Chesapeake Bay Program: Recent Actions Are Positive Steps Toward 
More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort (30-JUL-08,	 
GAO-08-1033T).							 
                                                                 
The Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay Program) was created in 1983 when
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the  
Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the Environmental Protection	 
Agency (EPA) agreed to establish a partnership to restore the	 
Bay. The partnership's most recent agreement, Chesapeake 2000,	 
sets out five broad goals to guide the restoration effort through
2010. This testimony summarizes the findings of an October 2005  
GAO report (GAO-06-96) on (1) the extent to which measures for	 
assessing restoration progress had been established, (2) the	 
extent to which program reports clearly and accurately described 
the bay's health, (3) how much funding was provided for the	 
effort for fiscal years 1995 to 2004, and (4) how effectively the
effort was being coordinated and managed. It also summarizes	 
actions taken by the program in response to GAO's		 
recommendations. GAO reviewed the program's 2008 report to	 
Congress and discussed recent actions with program officials.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-1033T					        
    ACCNO:   A83161						        
  TITLE:     Chesapeake Bay Program: Recent Actions Are Positive Steps
Toward More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort		 
     DATE:   07/30/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Agricultural programs				 
	     Environment evaluation				 
	     Environmental assessment				 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Environmental protection				 
	     Federal aid to states				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Water pollution control				 
	     Water quality					 
	     Water quality management				 
	     Water quality standards				 
	     Watersheds 					 
	     Wildlife conservation				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     Chesapeake Bay					 
	     District of Columbia				 
	     EPA Chesapeake Bay Program 			 
	     Maryland						 
	     Pennsylvania					 
	     Virginia						 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-1033T

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

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. 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. 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery: 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT Wednesday, July 30, 2008: 

Chesapeake Bay Program: 

Recent Actions Are Positive Steps Toward More Effectively Guiding the 
Restoration Effort: 

Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director: 

Natural Resources and Environment: 

GAO-08-1033T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-1033T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay Program) was created in 1983 when 
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the 
Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) agreed to establish a partnership to restore the Bay. The 
partnershipï¿½s most recent agreement, Chesapeake 2000, sets out five 
broad goals to guide the restoration effort through 2010. This 
testimony summarizes the findings of an October 2005 GAO report (GAO-06-
96) on (1) the extent to which measures for assessing restoration 
progress had been established, (2) the extent to which program reports 
clearly and accurately described the bay's health, (3) how much funding 
was provided for the effort for fiscal years 1995 to 2004, and (4) how 
effectively the effort was being coordinated and managed. It also 
summarizes actions taken by the program in response to GAOï¿½s 
recommendations. GAO reviewed the programï¿½s 2008 report to Congress and 
discussed recent actions with program officials. 

What GAO Found: 

In 2005, GAO found that the Bay Program had over 100 measures to assess 
progress toward meeting some restoration commitments and guide program 
management. However, the program had not developed an integrated 
approach that would translate these individual measures into an 
assessment of progress toward achieving the restoration goals outlined 
in Chesapeake 2000. For example, while the program had appropriate 
measures to track crab, oyster, and rockfish populations, it did not 
have an approach for integrating the results of these measures to 
assess progress toward its goal of protecting and restoring the bayï¿½s 
living resources. In response to GAOï¿½s recommendation, the Bay Program 
has integrated key measures into 3 indices of bay health and 5 indices 
of restoration progress. 

In 2005, the reports used by the Bay Program did not provide effective 
and credible information on the health status of the bay. Instead, 
these reports focused on individual trends for certain living resources 
and pollutants, and did not effectively communicate the overall health 
status of the bay. These reports were also not credible because actual 
monitoring data had been commingled with the results of program actions 
and a predictive model, and the latter two tended to downplay the 
deteriorated conditions of the bay. Moreover, the reports lacked 
independence, which led to rosier projections of the bayï¿½s health than 
may have been warranted. In response to GAOï¿½s recommendations, the Bay 
Program developed a new report format and has tried to enhance the 
independence of the reporting process. However, the new process does 
not adequately address GAOï¿½s concerns about independence. 

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 resources protection and 
restoration, and stewardship and community engagement. During this 
period, the restoration effort also received an additional $1.9 billion 
in funding from federal and state programs for activities that 
indirectly contribute to the restoration effort. 

In 2005, the Bay Program did not have a comprehensive, coordinated 
implementation strategy to help target limited resources to those 
activities that would best achieve the goals outlined in Chesapeake 
2000. The program was focusing on 10 key commitments and had developed 
numerous planning documents, but some of these documents were 
inconsistent with each other or were perceived as unachievable by the 
partners. In response to GAOï¿½s recommendations, the Bay Program has 
taken several actions, such as developing a strategic framework to 
unify planning documents and identify how it will pursue its goals. 
While these actions are positive steps, additional actions are needed 
before the program has the comprehensive, coordinated implementation 
strategy recommended by GAO. 

What GAO Recommends: 

In 2005, GAO recommended that the Bay Program complete efforts to 
develop and implement an integrated approach, revise its reports to 
improve their effectiveness and credibility, and develop a 
comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy that takes into 
account available resources. GAO is not making new recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1033T]. For more 
information, contact Anu Mittal, (202) 512-3841, [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to participate in your second hearing 
focusing on the importance of protecting the health of our nation's 
great water bodies, such as the Chesapeake Bay. As you know, the 
Chesapeake Bay is the nation's largest estuary and has been recognized 
by Congress as a national treasure. In response to the deteriorating 
conditions of the bay, in 1983, the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, 
and Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay 
Commission;[Footnote 1] and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
first partnered to protect and restore the bay by establishing the 
Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay Program). Subsequent agreements in 1987, 
1992, and 2000 reaffirmed the partners' commitment to bay restoration, 
and in their most recent agreement, Chesapeake 2000, which was signed 
in June 2000, they established 102 commitments organized under five 
broad restoration goals to be achieved by 2010. 

In October 2005, we issued a report on the Chesapeake Bay restoration 
effort that addressed (1) the extent to which the Bay Program had 
established appropriate measures for assessing restoration progress, 
(2) the extent to which the reporting mechanisms the Bay Program used 
clearly and accurately described the bay's overall health, (3) how much 
funding had been provided by federal and state partners for restoring 
the Chesapeake Bay for fiscal years 1995 through 2004 and for what 
purposes, and (4) how effectively the restoration effort had been 
coordinated and managed.[Footnote 2] 

Our report included six recommendations--one recommendation to develop 
and implement an integrated approach to measure overall progress, three 
recommendations to enhance the effectiveness and credibility of the Bay 
Program's public reporting, and two recommendations to improve the 
management and coordination of the restoration effort. Since our report 
was issued, the Bay Program, with the encouragement of Congress, has 
been taking steps to address the findings and recommendations we 
identified in our 2005 report. My testimony today will therefore cover 
the concerns we raised in 2005, the recommendations that we made to 
address these concerns, and our assessment of the steps that the Bay 
Program has taken to address our recommendations. 

For our 2005 report, we reviewed planning and program implementation 
documents and funding data from Bay Program partners. We also convened 
a panel of nationally recognized ecosystem restoration and assessment 
experts. For the 2005 report, we conducted our work from October 2004 
to October 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. For this testimony statement, we updated our 2005 
report by assessing the progress that the Bay Program has made in 
implementing our recommendations. We reviewed Bay Program documents, 
such as a July 2008 report to Congress, entitled Strengthening the 
Management, Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay 
Program and the Bay Program's Scientific and Advisory Committee bylaws 
and operational guidance. We also looked at partners' activities and 
funding data in the new Bay Program database, and spoke with officials 
at EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office. We conducted our work in July 
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

In summary: 

* In 2005, we reported that the Bay Program had established over 100 
measures to assess progress toward meeting some of its commitments and 
provide information to guide management decisions. For example, the 
program had measures for assessing trends in various living resources 
such as oysters and crabs, and pollutants such as nitrogen and 
phosphorus levels. However, the program had not developed an approach 
that would allow it to integrate all of these measures and thereby 
assess the progress made by the overall restoration effort in achieving 
the five goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000. We recommended that the Bay 
Program develop such an approach, which would allow the program to 
combine its individual measures into a few broader-scale measures that 
it could then use to assess key ecosystem attributes and present an 
overall assessment of this complex ecosystem restoration project. In 
response to our recommendation, the Bay Program integrated key measures 
to develop three indices of bay health and five indices of restoration 
progress and has used these indices to present overall assessments of 
the health of the bay and the restoration effort. We believe that these 
new indices will allow the Bay Program to provide a better overall 
assessment of the bay's health and the restoration progress. 

* In 2005, we also found that the Bay Program's primary mechanism for 
reporting on the health status of the bay--the State of the Chesapeake 
Bay report--did not provide an effective or credible assessment of the 
bay's current health status. These reports were not effective because, 
like the program's measures, they focused on individual species and 
pollutants instead of providing an overall assessment of the bay's 
health. Often, these reports showed diverging trends for certain 
aspects of the ecosystem, making it difficult for the public and other 
stakeholders to determine what the current condition of the bay really 
was. These reports were also not credible because they (1) commingled 
data on the bay's health with program actions and modeling results, 
which tended to downplay the deteriorated conditions of the bay and (2) 
were not subject to an independent review process. As a result, we 
concluded that the Bay Program reports may have been projecting a 
rosier picture of the health of the bay than may have been warranted. 
In response to our recommendations, the Bay Program took several steps 
to improve the effectiveness and credibility of its reports. However, 
we believe the Bay Program can take additional steps to establish an 
independent peer review process that will enhance the credibility and 
objectivity of its reports. 

* For fiscal years 1995 through 2004, we reported that about $3.7 
billion in direct funding was provided for the Chesapeake Bay 
restoration effort by 11 key federal agencies; the states of Maryland, 
Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the District of Columbia.[Footnote 3] 
An additional $1.9 billion was provided for activities that had an 
indirect impact on bay restoration. Although we did not make any 
recommendations about the need to collect and aggregate information on 
the amount of funding contributed by the various partners to the 
effort, since we issued our report, the Bay Program has set up a formal 
data collection effort. The Bay Program has established a Web-based 
system for collecting information from its partners on the amount and 
source of funding being used and planned for restoration activities. 

* Finally, in 2005 we reported that the Bay Program did not have a 
comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy that would allow it 
to strategically target limited resources to the most effective 
restoration activities. Recognizing that it could not manage all 102 
commitments outlined in Chesapeake 2000, the Bay Program had focused 
its efforts on 10 keystone commitments. We also found that although the 
Bay Program had developed numerous planning documents, some of these 
documents were inconsistent with each other and some of the plans were 
perceived to be unachievable by stakeholders. Moreover, the program 
invested scarce resources in developing and updating certain plans, 
even though it knew that it did not have the resources to implement 
them. While we recognized that the Bay Program often had no assurance 
about the level of funds that may be available beyond the short term, 
we concluded that this large and difficult restoration project cannot 
be effectively managed and coordinated without a realistic strategy 
that unifies all of its planning documents and targets its limited 
resources to the most effective restoration activities. In response to 
our recommendations, the Bay Program has taken several actions to 
improve the coordination and management of the restoration effort, such 
as developing a strategic framework to articulate how the partnership 
will pursue its goals. While these actions appear to be positive steps 
in the right direction, we believe that additional actions, such as 
identifying resources and assigning accountability to partners for 
implementing the strategy, are needed for the Bay Program to move 
forward in a more strategic and well-coordinated manner. 

We discussed our assessment of the Bay Program's actions taken in 
response to our recommendations with program officials. Based on this 
discussion, we incorporated technical changes to this statement. 

Background: 

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest of the nation's estuaries, measuring 
nearly 200 miles long and 35 miles wide at its widest point. 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 
the many rivers and streams in its watershed basin. 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: 

This figure is a map of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Office and GAO. 

[End of figure] 

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 decline in the bay's 
living resources has been cause for a great deal of public and 
political attention. 

Responding to public outcry, on December 9, 1983, representatives of 
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the District of Columbia; EPA; 
and the Chesapeake Bay Commission signed the first Chesapeake Bay 
agreement. Their agreement established the Chesapeake Executive Council 
and 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. The partners signed the most current agreement, 
Chesapeake 2000, on June 28, 2000. Chesapeake 2000--identified by the 
Bay Program as its strategic plan--sets out an agenda and goals to 
guide the restoration efforts through 2010 and beyond. In Chesapeake 
2000, the signatories agreed to 102 commitments--including management 
actions, such as assessing the 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: 

* 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; 

* 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; 

* 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; 

* 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 inputs to the bay and its 
tributaries, and restore and preserve aquatic living resources; and: 

* 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. 

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. Among other things, the 
Chesapeake Bay Program Office is to develop and make available 
information about the environmental quality and living resources of the 
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; help the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay 
agreement develop and implement specific plans to carry out their 
responsibilities; and 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. 

The Bay Program Has Developed an Integrated Approach to Better Assess 
Overall Restoration Progress: 

In October 2005, we found that the Bay Program had established 101 
measures to assess progress toward meeting some restoration commitments 
and provide information to guide management decisions. For example, the 
Bay Program had developed measures for determining trends in individual 
fish and shellfish populations, such as crabs, oysters, and rockfish. 
The Bay Program also had a measure to estimate vehicle emissions and 
compare them to vehicle miles traveled to help establish reduction 
goals for contaminants found in these emissions. 

While the Bay Program had established these 101 measures, we also found 
that it had not developed an approach that would allow it to translate 
these individual measures into an overall assessment of the progress 
made in achieving the five broad restoration goals. For example, 
although the Bay Program had developed measures for determining trends 
in individual fish and shellfish populations, it had not yet devised a 
way to integrate those measures to assess the overall progress made in 
achieving its Living Resource Protection and Restoration goal. 
According to an expert panel of nationally recognized ecosystem 
assessment and restoration experts convened by GAO, 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. 

According to an official from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, the 
signatories to the Chesapeake Bay agreement had discussed the need for 
an integrated approach for several years, but until recently it was 
generally not believed that, given limited resources, the program could 
develop an approach that was scientifically defensible. The program 
began an effort in November 2004 to develop, among other things, a 
framework for organizing the program's measures and a structure for how 
the redesign work should be accomplished. In our 2005 report, we 
recommended that the Chesapeake Bay Program Office complete its efforts 
to develop and implement such an integrated approach. 

In response to our recommendation, a Bay Program task force identified 
13 key indicators for measuring the health of the bay and categorized 
these indicators into 3 indices of bay health. With the development of 
these indices, the Bay Program should be in a better position to assess 
whether restoration efforts have improved the health of the bay. These 
indices will also help the Bay Program determine whether changes are 
needed to its planned restoration activities. The task force also 
identified 20 key indicators for measuring the progress of restoration 
efforts and categorized these indicators into 5 indices of restoration 
efforts. According to the Bay Program, these indices are now being used 
to assess and report on the overall progress made in restoring the 
bay's health and in implementing restoration efforts. The Bay Program 
has linked these restoration effort indices to the overall restoration 
goals and this should help the program better evaluate the progress it 
has made toward meeting the overall goals. 

The Bay Program Has Improved Report Formats but Has Not Taken Adequate 
Steps to Enhance the Independence of the Reporting Process: 

In 2005, we determined that the Bay Program's primary mechanism for 
reporting on the health status of the bay--the State of the Chesapeake 
Bay report--did not effectively communicate the current health status 
of the bay. This was because it mirrored the shortcomings in the 
program's measures by focusing on the status of individual species or 
pollutants instead of providing information on a core set of ecosystem 
characteristics. For example, 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, data were reported for each species individually. The 2004 
State of the Chesapeake Bay report included a graphic that depicted 
oyster harvest levels at historic lows, with a mostly decreasing trend 
over time, and a rockfish graphic that showed a generally increasing 
population trend over time. However, the report did not provide 
contextual information that explained how these measures were 
interrelated or what the diverging trends meant about the overall 
health of the bay. The experts we consulted agreed that the 2004 report 
was visually pleasing but lacked a clear, overall picture of the bay's 
health and told us that the public would probably not be able to easily 
and accurately assess the current condition of the bay from the 
information reported. 

We also found that the credibility of the State of the Chesapeake Bay 
reports had been undermined by two key factors. First, the Bay Program 
had commingled data from three sources when reporting on the health of 
the bay. Specifically, the reports mixed actual monitoring information 
on the bay's health status with results from a predictive model and the 
progress made in implementing specific management actions, such as 
acres of wetlands restored. The latter two results did little to inform 
readers about the current health status of the bay and tended to 
downplay the bay's actual condition. Second, the Bay Program had not 
established an independent review process to ensure that its reports 
were accurate and credible. The officials who managed and were 
responsible for the restoration effort also analyzed, interpreted, and 
reported the data to the public. We believe this lack of independence 
in reporting led to the Bay Program's projecting a rosier view of the 
health of the bay than may have been warranted. Our expert panelists 
also told us 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. 

In 2005, we recommended that the Chesapeake Bay Program Office revise 
its reporting approach to improve the effectiveness and credibility of 
its reports by (1) including an assessment of the key ecological 
attributes that reflect the bay's current health conditions, (2) 
reporting separately on the health of the bay and on the progress made 
in implementing management actions, and (3) establishing an independent 
and objective reporting process. 

In response to our recommendation that reports should include an 
ecological assessment of the health of the bay, the Bay Program has 
developed and used a set of 13 indicators of bay health to report on 
the key ecological attributes representing the health of the bay. In 
response to our recommendation that the program should separately 
report on the health of the bay and management actions, the Bay Program 
has developed an annual reporting process that distinguishes between 
ecosystem health and restoration effort indicators in its annual report 
entitled Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Assessment. The most 
recent report, entitled Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health and Restoration 
Assessment, is divided into four chapters: chapter one is an assessment 
of ecosystem health, chapter two describes factors impacting bay and 
watershed health, chapter three is an assessment of restoration 
efforts, and chapter four provides a summary of local water quality 
assessments. We believe that the new report format is a more effective 
communications framework and clearly distinguishes between the health 
of the bay and management actions being taken. 

In response to our recommendation to establish an independent and 
objective reporting process, the Bay Program has charged its Scientific 
and Technical Advisory Committee with responsibility for assuring the 
scientific integrity of the data, indicators, and indices used in the 
Bay Program's publications. In addition, the Bay Program instituted a 
separate reporting process on the bay's health by the University of 
Maryland Center for Environmental Science. This report, which is 
released on the same day as the Bay Program's release of the Chesapeake 
Bay Health and Restoration Assessment, provides an assessment of the 
bay's health in a report card format. While we recognize that the 
changes are an improvement over the reporting process that was in place 
in 2005, we remain concerned about the lack of independence in the 
process. Although members of the Scientific and Technical Advisory 
Committee are not managing the day-to-day program activities, this 
committee is a standing committee of the Bay Program and provides input 
and guidance to the Bay Program on how to develop measures to restore 
and protect the Chesapeake Bay. In addition, we do not believe that the 
report card prepared by the University of Maryland Center for 
Environmental Science is as independent as the Bay Program believes, 
because several members of the Scientific and Technical Advisory 
Committee are also employees of the University of Maryland Center for 
Environmental Science. We therefore continue to believe that 
establishing a more independent reporting process would enhance the 
credibility and objectivity of the Bay Program's reports. 

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

From fiscal years 1995 through 2004, we reported that 11 key federal 
agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the 
District of Columbia provided almost $3.7 billion in direct funding to 
restore the bay. 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--$293.5 million. 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. 
Typically, the states provided about 75 percent of the direct funding 
for restoration, and the funding has generally increased over the 10- 
year period. As figure 2 shows, the largest percentage of direct 
funding--approximately 47 percent--went to water quality protection and 
restoration. 

Figure 2: Percentage of the Total Direct Funding Provided for 
Addressing Each of the Five Chesapeake 2000 Goals, Fiscal Years 1995 
through 2004: 

This figure is a pie graph showing percentage of the total direct 
funding provided or addressing each of the five Chesapeake 2000 goals, 
fiscal years 1995 through 2004. 

Water quality protection and restoration: $1.7 billion: 47%; 
Sound land use $1.1 billion: 30%; 
Vital habitat protection and restoration: $491: 13%; 
Living resource protection and restoration: $233 million: 6%; 
Stewardship and community engagement: $156 million: 4%. 

[See PDF for image] 

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

[End of figure] 

We also reported that 10 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 
indirectly affect bay restoration. These activities were conducted as 
part of broader agency efforts and/or would continue without the 
restoration effort. Federal agencies provided approximately $935 
million in indirect funding, while Pennsylvania and the District of 
Columbia together provided approximately $991 million in indirect 
funding for the restoration effort over the 10-year period. [Footnote 
4] Of the federal agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture provided 
the greatest amount of indirect funding--$496.5 million--primarily 
through its Natural Resources Conservation Service. Of the states, 
Pennsylvania provided the greatest amount of indirect funding--$863.8 
million. As with direct funding, indirect funding for the restoration 
effort had also generally increased over fiscal years 1995 through 
2004. As figure 3 shows, the largest percentage of indirect funding-- 
approximately 44 percent--went to water quality protection and 
restoration. 

Figure 3: Percentage of the Total Indirect Funding Provided for 
Addressing Each of the Five Chesapeake 2000 Goals, Fiscal Years 1995 
through 2004: 

Water quality protection and restoration: $841 billion: 44%; 
Sound land use: $702 billion: 36%; 
Vital habitat protection and restoration: $209: 11%; 
Living resource protection and restoration: $72 million: 4%; 
Stewardship and community engagement: $102 million: 5%. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source analysis of agency data, in constant 2004 dollars. 

[End of figure] 

Despite the almost $3.7 billion in direct funding and more than $1.9 
billion in indirect funding that had been provided to restore the bay, 
the Chesapeake Bay Commission estimated in a January 2003 report that 
the restoration effort faced a funding gap of nearly $13 billion to 
achieve the goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000 by 2010. Subsequently, in 
an October 2004 report, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon 
Finance Panel estimated that the restoration effort is grossly 
underfunded 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.[Footnote 5] 

Although we did not recommend that the Bay Program consider developing 
a formal process for collecting and aggregating information on the 
amount of funding provided by the various restoration partners, the 
program has developed a database to capture this information. 
Recognizing the need to centrally and consistently account for the 
activities and funding sources of all Bay Program partners, the program 
created a Web-based form to collect information on the amount and 
source of funding being used and planned for restoration activities. 
Currently, the Bay Program has collected funding data for 2007 through 
2009. However, according to the Bay Program, only the 2007 data-- 
totaling $1.1 billion--represents a comprehensive, quality data set, 
and the program has plans to improve this database by having additional 
partners provide data and increasing the scope and quality of the 
information. 

The Bay Program Has Established a Strategic Framework but Key Elements 
to More Effectively Coordinate and Manage the Restoration Effort Are 
Still Needed: 

In our 2005 report we found that although Chesapeake 2000 provides the 
current vision and overall strategic goals for the restoration effort, 
along with short-and long-term commitments, the Bay Program lacked a 
comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy that could provide a 
road map for accomplishing the goals outlined in the agreement. In 
2003, the Bay Program recognized that it could not effectively manage 
all 102 commitments outlined in Chesapeake 2000 and adopted 10 keystone 
commitments as a management strategy to focus the partners' efforts. To 
achieve these 10 keystone commitments, the Bay Program had developed 
numerous planning documents. However, we found that these planning 
documents were not always consistent with each other. For example, the 
program developed a strategy for restoring 25,000 acres of wetlands by 
2010. Subsequently, each state within the bay watershed and the 
District of Columbia developed tributary strategies that described 
actions for restoring over 200,000 acres of wetlands--far exceeding the 
25,000 acres that the Bay Program had developed strategies for 
restoring. While we recognize that partners should have the freedom to 
develop higher targets than established by the Bay Program, we were 
concerned that having such varying targets could cause confusion, not 
only for the partners, but for other stakeholders about what actions 
are really needed to restore the bay, and such varying targets appeared 
to contradict the effort's guiding strategy of taking a cooperative 
approach to achieving the restoration goals. 

We also found that the Bay Program partners had devoted a significant 
amount of their limited resources to developing strategies that were 
either not being used by the Bay Program or were believed to be 
unachievable within the 2010 time frame. For example, the program 
invested significant resources to develop a detailed toxics work plan 
for achieving the toxics commitments in Chesapeake 2000. Even though 
the Bay Program had not been able to implement this work plan because 
personnel and funding had been unavailable, program officials told us 
that the plan was being revised. It was therefore unclear to us why the 
program was investing additional resources to revise a plan for which 
the necessary implementation resources were not available, and which 
was also not one of the 10 keystone commitments. According to a Bay 
Program official, strategies are often developed without knowing what 
level of resources will be available to implement them. While the 
program knows how much each partner has agreed to provide for the 
upcoming year, the amount of funding that partners will provide in the 
future is not always known. Without knowing what funding will be 
available, the Bay Program has been limited in its ability to target 
and direct funding toward those restoration activities that will be the 
most cost effective and beneficial. 

As a result of these findings in 2005, we recommended that the Bay 
Program (1) develop a comprehensive, coordinated implementation 
strategy and (2) better target limited resources to the most effective 
and realistic work plans. In response to our recommendation to develop 
a comprehensive and coordinated implementation strategy, the Bay 
Program has developed a strategic framework to unify existing planning 
documents and articulate how the partnership will pursue its goals. 
According to the Bay Program, this framework is intended to provide the 
partners with a common understanding of the partnership's agenda of 
work, a single framework for all bay protection and restoration work, 
and, through the development of realistic annual targets, a uniform set 
of measures to evaluate the partners' progress in improving the bay. 
However, while this framework provides broad strategies for meeting the 
Bay Program's goals, it does not identify the activities that will be 
implemented to meet the goals, resources needed to implement the 
activities, or the partner(s) who will be responsible for funding and 
implementing the activities. Therefore, we continue to believe that 
additional work is needed before the strategy that the Bay Program has 
developed can be considered a comprehensive, coordinated implementation 
strategy that can move the restoration effort forward in a more 
strategic and well-coordinated manner. 

In response to our recommendation that the program target resources to 
the most cost-effective strategies, according to the Bay Program, in 
addition to the strategic framework described above, it has developed: 

* annual targets that it believes are more realistic and likely to be 
achieved; 

* an activity integration plan system to identify and catalogue 
partners' current and planned implementation activities and 
corresponding resources; and: 

* program progress dashboards, which provide high-level summaries of 
key information, such as status of progress, summaries of actions and 
funding, and a brief summary of the challenges and actions needed to 
expedite progress. 

According to the Bay Program, it has also adopted an adaptive 
management process, which will allow it to modify the restoration 
strategy in response to testing, monitoring, and evaluating applied 
strategies and incorporating new knowledge, and thereby, better inform 
partners' actions, emphasis, and future priorities. Bay Program 
officials told us that these actions have started to have the intended 
effects of promoting enhanced coordination among the partners, 
encouraging partners to review and improve their progress in protecting 
and restoring the bay, increasing the transparency of the Bay Program's 
operations, and improving the accountability of the Bay Program and its 
partners for meeting the bay health and restoration goals. We believe 
these actions are positive steps toward responding to our 
recommendation and improving the management and coordination of the Bay 
Program. 

In addition, the Bay Program partners have established a funding 
priority framework that lists priorities for agriculture, wastewater 
treatment, and land management activities. While these priorities can 
be used to help achieve some of the annual targets established by the 
program, other annual targets--such as those for underwater bay grasses 
and oysters--do not have priorities associated with them. We believe 
that a clear set of priorities linked to the annual targets can help 
the partners focus the limited resources available to those activities 
that provide the greatest benefit to the health of the bay. 

In closing, Madam Chairwoman, it is well recognized that restoring the 
Chesapeake Bay is a massive, difficult, and complex undertaking. Our 
October 2005 report documented how the success of the program had been 
undermined by the lack of (1) an integrated approach to measure overall 
progress; (2) independent and credible reporting mechanisms; and (3) 
coordinated implementation strategies. These deficiencies had resulted 
in a situation in which the Bay Program could not present a clear and 
accurate picture of what the restoration effort had achieved, could not 
effectively articulate what strategies would best further the broad 
restoration goals, and could not identify how to set priorities for 
using limited resources. Since our report was issued, the Bay Program, 
with encouragement from Congress, has taken our recommendations 
seriously and has taken steps to implement them. The Bay Program has 
made important progress, and we believe that these initial steps will 
enable better management of the restoration effort. However, additional 
actions are still needed to ensure that the restoration effort is 
moving forward in the most cost-effective manner. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 
happy to respond to any questions that you or Members of the 
Subcommittee may have. 

Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. For further 
information about this testimony, please contact Anu Mittal at (202) 
512-3841 or [email protected]. Other individuals making significant 
contributions to this testimony were Sherry McDonald, Assistant 
Director, and Barbara Patterson. 

Footnotes: 

[1] The Chesapeake Bay Commission is a tristate legislative assembly 
representing Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 

[2] GAO, Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to 
Better Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress, GAO-06-96 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 2005). 

[3] Key federal agencies include the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Farm Service Agency, 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 Fish and Wildlife 
Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and National Park Service; and EPA. 
For purposes of our report and this testimony, we defined direct funds 
as those that are 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. 

[4] In addition to the funding provided for the restoration of the bay, 
EPA provided more than $1 billion to Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 
Virginia through its Clean Water State Revolving Fund program during 
fiscal years 1995 through 2004. 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. 

[5] The 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 the environmental community.

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.  

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts 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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail 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: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:  

Contact:  

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

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

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***