the bay.

    Even though only one of these three types of data describe actual health
    conditions in the bay, all three types of data are commingled in the Bay
    Program's State of the Chesapeake Bay reports. For example, in the 2002
    report, the Bay Program reported an increase in the number of river miles
    opened for migratory fish, which is the result of a management action; in
    the same section, it also reported a decrease in the oyster population,
    which is an important factor in determining the bay's health.10 Similarly,
    on a two-page spread in the 2004 report, the Bay Program presented
    monitoring data on five health indicators and information on three
    management indicators; the report also includes model results indicating
    improvements in nitrogen loadings.

    We believe that by commingling the data in this manner, the Bay Program
    not only downplays the deteriorated condition of the bay but also confuses
    the reader by mixing information that is relevant with information that is
    irrelevant to understanding the current condition of the bay. Our expert
    panel agreed that a key attribute that influences the credibility of
    reports on ecosystem health is whether they contain relevant information.
    Our expert panel also noted that the Bay Program reports are overly
    oriented to reporting on the progress of the program's management actions
    at the expense of communicating information on the health status of the
    bay. Similarly, while they agreed that models can provide useful
    information about the impact of management actions on the future state of
    an ecosystem, these results should not be used in a report on actual
    health conditions.

    Several Bay Program partners that we spoke with also noted that the
    reports tend to be unduly positive and have not effectively communicated
    the status of the bay's health. They believe that the reports failed to
    clearly distinguish between information on health and progress made in
    implementing management initiatives. In addition, several partners told us
    that the use of the predictive model to report on the actual health of the
    bay is inappropriate because the model forecasts potential outcomes of
    management actions and does not represent the actual health conditions of
    the bay.

    The Bay Program recognizes that improvements in its current reporting
    approach are needed. The program is also developing new reporting formats
    that it believes will more clearly describe the bay's current health and
    the status of the restoration effort. As part of this effort, the Bay
    Program plans to issue separate reports in January and March 2006, one

    10The Bay Program uses oyster harvest levels to report on the oyster
    population.

    The Bay Program Lacks an Independent Report Review Process

    that would focus on the results of management actions and the other on the
    bay's health status. The Bay Program also believes that their current
    efforts to develop an integrated approach for assessing progress will
    contribute to their efforts to more effectively report on the bay's
    health.

    The credibility of the State of the Chesapeake Bay reports is further
    impaired because the Bay Program does not have an independent review
    process to ensure that its reports are accurate and credible. The
    officials who manage and are responsible for the restoration effort also
    analyze, interpret, and report the data to the public. No process
    currently exists to involve any other organization or group in this
    process. For example, according to a member of the Bay Program's
    Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, this committee, which has
    responsibility for providing scientific and technical advice to the
    Chesapeake Bay Program, is not involved in developing the reports and is
    not part of the review process. Instead, the reports are developed by the
    Communications and Education Subcommittee using data provided by the
    Monitoring and Analysis Subcommittee. The reports are then reviewed by
    representatives from each of the signatory jurisdictions prior to
    publication. We believe this lack of independence in reporting has led to
    the Bay Program projecting a rosier view of the health of the bay than may
    have been warranted. According to representatives of two of the
    signatories to the agreement, the signatories find it advantageous to
    positively report on the bay's health, because positive trends help
    sustain both political and public interest as well as support for the
    effort. Therefore, the Bay Program has an incentive to present the most
    positive picture to the public of the progress that has been made in
    restoring the bay's health. Chesapeake Bay Program officials acknowledged
    that concerns have been expressed that past reports projected a rosier
    view than was warranted. The officials noted that they believe that the
    2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay report is less positive and pointed out
    that the report states that the bay and its watershed are in peril.

    Our expert panelists believe that an independent review panel-to either
    review the bay's health reports before issuance or to analyze and report
    on the health status independently of the Bay Program-would significantly
    improve the credibility of the program's reports. Some program partners we
    interviewed also echoed the need for an independent review panel and
    stated that it would help improve the Bay Program's reports. For example,
    according to one partner, an independent group with no vested interest in
    the outcome of the reports could improve credibility.

      Federal Agencies and States Have Provided Billions of Dollars in Both Direct
      and Indirect Funding for Restoration Activities

    An estimated $3.7 billion in direct funding was provided to restore the
    Chesapeake Bay from fiscal years 1995 through 2004.11 This funding was
    provided for such purposes as water quality protection and restoration,
    sound land use, vital habitat protection and restoration, living resource
    protection and restoration, and stewardship and community engagement. An
    additional $1.9 billion in indirect funding was also provided for
    activities that affect the restoration effort. These activities are
    conducted as part of broader agency efforts and/or would continue without
    the restoration effort.

        Direct Funding for Restoration Activities

    Eleven key federal agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
    Virginia; and the District of Columbia provided almost $3.7 billion in
    direct funding from fiscal years 1995 through 2004 to restore the bay. As
    shown in figure 4, the states typically provided about 75 percent of the
    direct funding for restoration, and the funding has generally increased
    over the 10-year period.

    11For the three states, the fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. For
    the District of Columbia, the fiscal year runs from October 1 to September
    30.

    Page 22 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    Figure 4: Direct Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies, States, and the
    District of Columbia, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004
    Dollars Dollars in millions

    600

    $558.2

    $539.8

    $486.6

    500 $482.3

    400

    $364.7

    $348.1

    300

    $266.7

    $246.3 $215.8

    200

    $148.6

    100

    0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

          Year

    States and the District of Columbia

    Federal agencies Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

    Federal agencies provided a total of approximately $972 million in direct
    funding, while the states and the District of Columbia provided
    approximately $2.7 billion in direct funding for the restoration effort
    over the 10-year period. Of the federal agencies, the Department of
    Defense's

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided the greatest amount of direct
    funding. Of the states, Maryland provided the greatest amount of direct
    funding-more than $1.8 billion-which is over $1.1 billion more than any
    other state. Table 1 shows the amount of direct funding these entities
    provided.

    Table 1: Direct Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies, States, and
    District of Columbia, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004
    Dollars

    Dollars in millions
    Federal agency                                    Amount of direct funding
    Department of Defense
    Army Corps of Engineers                                             $293.5
    Army                                                                  56.1
    Navy/Marines                                                           5.8
    Total-Department of Defense                                         $355.4
    EPA (total)                                                         $253.7
    Department of Agriculture
    Farm Service Agency                                                  167.0
    Natural Resources Conservation Service                                51.5
    U.S. Forest Service                                                   11.9
    Total-Department of Agriculture                                     $230.4
    Department of the Interior
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service                                        45.7
    U.S. Geological Survey                                                24.2
    National Park Service                                                  7.5
    Total-Department of the Interior                                     $77.4
    Department of Commerce
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration                                                       $55.5

                             Total-federal agencies $972.4

    State
    Maryland                                                           1,862.4
    Virginia                                                             752.6
    District of Columbia                                                  41.8
    Pennsylvania                                                          28.1
    Total-all states                                                  $2,684.8
    Grand total                                                       $3,657.2

    Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

    Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

    The percentage of direct funding provided for each of the five goals in
    Chesapeake 2000 varies. The largest percentage of direct funding-
    approximately 47 percent-went to water quality protection and

    Page 24 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

        Indirect Funding for Activities That Affect the Restoration Effort

    restoration. The smallest percentage of direct funding-about 4 percent-
    was provided for stewardship and community engagement. Figure 5 shows the
    percentage of direct funding provided for each of the goals.

    Figure 5: Percentage of the Total Direct Funding Provided for Addressing
    Each of the Five Chesapeake 2000 Goals, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004

    4%

    Stewardship and community engagement ($156 million)

    Living resource protection and restoration ($233 million)

    Vital habitat protection and restoration ($491 million)

    Sound land use ($1.1 billion)

    Water quality protection and restoration ($1.7 billion)

    Source: GAO analysis of agency data, in constant 2004 dollars.

    Note: Examples of water quality protection and restoration activities
    include upgrades to wastewater treatment plants and technical assistance
    for the implementation of agricultural best management practices. Examples
    of sound land use activities include land acquisition and support for
    smart growth initiatives. Examples of vital habitat protection and
    restoration activities include wetland restoration and studies for
    determining the best methods for protecting and restoring submerged
    aquatic vegetation. Examples of living resource protection and restoration
    activities include oyster studies and creating fish passages in areas of
    blockage. Examples of stewardship and community engagement activities
    include educational programs, publications, and informational forums.

    Ten of the key federal agencies, Pennsylvania, and the District of
    Columbia provided about $1.9 billion in additional funding from fiscal
    years 1995 through 2004 for activities that have an indirect impact on bay
    restoration. These activities are conducted as part of broader agency
    efforts and/or would continue without the restoration effort. For example,
    the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service

    Page 25 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    provides funding for programs that assist farmers in implementing
    agricultural best management practices. This assistance is part of the
    agency's nationwide efforts and would continue even if the bay restoration
    effort did not exist. Similarly, the majority of Pennsylvania's funding is
    included in the total for indirect funding because, while the state's
    restoration efforts are important for restoring the bay, such as reducing
    agricultural runoff, bay restoration is not the primary purpose of the
    funding.

    As with direct funding, indirect funding for the restoration effort has
    also generally increased over fiscal years 1995 through 2004. As shown in
    figure 6, federal agencies typically provided about half of the indirect
    funding for the restoration effort.

    Figure 6: Indirect Funding Provided by Federal Agencies, States, and the
    District of Columbia, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004
    Dollars

           1995  1996    1997   1998   1999   2000  2001  2002  2003  2004
           Year
                States and the District of Columbia
                Federal agencies

    Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

    Federal agencies provided approximately $935 million in indirect funding,
    while Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia provided approximately
    $991 million in indirect funding for the restoration effort over the
    10-year period. Of the federal agencies, the Department of Agriculture
    provided the greatest amount of indirect funding, primarily through the
    Natural Resources Conservation Service. Of the states, Pennsylvania
    provided the greatest amount of indirect funding. Table 2 shows the amount
    of indirect funding these entities provided.

    Table 2: Indirect Funding Provided for the Chesapeake Bay Restoration
    Effort, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars

    Dollars in millions Federal agency Amount of indirect funding Department
    of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service $306.1 Farm Service
    Agency 136.5 U.S. Forest Service 54.0 Total-Department of Agriculture
    $496.5 EPA (total) $181.4 Department of Commerce National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration $114.0 Department of Defense Navy/Marines 69.9
    Army 17.3 Army Corps of Engineers 0 Total-Department of Defense $87.2
    Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 51.8 National
    Park Service 2.2 U.S. Geological Survey 1.7 Total-Department of the
    Interior $55.7 Total-federal agencies $934.9
    State Pennsylvania 863.8 District of Columbia 127.2 Maryland 0 Virginia 0
    Total-all states $991.0 Page 27 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    (Continued From Previous Page)
    Dollars in millions
    Federal agency Amount of indirect funding
    Grand total $1,925.9

    Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

    Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

    The percentage of indirect funding provided for each of the five goals in
    Chesapeake 2000 varies. The largest percentage of indirect funding-
    approximately 44 percent-went to water quality protection and restoration.
    The smallest percentage of indirect funding-approximately 4 percent-went
    to living resource protection and restoration. Figure 7 shows the
    percentage of indirect funding that was provided for each of the five
    goals.

    Figure 7: Percentage of the Total Indirect Funding Provided for Addressing
    Each of the Five Chesapeake 2000 Goals, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004

    4%

    Living resource protection and restoration ($72 million)

    Stewardship and community engagement ($102 million)

    Vital habitat protection and restoration ($209 million)

    Sound land use ($702 million)

    Water quality protection and restoration ($841 million)

    Source: GAO analysis of agency data, in constant 2004 dollars.

    Appendix V contains additional details on funds obligated for the
    restoration of the Chesapeake Bay from fiscal years 1995 through 2004.

    Although almost $3.7 billion in direct funding and more than $1.9 billion
    in indirect funding has been provided for activities to restore the
    Chesapeake Bay, estimates for the amount of funding needed to restore the
    bay far surpass these figures. A January 2003 Chesapeake Bay Commission
    report estimated that the restoration effort faced a funding gap of nearly
    $13 billion to achieve the goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000 by 2010. In
    addition, the report found that the Water Quality Protection and
    Restoration goal faced the largest funding gap. Subsequently, in an
    October 2004 report to the Chesapeake Executive Council, the Chesapeake
    Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel estimated that the restoration
    effort is grossly underfunded.12 The finance panel found that the lack of
    adequate funding and implementation has left the bay effort far short of
    its goals and recommended that a regional financing authority be created
    with an initial capitalization of $15 billion of which $12 billion would
    come from the federal government.

    In addition to the funding provided for the restoration of the bay, EPA
    provided more than $1 billion to Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania
    through its Clean Water State Revolving Fund program during fiscal years
    1995 through 2004. The states use this funding, along with a required 20
    percent match, to capitalize their state revolving funds. The funds
    provide low-cost loans or other financial assistance for a wide range of
    water quality infrastructure projects and other activities, such as
    implementing agricultural best management practices and urban storm water
    management. The District of Columbia, which is exempted from establishing
    a loan program, received more than $58 million from the program as grants
    for water quality projects during the same time period. Some of the
    projects funded may contribute to the bay's restoration. For example, a
    $100 million loan was made to Arlington County, Virginia, in 2004 for
    upgrading a wastewater treatment facility to enhance nutrient removal.

    12The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel was established
    to identify funding sources sufficient to implement basinwide cleanup
    plans so that the bay and tidal tributaries would be restored sufficiently
    by 2010 to remove them from the list of impaired waters under the Clean
    Water Act. The panel was composed of 15 leaders from the private sector,
    government, and environmental community.

    Page 29 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

      The Bay Program Has Not Always Effectively Coordinated and Managed the
      Restoration Effort

    Although Chesapeake 2000 provides the overall vision and strategic goals
    for the restoration effort along with short- and long-term commitments,
    the Bay Program lacks a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy
    that will enable it to achieve the goals laid out in the agreement.
    Although the Bay Program has adopted 10 keystone commitments to focus the
    partners' efforts and developed several planning documents, these plans
    are sometimes inconsistent with each other. Furthermore, the Bay Program
    is limited in its ability to strategically target resources because it has
    no assurance about the level of funds that may be available beyond the
    short term. According to Bay Program officials, they recognize that
    inconsistent strategies have been developed and are currently determining
    how to reconcile these various strategies.

        The Bay Program Lacks a Coordinated Implementation Strategy

    Chesapeake 2000 and prior agreements have provided the overall direction
    for the restoration effort over the past two decades. However, the Bay
    Program generally lacks a comprehensive, coordinated implementation
    strategy that could provide a road map for accomplishing the goals
    outlined in the agreement. Several Bay Program partners we interviewed
    expressed frustration because the Bay Program has not developed a clear,
    realistic plan for how it will meet the restoration goals. For example, a
    signatory to the Chesapeake Bay agreements noted that while Chesapeake
    2000 contains the correct goals and appropriately identifies actions
    needed to restore the bay, the Bay Program does not have a plan in place
    that will allow the program to meet these goals. Similarly, a federal
    partner in the effort expressed frustration with the Chesapeake Executive
    Council for not convening a meeting of partners after the agreement was
    signed to decide how to proceed with the restoration effort and for not
    having a clear, overall plan for achieving program goals. According to one
    state partner, there is no clear strategy for how the restoration goals
    should be achieved, and such a strategy is needed to help ensure better
    progress toward achieving the Chesapeake 2000 commitments.

    Recognizing that it could not effectively manage all 102 commitments
    outlined in Chesapeake 2000, in 2003, the Bay Program adopted 10 keystone
    commitments as a management strategy to focus the partners' efforts. The
    program believes that these commitments, if accomplished, will provide the
    greatest benefit to the bay. These commitments include the following:

         o By 2010, achieve, at a minimum, a tenfold increase in native oysters
           in the Chesapeake Bay, based upon a 1994 baseline.
         o By 2007, revise and implement existing fisheries management plans to
           incorporate ecological, social, and economic considerations;
           multispecies fisheries management; and ecosystem approaches.
         o By 2002, implement a strategy to accelerate protection and restoration
           of submerged aquatic vegetation beds in areas of critical importance
           to the bay's living resources.
         o By 2010, work with local governments, community groups, and watershed
           organizations to develop and implement locally supported watershed
           management plans in two-thirds of the bay watershed covered by the
           agreement. These plans would address the protection, conservation, and
           restoration of stream corridors, riparian forest buffers, and wetlands
           for the purposes of improving habitat and water quality, with
           collateral benefits for optimizing stream flow and water supply.
         o By 2010, achieve a net resource gain by restoring 25,000 acres of
           tidal and nontidal wetlands.
         o Conserve existing forests along all streams and shorelines.
         o By 2010, correct the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the
           Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries sufficiently to remove the
           bay and the tidal portions of its tributaries from the list of
           impaired waters under the Clean Water Act.
         o Strengthen programs for land acquisition and preservation within each
           state that are supported by funding and target the most valued lands
           for protection. Permanently preserve from development 20 percent of
           the land area in the watershed by 2010.
         o By 2012, reduce the rate of harmful sprawl development of forest and
           agricultural land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 30 percent
           measured as an average over 5 years from the baseline of 1992-97, with
           measures and progress reported regularly to the Chesapeake Executive
           Council.
         o Beginning with the class of 2005, provide a meaningful bay or stream
           outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before
           graduation from high school.

    To achieve the 10 keystone commitments, the Bay Program has developed
    numerous planning documents, such as subcommittee and work group plans,
    state tributary strategies, and species-specific management plans. These
    planning documents, however, are not always consistent with each other.
    For example, a work group of the Bay Program's Living Resources
    Subcommittee developed a strategy for restoring 25,000 acres of wetlands
    by 2010-a commitment under the Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration
    goal. This plan, developed in 2000, describes a strategy of restoring
    2,500 acres per year through 2010. Subsequently, each state within the bay
    watershed and the District of Columbia developed a tributary strategy that
    describes the actions needed to achieve and maintain nitrogen and
    phosphorus load reductions necessary to remove the bay and its tributaries
    from the impaired waters list by 2010-a commitment under the Water Quality
    Protection and Restoration goal. In these strategies, the states describe
    actions for restoring over 200,000 acres of wetlands-far exceeding the
    25,000 acres that the Bay Program has developed strategies for
    restoring.13 Similarly, a work group of the Nutrient Subcommittee
    developed a plan in 2004 to restore at least 10,000 miles of forest
    buffers by 2010-a commitment under the Vital Habitat Protection and
    Restoration goal. However, the tributary strategies developed by
    Pennsylvania and Virginia describe actions to restore a total of about
    45,000 miles of forest buffers by 2010-more than four times the amount
    called for in the Bay Program's plan.

    While we recognize the partners have the freedom to develop higher targets
    than established by the Bay Program, having such varying targets causes
    confusion, not only for the partners, but other stakeholders regarding
    what actions are actually needed to restore the bay. Moreover, such an
    approach appears to contradict the underlying principles of the
    partnership that was formed because the partners recognized that a
    cooperative approach was needed. According to the Chesapeake Bay Program
    Office, the program recognizes that inconsistent strategies have been
    developed and is now determining how to reconcile these various
    strategies. The officials also noted that some strategies, like the
    tributary strategies, have only recently

    13The restoration of over 200,000 acres of wetlands includes actions to be
    taken by New York and Delaware.

    Page 32 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

        The Bay Program Is Limited in Its Ability to Strategically Target
        Resources

    been developed and the partners did not realize, until these strategies
    were developed, the extent of the additional work that would be required
    to meet the water quality commitments in Chesapeake 2000.

    Since 2000, Bay Program partners have devoted a significant amount of
    their limited resources to developing strategies for achieving the
    commitments outlined in Chesapeake 2000. However, as various partners have
    acknowledged, several of these strategies are either not being used by the
    Bay Program or are believed to be unachievable within the 2010 time frame.

    According to a Bay Program official, some work groups have invested
    significant resources in developing detailed plans for accomplishing
    specific commitments, but after the plans were developed, the program
    realized it had no resources available to implement the plans. For
    example, the Toxics Subcommittee invested significant resources to develop
    a detailed toxics work plan for achieving the toxics commitments in
    Chesapeake 2000. Even though the Bay Program has not been able to
    implement this work plan as planned because personnel and funding have not
    been available, program officials told us that the plan is currently being
    revised. It is unclear to us why the program is investing additional
    resources to revise this plan when the necessary resources are not
    available to implement it, and it is not one of the keystone commitments.
    According to the Chair of the Toxics Subcommittee, the work groups are
    generally responsible for developing strategies for achieving the
    commitments in Chesapeake 2000 without knowing what level of resources
    will be available to implement the strategies. Strategies are often
    developed in this way because, according to a Bay Program official, while
    they know how much each partner has agreed to provide for the upcoming
    year, they do not know how much funding partners will provide in the
    future. This funding challenge was recognized by the Chesapeake Bay
    Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel, which reported that no summary cost
    of all needed restoration activities is available. The panel also noted
    that the lack of adequate funding and implementation has left the Bay
    Program far short of its goals. Without knowing what funding will be
    available to accomplish restoration activities, the Bay Program is limited
    in its ability to target and direct funding toward those restoration
    activities that will be the most cost effective and beneficial.

    The Bay Program has also spent a significant amount of resources
    developing strategies that some partners believe are unachievable. For
    example, the Bay Program has developed an oyster management plan for its
    commitment to achieve, by 2010, a tenfold increase in oysters, based upon
    a 1994 baseline. Maryland and Virginia have also developed state-specific
    plans for implementing the strategies laid out in the oyster management
    plans. Although the Bay Program has developed these detailed strategies
    and implementation plans, it also states in the oyster management plan
    that it will be unlikely to achieve the commitment because of low
    abundance, degraded habitat, and disease. Several partners also told us
    that they believe that the oyster commitment will be impossible to
    achieve. Similarly, states have spent years developing tributary
    strategies, but several Bay Program partners have told us that these
    strategies are not feasible, particularly given current funding levels and
    time frames. A member of the implementation committee told us that, even
    if the necessary funding was provided, the Bay Program does not have the
    personnel or equipment needed to implement all of the strategies that have
    been developed. Furthermore, it is not possible to meet the commitment of
    removing the bay and its tributaries from the impaired waters list by
    2010. According to several partners we spoke with, while point source
    reductions called for in these strategies are achievable, nonpoint
    sourcereductions are not.14 In addition, several partners told us that
    other goals are also unachievable. For example, several local government
    representatives told us that, overall, the Bay Program's goals are
    unachievable. They believe that the lack of a realistic plan that is based
    on available resources has discouraged partners and stalled the
    restoration effort.

    The Chesapeake Bay Program Office recognizes that some of the plans that
    have been developed are unachievable but stated that the plans were
    developed to identify what actions will be needed to achieve the
    commitments of Chesapeake 2000. The office also recognizes that there is a
    fundamental gap between what needs to be done to achieve some of the
    commitments and what can be achieved with the current resources available.
    Chesapeake Bay Program Office officials noted that the development of an
    overall implementation plan that takes into account available resources
    had been discussed, but that no agreement could be reached among the
    partners.

    14Point sources of pollution are discrete conveyances, such as pipes and
    drains from wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities from
    which pollutants are discharged. Nonpoint sources of pollution are sources
    of pollution that are not from a specific source, for example,
    agricultural runoff.

    Page 34 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    Restoring the Chesapeake Bay is a massive, complex, and difficult

      Conclusions

    undertaking. The ultimate success of the restoration hinges on several
    factors, of which a well-coordinated and managed implementation approach
    is key. To its credit, the Bay Program has made significant strides in
    developing over 100 different measures of progress, publishing dozens of
    reports on the state of the bay, and creating several documents that lay
    out strategies for fulfilling commitments outlined in Chesapeake 2000 that
    are intended to move the Bay Program closer to meeting the overall
    restoration goals. However, despite the extensive efforts that have gone
    into managing the restoration program, the lack of (1) integrated
    approaches to measure overall progress, (2) independent and credible
    reporting mechanisms, and

    (3) coordinated implementation strategies is undermining the success of
    the restoration effort and potentially eroding public confidence and
    continued support. We believe that the combined impact of these
    deficiencies has already resulted in a situation in which the Bay Program
    cannot effectively present a clear and credible picture of what the
    restoration effort has achieved, what strategies will best further
    Chesapeake 2000's restoration goals, and how limited resources should be
    channeled to develop and implement the most effective strategies.

    With over two decades of restoration experience to rely on, we believe
    that the Bay Program is well positioned to seriously reevaluate how it
    measures and reports on both restoration progress and the actual health
    status of the bay. Given the billions of dollars that have already been
    invested in this project and the billions more that are almost certainly
    needed, stakeholders and the public should have ready access to reliable
    information that presents an accurate assessment of restoration progress
    and the actual health status of the bay. Moreover, the long-term
    partnership is uniquely positioned to undertake a hard look at what
    strategies have been the most cost effective and beneficial to the
    restoration effort and use this information not only to inform their
    future actions but also to ensure that they are not developing strategies
    that will be at cross-purposes or develop unrealistic implementation plans
    that do not reflect available resources.

      Recommendations for Executive Action

    To improve the methods used by the Bay Program to assess progress made on
    the restoration effort, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA
    instruct the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to complete its plans to
    develop and implement an integrated approach to assess overall restoration
    progress. In doing so, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office should ensure
    that this integrated approach clearly ties to the five broad restoration
    goals identified in Chesapeake 2000.

    To improve the effectiveness and credibility of the Bay Program's reports
    on the health of the bay, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA
    instruct the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to take the following three
    actions to revise its reporting approach:

         o include an assessment of the key ecological attributes that reflect
           the bay's current health conditions,
         o report separately on the health of the bay and on the progress made in
           implementing management actions, and
              * establish an independent and objective reporting process.
              * To ensure that the Bay Program is managed and coordinated
                effectively, we also recommend that the Administrator of EPA
                instruct the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to work with Bay
                Program partners to take the following two actions:
         o develop an overall, coordinated implementation strategy that unifies
           the program's various planning documents, and
         o establish a means to better target its limited resources to ensure
           that the most effective and realistic work plans are developed and
           implemented.

      Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    We provided a draft of this report to the signatories of the Chesapeake
    2000 agreement-the Administrator of EPA; the Governors of Maryland,
    Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the Mayor of the District of Columbia; and the
    Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission-for their review and
    comment. EPA, Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the
    Chesapeake Bay Commission generally concurred with the report's findings
    and recommendations. Although Pennsylvania did not specifically comment on
    the report's findings and recommendations, it noted-as did other
    commenters-that the Bay Program is undertaking actions to address the
    issues discussed in our report. We are encouraged that the signatories
    generally agree with our recommendations. Without such actions, we believe
    that the program will be unable to change the status quo and move forward
    in a more strategic and well-coordinated manner.

    In their written comments, all of the signatories also emphasized the
    importance of the tributary strategies developed by the states to the
    restoration effort. Virginia stated that these strategies will serve as
    the basis of the comprehensive implementation plan that we recommended,
    but noted that any regional implementation plan developed must provide
    states with the flexibility to operate within their own cultural, legal,
    and political environments. Maryland echoed this concern, stating that
    while a comprehensive, coordinated strategy is important, each
    jurisdiction must maintain the ability to implement strategies that it
    believes will be most successful in achieving the collective goal of
    reducing nutrient and sediment inputs into the Chesapeake Bay. We
    recognize the importance of the tributary strategies and agree that states
    need flexibility in implementing these strategies. However, we continue to
    believe that it is important to develop an overall, coordinated
    implementation strategy for the Bay Program that unifies the various
    planning documents developed. In its comments, EPA stated that the
    tributary strategies have been developed to guide the restoration effort
    to eventual success and indicated that the Bay Program is now aligning its
    management plans to take better advantage of available resources for the
    restoration effort. EPA also provided technical comments and
    clarifications that we incorporated, as appropriate. The signatories'
    written comments are presented in appendixes VI through XI.

    As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
    this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
    the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate
    congressional committees; the Administrator of EPA; the Governors of
    Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the Mayor of the District of
    Columbia; the Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission; and the
    Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We also will make copies
    available to others on request. In addition, the report will be available
    at no charge on the GAO Web site at h ttp://www.gao.gov.

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
    me at (202) 512-3841 or m ittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices
    of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
    page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report
    are listed in appendix XII.

    Anu K. Mittal

    Director, Natural Resources and Environment

    Appendix I

                           Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    We were asked to address several issues concerning the Chesapeake Bay
    Program's (Bay Program) restoration effort. Specifically, we were asked to
    determine (1) the extent to which the Bay Program has established
    appropriate measures for assessing restoration progress, (2) the extent to
    which the reporting mechanisms the Bay Program uses clearly and accurately
    describe the bay's overall health, (3) how much funding was provided for
    restoring the Chesapeake Bay for fiscal years 1995 through 2004 and for
    what purposes, and (4) how effectively the restoration effort is being
    coordinated and managed.

    To determine the extent to which the Bay Program has established
    appropriate measures for assessing restoration progress, we obtained
    documentation on the measures being used by the Bay Program to assess
    progress and their linkages to commitments in Chesapeake 2000. We analyzed
    these measures to determine which measures provide information about
    progress in achieving quantifiable commitments and which provide
    information needed to make management decisions. We also analyzed the
    measures to determine their appropriateness for measuring progress toward
    the quantifiable commitments.

    To determine the extent to which the reporting mechanisms the Bay Program
    uses clearly and accurately describe the bay's overall health, we obtained
    a variety of reports issued by the Bay Program, including all of the State
    of the Chesapeake Bay reports. We analyzed these reports to identify the
    types of information included in the reports, the consistency of the
    information provided over time, and the format and presentation of the
    reports. We did not assess the reliability of the data provided in the
    reports.

    To identify the critical elements of effective assessment and reporting
    processes, pros and cons of different assessment and reporting processes,
    and alternative methods of measuring and reporting progress that may be
    applicable to the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, we assembled a panel
    of recognized experts on the following environmental restoration topics:
    indicator development, modeling, methods for reporting restoration
    progress, watershed restoration, and ecosystem restoration. To identify
    experts on these topics, we used the "snowball" technique. We identified
    experts through a literature search and Internet search. As we contacted
    experts, we verified their independence from the Chesapeake Bay Program
    and asked for additional contacts of experts. We selected 60 environmental
    restoration experts as potential panelists. From these 60 experts, we
    chose the final eight panelists on the basis of the following criteria:
    (1) recommendations we received from others knowledgeable in the field of
    environmental restoration; (2) the individual's area of expertise and
    experience; (3) the type of organization represented, including academic
    institutions, government, and private industry; and (4) geographic
    representation. (The names and affiliations of the panel members are
    listed in app. IV). On May 17, 2005, we held an all-day meeting with the
    eight panelists at our office in Washington, D.C. Before the meeting, we
    provided each panel member with a set of eight general discussion
    questions. At the end of each discussion, we asked the panelists to
    respond, using an anonymous ballot, to a set of questions that were based
    on the general discussion topics. We recorded and transcribed the meeting
    to ensure that we accurately captured the panel members' statements.

    To obtain information on the funding provided for the restoration effort,
    we developed a data collection instrument that we distributed to key
    federal agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and
    the District of Columbia. Key federal agencies were identified as those
    that participated in high-level Chesapeake Bay Program committees or that
    provided more than $250,000 annually, on average, in direct funding. For
    the purposes of this report, we defined direct funds as those that were
    provided exclusively for bay restoration (e.g., increasing the oyster
    population) or those that would no longer be made available in the absence
    of the restoration effort. To make the comparison more meaningful, we
    present funding data in constant 2004 dollars. Unless otherwise noted, all
    figures are obligation amounts and include administrative costs. We
    reviewed the data from the federal agencies and states for consistency and
    reliability and, when possible, compared the data with data from other
    sources, such as data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. After reviewing the data and
    comparing it with other sources, we sent the data back to the federal
    agencies and states for verification and updates as needed. In addition,
    we asked for explanations of any inconsistencies that we identified. After
    receiving the verified/updated data, we once again reviewed the data for
    consistency and reliability. Finally, we contacted the agencies and states
    with any outstanding questions concerning the data and conducted
    additional data reliability checks.

    To determine how effectively the restoration effort is being coordinated
    and managed, we obtained documentation on the organizational structure of
    the program, the roles and responsibilities of the committees and
    subcommittees, and planning documents developed to address the
    commitments. We analyzed the planning documents for consistency and
    thoroughness. In addition, we obtained information on the status of
    keystone and other commitments.

    To obtain EPA's insights on all four objectives, we met with officials
    from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to discuss its monitoring and
    assessment, reporting, funding, and coordination and management
    responsibilities. Through these discussions, we obtained an array of
    documents and perspectives related to all four objectives. To obtain
    insights from the other signatories of the Chesapeake Bay agreements, we
    met with officials from the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the District of
    Columbia, and the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Through
    these efforts, we obtained documents and information related to all four
    objectives.

    To obtain insights from other federal partners to the Bay Program, we met
    with officials from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and
    the Interior. To obtain insights from academic partners to the Bay
    Program, we met with officials from the Chesapeake Research Consortium,
    College of William and Mary's Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
    Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, and University of Maryland's
    Center for Environmental Science. To obtain insights from other Bay
    Program partners, we met with the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay,
    Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Metropolitan Washington Council of
    Governments. We also met with officials from nonpartner organizations,
    such as the Maryland Watermen's Association and the Northeast-Midwest
    Institute.

    We conducted our review from October 2004 through October 2005 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Appendix II

                        Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000

    Chesapeake 2000 contains five broad goals and 102 commitments that the
    partners have agreed to accomplish. These goals and commitments are listed
    below.

    Living Resource Protection Restore, enhance and protect the finfish,
    shellfish and other living resources, their habitats and ecological
    relationships to sustain all fisheries

      and Restoration Goal

                         and provide for a balanced ecosystem.

    Oysters By 2010, achieve, at a minimum, a tenfold increase in native
    oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, based upon a 1994 baseline.

    By 2002, develop and implement a strategy to achieve this increase by
    using sanctuaries sufficient in size and distribution, aquaculture,
    continued disease research and disease-resistant management strategies,
    and other management approaches.

    Exotic Species In 2000, establish a Chesapeake Bay Program Task Force to

    work cooperatively with the U.S. Coast Guard, the ports, the shipping

    industry, environmental interests, and others at the national level to

    help establish and implement a national program designed to

    substantially reduce and, where possible, eliminate the introduction of

    non-native species carried in ballast water; and

    by 2002, develop and implement an interim voluntary ballast water

    management program for the waters of the bay and its tributaries.

    By 2001, identify and rank non-native, invasive aquatic and terrestrial
    species, which are causing or have the potential to cause significant
    negative impacts to the bay's aquatic ecosystem.

    By 2003, develop and implement management plans for those species deemed
    problematic to the restoration and integrity of the bay's ecosystem.

    Fish Passage and Migratory and By June 2002, identify the final
    initiatives necessary to achieve our existing

    Resident Fish goal of restoring fish passage for migratory fish to more
    than 1,357 miles of

    currently blocked river habitat by 2003 and establish a monitoring program

    to assess outcomes.

    Multispecies Management

    Crabs

    By 2002, set a new goal with implementation schedules for additional
    migratory and resident fish passages that addresses the removal of
    physical blockages. In addition, the goal will address the removal of
    chemical blockages caused by acid mine drainage. Projects should be
    selected for maximum habitat and stock benefit.

    By 2002, assess trends in populations for priority migratory fish species.
    Determine tributary-specific target population sizes based upon projected
    fish passage, and current and projected habitat available, and provide
    recommendations to achieve those targets.

    By 2003, revise fish management plans to include strategies to achieve
    target population sizes of tributary-specific migratory fish.

    By 2004, assess the effects of different population levels of filter
    feeders such as menhaden, oysters, and clams on bay water quality and
    habitat.

    By 2005, develop ecosystem-based multispecies management plans for
    targeted species.

    By 2007, revise and implement existing fisheries management plans to
    incorporate ecological, social, and economic considerations, multispecies
    fisheries management and ecosystem approaches.

    By 2001, establish harvest targets for the blue crab fishery and begin
    implementing complementary state fisheries management strategies baywide.
    Manage the blue crab fishery to restore a healthy spawning biomass, size,
    and age structure.

    Vital Habitat Protection Preserve, protect, and restore those habitats and
    natural areas that are vital to the survival and diversity of the living
    resources of the bay and its rivers.

      and Restoration Goal

    Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Recommit to the existing goal of protecting
    and restoring 114,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).1

    1In 2003, this commitment was expanded to protect and restore 185,000
    acres by 2010.

    By 2002, revise SAV restoration goals and strategies to reflect historic
    abundance, measured as acreage and density from the 1930s to the present.
    The revised goals will include specific levels of water clarity that are
    to be met in 2010. Strategies to achieve these goals will address water
    clarity, water quality, and bottom disturbance.

    By 2002, implement a strategy to accelerate protection and restoration of
    SAV beds in areas of critical importance to the bay's living resources.

    Watersheds By 2010, work with local governments, community groups, and
    watershed organizations to develop and implement locally supported
    watershed management plans in two-thirds of the bay watershed covered by
    the agreement. These plans would address the protection, conservation, and
    restoration of stream corridors, riparian forest buffers, and wetlands for
    the purposes of improving habitat and water quality, with collateral
    benefits for optimizing stream flow and water supply.

    By 2001, each jurisdiction will develop guidelines to ensure the aquatic
    health of stream corridors. Guidelines should consider optimal surface and
    groundwater flows.

    By 2002, each jurisdiction will work with local governments and
    communities that have watershed management plans to select pilot projects
    that promote stream corridor protection and restoration.

    By 2003, include the State of the Bay report, and make available to the
    public, local governments, and others, information concerning the aquatic
    health of stream corridors based on adopted regional guidelines.

    By 2004, each jurisdiction, working with local governments, community
    groups, and watershed organizations, will develop stream corridor
    restoration goals based on local watershed management planning.

    Wetlands Achieve a no-net loss of existing wetlands acreage and function
    in the signatories' regulatory programs.

    By 2010, achieve a net resource gain by restoring 25,000 acres of tidal
    and nontidal wetlands.

    To do this, the signatories to the agreement commit to achieve and
    maintain an average restoration rate of 2,500 acres per year basin wide by
    2005 and beyond. They will evaluate their success in 2005.

    Provide information and assistance to local governments and community
    groups for the development and implementation of wetlands preservation
    plans as a component of a locally based integrated watershed management
    plan.

    Establish a goal of implementing the wetlands plan component in 25 percent
    of the land area of each state's bay watershed by 2010. The plans would
    preserve key wetlands while addressing surrounding land use so as to
    preserve wetland functions.

    Evaluate the potential impact of climate change on the Chesapeake Bay
    watershed, particularly with respect to its wetlands, and consider
    potential management options.

    Forests By 2002, ensure that measures are in place to meet the riparian
    forest buffer restoration goal of 2,010 miles by 2010.2

    By 2003, establish a new goal to expand buffer mileage.

    Conserve existing forests along all streams and shorelines.

    Promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests through
    conservation easements, greenways, purchase, and other land conservation
    mechanisms.

    Water Quality Protection Achieve and maintain the water quality necessary
    to support the aquatic living resources of the bay and its tributaries and
    to protect human health.

      and Restoration Goal

    Nutrients and Sediments Continue efforts to achieve and maintain the 40
    percent nutrient reduction goal agreed to in 1987, as well as the goals
    being adopted for the tributaries south of the Potomac River.3

    By 2010, correct the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the
    Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries sufficiently to remove the bay
    and

    2According to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, this commitment was
    superseded by commitment number 34.

    3In 2003, this commitment was expanded to restore at least 10,000 miles.

    Page 45 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

                                 Chemical Contaminants

    the tidal portions of its tributaries from the list of impaired waters
    under the Clean Water Act. In order to achieve this:

    By 2001, define the water quality conditions necessary to protect

    aquatic living resources and then assign load reductions for nitrogen

    and phosphorus to each major tributary;

    Using a process parallel to that established for nutrients, determine the
    sediment load reductions necessary to achieve the water quality conditions
    that protect aquatic living resources, and assign load reductions for
    sediment to each major tributary by 2001;

    By 2002, complete a public process to develop and begin implementation of
    revised Tributary Strategies to achieve and maintain the assigned loading
    goals;

    By 2003, the jurisdictions with tidal waters will use their best efforts
    to adopt new or revised water quality standards consistent with the
    defined water quality conditions. Once adopted by the jurisdictions, EPA
    will work expeditiously to review the new or revised standards, which will
    then be used as the basis for removing the bay and its tidal rivers from
    the list of impaired waters; and

    By 2003, work with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and others to
    adopt and begin implementing strategies that prevent the loss of the
    sediment retention capabilities of the lower Susquehanna River dams.

    The signatories commit to fulfilling the 1994 goal of a Chesapeake Bay
    free of toxics by reducing or eliminating the input of chemical
    contaminants from all controllable sources to levels that result in no
    toxic or bioaccumulative impact on the living resources that inhabit the
    bay or on human health.

    By fall of 2000, reevaluate and revise, as necessary, the "Chesapeake Bay
    Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy" focusing on:

    Complementing state and federal regulatory programs to go beyond

    traditional point source controls, including nonpoint sources such as

    groundwater discharge and atmospheric deposition, by using a

    watershed-based approach; and Understanding the effects and impacts of
    chemical contaminants to

    increase the effectiveness of management actions.

    Through continual improvement of pollution prevention measures and other
    voluntary means, strive for zero release of chemical contaminants from
    point sources, including air sources.

    Particular emphasis shall be placed on achieving, by 2010, elimination of
    mixing zones for persistent or bioaccumulative toxics.

    Reduce the potential risk of pesticides to the bay by targeting education,
    outreach, and implementation of integrated pest management and specific
    best management practices on those lands that have higher potential for
    contributing pesticide loads to the bay.

    Priority Urban Waters Support the restoration of the Anacostia River,
    Baltimore Harbor, and

    Elizabeth River and their watersheds as models for urban river restoration

    in the bay basin.

    By 2010, the District of Columbia, working with its watershed partners,
    will reduce pollution loads to the Anacostia River in order to eliminate
    public health concerns and achieve the living resource, water quality, and
    habitat goals of the current and past agreements.

    Air Pollution By 2003, assess the effects of airborne nitrogen compounds
    and chemical

    contaminants on the bay ecosystem and help establish reduction goals for

    these contaminants.

    Boat Discharge By 2003, establish appropriate areas within the Chesapeake
    Bay and its tributaries as "no discharge zones" for human waste from
    boats.

    By 2010, expand by 50 percent the number and availability of waste
    pump-out facilities.

    By 2006, reassess progress in reducing the impact of boat waste on the bay
    and its tributaries. This assessment will include evaluating the benefits
    of further expanding no discharge zones, as well as increasing the number
    of pump-out facilities.

                        Page 48 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    Sound Land Use Goal         Develop, promote, and achieve sound land use
                                   practices which protect and
                                   restore watershed resources and water quality,
                                   maintain reduced pollutant
                                   loadings for the bay and its tributaries, and
                                   restore and preserve aquatic
                                   living resources.
                                   By 2001, complete an assessment of the bay's
    Land Conservation           resource lands, including
                                   forests and farms, emphasizing their role in
                                   the protection of water quality
                                   and critical habitats, as well as cultural and
                                   economic viability.
                                   Provide financial assistance or new revenue
                                   sources to expand the use of
                                   voluntary and market-based mechanisms such as
                                   easements, purchase, or
                                   transfer of development rights and other
                                   approaches to protect and
                                   preserve natural resource lands.
                                   Strengthen programs for land acquisition and
                                   preservation within each
                                   state that are supported by funding
                                   and target the most valued lands for
                                   protection.
                                   Permanently preserve from development 20
                                   percent of the land area in the
                                   watershed by 2010.
                                   Provide technical and financial assistance to
                                   local governments to plan for
                                   or revise plans, ordinances, and subdivision
                                   regulations to provide for the
                                   conservation and sustainable use of the forest
                                   and agricultural lands.
                                   In cooperation with local governments, develop
                                   and maintain in each
                                   jurisdiction a strong geographic information
                                   system to track the
                                   preservation of resource lands and support the
                                   implementation of sound
                                   land use practices.
                                   By 2012, reduce the rate of harmful sprawl
    Development, Redevelopment, development of forest and
    and Revitalization          agricultural land in the Chesapeake Bay
                                   watershed by 30 percent measured
                                   as an average over 5 years from the baseline
                                   of 1992-97, with measures and
                                   progress reported regularly to the Chesapeake
                                   Executive Council.
                                   By 2005, in cooperation with local government,
                                   identify and remove state
                                   and local impediments to low impact
                                   development designs to encourage
                                   the use of such approaches and minimize water
                                   quality impacts.

    Work with communities and local governments to encourage sound land use
    planning and practices that address the impacts of growth, development,
    and transportation on the watershed.

    By 2002, review tax policies to identify elements that discourage
    sustainable development practices or encourage undesirable growth
    patterns. Promote the modification of such policies and the creation of
    tax incentives that promote the conservation of resource lands and
    encourage investments consistent with sound growth management principles.

    The jurisdictions will promote redevelopment and remove barriers to
    investment in underutilized urban, suburban, and rural communities by
    working with localities and development interests.

    By 2002, develop analytical tools that will allow local governments and
    communities to conduct watershed-based assessments of the impacts of
    growth, development, and transportation decisions.

    By 2002, compile information and guidelines to assist local governments
    and communities to promote ecologically-based designs in order to limit
    impervious cover in undeveloped and moderately developed watersheds and
    reduce the impact of impervious cover in highly developed watersheds.

    Provide information to the development community and others so they may
    champion the application of sound land use practices.

    By 2003, work with local governments and communities to develop land-use
    management and water resource protection approaches that encourage the
    concentration of new residential development in areas supported by
    adequate water resources and infrastructure to minimize impacts on water
    quality.

    By 2004, the jurisdictions will evaluate local implementation of
    stormwater, erosion control, and other locally-implemented water quality
    protection programs that affect the bay system and ensure that these
    programs are being coordinated and applied effectively in order to
    minimize the impacts of development.

    Working with local governments and others, develop and promote wastewater
    treatment options, such as nutrient reducing septic systems, which protect
    public health and minimize impacts to the bay's resources.

    Strengthen brownfield redevelopment. By 2010, rehabilitate and restore
    1,050 brownfield sites to productive use.

    Working with local governments, encourage the development and
    implementation of emerging urban stormwater retrofit practices to improve
    their water quantity and quality function.

    Transportation By 2002, the signatory jurisdictions will promote
    coordination of transportation and land use planning to encourage compact,
    mixed use development patterns, revitalization in existing communities and
    transportation strategies that minimize adverse effects on the bay and its
    tributaries.

    By 2002, each state will coordinate its transportation policies and
    programs to reduce the dependence on automobiles by incorporating travel
    alternatives such as telework, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit options,
    as appropriate, in the design of projects so as to increase the
    availability of alternative modes of travel as measured by increased use
    of those alternatives.

    Consider the provisions of the federal transportation statutes for
    opportunities to purchase easements to preserve resource lands adjacent to
    rights of way and special efforts for stormwater management on both new
    and rehabilitation projects.

    Establish policies and incentives that encourage the use of clean vehicle
    and other transportation technologies that reduce emissions.

    Public Access By 2010, expand by 30 percent the system of public access
    points to the bay, its tributaries, and related resource sites in an
    environmentally sensitive manner by working with state and federal
    agencies, local governments, and stakeholder organizations.

    By 2005, increase the number of designated water trails in the Chesapeake
    Bay region by 500 miles.

    Enhance interpretation materials that promote stewardship at natural,
    recreational, historical, and cultural public access points within the
    Chesapeake Bay watershed.

    By 2003, develop partnerships with at least 30 sites to enhance
    place-based interpretation of bay-related resources and themes and
    stimulate volunteer involvement in resource restoration and conservation.

    Stewardship and Promote individual stewardship and assist individuals,
    community-based organizations, businesses, local governments, and schools
    to undertake

      Community Engagement

    Goal initiatives to achieve the goals and commitments of the agreement.

    Education and Outreach Make education and outreach a priority in order to
    achieve public

    awareness and personal involvement on behalf of the bay and local

    watersheds.

    Provide information to enhance the ability of citizen and community groups
    to participate in bay restoration activities on their property and in
    their local watershed.

    Expand the use of new communications technologies to provide a
    comprehensive and interactive source of information on the Chesapeake Bay
    and its watershed for use by public and technical audiences.

    By 2001, develop and maintain a Web-based clearinghouse of this
    information specifically for use by educators.

    Beginning with the class of 2005, provide a meaningful bay or stream
    outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before
    graduation from high school.

    Continue to forge partnerships with the Department of Education and
    institutions of higher learning in each jurisdiction to integrate
    information about the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed into school
    curricula and university programs.

    Provide students and teachers alike with opportunities to directly
    participate in local restoration and protection projects, and to support
    stewardship efforts in schools and on school property.

    By 2002, expand citizen outreach efforts to more specifically include
    minority populations by, for example, highlighting cultural and historical
    ties to the bay, and providing multicultural and multilingual educational
    materials on stewardship activities and bay information.

                                  Community Engagement

                                 Government by Example

    Jurisdictions will work with local governments to identify small
    watersheds where community-based actions are essential to meeting bay
    restoration goals-in particular wetlands, forested buffers, stream
    corridors, and public access and work with local governments and community
    organizations to bring an appropriate range of Bay Program resources to
    these communities.

    Enhance funding for locally based programs that pursue restoration and
    protection projects that will assist in the achievement of the goals of
    this and past agreements.

    By 2001, develop and maintain a clearinghouse for information on local
    watershed restoration efforts, including financial and technical
    assistance.

    By 2002, each signatory jurisdiction will offer easily-accessible
    information suitable for analyzing environmental conditions at a small
    watershed scale.

    Strengthen the Chesapeake Bay Program's ability to incorporate local
    governments into the policy decision making process.

    By 2001, complete a reevaluation of the Local Government Participation
    Action Plan and make necessary changes in Bay Program and jurisdictional
    functions based upon the reevaluation.

    Improve methods of communication with and among local governments on bay
    issues and provide adequate opportunities for discussion of key issues.

    By 2001, identify community watershed organizations and partnerships.
    Assist in establishing new organizations and partnerships where interest
    exists. These partners will be important to successful watershed
    management efforts in distributing information to the public, and engaging
    the public in the bay restoration and preservation effort.

    By 2005, identify specific actions to address the challenges of
    communities where historically poor water quality and environmental
    conditions have contributed to disproportional health, economic, or social
    impacts.

    By 2002, each signatory will put in place processes to:

    Ensure that all properties owned, managed, or leased by the signatories

    are developed, redeveloped, and used in a manner consistent with all

    relevant goals, commitments, and guidance of the agreement.

    Ensure that the design and construction of signatory-funded

    development and redevelopment projects are consistent with all

    relevant goals, commitments, and guidance of the agreement.

    Expand the use of clean vehicle technologies and fuels on the basis of
    emission reductions, so that a significantly greater percentage of each
    signatory government's fleet of vehicles use some form of clean
    technology.

    By 2001, develop an Executive Council Directive to address stormwater
    management to control nutrient, sediment, and chemical contaminant runoff
    from state, federal, and District of Columbia-owned land.

    Partnerships Strengthen partnerships with Delaware, New York, and West
    Virginia by

    promoting communication and by seeking agreements on issues of mutual

    concern.

    Work with nonsignatory bay states to establish links with community-based
    organizations throughout the bay watershed.

    Appendix III

                            Chesapeake Bay Program Partners

    The Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay Program) is a regional partnership that
    includes many partners, including federal agencies, states, a tristate
    legislative commission, academic institutions, and others. As noted below,
    six of the partners are signatories to the Chesapeake Bay agreements. The
    six signatories make up the Chesapeake Executive Council, which meets
    annually to establish policy direction for the Bay Program.

    Federal Agencies  o  U.S. Department of Agriculture

         o Agricultural Research Service
         o Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
         o Farm Service Agency
         o National Arboretum
         o Natural Resources Conservation Service
         o U.S. Forest Service
            * U.S. Department of Commerce
            * o  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
            * U.S. Department of Defense
                 o Defense Logistics Agency
                 o U.S. Department of the Air Force
                 o U.S. Department of the Army
                 o U.S. Department of the Navy
         o U.S. Department of Education
         o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Signatory)
              * U.S. Department of Homeland Security
              * o  U.S. Coast Guard
              * U.S. Department of the Interior
                   o National Park Service
                   o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                   o U.S. Geological Survey
              * U.S. Department of Transportation
              * o  U.S. Federal Highway Administration
         o U.S. Postal Service
         o U.S. General Services Administration
         o National Aeronautics and Space Administration
         o National Capital Planning Commission

    States  o  Delaware

         o District of Columbia (Signatory)
         o Maryland (Signatory)
         o New York
         o Pennsylvania (Signatory)
         o Virginia (Signatory)
         o West Virginia

    Tristate Legislative  o  Chesapeake Bay Commission (Signatory) Commission

    Page 55 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

                                 Academic Institutions

         o Academy of Natural Sciences
         o Chesapeake Research Consortium
              * College of William and Mary
              * o  Virginia Institute of Marine Science
         o Cornell Cooperative Extension (New York)
              * Old Dominion University
                   o Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography
                   o Department of Biological Sciences
         o Pennsylvania State University
              * Smithsonian Institution
              * o  Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
         o University of Delaware Cooperative Extension
         o University of the District of Columbia
              * University of Maryland
                   o Regional Earth Science Applications Center
                   o University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
         o University of Pennsylvania
              * University of Virginia
              * o  Virginia SeaGrant Program
         o Virginia Cooperative Extension Office
         o Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
         o West Virginia University

    o  West Virginia Extension Service

    Others  o  Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay

         o American Forests
         o Anacostia Watershed Society
         o Center for Chesapeake Communities
         o Center for Watershed Protection
         o Chesapeake Bay Foundation
         o Chesapeake Bay Information Network
         o Chesapeake Bay Trust
         o Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network
              * International City/County Management Association
              * o  Local Government Environmental Assistance Network
         o Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
         o Low Impact Development Center
         o Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
         o Montgomery County Environmental Protection
         o National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
         o Potomac Conservancy
         o Susquehanna River Basin Commission
         o Upper Susquehanna Coalition
         o 680 watershed organizations

    Appendix IV

    Summary of Expert Panel Observations on Assessing and Reporting on Restoration
    Progress

    This appendix provides the names and affiliations of our expert panel
    members and summarizes the discussions held at an all-day meeting. The
    information presented in this appendix may not represent the views of
    every panel member and should not be considered to be the views of GAO.

    Members of Our Expert The following individuals were members of the GAO
    expert panel on the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort:

      Panel

         o Allan, J. David, Professor, School of Natural Resources & Environment,
           University of Michigan;
         o Harwell, Mark, Professor, Florida A&M University;
         o Gunderson, Lance, Associate Professor, Department of Environmental
           Studies, Emory University;
         o Hill, Brian, Chief of the Watershed Research Branch, Mid-Continent
           Ecology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
         o Kusler, Jon, Executive Director, Association of State Wetland
           Managers;
         o Nuttle, William, Consultant, Eco-Hydrology;
         o Reed, Denise, Associate Professor, Department of Geology and
           Geophysics, University of New Orleans; and
         o Stevenson, R. Jan, Professor, Department of Zoology, Michigan State
           University.

      Summary of Panel Observations

    On May 17, 2005, we held an all-day meeting with the eight panelists at
    our office in Washington, D.C. Before the meeting, we provided each panel
    member with background information on the Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay
    Program) and a set of eight general discussion questions. At the end of
    each discussion, we asked the panelists to respond, using an anonymous
    ballot, to a series of questions that were based on the general discussion
    topics. The eight discussion topics covered three overarching themes: (1)
    assessing the health status of an ecosystem, (2) reporting the health
    status of an ecosystem, and (3) assessing progress of a restoration
    effort.

     Appendix IV Summary of Expert Panel Observations on Assessing and Reporting on
                                  Restoration Progress

      Assessing the Health of an Ecosystem

    Discussion Topic 1: Core Set of Ecosystem Characteristics

    Discussion Topic 2: Key Indicators

    Discussion Topic 3: Overarching Indices

    For the first theme of the day, the panelists spoke on three general
    discussion topics to identify the critical elements of an effective
    assessment process.

    Panelists agreed that identifying a core set of broad ecosystem
    characteristics is very important when assessing the health of an
    ecosystem and needs to be determined for each individual ecosystem. Our
    panel of experts did not identify these characteristics, saying instead
    that only experts on the Chesapeake Bay should do so. In assessing the
    health of an ecosystem, our panel said, bay experts should first gain an
    understanding of the desired end points-the particular characteristics of
    the system that end users deem important. However, the panel cautioned
    that the bay's experts should identify a limited number of essential
    characteristics-about four to six. Experience in developing conceptual
    models for other ecosystems has shown that it is not possible to manage
    for 100 different characteristics. The Bay Program has over 100 specific
    indicators of various ecosystem characteristics.

    The panelists generally agreed that the Bay Program has the essential
    indicators that must be used at a minimum to assess the health of an
    ecosystem. The Bay Program has many indicators that measure individual
    aspects within the ecosystem, such as the oyster population. However, the
    Bay Program needs more indicators that provide information about the
    biological condition of the ecosystem as a whole and that reflect stress
    and response relationships. Then patterns and status can be determined and
    trends can be assessed. Criteria for selecting good environmental
    indicators are available in literature.

    The panel also noted that models are useful, but it is important to
    understand the intended use of the model and its limitations. The Bay
    Program's predictive model is intended to help weigh alternative actions
    and determine how effective different management actions may be in
    restoring the ecosystem. The model can be used to make predictions about
    what the condition of the ecosystem may be in particular future years, and
    the Bay Program can then confirm those predictions with subsequent
    monitoring. The Bay Program should not use a predictive model to report on
    current conditions, which should be based on actual measurements.

    Panelists agreed that a limited number of integrated measures can be used
    to assess an ecosystem. A few integrated measures that describe the
    overall health of the system are valuable in making an overall assessment

     Appendix IV Summary of Expert Panel Observations on Assessing and Reporting on
                                  Restoration Progress

      Reporting the Health of an Ecosystem

    Discussion Topic 4: Reporting the Health of the Chesapeake Bay

    Discussion Topic 5: Characteristics of Effective Reporting

    Discussion Topic 6: Reporting Methods

    of the system and are well suited for reporting on the overall health. The
    overall health of a system can be described in a qualitative sense, with a
    grade for example. Overarching indicators can be used to assign grades to
    between four and six different ecological characteristics.

    For the second theme of the day, the panelists spoke on three general
    discussion topics to identify the critical elements of effective
    reporting.

    Panelists generally agreed that, based on information provided in the Bay
    Program reports, the public would probably not be able to clearly and
    accurately understand the health of the Chesapeake Bay. While panelists
    found the 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay report visually appealing, they
    believed it lacked a clear, overall picture of system health. In addition,
    Bay Program reports emphasize health and management of the program in one
    document and are overly oriented to reporting on the progress of the
    program at the expense of communicating information of the health status
    of the bay. The panelists believed that an independent assessment of the
    bay's health is probably necessary to provide a clear and accurate report
    on the status of the bay's health.

    Panelists agreed that effective reports on the health of an ecosystem
    contain information that is relevant, accurate, timely, consistent,
    thorough, precise, objective, transparent, and peer reviewed or verified.
    Panelists noted that the strength of the Bay Program's reports depends on
    the public's perception of the Bay Program's integrity and that, if the
    reports underwent an independent science review before publication, the
    public would have sufficient trust in the product so that other reports on
    the bay's health, such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation report, would not
    be perceived as needed.

    Panelists generally agreed that the report card method is effective for
    clearly and accurately reporting ecosystem health. Panelists also noted
    that it is important to distinguish between management initiatives to
    reduce stressors within the ecosystem and the biological effects of these
    initiatives and report on them separately. Instead, the Bay Program often
    mixes indicators, which causes confusion. A report on the health of the
    bay should give a measure for the current condition of each ecosystem
    attribute, such as a grade; an indication of the trend, such as an arrow;
    and summary text that explains what it all means.

     Appendix IV Summary of Expert Panel Observations on Assessing and Reporting on
                                  Restoration Progress

      Assessing Progress of a Restoration Effort

    Discussion Topic 7: Information Needed to Determine Progress

    Discussion Topic 8: Complicating Factors

    For the third theme of the day, the panelists spoke on two general
    discussion topics to identify how progress in restoring an ecosystem
    should be assessed.

    Chesapeake 2000 includes many commitments that are not quantifiable;
    instead, the commitments are focused on actions to strengthen, develop, or
    plan for various aspects of the restoration effort. Many of the
    commitments need to be refined so that they are quantifiable. Panelists
    noted, for example, that Chesapeake 2000 has a commitment to conserve
    existing forests along all streams and shorelines. The commitment raises
    questions about whether that means every single forest, a particular
    number of miles, or to prevent or manage the decline so that it is not
    more than a certain percentage per year. Panelists also pointed out that
    it is possible to have a program that is progressing very well from a
    management perspective but is not showing any evidence of cleanup toward
    the restoration goals. They cited three signs of progress: programmatic
    progress, progress in reducing stressors to the ecosystem, and progress in
    achieving desired ecological outcomes. The Bay Program has mixed these
    measures of progress and has used programmatic progress to imply that the
    program is achieving ecological outcomes.

    The panelists agreed that external factors that affect the health of an
    ecosystem, such as weather and population growth, should be incorporated
    into an assessment of restoration progress. Similarly, actions taken to
    restore the ecosystem, such as the implementation of agricultural best
    management practices, that may not have an impact of the ecosystem for
    several years should be incorporated into an assessment of progress made
    in restoring an ecosystem. Panelists also agreed that reports on the
    health of an ecosystem should be distinctly separate from reports on
    restoration progress.

    Appendix IV Summary of Expert Panel Observations on Assessing and
    Reporting on Restoration Progress

                          [This page left intentionally blank]

    Appendix V

    Funding Information

    Table 3: Direct Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies According to
    Primary Commitment Addressed, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant
    2004 Dollars

    Dollars in millions

                                Army Corps      Farm Service National Oceanic and
    Commitment        Armya of Engineers EPA       Agency Atmospheric
                                                             Administration
    Living Resource
    Protection and
    Restoration

                        Page 64 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    Oysters                                   $0.1   $13.3  $4.8   $0.0  $11.2
    Exotic species                             0.6     0.6  2.9    0.0     4.1
    Fish passage and migratory and resident    0.1    14.4  9.9    0.0     0.1
    fish
    Multispecies management                    2.1     0.1  6.0    0.0     8.7
    Crabs                                      0.1     0.0  3.0    0.0    10.1
    Total                                     $3.0   $28.4 $26.6   $0.0  $34.2
    Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration
    Submerged aquatic vegetation               3.1     2.7  6.1    0.0     1.9
    Watersheds                                 1.4    13.0  15.5   0.0     1.3
    Wetlands                                   1.7   147.3  4.2    5.6     0.5
    Forests                                    1.4     0.1  3.6    4.1     0.0
    Total                                     $7.5  $163.0 $29.5   $9.7   $3.7
    Water Quality Protection and Restoration
    Nutrients and sediments                   11.4    75.2 142.8e 105.5    1.8
    Chemical contaminants                     10.7    0.0d  8.0    0.0     5.8
    Priority urban waters                      0.1    26.8  6.5    0.0     0.0
    Air pollution                             13.6     0.0  3.4    0.0     0.0
    Boat discharge                             0.1     0.0  2.3    0.0     0.0
    Total                                     $35.9 $102.1 $163.0 $105.5  $7.6
    Sound Land Use
    Land conservation                          0.9     0.0  2.7    51.8    0.0
    Development, redevelopment, and            0.7     0.0  4.5    0.0     0.0
    revitalization
    Transportation                             0.0    0.0d  2.5    0.0     0.0
    Public access                              2.5     0.0  2.5    0.0     0.0
    Total                                     $4.1    $0.0 $12.2  $51.8   $0.0
    Stewardship and Community Engagement
    Education and outreach                     2.0     0.1  12.1   0.0     5.6
    Community engagement                       0.0     0.0  4.7    0.0     0.0
    Government by example                      3.5     0.0  3.0    0.0     0.0
    Partnerships                               0.1     0.0  2.7    0.0     4.3
    Total                                     $5.7    $0.1 $22.4   $0.0   $9.9
    Grand Total                               $56.1 $293.5 $253.7 $167.0 $55.5

                        Page 65 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    National  Natural         Navy/Marine U.S. Fish U.S.     U.S.
    Park      Resources       Corpsc      and       Forest   Geological
    Serviceb  Conservation                Wildlife  Service  Survey
                 Service                     Service                        Total
    0.0 $0.0  0.0 $0.0        0.6 $0.1    4.7 $0.0d 0.0 $0.0 0.0 $0.0   $13.5
                                                                           $29.5
             0.0             0.0         0.2       0.5      0.0        0.0  $25.1
             0.0             0.0       0.0 d      0.0d      0.0        1.8  $18.6
             0.0             0.0         0.0       0.0      0.0        0.0  $13.2
            $0.0            $0.0        $0.9      $5.2     $0.0       $1.8 $100.0
    0.0 0.0   0.0 0.0         1.4 0.8     15.2 0.0  2.4 0.0  0.0 1.9    $50.1
                                                                           $16.4
             0.0             0.0         0.6       3.8      1.4        0.6 $165.7
             0.0             0.0         0.4       1.5      2.4        0.0  $13.4
            $0.0            $0.0        $3.1     $20.5     $6.2       $2.5 $245.7
    0.0 0.0   0.0 51.5        0.1 0.1     1.4 0.0d  0.0 1.2  0.4 16.8   $26.4
                                                                           $406.4
             0.0             0.0        0.0d       0.0      0.0        0.0  $33.4
             0.0             0.0         0.0       0.0      0.0        0.0  $17.1
             0.0             0.0         0.2       0.0      0.0        0.0   $2.6
            $0.0           $51.5        $0.4      $1.4     $1.2      $17.2 $485.8
    0.0 0.0   0.0 0.0         0.1 0.2     0.2 15.7  0.0 1.2  0.0 1.0    $5.4
                                                                           $73.6
             0.0             0.0         0.0       0.0      0.0        0.0   $2.6
             7.1             0.0         0.0       0.3      0.0        0.0  $12.5
            $7.1            $0.0        $0.4     $16.2     $1.2       $1.0  $94.0
    0.3 0.0   0.0 0.0         0.0 0.6     0.1 2.3   1.2 2.1  0.0 1.7    $6.2
                                                                           $26.5
             0.0             0.0         0.5       0.0      0.0        0.0   $7.0
             0.0             0.0         0.0       0.0      0.0        0.0   $7.1
            $0.3            $0.0        $1.1      $2.4     $3.3       $1.7  $46.8
            $7.5           $51.5        $5.8     $45.7    $11.9      $24.2 $972.4

    Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

    Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

    aArmy amounts for fiscal years 1995 through 1997 are based upon the best
    professional judgment of an Army official and were calculated using an
    average of the individual commitments from fiscal years 1998 through 2004.

    bNo funding information was provided prior to 2000 due to limited
    involvement of the National Park Service with the Bay Program.

    cNavy/Marine Corps amounts do not include funding for administrative
    activities.

    dFunding was provided for this commitment but amounted to less than
    $50,000.

    ePrior to 2002, bay watershed-specific data are not available, and thus no
    Section 319 funds-funds provided in EPA grants to assist states in
    implementing nonpoint source management programs-are included in the table
    for the years 1995-2001. According to an EPA official, many Section 319
    projects would benefit the nutrient and sediment goals of the Chesapeake
    Bay Program.

                          [This page left intentionally blank]

    Table 4: Indirect Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies According to
    Primary Commitment Addressed, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant
    2004 Dollars

    Dollars in millions

                                Army Corps      Farm Service National Oceanic and
    Commitment        Armya of Engineers EPA       Agency Atmospheric
                                                             Administration
    Living Resource
    Protection and
    Restoration

                        Page 68 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    Oysters                                    $0.0  $0.0  $0.0   $0.0    $0.8
    Exotic species                              0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0     12.8
    Fish passage and migratory and resident     0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0      0.3
    fish
    Multispecies management                     0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0     13.9
    Crabs                                       0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0      0.6
    Total                                      $0.0  $0.0  $0.0   $0.0   $28.4
    Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration
    Submerged aquatic vegetation                0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0      0.7
    Watersheds                                  0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0      4.2
    Wetlands                                    0.0   0.0  0.0    3.1      7.3
    Forests                                     0.0   0.0  0.0    11.3     0.0
    Total                                      $0.0  $0.0  $0.0  $14.4   $12.1
    Water Quality Protection and Restoration
    Nutrients and sediments                     0.0   0.0 181.4f  16.2     2.2
    Chemical contaminants                       0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0      3.1
    Priority urban waters                       0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0     0.0d
    Air pollution                               5.0   0.0  0.0    0.0      3.6
    Boat discharge                              0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0      0.0
    Total                                      $5.0  $0.0 $181.4 $16.2    $8.9
    Sound Land Use
    Land conservation                           9.7   0.0  0.0   105.8     6.3
    Development, redevelopment, and             0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0      0.0
    revitalization
    Transportation                              0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0      9.6
    Public access                               0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0      0.0
    Total                                      $9.7  $0.0  $0.0  $105.8  $15.9
    Stewardship and Community Engagement
    Education and outreach                      0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0      1.9
    Community engagement                        0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0      0.1
    Government by example                       2.6   0.0  0.0    0.0      0.0
    Partnerships                                0.0   0.0  0.0    0.0     46.7
    Total                                      $2.6  $0.0  $0.0   $0.0   $48.7
    Grand Total                                $17.3 $0.0 $181.4 $136.5 $114.0

                        Page 69 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

    National  Natural         Navy/Marine U.S. Fish U.S.     U.S.
    Park      Resources       Corpsc      and       Forest   Geological
    Serviceb  Conservation                Wildlife  Service  Survey
                 Service                     Service                        Total
    0.0 $0.0  0.0 $0.0        0.1 $0.0    2.2 $0.0  0.0 $0.0 0.0 $0.0   $15.1
                                                                           $0.8
             0.0             0.0        0.0d       6.9      1.2        0.0   $8.4
             0.0             0.0         0.7       2.5      0.0        0.0  $17.1
             0.0             0.0         0.0       0.0      0.0        0.0   $0.6
            $0.0            $0.0        $0.7    $32.9e     $1.2       $0.0  $63.3
    0.0 0.0   37.0 0.0        0.2 0.0     1.8 0.0   0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0    $43.1
                                                                           $0.7
             0.0            13.1         3.5       5.1      0.0        0.7  $32.8
             0.0             0.8         0.4       2.5     19.5        0.0  $34.5
            $0.0           $50.9        $4.1     $9.6e    $19.5       $0.7 $111.3
    0.0 0.0   0.0 221.9       24.9 36.1   0.0 0.5   0.0 6.0  0.0 1.0    $28.0
                                                                           $465.3
             0.0             0.0         0.3       0.0      0.0        0.0   $0.3
             0.0             0.0         1.2       0.0     0.0d        0.0   $9.9
             0.0             0.0         0.0       0.0      0.0        0.0   $0.0
            $0.0          $221.9       $62.5      $0.5     $6.0       $1.0 $503.5
    0.0 0.0   0.0 33.2        0.3 1.0     0.0 1.7   0.0 7.8  0.0 0.0    $0.3
                                                                           $165.7
             0.0             0.0         0.0       0.0      0.0        0.0   $9.6
             1.5             0.0         0.4       2.8      0.0        0.0   $4.6
            $1.5           $33.2        $1.7      $4.5     $7.8       $0.0 $180.2
    0.4 0.2   0.0 0.0         0.2 0.1     0.0d 2.0  9.7 9.7  0.0 0.0    $10.4
                                                                           $14.0
             0.0             0.0         0.1      0.0d      0.0        0.0   $2.6
             0.0             0.0         0.5      0.0d      0.0        0.0  $47.2
            $0.6            $0.0        $0.8     $4.4e    $19.5       $0.0  $76.6
            $2.2          $306.1       $69.9     $51.8    $54.0       $1.7 $934.9

    Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

    Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

    aArmy amounts for fiscal years 1995 through 1997 are based upon the best
    professional judgment of an Army official and were calculated using an
    average of the individual commitments from fiscal years 1998 through 2004.
    An Army official estimated that, in addition to the amounts reported,
    individual Army installations have environmental budgets ranging from $2
    million to $7 million for environmental activities that would indirectly
    impact Bay restoration. The Army did not include those amounts in the
    table.

    bNo funding information was provided prior to 2000 due to limited
    involvement of the National Park Service with the Bay Program.

    cNavy/Marine Corps amounts do not include funding for administrative
    activities.

    dFunding was provided for this commitment but amounted to less than
    $50,000.

    e The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was unable to categorize federal
    assistance funding according to the individual commitments addressed.
    Instead, the amounts for federal assistance funding were listed according
    to the broad goal that it addressed. As a result, the total for this goal
    does not equal the sum of the individual commitments.

    fPrior to 2002, bay watershed-specific data are not available, and thus no
    Section 319 funds-funds provided in EPA grants to assist states in
    implementing nonpoint source management programs-are included in the table
    for the years 1995-2001. According to an EPA official, many Section 319
    projects would benefit the nutrient and sediment goals of the Chesapeake
    Bay Program.

    Table 5: Direct Funding Provided by the States and the District of
    Columbia According to Primary Commitment Addressed, Fiscal Years 1995
    through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars

    Dollars in millions
                                                                      District of
    Commitment              Marylanda Virginia Pennsylvania Columbiab    Total
    Living resource
    protection and              $82.4    $50.1         $0.0      $0.0   $132.5
    restoration
    Vital habitat
    protection and              189.3     51.0          0.0       5.0   $245.3
    restoration
    Water quality
    protection and              743.6    381.0         28.1      36.7 $1,189.4
    restoration
    Sound land use              744.8    263.5          0.0       0.0 $1,008.3
    Stewardship and             102.2      6.9          0.0       0.1   $109.2
    community engagement
    Total                   $1,862.4   $752.6         $28.1     $41.8 $2,684.8

    Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

    Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

    aMaryland data for 1995 does not include the Departments of State Planning
    or Education. Maryland data for 1996 to 1999 is based on a draft report.
    Maryland calculated funding amounts for 2001 by averaging the amounts for
    2000 and 2002.

    bThe District of Columbia was unable to provide funding information for
    fiscal years 1995 and 1996 because its program was configured differently
    during that time. In addition, the District of Columbia provided
    obligations where possible with the exception of its contribution to the
    Blue Plains wastewater treatment facility, which is an estimate of
    biological nutrient removal implementation, operation, and maintenance
    costs.

    Table 6: Indirect Funding Provided by the States and the District of
    Columbia According to Primary Commitment Addressed, Fiscal Years 1995
    through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars

    Dollars in millions
                                                                      District of
    Commitment               Maryland a Virginia Pennsylvania Columbiab  Total
    Living resource
    protection and                 $0.0     $0.0         $8.5      $0.0   $8.5
    restoration
    Vital habitat protection        0.0      0.0         98.0       0.0  $98.0
    and restoration
    Water quality protection        0.0      0.0        210.8   126.5   $337.3
    and restoration
    Sound land use                  0.0      0.0        521.7       0.0 $521.7
    Stewardship and                 0.0      0.0         24.7       0.7  $25.4
    community engagement
    Total                          $0.0     $0.0       $863.8  $127.2   $991.0

    Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

    Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

    aMaryland data for 1995 does not include the Departments of State Planning
    or Education. Maryland data for 1996 to 1999 is based on a draft report.
    Maryland calculated funding amounts for 2001 by averaging the amounts for
    2000 and 2002.

    bThe District of Columbia was unable to provide funding information for
    fiscal years 1995 and 1996 because its program was configured differently
    during that time. In addition, the District of Columbia provided
    obligations where possible with the exception of its contribution to the
    Blue Plains wastewater treatment facility, which is an estimate of
    biological nutrient removal implementation, operation, and maintenance
    costs.

    Appendix VI

    Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

    Appendix VI Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

    Appendix VII

    Comments from the Chesapeake Bay Commission

    Appendix VII Comments from the Chesapeake Bay Commission

    Appendix VIII

    Comments from the Commonwealth of Virginia

                                COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
                                 Office of the Governor
    W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.              P.O. Box 1475            (804) 786-0044
    Secretary of Natural          Richmond, Virginia 23218 Fax: (804) 371-8333
    Resources
                                                              TTY: (804) 786-7765

                                    October 18, 2005

    Ms. Anu K. Mittal Director, Natural Resources and Environment United State
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) Washington, DC 29548

    Dear Ms. Mittal:

    On behalf of Governor Warner, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
    comment on the Draft Report ("the Report") on the Chesapeake Bay Program
    prepared by the United States Government Accountability Office ("GAO").

    The Report contains three primary recommendations. First, it calls on the
    Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
    to direct the Chesapeake Bay Program ("the Program") to "complete its
    efforts to develop and implement an integrated assessment approach."

    Although I agree that the Program should complete this task, I believe
    that any such assessment must be developed with the understanding that the
    Chesapeake Bay watershed is a complex ecosystem. As you know, the Program
    is the collective effort of the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay
    Agreement of 2000, and in some cases the headwater states of Delaware, New
    York and West Virginia. These partners strive to present to the public
    through a single voice the condition of the Bay in the most understandable
    terms possible; however, it is oftentimes difficult to express complex
    ecological interactions in overly simple terms. Virginia, together with
    its Bay partners, will continue to support scientifically defensible
    measures of ecosystem health that can be accurately communicated, and we
    will offer the expert advice and guidance of our agencies in this effort.

    The second recommendation calls upon the Program to revise its reporting
    approach. Since 2004, the Program has been moving in the direction
    suggested by GAO, and it continues to refine its reporting to better serve
    the public and policy makers. I cannot agree with the representation made
    by two of the signatories, as stated on page 23 of the Report, that all of
    the Program partners "find it advantageous" to give a rosier view of the
    Bay's health than conditions warrant. In Virginia, it has been our policy
    and practice to be honest with the public and policy

    Appendix VIII Comments from the Commonwealth of Virginia

    Ms. Anu K. Mittal October 18, 2005 Page 2

    makers regarding the degraded condition of the Chesapeake Bay. When there
    is good news to report, we report it, but we have not been shy when
    reporting bad news as well.

    I am also concerned about the frequent allegation that the information
    presented by the Program is not "credible." The Report does not suggest
    that information presented by the Program is not accurate, but rather that
    it is sometimes presented in an improper context, or in a manner that
    confuses different types of data. I hope that GAO will review its comments
    on credibility with this observation in mind and that it will not leave
    the reader with the impression that the public has been intentionally
    mislead or that the data presented by the Program meets anything but the
    highest scientific standards.

    Finally, GAO recommends that the program develop a "comprehensive
    implementation plan that takes into account available resources." I would
    argue that that the tributary strategies developed independently by each
    of the Bay partners (signatories and head water states), and the
    implementation activities associated with them, will serve as the basis
    for the plan that GAO proposes.

    I hope that readers of the report will understand that Virginia has begun
    implementation of our tributary strategies. For point sources, we have
    instituted a comprehensive regulatory management program that will reduce
    and cap nutrient discharges from sewage treatment plants and industrial
    facilities. We have reinvigorated our grant program to assist municipal
    facilities with the cost of upgrades.

    With respect to non-point sources, we are making significant strides in
    addressing urban storm water management, and we are working closely with
    our farmers to reduce the adverse impacts to water quality that result
    from a variety of agricultural practices. We are also seeking consistent
    funding for our agricultural grant programs. Moreover, we fully recognize
    that our tributary strategies are not static documents, and we are
    committed to making changes and revisions to them in order to adapt to new
    circumstances and resources as we continue to implement these strategies.

    The Commonwealth of Virginia certainly supports thoughtful and achievable
    implementation plans developed through the Program partnership; however,
    we believe that the states must be given the flexibility to operate within
    their own cultural, legal and political environments. The implementation
    path Virginia chooses must be accomplished in the context of our state law
    and budgets, and any regional implementation plan must reflect this
    reality.

    I would also suggest that this recommendation highlights the significant
    role that the federal government must continue to play in the Bay
    partnership. In the current fiscal year the Governor and the Virginia
    General Assembly, working together, made the largest appropriation to the
    Water Quality Improvement Fund in our history. Maryland has begun
    collecting the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fee, and Pennsylvania has passed
    Growing Greener II. These actions are resulting in multi-million dollar
    investments in water quality by the states at this time,

    Appendix VIII Comments from the Commonwealth of Virginia

    Ms. Anu K. Mittal October 18, 2005 Page 3

    and we will work to insure that it continues in the coming years. We hope
    that our federal partner will also step up its commitment to match this
    unprecedented level of state support.

    The restoration of the Chesapeake Bay will not be easy or cheap. The
    partners are engaged in a long-term enterprise that will only be
    successful through the full participation of federal, state and local
    governments, as well as the private sector.

    I appreciate the time and thought that went into the development of the
    helpful recommendations by GAO, and I look forward to the implementation
    of those recommendations. I also look forward to the positive results that
    can occur only with the continuation of the partnership embodied in the
    Program.

    Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to comment on the Report. If
    I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

                                       Sincerely,

    WTMJr/cbd

                                      Appendix IX

                         Comments from the District of Columbia

                                       Appendix X

                          Comments from the State of Maryland

                                      Appendix XI

                        Comments from the State of Pennsylvania

    Appendix XII

                         GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    Anu K. Mittal (202) 512-3841 or m ittala@gao.gov

      GAO Contact

    In addition to the contact named above, Sherry McDonald, Assistant

      Staff

    Director; Bart Fischer; James Krustapentus; and Barbara Patterson made

    key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were
    Mark Braza, Liz Curda, Anne Inserra, Lynn Musser, Mehrzad Nadji, Carol
    Herrnstadt Shulman, and Amy Webbink.

      GAO's Mission

    The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
    investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
    constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
    accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
    examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
    and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
    Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
    commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
    accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
    Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
    Web site. To

    have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

                                 Order by Mail or Phone

    The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
    each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
    Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
    copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
    be sent to:

    U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

    Contact:

    To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

    Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
    512-7470

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

      Public Affairs

    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548
    *** End of document. ***