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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]

  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: [email protected]

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

  Public Affairs

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