a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, 

House of Representatives

September 2006 CHESAPEAKE BAY 

GATEWAYS 

PROGRAM

National Park Service 

Needs Better 

Accountability and 

Oversight of Grantees 

and Gateways 

GAO-06-1049
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2006

CHESAPEAKE BAY GATEWAYS 

PROGRAM 

National Park Service Needs Better 

Accountability and Oversight of Grantees 

and Gateways 

Highlights of GAO-06-1049, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies, 

Committee on Appropriations, House of 

Representatives 

In 1998, Congress passed the 

Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act to

establish a linked network of 

locations, such as parks, historic 

seaports, or museums—known as

gateways—where the public can 

access and experience the bay. 

The National Park Service (Park 

Service) provides support to the 

gateways through a related grant

program. In 2005, congressional 

concerns were raised about the 

Park Service’s management of the 

program. 

GAO was asked to determine the 

extent to which the (1) criteria for 

selecting gateways are transparent 

and consistently applied; (2) grants 

have been awarded to support the

program goals of conserving and

restoring, interpreting, and 

accessing bay-related resources; 

and (3) Park Service has taken

action to improve program

management and oversight. To

conduct this work, GAO, among 

other things, examined Park

Service files and interviewed Park 

Service officials, as well as other

officials involved in the program. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making a number of

recommendations aimed at

ensuring that accountability and 

oversight is improved. In 

commenting on a draft of this

report, Interior stated that it

concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations and described

actions it plans to take to

implement them. 

The Park Service and the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (CBGN) 

working group—an advisory body of 17 bay-related agencies and 

organizations, including the Park Service—use criteria in selecting gateways 

for the network that are not always transparent and may not be consistently

applied. As a result, the Park Service cannot be assured that its process for 

selecting gateways is always fair and open. Regarding transparency, 

applicants are not always aware of all the criteria that the Park Service and 

the CBGN working group use to select gateways because not all the criteria 

are published. The Park Service and CBGN working group also may not be 

consistently applying the criteria used to select gateways. For example,

some applicants were denied gateway status although they had met all the 

selection criteria included in the checklist the Park Service uses to review

gateway applications, while others were approved although they did not 

meet all these criteria. 

The Park Service awarded almost all of its fiscal years 2000 through 2005

grants, totaling $6.28 million, to support the grant program goals of 

interpretation of and access to bay-related resources but does not yet have a 

process in place to evaluate whether grants are effectively meeting these 

program goals, as well as the other program goal of conservation and 

restoration. During this period, the Park Service awarded 189 grants: 117

for interpretation, 68 for access, and 4 for conservation and restoration. Of 

the 189 grants, 110 went to 39 gateways that received more than 1 grant for 

either interpretation or access, with several gateways receiving up to 4 

grants for interpretation. According to Park Service staff, several grantees, 

and GAO’s analysis, these grants are for distinct projects or phases of larger 

projects. Although the Park Service records the program goal(s) associated 

with each grant project, it does not yet have a process in place to determine 

the effectiveness of its grants in meeting these goals. The Park Service has a

strategic plan that describes program priorities and effectiveness measures, 

but GAO found several weaknesses in the plan. 

The Park Service has made progress in outlining and implementing a number 

of actions to respond to management and oversight concerns first identified 

in February 2005, but accountability and oversight weaknesses continue. In 

March 2005, the Park Service developed an action plan that outlined 27 

corrective actions and associated time frames to improve program 

management. The Park Service has implemented 16 of these actions—such 

as holding a financial management workshop for new grantees and 

contracting for an external audit of 10 percent of past grants to determine 

compliance with financial requirements—but 11 actions, mostly to improve 

oversight, have not been fully implemented. In addition, the following 

management problems remain: inadequate training, lack of timely grantee 

reporting, inappropriate grant awards to applicants with incomplete projects 

or lack of capacity to complete projects on time, a backlog of uncompleted 

grants, and underperforming gateways. 

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

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robin M. 

Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or 

nazzaror@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 7

Criteria Used to Select Gateways Are Not Always Transparent and 

May Not Be Consistently Applied 15

The Park Service Awarded Grants Primarily for Interpretation of and 

Access to Bay-Related Resources, but It Has Not Yet Determined 

Grants’ Effectiveness in Meeting Program Goals 18

The Park Service Has Taken Steps to Manage and Oversee Grants 

More Effectively but Still Needs to Address Oversight and 

Accountability Weaknesses 28

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 37

Appendix II: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Working Group Member 

Organizations 40

Appendix III: Gateways in the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network 42

Appendix IV: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Gateway Selection 

Process 50

Appendix V: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Grant Application, 

Review, and Award Process 51

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior 52

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 53

Tables Table 1: Annual Allocations of CBGN Budget Authority and 

Breakdown between Grants and Other Network Activities, 

Fiscal Years 2000-2005 8

Table 2: Grant Projects at Seven Selected Gateways That Received 

More Than One Grant for Either Interpretation or Access, 

Fiscal Years 2000-2005 22

Table 3: Park Service’s 16 Completed Actions to Improve Grant 

Management, as of July 2006 29
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Table 4: Eleven Actions the Park Service Needs to Complete and 

the Status of These Actions, as of July 2006 30

Table 5: 152 Gateways in the CBGN, Location, Year Designated, 

Gateway Type, Number of Grants Received from Fiscal 

Years 2000 through 2005, and Total Grant Funding 

Awarded 42

Figures Figure 1: Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Gateways beyond the 

Fall Line 10

Figure 2: Chesapeake Bay and Gateways Within and Adjacent to 

the Fall Line 11

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

Columbia 12

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

Recipients 14

Figure 5: Distribution of CBGN Grants by Primary Program Goal, 

Fiscal Years 2000-2005 19

Figure 6: Projects Funded by CBGN Grants at Adkins 

Arboretum 26

Figure 7: Views at the Dogwood Harbor Gateway 34

Abbreviations

CBGN Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network

OMB Office of Management and Budget

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.
Page 1 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 14, 2006 Letr

The Honorable Charles H. Taylor

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment,

and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Chesapeake Bay, the nation’s largest estuary, is a critical economic, 

historical, and ecological resource for the roughly 16 million people who 

live in its 64,000 square-mile watershed, which includes parts of six states 

and the District of Columbia. Over time, the bay area’s population has 

grown dramatically and the land surrounding the bay has become 

increasingly developed, which has limited public access to the bay and 

contributed to deteriorating water quality. In 1998, Congress passed the 

Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act to establish a linked network of state parks, 

federal parks, or refuges; historic seaports; archaeological, cultural, 

historical, or recreational locations; or other public access and interpretive 

locations, where the public can access and experience the bay.1

 These 

locations are known as gateways. The gateways program was reauthorized 

in December 2002 for 5 years.2

 

The act directs the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other 

federal agencies, state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and 

the private sector, to create this network and provide technical assistance. 

It also directs the Secretary to establish a grant program to provide funds to 

aid state and local governments, local communities, nonprofit 

organizations, and the private sector in conserving, restoring, and 

interpreting important historical, cultural, recreational, and natural 

resources within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Within the Department of 

the Interior (Interior), the National Park Service (Park Service) is 

responsible for implementing and overseeing the Chesapeake Bay 

Gateways Network (CBGN) and its related grant program. Between fiscal 

years 2000 and 2006, congressional conference reports allocated 

1

Pub. L. No. 105-312 §§ 501-502, 112 Stat. 2961-2963. 

2

North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act, § 9, Pub. L. No. 107-308, 116 

Stat. 2446, 2448. 
Page 2 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

approximately $11 million to implement and manage the network and grant 

program. To help guide the formation and management of the network and 

grant program, the Park Service assembled the CBGN working group, an 

advisory body of 17 bay-related agencies and organizations, including the 

Park Service.3

 (See app. II for a list of working group member 

organizations.) 

The Park Service has created a network of 152 Chesapeake Bay gateways, 

including one hub in St. Michaels, Maryland, that provides an overview of 

the network; eight regional information centers; 27 connecting routes—21 

water trails, five land trails, and one scenic byway; and 116 sites, such as 

museums and wildlife refuges. (See app. III for a complete list of gateways 

in the CBGN.) To determine whether a location should become part of this 

network, the Park Service developed a checklist of eligibility criteria that 

locations must meet to become a gateway. Starting in 2000, the Park 

Service solicited gateway applications and began accepting gateways that 

met these criteria. Once a location is approved as a gateway and has signed 

a memorandum of understanding with the Park Service, its managing 

organization is eligible to apply for grant funding through CBGN’s grant 

program.

Between fiscal years 2000 and 2005, the Park Service awarded 189 grants to 

119 gateways, for a total of approximately $6.28 million.4

 The grant awards 

ranged from $5,000 to $150,000; the average award was $33,221; and the 

median award was $20,000. These grants, which must be matched by an 

equal amount of nonfederal support, have been awarded for three primary 

3

The most up-to-date list of CBGN working group member organizations (updated in March 

2006) provided by the Park Service lists 17 organizations. However, we found that two of 

these organizations are not actively involved in the CBGN working group. The Maryland 

Department of Transportation representative stated that she no longer participates on the 

working group, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representative no longer worked 

there. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had identified a replacement representative, 

this individual was not aware of any of the group’s meetings or activities and had not yet 

participated in them.

4

To implement the grant program, the Park Service enters into cooperative agreements with 

recipients. A cooperative agreement is a type of federal assistance agreement used when the 

federal government will be substantially involved in the project. Because such involvement 

was anticipated in CBGN projects, the Park Service chose to use cooperative agreements 

instead of grants. For ease of presentation, we refer to the Park Service’s cooperative 

agreements as “grants” in this report and recipients of these agreements as “grant 

recipients” or “grantees.”
Page 3 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

program goals, as defined by the Park Service: conservation and 

restoration, interpretation, and access.5

 

Although the Park Service had established the network and grant program 

as directed by the act, in 2005, the Surveys and Investigations staff for the 

House Committee on Appropriations identified problems with the 

management of the program, including concerns about gateway selection, 

the types of projects funded, and the Park Service’s oversight of the 

program. In this context, you asked us to determine the extent to which the 

(1) criteria for selecting gateways are transparent and consistently applied; 

(2) grants have been awarded to support the program goals of conserving 

and restoring, interpreting, and accessing important resources within the 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed; and (3) Park Service has taken action to 

improve its management and oversight of the program.

To address the three objectives, we analyzed Park Service and other 

documents, including the procedures and practices the Park Service uses 

to select gateways; the CBGN strategic plan for 2006 through 2008; recent 

reports issued by Interior’s Office of Inspector General; and the Park 

Service’s planned actions to address management and oversight concerns 

raised by the Surveys and Investigations staff for the House Committee on 

Appropriations. In addition, we met with Park Service officials and 

members from most of the 17 organizations in the CBGN working group to 

obtain their perspectives on network membership and the grant program.6

 

We also observed four CBGN working group meetings, including the 

gateway and grant selection meetings.

In addition, to respond to the first objective, we reviewed documents from 

the files for the 63 locations that were denied gateway membership during 

2000 through 2006. We also reviewed 102 checklists of eligibility criteria 

that were either provided by the Park Service or in network application 

files for the 152 locations that were designated as gateways between 2000 

and 2006. For the second objective, we reviewed Park Service data that 

5

The Park Service awarded grants to aid in providing access to bay-related resources 

because access is identified in the act as a key purpose of the network.

6

Although we planned to interview a representative or representatives from each member 

organization in the CBGN working group, we were only able to interview representatives 

from 14 of the organizations. The Maryland Department of Transportation representative 

stated that she no longer participates on the working group, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service representative no longer worked there, and the Maryland Historical Trust 

representative was on extended leave.
Page 4 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

identified the primary program goal for each grant awarded and 

determined how many gateways received multiple grants for the same 

primary goal. For these gateways, we selected a nonprobability sample of 

16 gateways covering 49 grant files.7

 We selected our sample to include 

gateways that received multiple grants for the same primary program goal 

and to incorporate a variety of gateway types. Using a data collection 

instrument, we reviewed these grant files to determine the extent to which 

projects under each grant to the same gateway differed. We also visited 

seven gateways that received multiple grants for the same primary goal to 

discuss differences in their projects. We selected our site visit sample 

based on the number of grants awarded for the same primary goal, the type 

of gateway, the state in which the gateway is located, and the total grant 

dollars received. For the third objective, we used a data collection 

instrument to review Park Service files for the 27 grants awarded in fiscal 

year 2005 to determine the extent to which corrective actions have been 

implemented. In addition, while conducting our audit work, including 

visiting gateways in our nonprobability sample that received multiple 

grants and meeting with working group members, we visited nine nearby 

gateways that had not received any grants to see if the gateways were 

fulfilling their basic commitments for network membership. A more 

detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology is presented 

in appendix I. We conducted our work between December 2005 and August 

2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards.

Results in Brief The Park Service and the CBGN working group use criteria in selecting 

gateways for the network that are not always transparent and may not be 

consistently applied. With respect to transparency, applicants are not 

always aware of all the criteria that the Park Service and the CBGN 

working group use to select gateways because not all the criteria are 

published. For example, the full definition of the access criterion—that the 

gateway has to be open to the public for a certain number of days per 

week—is not publicly stated for gateway sites. The Park Service and CBGN 

working group also may not be consistently applying the criteria used to 

select gateways. For example, some applicants were approved even though 

they did not meet all the selection criteria included in the checklist, while 

others were denied gateway status even though they met all these criteria. 

7

Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a population 

because some elements of the population have no chance of being selected. 
Page 5 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Since the criteria are not always transparent and may not be consistently 

applied, the Park Service cannot be assured that its process for selecting 

gateways is always fair and open. 

The Park Service awarded almost all of its fiscal years 2000 through 2005 

grants, totaling $6.28 million, to support the grant program goals of 

interpretation of and access to bay-related resources, but it does not yet 

have a process in place to evaluate whether its grants are effectively 

meeting the program’s goals. During the period, the Park Service awarded 

189 grants: 117 for interpretation, 68 for access, and 4 for conservation and 

restoration. Key CBGN program documents state that the interpretation of 

and access to bay-related resources will help the public understand the 

need to protect and restore the bay. Of the 189 grants awarded, 110 went to 

39 gateways that received more than 1 grant for either interpretation or 

access, with several gateways receiving up to 4 grants for interpretation. 

According to Park Service staff, several grantees, and our analysis, these 

grants are for distinct projects or phases of larger projects. For example, 

the Adkins Arboretum gateway (in Ridgely, Maryland) received two grants 

for interpretation, each of which supported distinct projects: (1) the 

development of an orientation exhibit, an orientation video, and a selfguided audio tour and (2) the creation of a wetlands boardwalk and 

overlook platform. Alternatively, the two grants for interpretation for the 

Underground Railroad Scenic Byway (from Dorchester County, Maryland, 

through Caroline County, Maryland) each supported a separate phase of 

the development of a trail that highlights the life and contributions of 

Harriet Tubman8

 to the Underground Railroad in the Chesapeake Bay 

region. Although the Park Service records the program goal(s) associated 

with each grant project, it does not yet have a process in place to determine 

the effectiveness of its grants in meeting the goals of conserving and 

restoring, interpreting, and accessing bay-related resources. The Park 

Service has a strategic plan that describes program priorities and 

effectiveness measures, but we found several weaknesses in the plan, 

including a lack of benchmarks to assess progress toward achieving the 

plan’s goals and the use of measures that are difficult to quantify.

The Park Service has made progress in outlining and implementing a 

number of actions to respond to the management and oversight concerns 

first identified in February 2005, but several accountability and oversight 

8

Harriet Tubman (1820-1913) was an abolitionist who served as a conductor on the 

Underground Railroad, helping to lead slaves to freedom.
Page 6 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

weaknesses continue. In March 2005, the Park Service developed an action 

plan that outlined 27 corrective actions and associated time frames to 

improve program management.9

 The Park Service has implemented 16 of 

these actions—such as holding a financial management workshop for new 

grantees and contracting for an external audit of 10 percent of past grants 

to determine compliance with financial requirements. However, 11 actions, 

mostly to improve oversight, have not been fully implemented. Although 

the Park Service has made progress in implementing the actions in its plan, 

we identified the following five remaining management problems:

• Inadequate training. While the Park Service committed in its action 

plan to providing additional grant management training for CBGN staff, 

it provided federal grant and cooperative agreement training only to its 

CBGN Administrative Officer; and this officer left the program in August 

2006. None of the CBGN project coordinators, who are responsible for 

reviewing grant proposals and monitoring the progress of grant projects, 

have received such training. According to the CBGN Director, he plans 

to provide grant management training to his staff in September 2006.

• Lack of timely grantee reporting. The Park Service committed in its 

action plan to stringently enforcing its requirement for grantees to 

report quarterly on progress and finances. However, we found that, 

approximately 2 months after the reports were due, only 8 of the 27 files 

for grants awarded in fiscal year 2005 contained both the quarterly 

progress and financial reports for the reporting period we reviewed.

• Inappropriate awards. The Park Service committed in its action plan to 

prohibiting the award of a fiscal year 2005 grant to any applicant with an 

incomplete or delayed grant project or that failed an assessment of 

whether the capacity existed for completing a new grant on schedule. 

However, we found that 2 of the 27 grants awarded in fiscal year 2005 

were awarded to such applicants.

• Backlog of uncompleted grants. According to the Park Service, as of 

June 30, 2006, 63 of the 162 grants awarded between fiscal years 2000 

and 2004 had not been completed or closed out. Completing and closing 

out existing grants is now the CBGN’s highest priority, according to the 

CBGN Director.

9

National Park Service. Action Plan and Timeline: Improving National Park Service 

Management of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (2005).
Page 7 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

• Underperforming gateways. The Park Service does not regularly review 

gateways to ensure that they are meeting basic requirements for CBGN 

membership, as laid out in their memorandums of understanding with 

the Park Service. This lack of oversight may have led, in some 

instances, to underperforming gateways that reflect poorly upon the 

network. For example, during a visit to the Dogwood Harbor Gateway 

(on Tilghman Island, Maryland), we observed that the site lacked the 

required CBGN logo sign indicating the site’s connection to the network, 

as well as any information or staff to relay this connection. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of the Interior take steps to 

enhance accountability and oversight of the CBGN program by improving 

the gateway selection process and its grant management. In responding to 

a draft report, Interior stated that it concurred with the recommendations 

in the report and described actions it plans to take to implement them. 

Background The Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 directed the Secretary of the 

Interior to establish (1) a network of state or federal parks or refuges; 

historic seaports; archaeological, cultural, historical, or recreational 

locations; or other public access and interpretive locations where the 

public can access and experience the bay and (2) a grant program to aid 

state and local governments, local communities, nonprofit organizations, 

and the private sector in accomplishing the act’s objectives. The Secretary 

delegated responsibility of the CBGN and grant program to the Park 

Service, which administers and oversees the program from the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

located in Annapolis, Maryland.10 Program staff include a Director, an 

Administrative Officer, and six full- and part-time project coordinators.11 At 

the time of our review, the Administrative Officer’s duties included 

maintaining grant files and processing grant payments.12 The project 

coordinators, among other things, review gateway and grant applications, 

work with grantees to ensure that they adhere to the terms of the grant, and 

10One project coordinator is located in the Park Service’s Philadelphia Regional Office, and 

one is located in Moab, Utah.

11The most recent Director was appointed in January 2006. 

12The Administrative Officer left in August 2006. According to the CBGN Director, some of 

the Administrative Officer’s grant-related duties will be performed by a nonprofit 

organization through a cooperative agreement.
Page 8 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

provide technical assistance to the gateways. As directed by the act, the 

Park Service provides technical assistance, such as offering workshops and 

conferences and training opportunities to gateways, working with 

gateways to determine what interpretive elements could enhance the 

gateway’s offerings, and organizing networking meetings for the gateways. 

For fiscal years 2000 through 2005, congressional conference reports 

allocated approximately $9.5 million to the program. An additional $1.5 

million was allocated in fiscal year 2006. As table 1 shows, during fiscal 

years 2000 through 2005, overall, about two-thirds of the program’s funds 

were for the grants, and about one-third for other network costs, including 

providing a CBGN logo sign for each gateway, the CBGN map identifying 

the locations of the gateways, technical assistance, and administrative 

costs. 

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

Years 2000-2005 

Source: Park Service.

a

Allocations of budget authority are the amounts presented in the Park Service’s budget justification 

documents.

b

Park Service grant obligation information.

c

Dollar amounts for other network activities were calculated by subtracting the grant obligations for 

each year from the total allocation of budget authority.

d

The total allocation of budget authority for the CBGN program in fiscal year 2001 was $2,295,000. 

Within this amount, $798,300 was provided for CBGN grants and technical assistance, and $1,496,700 

was provided for the purchase of the Holly Farm Beach property. 

Fiscal 

year

Allocations of

budget authoritya CBGN grantsb

Percentage of

total for grants

Dollar amounts for 

other network 

activitiesc

Percentage of total 

for other network activities

2000 $594,000 $386,644 65% $207,356 35%

2001 798,300d 556,582 70 241,718 30

2002 1,200,000 828,895 69 371,105 31

2003 1,987,000 1,381,206 70 605,794 30

2004 2,469,000 1,516,560 61 952,440 39

2005 2,465,000 1,608,931 65 856,069 35

Total $9,513,300 $6,278,818 66% $3,234,482 34%
Page 9 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Chesapeake Bay Gateways 

Network

As of July 2006, the Park Service designated 152 gateways that included 

state parks, federal refuges, museums, and water trails.13 The majority of 

these gateways are nonprofit organizations. Figures 1 and 2 show the 

locations of the gateways. Most of the gateways are located within or 

adjacent to the “fall line”—the upper limit of the tidal reaches of the bay. 

Likewise, most of the gateways are in Maryland and Virginia, as figure 3 

shows. (App. III provides detailed information on the gateways.) 

13While the act specifies that the Secretary of the Interior shall cooperate with the private 

sector in creating the network, the Park Service and CBGN working group decided that 

private, for-profit organizations are not eligible for designation. However, the Park Service 

engages private, for-profit organizations in the network through other means, such as 

participation in workshops and conferences. In addition, private, for-profit organizations 

have indirectly received funding through grants awarded to gateways that have used private, 

for-profit organizations as subcontractors.
Page 10 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

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

Pennsylvania

Virginia

 West

Virginia Delaware

Maryland

New York

Sources: Park Service and GAO.

Gateways

Location of Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Page 11 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

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

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

represents eight gateways.

Baltimore

Norfolk

Washington, 

 D.C.

C

H

E

S

A

P

E

A

K

E

B

A

Y

A

T L A

N

T I C

O

C

E A

N

North

0

0 5

5 10 20

10

15

15

 Km

 Mi

24

Gateways Network hub Chesapeake Bay fall line

Sources: Park Service and GAO.

Pennsylvania

Virginia

 West Virginia

Maryland

New York

Approximate area (bottom right)

Location of

Chesapeake

Bay Watershed
Page 12 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

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

Note: For the four gateways that are located in multiple states (or in multiple states and the District of 

Columbia), we counted the gateway as being in each of the relevant locations.

To join the network, an applicant applies to become one of the following 

four types of gateways: 

• Hub. Hubs are centers in locations that receive a large number of 

visitors. The hubs introduce visitors to baywide themes and provide key 

orientation information to the entire network. 

• Regional information center. Regional information centers provide key 

information to facilitate visitor access to a particular region and other 

gateways within the vicinity.

• Connecting route. Connecting routes are water and land trails and other 

connections that link gateways through a network of boating, hiking, 

walking, biking, or driving routes. 

57%

Washington, D.C.

West Virgina

1%

34%

4%

1%

3%

New York

Maryland

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service documents.

Virginia

Pennsylvania
Page 13 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

• Site. Sites are the primary places to which visitors are directed in order 

to experience and learn about a particular bay-related natural, cultural, 

historical, or recreational resource and its role in the story of the bay.

The Park Service reviews the application using a checklist that lists 

multiple criteria. Depending on the type of gateway application, the 

checklist contains 6 to 10 specific criteria. Regardless of the type of 

gateway, the Park Service considers 7 broad criteria: represents important 

bay-related resources, themes, and stories; provides public access to these 

resources; demonstrates community support for gateway status; 

demonstrates the organizational and operational current and future 

management capacity for a gateway; advances network goals, as described 

in the CBGN’s framework and strategic plan;14 interprets bay-related 

themes;15 and meets the particular characteristics of one of the four types 

of network gateways. After the Park Service completes its review, the 

CBGN working group reviews this checklist and discusses whether the 

application should be designated for gateway status. Based upon its review 

and the CBGN working group’s discussion, the Park Service notifies the 

applicant of the agency’s final decision. For those applications approved 

for designation, the Park Service establishes a memorandum of 

understanding with the gateway’s managing organization. For additional 

details about the selection criteria and process, see appendix IV.

Grant Program Between fiscal years 2000 and 2005, the Park Service awarded 189 grants, 

totaling about $6.28 million, to 119 gateways. To implement the grant 

program, the Park Service enters into cooperative agreements with 

recipients—either a gateway’s managing organization or a partner 

organization, such as Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. A 

cooperative agreement is a type of federal assistance agreement used when 

the federal government will be substantially involved in the project. 

Because such involvement was anticipated in CBGN projects, the Park

14National Park Service. Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Framework (Annapolis, Md.: 

June 2000). National Park Service. Chesapeake Bay Gateways Strategic Plan 2006-2008

(2005). 

15The program’s overarching themes are “interconnectedness, interdependence, and 

knowledge and mystery.”
Page 14 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Service chose to use cooperative agreements instead of grants.16 These 

awards, which require an equal nonfederal match and currently allow for 

an 18-month project period, were made to four types of grant recipients, as 

shown in figure 4.

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

Note: For the four grants that were awarded to more than one grant recipient, we counted the grant as 

going toward each of the grant recipients and their respective types.

The Park Service offers grants for the following three program goals—

conservation and restoration, interpretation, and access:

• Conservation and restoration: the development of restoration projects 

for high-priority natural habitat; restoration and conservation of bayrelated cultural or historic resources that are central to depicting a 

gateway’s connection to the bay; and the development of programs that 

allow volunteers, including visitors, to participate in restoration and 

conservation work at the site.

16For ease of presentation, we refer to the Park Service’s cooperative agreements as “grants” 

in this report and recipients of these agreements as “grant recipients” or “grantees.” 

65%

20%

9%

6%

Other

Nonprofit

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service information.

Local

State
Page 15 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

• Interpretation: wayside exhibits and signs; interior and exterior 

interpretive exhibits; audiovisual productions; development of guided or 

live interpretive programs; interpretive brochures, maps, and guides; 

educational programs for kindergarten through twelfth-grade students; 

and creation of an interpretive plan for a gateway or group of gateways.

• Access: environmentally-friendly improvements that provide access to 

bay-related resources, the creation of water access points, and the 

development of maps or guides that help people use the location.

To receive a grant, a gateway’s managing organization or a partner 

organization designated to carry out the project must first submit an 

application package that includes the application form and a proposed 

budget, among other things. The Park Service and CBGN working group 

then conduct concurrent reviews using checklists to review the application 

on a number of criteria, including whether the applicant has long-term 

management plans for the project and whether the project would 

significantly and measurably enhance interpretation of bay-related themes. 

After these reviews, the Park Service and CBGN working group meet to 

discuss whether the applicant should be awarded a grant. If the CBGN 

working group and the Park Service determine that modifications, such as 

changes to the scope of work or budget, are necessary, the Park Service 

contacts the applicant to discuss these changes. Based upon the 

discussions with the CBGN working group and the applicant, the Park 

Service then makes a final decision, notifies the applicant, and signs an 

agreement. For additional details about the selection process, see appendix 

V. 

Criteria Used to Select 

Gateways Are Not 

Always Transparent 

and May Not Be 

Consistently Applied

The criteria the Park Service and CBGN working group use to select 

gateways are not always transparent and may not be consistently applied 

and, as a result, the Park Service cannot be assured that its gateways 

selection process is always fair and open. The Park Service established and 

published selection criteria that applicants are to meet in order to be 

recognized as a Chesapeake Bay gateway. The checklist the Park Service 

uses to review gateway applications states that applicants must meet all the 

criteria on the checklist to be designated as a gateway. 

However, we found that the Park Service and CBGN working group use 

additional criteria, beyond those included in the checklist, in deciding on 

whether to accept an applicant as a gateway but have not published this 
Page 16 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

information in their application materials. Specifically, we found the 

following:

• One of the stated criteria for a gateway site is that it be open to the 

public “for the maximum number of days per week feasible, allowing for 

seasonal visitation patterns.” However, the Park Service and CBGN 

working group decided that in order to meet this criterion, gateway sites 

must be open at least 4 days a week, including both weekend days, but 

they have not included this information in the gateway site application 

materials. In contrast, in the application materials for proposed regional 

information centers and hubs, the Park Service and CBGN working 

group lay out the minimum number of days per week the locations need 

to be publicly accessible. 

• The Park Service and CBGN working group decided that an 

environmental education resource center cannot be designated as a 

gateway, but the Park Service has not published this exclusion in its 

gateway application materials. The Park Service and the CBGN working 

group determined that environmental education centers do not fit into 

the network concept because they are not historical, cultural, natural, or 

recreational bay-related resources. Some Park Service officials also 

stated that because of the large number and similarity of these centers, 

it would be difficult to choose among them for gateway status. Although 

the Park Service and the CBGN working group documented their 

decision to exclude the environmental education center category from 

gateway eligibility in an applicant’s denial letter, they have not published 

this exclusionary criterion in their application materials.17 According to 

these Park Service officials, although the centers, standing alone, cannot 

be gateways, they are permitted in the network as part of another 

gateway (e.g., as part of a state park). However, this possibility is not 

clearly stated in the application materials. 

• The Park Service and CBGN working group consider a location’s degree 

of development when making selection decisions but have not 

established development as a criterion. While the Park Service and 

17While the Park Service and CBGN working group decided to exclude environmental 

education resource centers from joining the network, the program’s current Director 

questioned this decision because he believes that such centers fit well into the CBGN’s 

mission. He added that the network includes gateways that he would categorize as 

environmental education resource centers, and the program may want to reconsider this 

decision in the future.
Page 17 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

CBGN working group have discussed the possibility of modifying 

selection criteria to either clarify the degree to which a potential 

location must be sufficiently ready to operate as an effective gateway or 

to potentially allow for some less-developed sites with high potential to 

be designated and then developed further, the Park Service and CBGN 

working group have not decided whether to undertake such a 

modification.18 

In addition, the CBGN has recently shifted its focus from trying to establish 

a network to refining the network, but this change is not always clearly 

stated in the application materials. Furthermore, a 2005 Park Service study 

recommended that the selection criteria for gateway status need to be 

revisited to determine if the criteria are aligned with the program’s 

direction and target thematic and location gaps in the network.19 For 

example, although part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed is in Delaware, 

currently, there are no designated gateways in the state. As of July 2006, the 

Park Service and the CBGN working group had not acted on this 

recommendation.

Without clearly defined, transparent criteria, the Park Service and the 

CBGN working group cannot be assured that they are consistently applying 

all the criteria used in making selection decisions. For example, during our 

review of documents, including checklists, that the Park Service provided 

for applications accepted into the network and files for applications that 

were denied membership, we found instances in which applicants were 

denied gateway status because a location was not sufficiently developed at 

the time of application review, and other instances in which applicants 

were designated as gateways while still being developed, thereby raising 

questions about the consistent application of this unpublished criterion.20 

For example, in 2001, one gateway—a museum in Maryland—was 

accepted, although the Park Service reviewer indicated that the site should 

18The Park Service developed a checklist for “developed” water trails and another for 

“developing” water trails to account for the fact that when the network was created, the 

concept of water trails was a relatively new one. However, such designated gateways, 

whether developed or developing, are held to the same standards.

19Reingold Inc., Gap Analysis Report for the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, 2005.

20Because we cannot be sure that the accepted checklists provided by the Park Service are 

the final ones upon which decisions to accept locations were based, we compared these 

checklists with information received separately from the Park Service regarding dates of 

gateway designation in an attempt to verify that we reviewed the final checklists.
Page 18 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

be designated as a “developmental” site. Conversely, in 2005, the Park 

Service and CBGN working group denied an application because the 

proposed site—a 1-acre waterfront park along the Potomac River in 

Washington, D.C.—was not sufficiently developed, although they believed 

it had potential as a gateway and recommended reconsideration of the 

nomination once development plans were complete.21 

In addition, our review raises questions about whether the criteria in the 

checklist reflect all the factors that are considered when accepting 

applicants as gateways and whether these factors are consistently applied. 

Specifically, we found that some applicants were approved even though 

they did not meet all the selection criteria included in the checklist, and 

others were denied gateway status even though they met all these criteria. 

For example, the museum designated as a gateway in 2001, which the Park 

Service had recommended as a developmental site, also did not meet three 

of the required minimum criteria in the checklist—stewardship, long-term 

management capability of the managing organization, and public support. 

CBGN working group members also explained that some criteria are more 

important than others during the selection process but provided differing 

views as to which criteria were the most critical for gateway status or 

denial.

The Park Service 

Awarded Grants 

Primarily for 

Interpretation of and 

Access to Bay-Related 

Resources, but It Has 

Not Yet Determined 

Grants’ Effectiveness 

in Meeting Program 

Goals

The Park Service awarded the vast majority of its grants to support the 

program goals for interpretation of and access to bay-related resources, 

with 39 gateways receiving multiple grants to support interpretation and 

access. Although the Park Service has a strategic plan for fiscal years 2006 

through 2008 and records the primary and, if applicable, the secondary and 

tertiary program goals, associated with each grant project, it does not yet 

have a process in place to determine the effectiveness of its awarded grants 

in meeting the program goals. 

21In addition, the Park Service’s 2005 analysis included this site in a list of 147 potential sites 

for possible gateway status. As of July 2006, the location had not reapplied for gateway 

status. 
Page 19 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

The Vast Majority of Grants 

Reviewed Were Awarded for 

Interpretation and Access

During fiscal years 2000 through 2005, the Park Service awarded 189 grants 

to 119 gateways: 117 grants with the primary program goal of 

interpretation, 68 for access, and 4 for conservation and restoration. Of the 

approximately $6.28 million awarded, $3.68 million was for grants with the 

primary program goal of interpretation, $2.35 million for access, and 

$240,000 for conservation and restoration. (See fig. 5.) 

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

Most of the grants—152—had one primary program goal; another 36 grants 

had primary and secondary program goals; and 1 grant had primary, 

secondary, and tertiary program goals. When the secondary and tertiary 

program goals for the 189 grants awarded from fiscal years 2000 through 

2005 are taken into consideration, 145 grants had interpretive elements, 72 

had access elements, and 10 had conservation and restoration elements. 

For example, the 2005 grant for the Rappahannock River Water Trail (in 

Fredericksburg, Virginia)—for $130,825—had a primary program goal of 

access, secondary goal of conservation and restoration, and tertiary goal of 

62%

36%

2%

Conservation 

and restoration

(4 grants)

Interpretation

(117 grants)

Access

(68 grants)

Distribution and number of grants awarded 

by primary program goal, fiscal years 2000-2005

Distribution and amount of grant funding

by primary program goal, fiscal years 2000-2005

59% 37%

4%

Conservation 

and restoration

$241,613

Interpretation

$3,683,438

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service documents.

Access

$2,353,767

Total amount awarded = $6.28 million Total number awarded = 189 grants
Page 20 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

interpretation. Access activities included extending the water trail to the 

mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, creating an overview map, and developing 

five interpretive, self-guided tours of the lower section of the 

Rappahannock River. Conservation and restoration activities included 

developing stewardship programs to involve volunteers in creating lowimpact campsites for overnight paddlers. Lastly, interpretive activities 

included renovating an existing facility to establish an on-site visitor 

orientation center and expanding the gateway’s existing education 

curriculum. 

While most of the grants awarded to date have been for interpretation and 

access, the Park Service’s priorities among the three primary goals are not 

explicitly stated. Key program documents, such as the CBGN’s framework 

(June 2000) and the most recent strategic plan for 2006 through 2008, state 

that the interpretation of and access to bay-related resources will help the 

public understand the need to protect and restore the bay. Park Service 

staff, CBGN working group members, and grantees cited the following 

other reasons for focusing on interpretation and access: 

• One of the Park Service’s primary areas of expertise is interpretation, 

and most of the CBGN project coordinators have this expertise. 

• Interpretation is the logical first step for a site in the CBGN because 

interpretation of a site’s bay-related resources allows visitors to 

understand the site’s larger connection to the Chesapeake Bay.

• Fewer funding sources are available for interpretive projects compared 

with the funding sources available for conservation and restoration. For 

example, grant funding is available from federal, state, private, and 

nonprofit sources for conservation and restoration, such as the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed 

Grants Program, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s 

Water Quality Improvement Fund, and the Chesapeake Bay Trust’s 

stewardship grants.

• According to the Park Service, present estimates are that only 1 to 2 

percent of the Chesapeake Bay’s shoreline is publicly accessible; 

therefore, CBGN emphasizes projects that increase public access to the 

bay.
Page 21 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

• Fewer gateway sites apply for conservation and restoration grants, in 

part because conservation and restoration projects take more time and 

are more expensive. 

39 Gateways Received 

Multiple Grants to Support 

Interpretation and Access

Of the 189 grants awarded during fiscal years 2000 through 2005 to 119 

gateways, 110 grants went to 39 gateways that received more than 1 grant 

for either interpretation or access, with several gateways receiving up to 4 

grants for interpretation. We visited 7 of these 39 gateways to understand 

the types of projects funded, particularly in cases where a gateway 

received more than 1 grant for interpretation or access. Collectively, the 

seven gateways received 21 grants—11 for interpretation, 8 for access, and 

2 for conservation and restoration—with a total value of $1,019,368. (Table 

2 lists the seven gateways, the primary program goal, the dollar amount of 

each of the grants the gateway received, the percentage of nonfederal 

match contributed, and a description of each project.)
Page 22 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

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

Fiscal Years 2000-2005

Gateway

Grant 

year

Primary 

program goal

Grant 

amount

Nonfederal 

match 

percentage in 

ranges

(100 percent is 

even match)a Project description

Adkins Arboretum—Ridgley, Md.

A 400-acre preserve on Tuckahoe 

Creek on the Eastern Shore of 

Maryland. The area includes forested 

wetlands, maturing forests, and 

meadows. The gateway focuses on 

conserving native plants in the MidAtlantic coastal plain and has over 600 

species of native shrubs, trees, 

wildflowers, grasses, and ferns. 

2001 Access $23,100 100-149% One-page visitor orientation 

map and guide brochure and 

six interpretive signs on native 

plant communities.

2002 Interpretation 31,000 300-349 Wetlands boardwalk and 

overlook platform.

2004 Interpretation 61,569 100-149 Orientation exhibit, orientation 

video, and self-guided audio 

tour.

2005 Conservation 

and restoration

120,000 300-349% Development of a low-impact 

and pervious parking lot and 

replacement of the paved lot 

with a native garden with 

interpretive displays. 

Total CBGN grant funding $235,669

Blackwater National Wildlife 

Refuge—Cambridge, Md. 

A wildlife refuge located in the 

Blackwater and Nanticoke River 

watersheds on the Eastern Shore of 

Maryland. It preserves over 26,000 

acres as a wintering area for vast 

numbers of migratory birds. It also 

serves as a haven for several 

threatened or endangered species, 

including one of the largest 

concentrations of nesting bald eagles 

along the Atlantic Coast. While 

primarily a tidal marsh, the refuge also 

includes a mature pine forest.

2000 Interpretation $15,000 100-149% New interpretive exhibits on 

refuge wildlife and habitats in 

Visitor Center.

2001 Access 20,000 100-149b Development of two water 

trails, water trail map and 

guides, and two wayside signs 

with safety information.

2002 Access 33,000 100-149 Development of two nature 

trails with interpretive kiosks 

and trail guides.

2004 Conservation 

and restoration

27,500 100-149% Partnership with National 

Aquarium in Baltimore for a 

1.5-acre community, volunteerbased wetlands restoration 

project.

Total CBGN grant funding $95,500
Page 23 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Chesapeake Bay Maritime 

Museum—St. Michaels, Md.

The hub and one of the few 

indoor/outdoor museums focusing on 

the history and traditions of the 

Chesapeake Bay. The museum is 

located on 18 acres of land along the 

Miles River and the complex houses 

examples of historic bay working 

boats, numerous exhibits, guns, 

decoys, ship models, and the 1879 

Hooper Strait Lighthouse.

2000 Interpretation $40,000 100-149% Two interpretive kiosks 

highlighting bay themes, 

interpretive brochures and 

maps of thematic routes linking 

gateway sites, and a revision of 

the museum’s docent manual 

and training program.

2001 Interpretation 19,200 150-199 Development of an ongoing, 

costumed, live interpretive 

program on watermen’s life and 

culture.

2003 Interpretation 100,000 400-449 Development of a new, 

extensive, permanent exhibit, 

“At Play on the Bay,” which 

highlights the increasing 

recreational activities of the 

bay, such as the history of 

recreation, and the effects of 

growth on the bay environment.

2005 Access 150,000 150-199% CBGN Regional Contact 

Center to provide information to 

visitors on how to explore the 

bay through the CBGN.

Total CBGN grant funding $309,200

Patuxent River Park–Jug Bay 

Natural Area—Upper Marlboro, Md.

A 2,000-acre tract of land comprised of 

various natural habitats that buffer the 

Patuxent River. Jug Bay is an 

important freshwater tidal estuary in 

the bay region and it is a component of 

the Chesapeake Bay National 

Estuarine Research Reserve, a 

nationwide network of coastal 

estuaries that serve as laboratories for 

scientific research, education, and 

monitoring. More than 250 species of 

birds have been recorded in the area. 

2002 Interpretation $5,000 100-149% Creation of a self-guided 

driving, hiking, and biking tour 

brochure.

2004 Interpretation 17,550 100-149% 10 interpretive wayside signs 

and a brochure on the 

archeological and historical 

resources on the Mt. Calvert 

site.

Total CBGN grant funding $22,550

(Continued From Previous Page)

Gateway

Grant 

year

Primary 

program goal

Grant 

amount

Nonfederal 

match 

percentage in 

ranges

(100 percent is 

even match)a Project description
Page 24 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Rappahannock River Water Trail—

Fredericksburg, Va. 

The Rappahannock River is the 

longest free-flowing river in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed and 

extends 184 miles from its origin at 

Chester Gap in the Shenandoah 

National Park of western Virginia to 

Stingray Point in the Chesapeake Bay. 

The water trail includes historic areas 

from Kelly's Ford to the Fredericksburg 

City Docks—the middle section of the 

river. While there are many locations 

along the Rappahannock that are 

accessible for paddling and boating, 

the water trail is still under 

development.

2004 Access $109,674 100-149% Development of a water trail, 

creation of an interpretive water 

trail map and guide and Webbased version, four wayside 

signs, and six interpretive 

kiosks on safety and 

conservation of the water trail.

2005 Access 130,825 100-149% Expansion of the water trail to 

the mouth of the river; creation 

of a new overview map and five 

interpretive, self-guided tours of 

the lower Rappahannock; 

renovation of an existing facility 

to establish an on-site visitor 

orientation center; expansion of 

existing education curriculum; 

and development of 

stewardship programs to 

involve volunteers in 

conservation and restoration 

work, such as developing lowimpact campsites for overnight 

paddlers.

Total CBGN grant funding $240,499

Susquehanna River Water Trail–

Lower Section—water trail from 

Harrisburg, Pa., south to Havre de 

Grace, Md. 

The Susquehanna River is the largest 

tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. The 

lower section of the water trail spans 

65 miles from Harrisburg, Pa. to Havre 

de Grace, Md. The Lower 

Susquehanna Water Trail helps users 

explore the river’s diversity of natural 

and built environments, as well as 

contrast the wilderness and uses of 

the river for work. 

2000 Access $20,000 300-349b% Development of an interpretive 

framework and signage plan 

identifying 21 key sites along 

the river, design and fabrication 

of 14 wayside signs, and an 

interpretive water trail map and 

guide to the Pennsylvania 

portion of the trail’s lower 

section.

2001 Interpretation 10,500 300-349 Addition of seven interpretive 

wayside signs at key public 

launches in Pennsylvania.

2002 Access 18,000 100-149c% Printing and production of a 

water trail map and guide 

focused on the Maryland 

portion of the river.

Total CBGN grant funding $48,500

(Continued From Previous Page)

Gateway

Grant 

year

Primary 

program goal

Grant 

amount

Nonfederal 

match 

percentage in 

ranges

(100 percent is 

even match)a Project description
Page 25 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

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

a

These nonfederal match ranges are based on estimates provided by the grantees. For grants that 

have not been completed, the estimates represent the anticipated match.

b

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

c

This project is not yet complete due to turnover in the project’s managing organization. The current 

managing organization provided an estimate of the current match percentage but was not able to 

estimate the anticipated match for the entire project. 

According to Park Service staff, some working group members, several 

grantees, and our analysis, these grants funded distinct projects or phases 

of a larger project. For example, the Adkins Arboretum gateway received 

two grants for interpretation, each of which supported distinct projects: 

(1) the development of an orientation exhibit, an orientation video, and a 

self-guided audio tour and (2) the creation of a wetlands boardwalk and 

overlook platform. (See fig. 6.) 

Underground Railroad Scenic 

Byway— Dorchester County north 

through Caroline County, Md. 

This 64-mile driving route highlights 

the life of Harriet Tubman, an 

abolitionist who served as a conductor 

on the Underground Railroad, and key 

places connected with her in the 

Chesapeake Bay region. From 

Dorchester County, the area she grew 

up in, the trail can be followed north 

through Caroline County, where many 

Maryland free blacks and white 

abolitionists supported the cause of 

freedom.

2003 Interpretation $30,000 100-149% “Finding a Way to Freedom” 

driving route guide, design of 

three exhibits to be placed at 

locations along the Byway, and 

installation of one exhibit in The 

Museum of Rural Life (in 

Denton, Md.).

2005 Interpretation 37,450 100-149% Fabrication and installation of 

two exhibits designed with the 

2003 grant, creation of three 

wayside signs, and 

development of an interpretive 

plan for the Sailwinds Visitor 

Center.

Total CBGN grant funding $67,450

Total CBGN grant funding for the 

seven gateways

$1,019,368

(Continued From Previous Page)

Gateway

Grant 

year

Primary 

program goal

Grant 

amount

Nonfederal 

match 

percentage in 

ranges

(100 percent is 

even match)a Project description
Page 26 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Figure 6: Projects Funded by CBGN Grants at Adkins Arboretum

Alternatively, gateways sometimes break up a larger project into 

manageable phases in order to complete the project in the allowed 18-

month time frame and meet the matching requirement. For instance, the 

Underground Railroad Scenic Byway’s two grants for interpretation each 

supported a separate phase of the development of a trail that highlights the 

Source: GAO.

(a) Orientation exhibit that consists of a mural and photo collage used by docents to provide

an overview of the site (funded by the 2004 grant). (b) Visitors listen to a lesson about native

plant communities and ecology at one of 35 stops on an audio tour (funded by the 2004 grant).

(c) A boardwalk through wetlands on the arboretum grounds and an overlook platform that 

students and visitors use to closely view plants and wildlife (funded by the 2002 grant).

(a) (b)

(c)
Page 27 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

life and contributions of Harriet Tubman to the Underground Railroad in 

the Chesapeake Bay region.

The Park Service Has Not 

Yet Determined Grants’ 

Effectiveness in Meeting 

Program Goals

Although the Park Service tracks the program goal(s) for each grant, it 

does not have a process to determine the effectiveness of the grants in 

meeting its program goals of conservation and restoration, interpretation, 

and access. In October 2005, the Park Service issued its strategic plan for 

2006 through 2008, which describes program priorities and effectiveness 

measures. However, we have identified the following weaknesses in this 

plan: 

• The plan does not have benchmarks to assess progress toward 

achieving its goals. For example, one of the goals—to “increase 

awareness and use of the Gateways Network”—has a target of 

increasing the number of visitors who participate in grant-funded 

programming, exhibits, and events, but the CBGN program does not 

have a baseline from which to measure the attainment of this target. 

• The Park Service is not collecting data to establish benchmarks or 

measure its progress in achieving its goals. For example, one of the 

goals—to “increase the number of gateways providing opportunities for 

visitors/volunteers to participate in on-site stewardship activities”—

targets an increase in the number of stewardship actions taken by 

visitors at gateways by 20 percent by 2008. According to the plan, the 

Park Service will determine the attainment of this goal by measuring the 

number of volunteers and the amount of time they spend participating in 

grant-funded activities. However, according to the Park Service, it does 

not track the number of volunteers or volunteer hours that contribute 

toward achieving its strategic goals. 

• Some of the measures included in the strategic plan are difficult to 

quantify. For example, to assess its effectiveness in increasing the 

number of people who understand the Chesapeake Bay story, the Park 

Service plans to measure the number of visitors who demonstrate 

understanding of Chesapeake Bay history, culture, and environment 

and/or stewardship from grant-funded gateway experiences. However, 

as the Park Service recognizes, measuring such outcomes is difficult. 

According to a 2005 report by Interior’s Inspector General, 12 Interior 

grant programs could not demonstrate results because program goals
Page 28 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

were not measurable.22 The Inspector General recognized that while 

establishing measurable goals for grant programs can be difficult, such 

goals are essential to demonstrate results. We have also reported on the 

difficulty of measuring outcomes from grants.23

The CBGN Director expressed similar concerns about the plan’s usefulness 

for assessing the effectiveness of the grant program and the network as a 

whole. In addition to confirming the problems described above, he stated 

that he was uncertain as to whether the goals laid out in the strategic plan 

are achievable and in line with what he sees as the top priorities for the 

CBGN. He plans, in conjunction with his staff, the CBGN working group, 

and gateways, to conduct a comprehensive review of the strategic plan 

during fiscal year 2007 to determine if the plan’s goals are measurable and 

achievable, and represent the CBGN’s current priorities.

The Park Service Has 

Taken Steps to Manage 

and Oversee Grants 

More Effectively but 

Still Needs to Address 

Oversight and 

Accountability 

Weaknesses

The Park Service developed an action plan to address concerns in several 

areas, including planning, financial management, and grantee oversight. 

However, as of July 2006, it had only implemented 16 of the 27 actions in its 

plan. The remaining 11 actions have not been fully implemented. Moreover, 

several management problems—inadequate training, a lack of timely 

grantee reporting, inappropriate grant awards, a backlog of incomplete 

grant projects, and underperforming gateways—still need to be addressed. 

22Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: Framework Needed 

to Promote Accountability in Interior’s Grant Management, Report No. W-IN-MOA-0052-

2004 (Washington, D.C.: August 2005).

23GAO, Grants Management: EPA Needs to Strengthen Efforts to Address Persistent 

Challenges, GAO-03-846 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 2003). 
Page 29 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

The Park Service Has Made 

Progress in Implementing 

Actions in Its Plan to 

Improve Grant Program 

Management

In March 2005, the Park Service developed an action plan that outlined 27 

corrective actions and associated time frames to improve program 

management in several areas, including planning, financial management, 

and grantee oversight. The Park Service originally had planned to complete 

all 27 actions by September 2005. As table 3 shows, as of July 2006, the Park 

Service had implemented only 16 of these actions. 

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

Source: GAO’s analysis of Park Service documents.

a

Reingold Inc. Gap Analysis. 2005.

b

Reid Consulting, LLC performed the audits, which identified a few problems including one grantee that 

submitted a quarterly report containing unallowable costs, two grantees that were not on schedule to 

Concern Action completed 

Lack of Park Service direction, 

planning, and setting of priorities.

• Clarified, strengthened, and documented the distinction between working group recommendations 

and Park Service decisions. For example, during the grant review process, Park Service staff 

analyze applications, the working group makes recommendations, and the Park Service makes the 

final funding decisions. 

• Developed annual CBGN program management plan to establish annual priorities. 

• Hired a contractor to analyze geographic and thematic gaps in the CBGN and estimate potential 

network growth through 2008. A report was issued.a

Awarding grants without ensuring 

that required modifications to the 

grant application have been made.

• Developed checklist for certifying that modifications have been made before issuing the grant 

award. 

• Began using this checklist for fiscal year 2005 grants.

Ineffective coordination with state 

and local governments. 

• Revised grant review instructions to clearly lay out the expectation that state representatives in the 

working group will share relevant information on applications that are submitted by applicants in 

their state. 

• Modified grant guidelines to require state applicants to submit a copy of their application to their 

state for intergovernmental review at the time they apply to CBGN.

Lack of Park Service grant 

oversight.

• Reviewed incomplete grants awarded from 2000 through 2005 to establish grant completion 

deadlines and to determine whether any grants should be terminated. Park Service identified 11 

grants for termination and has terminated 1 of these—a fiscal year 2000 grant for $20,000—due to 

a lack of grantee progress and expiring funds.

• Instituted a formal process for extending the time period of the grant. 

• Sent e-mail notices reminding grantees that their quarterly reports were due.

• Beginning with fiscal year 2005 grants, clearly stated in grant agreements when funds will expire.

• Established a grant application review checklist for reviewing programmatic and financial aspects 

of the grant application. 

• Beginning with fiscal year 2005 grants, included requirements and instructions in grant agreements 

for filing quarterly financial status reports.

• Held a financial management workshop for new grantees. 

• Hired a contractor to conduct audits of 17 grants to determine compliance with financial 

requirements. These audits identified a few problems.b

Inappropriate awarding of grants to 

nonfederal applicants for projects 

benefiting federal entities. 

• Revised grant application guidelines to allow only grant applications from nonfederal applicants for 

projects taking place on federal lands when the nonfederal entity is fully and directly responsible for 

implementing and carrying out the ongoing management of the project.
Page 30 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

meet their matching fund requirements, two grantees that lacked accounting procedures manuals, and 

one grantee without a formal accounting system. 

Table 4 describes the remaining problems the Park Service needs to 

address in order to complete the remaining 11 actions in its plan. As the 

table indicates, most of these actions remaining are for improving 

oversight. 

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

Concern Planned actions Remaining problems 

The proportion of appropriated funds 

spent on overhead costs and nongrant 

activities is too high relative to the 

funding spent on grants.

Starting in fiscal year 2005, the Park 

Service established a goal of spending 

between 65 and 75 percent of its annual 

allocation of budget authority on grants. 

Maintain Park Service program 

administration costs at a level not to 

exceed 5 percent of annual allocation of 

CBGN budget authority but not less than 

$90,000 annually. 

In fiscal year 2005, the Park Service met its goal of 

spending between 65 and 75 percent of its annual 

allocation of budget authority on grants. However, 

in fiscal year 2006 it will not meet this goal. The 

Park Service plans to spend 58 percent of its fiscal 

year 2006 allocation of budget authority on grants 

because it is providing more resources toward the 

administrative costs of eliminating the backlog of 

incomplete grants. According to the CBGN Director, 

the Park Service does not currently track 

administrative costs for the program.

Lack of Park Service direction, planning, 

and setting of priorities.

Develop a strategic plan for the CBGN. A strategic plan was issued in 2005, but the Park 

Service plans to revise it in 2007 because of 

concerns about whether the goals laid out in the 

2005 plan are achievable and measurable and 

represent current CBGN priorities. 

Lack of measures for program 

effectiveness.

Establish an outcome measurement 

process for evaluating the effectiveness 

of CBGN grants on a programmatic 

basis and prepare initial report. The 

process will be linked to the strategic 

plan outlining CBGN objectives and 

priorities.

The Park Service contracted out for the 

development of a process to evaluate program 

effectiveness, but does not believe the proposed 

process is usable. The Park Service plans to enter 

into a cooperative agreement with a university to 

conduct a qualitative evaluation of network 

effectiveness and plans to fold in some aspects of 

the previous contractor’s product. 

Lack of Park Service grant oversight. Ensure that all grant agreements are in 

compliance with the directives in Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

circulars on program management and 

oversight responsibilities.

As a principal action, the Park Service has 

developed an Operating Procedures Manual 

specifying procedures that incorporate the 

guidelines and requirements of OMB circulars to 

the CBGN’s grant program. The Park Service is in 

the process of completing the other steps to 

improve oversight, which also address adherence 

to OMB circulars.

Organize Park Service grant files on a 

grant basis, rather than by gateway, for 

better documentation and tracking of 

grant projects and expenditures.

The files have been reorganized by grant, but the 

Park Service has not finished updating them.
Page 31 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service documents.

a

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

Several Management 

Problems Remain

Although the Park Service has made progress in implementing the actions 

in its plan, we identified the following five remaining management 

problems:

• Inadequate training. While the Park Service committed in its action 

plan to providing additional grant management training for CBGN staff, 

it provided federal grant and cooperative agreement training only to its 

CBGN Administrative Officer, and this officer left the program in August 

2006. None of the CBGN project coordinators, who are responsible for 

reviewing grant proposals and monitoring the progress of grant projects, 

have received such training. However, according to the CBGN Director, 

Maintain stringent enforcement of 

quarterly reporting requirements by 

grantees, including restricting payments 

unless reporting is current. 

The Park Service has not maintained stringent 

enforcement of quarterly reporting requirements. 

However, it made some revisions to the quarterly 

reporting procedure to streamline it. The Park 

Service has signed a cooperative agreement with a 

nonprofit organization to facilitate completion of 

required reports, as well as grantee projects.a

Require fully documented detailed 

expenditure reports for both matching 

and grant funds with all invoices.

The Park Service plans to implement this action by 

comparing invoices with quarterly reports.

Beginning in fiscal year 2005, require 

more detailed explanations of the scope 

of work in new grant agreements, 

including linking payments to specific 

project milestones.

While the Park Service incorporated detailed 

descriptions in the scope of work in new grant 

agreements, the lack of quarterly reports prevents 

the Park Service from always linking payments to 

specific project milestones.

Provide additional grant management 

training for Park Service staff.

While the CBGN Administrative Officer completed 

additional federal grant and cooperative agreement 

management training, other Park Service staff 

overseeing the grants have not received such 

training. According to the CBGN Director, he plans 

to provide grant management training to his staff in 

September 2006.

Prohibit award of a 2005 CBGN grant to 

any applicant with an incomplete 

outstanding grant: from 2000-2003, as of 

July 30, 2005; from 2004 that is not fully 

on schedule; or that fails a specific 

assessment of whether the capacity 

exists for completing a new grant on 

schedule.

While the Park Service developed and used a 

checklist to implement this action, it did not fully 

enforce it for fiscal year 2005 grants. The Park 

Service said it would enforce this action for fiscal 

year 2006.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Concern Planned actions Remaining problems 
Page 32 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

project coordinators have had limited training that includes attending a 

grant recipient workshop on financial management. This lack of training 

is not unique to the CBGN program. In 2005, Interior’s Inspector General 

reported that over two-thirds of the grant managers and administrators 

they surveyed departmentwide had not received any grant-related 

training in the last 4 years.24 The Inspector General concluded that these 

staff generally lacked sufficient training to effectively award and 

monitor grants. According to the CBGN Director, he plans to provide 

grant management training to his staff in September 2006.

• Lack of timely grantee reporting. The Park Service committed in its 

action plan to stringently enforcing its requirement for grantees to 

report quarterly on progress and finances. However, we found that, 

approximately 2 months after the reports were due, only 8 of the 27 files 

for grants awarded in fiscal year 2005 contained both the quarterly 

progress and financial reports for the reporting period we reviewed. 

Furthermore, despite the commitment in the CBGN action plan to 

restrict reimbursements to grantees who had not yet submitted their 

quarterly reports, one grantee who had not submitted a complete report 

was reimbursed $3,615.61. Interior’s Inspector General raised similar 

concerns in its August 2005 report.25 The Inspector General reported 

that nearly half of the 92 files reviewed across the department did not 

contain the required performance and financial status reports. 

According to the CBGN Director, he is going to review the reporting 

requirement to determine if reporting on a quarterly basis is too 

stringent.

• Inappropriate awards. The Park Service committed in its action plan to 

prohibiting the award of a fiscal year 2005 CBGN grant to any applicant 

with an incomplete or delayed grant project or that failed an assessment 

of whether the capacity existed for completing a new grant on schedule. 

However, we found that 2 of the 27 grants awarded in fiscal year 2005 

were awarded to such applicants: one grant was awarded to an 

applicant with a 2004 grant not expected to be completed on time and 

one to an applicant that, according to the Park Service reviewer, “has 

not shown the capacity to accomplish its previous grant project in a 

timely manner.” 

24Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Report No. W-IN-MOA-0052-2004. 

25Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Report No. W-IN-MOA-0052-2004.
Page 33 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

• Backlog of uncompleted grants. According to the Park Service, as of 

June 30, 2006, 63 of the 162 grants awarded between fiscal years 2000 

and 2004 had not been completed or closed out. Completing and closing 

out existing grants is the CBGN’s highest priority, according to the 

CBGN Director. In 2006, the Inspector General reported that 18 of 23 

CBGN grants (fiscal year 2001-June 2005) it reviewed had experienced 

delays ranging from 9 months to 3 years.26 The Inspector General 

concluded that the Park Service needs to terminate projects when 

grantees lack valid reasons for delays. In its response to the Inspector 

General’s report, the Park Service committed to eliminating the backlog 

of incomplete grant projects and placing all grants on a reasonable and 

documented time frame for completion. 

• Underperforming gateways. The Park Service does not regularly review 

gateways to ensure that they are meeting basic requirements for CBGN 

membership, as laid out in their memorandums of understanding with 

the Park Service. This lack of oversight may have led, in some instances, 

to underperforming gateways that reflect poorly upon the network. For 

example, during a visit to the Dogwood Harbor gateway (on Tilghman 

Island, Maryland), we observed that the site lacked the required CBGN 

logo sign that indicates the site’s connection to the network, as well as 

any information or staff to explain this connection. (See fig. 7.)

26Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: Administration of 

the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network and Grant Program, National Park Service, 

Report No. W-IN-NPS-0006-2005 (Sacramento, Calif.: July 2006).
Page 34 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Figure 7: Views at the Dogwood Harbor Gateway

Park Service staff and working group members stated that they have 

concerns about gateways that are not fulfilling their commitments, and 

they are considering removing some sites from the network. The Park 

Service and working group members have started discussing the possibility 

of instituting periodic reviews of gateways to ensure they are continuing to 

meet the terms of their agreements. Almost all of the working group 

members that we interviewed agreed that periodic reviews of gateways are 

needed and that, where appropriate, underperforming gateways should be 

removed from the network.

Conclusions The Park Service is struggling to effectively manage and oversee the 

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network and grant program. To its credit, the 

Park Service has developed an action plan to address congressional 

concerns and has completed many of the actions cited in the plan. 

However, the Park Service still has to address several weaknesses in 

accountability and oversight to be assured that the CBGN is effective. In 

particular, it cannot currently ensure that its process for selecting gateways 

is open and fair because it bases its decisions, in part, on criteria that are 

not published in the application materials. Further, based on our review of 

Source: GAO.

(a) (b)

(a) Paved entrance without a CBGN logo sign. (b) Skipjacks without any working watermen to observe or interpretive

information to read.
Page 35 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

the Park Service documents, the criteria for approving or denying gateway 

membership may not have been applied consistently. In addition, the Park 

Service does not have a process for overseeing gateways to determine 

whether they are meeting the basic requirements for network membership, 

for remedying identified problems, or for removing underperforming 

gateways from the network. Underperforming gateways could discourage 

visitors from going to other gateways, appreciating bay-related resources, 

and promoting the stewardship of these resources—the ultimate purpose 

of the program. Finally, the Park Service has neither assessed the extent to 

which the grants it has awarded are effectively meeting program goals, nor 

has it fulfilled its commitments to ensure that staff are adequately trained 

in grant management, grantees are submitting reports on time so that 

progress and expenditures can be properly monitored, and grants are only 

awarded to applicants who have completed previous grants and who have 

the capacity for managing them effectively.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To enhance accountability and oversight, we recommend that the Secretary 

of the Interior direct the Director of the Park Service to have the Director 

of the CBGN implement seven actions in the following areas and be held 

accountable for implementing them: 

Gateway selection and network 

membership:

• Take steps to make all criteria used to select gateways publicly available 

and then consistently apply them. 

• Periodically review gateways to determine whether they are meeting the 

basic requirements for network membership.

• Develop procedures for resolving identified problems and, where 

appropriate, removing underperforming gateways from the network. 

Grant management: • Develop and implement a process to determine the extent to which 

grants are effectively meeting program goals.

• Ensure that CBGN staff responsible for grant management are 

adequately trained.

• Ensure that grants are awarded only to applicants who completed 

grants or to applicants who have demonstrated the capacity for 

completing a new grant on schedule.
Page 36 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

• Ensure that grantees submit progress and financial reports in a timely 

manner. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 

Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. The 

Environmental Protection Agency did not have comments on the report. 

Interior stated that it concurred with the recommendations in the report 

and described actions it plans to take to implement them. Planned actions 

include (1) reviewing the criteria used to select gateways and posting any 

revisions or clarifications to the CBGN Web site; (2) completing 

procedures for periodically reviewing gateways to determine if they are 

meeting the basic requirements for network membership and for 

terminating those not in compliance; and (3) having staff attend a grant 

management workshop offered by the Environmental Protection Agency in 

September 2006 and additional training, as necessary. The periodic reviews 

of gateways are to begin in October 2006. 

We are sending copies of this report to the congressional committees with 

jurisdiction over the Department of the Interior and its activities, the 

Secretary of the Interior, and the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency. We also will make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

Sincerely yours,

Robin M. Nazzaro

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Page 37 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

This appendix details the methods we used to assess the National Park 

Service’s (Park Service) Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (CBGN) and 

its related grant program. For this assessment, we determined the extent to 

which the (1) criteria for selecting gateways are transparent and 

consistently applied; (2) grants have been awarded to support the program 

goals of conserving and restoring, interpreting, and accessing important 

resources within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed; and (3) Park Service has 

taken action to improve its management and oversight of the program.

To address the three objectives, we analyzed Park Service and other 

documents, including the procedures and practices used to select 

gateways; the CBGN strategic plan for 2006 through 2008; recent reports 

issued by the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Office of Inspector 

General; and the Park Service’s planned actions to address management 

and oversight concerns raised by the Surveys and Investigations staff for 

the House Committee on Appropriations. In addition, we met with Park 

Service officials and members from most of the 17 organizations in the 

CBGN working group to obtain their perspectives on network membership 

and the grant program.1

 We also observed four CBGN working group 

meetings, including the gateway and grant selection meetings. 

In addition, we conducted a reliability review of the Park Service’s data 

system for the data we received for each of the three objectives and for 

presenting background information about the program. Our assessment 

consisted of interviews with an official about the data system and elements 

and the method of data input, among other areas. We also compared the 

electronic data with source documents from the gateway and grant files, 

when available. We determined that the data we used were sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes. 

For the first objective—to determine the extent to which the criteria for 

selecting network members are transparent and consistently applied—we 

systematically reviewed checklists and denial letters, when available, for 

the 63 locations that were denied gateway status during 2000 through 2006. 

1

The most up-to-date list of CBGN working group member organizations (updated in March 

2006) lists 17 organizations. Although we planned to interview a representative or 

representatives from each organization, we were only able to interview representatives 

from 14 of the organizations. The Maryland Department of Transportation representative 

stated that she no longer participates on the working group, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service representative no longer worked there, and the Maryland Historical Trust 

representative was on extended leave.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 38 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

We obtained these documents from either the files or from Park Service 

officials.2

 In addition, we reviewed the 102 checklists that were either 

provided by the Park Service or in network application files for the 152 

locations that were designated as gateways between 2000 and 2006.3

 In 

reviewing both sets of checklists, there were some items that were unclear. 

Therefore, we created a set of decision rules reviewed and agreed upon by 

the team to address these cases. For example, if a checklist had a question 

mark in the column that indicates the criterion had been met, we did not 

count this as having met the particular criterion. Because we cannot be 

sure that the accepted checklists we reviewed are the final ones upon 

which decisions to designate gateways were based, we compared these 

checklists with information received separately from the Park Service 

regarding dates of gateway designation in an attempt to verify that we did, 

in fact, review the final checklists. In recognition of the multistep review 

process used in selecting gateways, we also reviewed the CBGN working 

group’s meeting minutes, when available, for both accepted and denied 

applications to provide additional context for the Park Service’s and the 

working group’s decisions. In the case of denied locations, we knew some 

of the files were incomplete so we specifically reviewed particular 

documents from the files—the checklists and denial letters—and meeting 

minutes, when available.4

 We did not find an explanation in all cases of why 

an applicant with a checklist that met or did not meet all criteria was 

denied or accepted. 

For the second objective—to determine the extent to which the Park 

Service awarded grants to support the program goals of conserving and 

restoring, interpreting, and accessing important resources within the 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed—we reviewed Park Service data that identified 

the primary program goal for each grant awarded and determined the 

number of gateways that received multiple grants for the same primary

2

We could not obtain either a checklist or a letter for 2 of the 63 locations that were denied 

gateway status.

3

Checklists for selecting gateways were developed in late 2000. As a result, not all of the 

gateways designated in 2000 had checklists. In addition, the Park Service did not provide a 

checklist for every gateway in subsequent years.

4

Prior to 2003, the program maintained gateway and grant documents in boxes. Starting in 

late 2003, a somewhat more systematic approach was implemented at which point files 

were constructed. According to a Park Service official, the grant files are complete while 

some of the gateway files for both accepted and denied locations are incomplete. 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 39 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

program goal.5 From these 39 gateways, we selected a nonprobability 

sample of 16 gateways covering 49 grant files.6 We selected our sample to 

include gateways that received multiple grants for the same primary 

program goal and to incorporate a variety of gateway types. Using a data 

collection instrument, we systematically reviewed the 49 grant files to 

determine differences among grants awarded to the same gateway for the 

same primary program goal. We also conducted interviews with grantees 

and the Park Service officials responsible for overseeing the grants. In 

addition, we visited 7 gateways, which we selected from the list of 39 based 

on the number of grants awarded for the same primary program goal, the 

type of gateway, the state in which the gateway is located, and the total 

grant dollars received. In choosing the sample, to avoid duplication, we did 

not select sites, except for the hub, visited by the Interior’s Office of 

Inspector General during its recent study.7

 During these visits, we 

interviewed grantees, observed grant projects, and discussed differences in 

their projects.

For the final objective—to determine the extent to which the Park Service 

has taken action to improve its management and oversight of the 

program—we used a data collection instrument to systematically review 

Park Service files for the 27 grants awarded in fiscal year 2005 to determine 

the extent to which corrective actions have been implemented. In addition, 

while conducting our audit work, including visiting gateways in our 

nonprobability sample that received multiple grants for the same primary 

program goal and meeting with working group members, we visited 9 

nearby gateways that had not received any grants to see if they were 

fulfilling their basic commitments for network membership. We also 

reviewed Park Service data on the number of grants awarded from fiscal 

years 2000 through 2005 that have yet to be closed out.

We conducted our work between December 2005 and August 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

5

Some grants are awarded to more than one gateway. In such instances, we included the 

grant in the total number of grants received for each gateway that was associated with the 

grant award.

6

Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a 

population, because some elements of the population have no chance of being selected.

7

Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Report No. W-IN-NPS-0006-2005. 
Page 40 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Appendix II

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Working 

Group Member Organizations ApendxiI

This appendix presents information on the Chesapeake Bay Gateways 

Network (CBGN) working group member organizations. The following is 

the list of member organizations that the National Park Service (Park 

Service) provided: 

• Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay

• Chesapeake Bay Commission

• Chesapeake Bay Foundation

• Chesapeake Bay Trust

• Friends of Chesapeake Gateways

• Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development, Office 

of Tourism Development

• Maryland Department of Natural Resources

• Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Historical Trust

• Maryland Department of Transporation

• Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Bureau of Recreation and Conservation

• Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

• Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

• Virginia Department of Historic Resources

• Virginia Department of Transportation

• Virginia Tourism Corporation

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

• United States National Park Service 
Appendix II

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Working 

Group Member Organizations

Page 41 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

According to the Park Service, this list was updated in March 2006. 

However, in our efforts to meet with representatives from each of the 

CBGN working group organizations, we learned that the Maryland 

Department of Transportation representative no longer participates in the 

working group, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s sole representative 

on the working group no longer works there. According to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service employee we spoke with, a replacement has been 

selected, but that employee had not yet participated in the CBGN working 

group and was unaware of any upcoming meetings or activities. In 

addition, at the time of our review, the Maryland Historical Trust 

representative was on extended leave. 
Page 42 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Appendix III

Gateways in the Chesapeake Bay Gateways 

Network ApendxiI

This appendix provides information on the 152 gateways in the Chesapeake 

Bay Gateways Network (CBGN). It includes the name and location of each 

gateway, the year each was designated and its gateway type, the number of 

grants for fiscal years 2000 through 2005 the gateway received, and the 

total amount of grant funding awarded to the gateway’s managing 

organization or partner organization during this period. This information is 

presented as it was reported by the National Park Service (Park Service) to 

us on July 27, 2006. Consequently, the data are of undetermined reliability 

and are for informational purposes only. 

Table 5: 152 Gateways in the CBGN, Location, Year Designated, Gateway Type, Number of Grants Received from Fiscal Years 

2000 through 2005, and Total Grant Funding Awarded

Gateway Location

Year 

designated

Gateway 

type

Number of grants 

fiscal years 2000 

through 2005 Total grant funding

Adkins Arboretum Ridgely, Md. 2001 Site 4 $235,669

Anacostia Park Washington, D.C. 2002 Site 0 0

Anacostia River Community Park Washington, D.C. 2000 Site 1 18,600

Annapolis and Anne Arundel 

County Information Center 

Annapolis, Md. 2002 Regional 

information 

center

1 12,504

Annapolis Maritime Museum Annapolis, Md. 2000 Site 5 201,585

Baltimore and Annapolis Trail Park Annapolis to Glen 

Burnie, Md.

2003 Connecting 

route–land 

trail

0 0

Baltimore Visitor Center Baltimore, Md. 2004 Regional 

information 

center

1 111,500

Battle Creek Cypress Swamp Prince Frederick, 

Md.

2002 Site 1 11,300

Belle Isle State Park Lancaster, Va. 2000 Site 1 28,825a

Blackwater National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Cambridge, Md. 2000 Site 4 95,500b

Bladensburg Waterfront Park Bladensburg, Md. 2004 Site 0 0

Caledon Natural Area King George, Va. 2002 Site 0 0

Calvert Cliffs State Park Lusby, Md. 2003 Site 0 0

Calvert Marine Museum Solomons, Md. 2001 Site 3 64,438

Cape Charles Historic District Cape Charles, Va. 2001 Site 1 15,000

Captain Salem Avery House 

Museum 

Shady Side, Md. 2002 Site 3 53,625
Appendix III

Gateways in the Chesapeake Bay Gateways 

Network 

Page 43 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Chemung Basin Water Trail Steuben and 

Chemung Counties, 

N.Y.

2000 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

3 66,190

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 

National Historical Park 

Along Potomac 

River from 

Cumberland, Md. to 

Washington, D.C.

2002 Site 1 56,160

Chesapeake Bay Center at First 

Landing State Park 

Virginia Beach, Va. 2001 Regional 

information 

center

1 28,825a

Chesapeake Bay Environmental 

Center 

Grasonville, Md. 2000 Site 3 48,750

Chesapeake Bay Maritime 

Museum 

St. Michaels, Md. 2000 Hub 5 421,187 c

Chesapeake Beach Railway 

Museum 

Chesapeake Beach, 

Md.

2002 Site 0 0

Chesapeake Biological 

Laboratory, University of Maryland 

Center for Environmental Science

Solomons, Md. 2001 Site 1 30,058

Chesapeake Exploration Center Chester, Md. 2002 Regional 

information 

center

1 12,360

Chickahominy Riverfront Park Williamsburg, Va. 2003 Site 1 51,200

Chippokes Plantation State Park Surry, Va. 2001 Site 2 33,825a

Choptank and Tuckahoe Rivers 

Water Trail 

Caroline and Talbot 

Counties, Md.

2000 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

3 70,700

Concord Point Lighthouse Havre de Grace, 

Md.

2002 Site 1 20,000

Cross Island Trail Kent Island, Md. 2002 Connecting 

route–land 

trail

0 0

Dogwood Harbor Tilghman Island, 

Md.

2005 Site 0 0

Dutch Gap Conservation Area Chesterfield, Va. 2000 Site 2 34,650

Eastern Branch Elizabeth River 

Water Trail 

Virginia Beach and 

Norfolk, Va.

2002 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

1 15,000

Eastern Neck National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Rock Hall, Md. 2002 Site 3 118,974d

Eastern Shore of Virginia National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Cape Charles, Va. 2002 Site 1 88,000 e

(Continued From Previous Page)

Gateway Location

Year 

designated

Gateway 

type

Number of grants 

fiscal years 2000 

through 2005 Total grant funding
Appendix III

Gateways in the Chesapeake Bay Gateways 

Network 

Page 44 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Elizabeth River Trail Norfolk, Va. 2000 Connecting 

route–land 

trail

1 16,000

Elk Neck State Park North East, Md. 2001 Site 1 15,300

Fells Point Maritime Museum Baltimore, Md. 2003 Site 1 16,678

Fells Point National Register 

Historic District 

Baltimore, Md. 2004 Site 1 33,135

First Landing State Park Virginia Beach, Va. 2001 Site 2 56,325a

Flag Ponds Nature Park Lusby, Md. 2002 Site 1 32,050f

Fort McHenry National Monument 

and Historic Shrine 

Baltimore, Md. 2001 Site 3 78,880

Fort Washington Park Fort Washington, 

Md.

2002 Site 1 40,500g

Frederick Douglass–Issac Myers 

Waterfront Park 

Baltimore, Md. 2006 Site 0 0

Galesville Heritage Museum Galesville, Md. 2004 Site 1 89,137

Geddes-Piper House Chestertown, Md. 2004 Site 1 6,425

George Washington Birthplace 

National Monument 

Washington 

Birthplace, Va.

2001 Site 1 14,400

George Washington's Ferry Farm Fredericksburg, Va. 2005 Site 0 0

Gloucester Point Park Gloucester Point, 

Va.

2001 Site 2 68,698

Great Bridge Lock Park Chesapeake, Va. 2003 Site 2 83,020

Great Falls Park McLean, Va. 2002 Site 1 20,000h

Greenwell State Park Hollywood, Md. 2002 Site 1 11,715

Gunpowder Falls State Park Kingsville, Md. 2001 Site 1 9,600

Gwynns Falls Trail and Greenway Baltimore, Md. 2002 Connecting 

route–land 

trail

2 152,000

Havre de Grace Decoy Museum Havre de Grace, 

Md.

2002 Site 2 95,000

Historic Annapolis Gateway–City 

Dock 

Annapolis, Md. 2001 Site 3 31,290

Historic London Town and Garden Edgewater, Md. 2002 Site 2 159,000

Historic St. Mary's City St. Mary's City, Md. 2001 Site 3 157,072c

Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve Portsmouth, Va. 2000 Site 4 51,149

Huntley Meadows Park Alexandria, Va. 2002 Site 0 0

J. Millard Tawes Historical 

Museum and Ward Brothers 

Workshop 

Crisfield, Md. 2002 Site 0 0

(Continued From Previous Page)

Gateway Location

Year 

designated

Gateway 

type

Number of grants 

fiscal years 2000 

through 2005 Total grant funding
Appendix III

Gateways in the Chesapeake Bay Gateways 

Network 

Page 45 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

James Mills Scottish Factor Store Urbanna, Va. 2000 Site 1 14,000

Jamestown Island Jamestown, Va. 2001 Site 1 13,050

Janes Island State Park Crisfield, Md. 2000 Site 1 20,000i

Jefferson Patterson Park and 

Museum 

St. Leonard, Md. 2000 Site 3 106,150

Jones Falls Trail Baltimore, Md. 2005 Connecting 

route–land 

trail

0 0

Juniata River Water Trail Central Pa. 2004 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

1 74,300

King's Landing Park Huntingtown, Md. 2002 Site 1 32,050f

Kiptopeke State Park Cape Charles, Va. 2001 Site 2 116,825a, e

Lawrence Lewis Jr. Park Charles City, Va. 2005 Site 1 10,970

Leesylvania State Park Woodbridge, Va. 2001 Site 0 0

Lightship Chesapeake and Seven 

Foot Knoll Lighthouse 

Baltimore, Md. 2001 Site 1 107,000

Lower James River Water Trail From Richmond to 

Hampton Roads, Va.

2002 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

2 103,836

Mariners’ Museum Newport News, Va. 2000 Site 1 8,000

Marshy Point Park (formerly 

Dundee and Saltpeter Creek Park)

Baltimore, Md. 2004 Site 0 0

Martinak State Park Denton, Md. 2002 Site 1 16,500

Mason Neck National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Lorton, Va. 2002 Site 0 0

Mason Neck State Park Lorton, Va. 2001 Site 1 28,825a

Mathews Blueways Water Trail Mathews County, 

Va.

2002 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

2 69,110

Mathews County Visitor and 

Information Center 

Mathews, Va. 2000 Regional 

information 

center

1 26,000

Maury River Water Trail Rockbridge County, 

Va.

2001 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

0 0

Merkle Wildlife Sanctuary Upper Marlboro, Md. 2001 Site 1 5,000j

Monocacy River Water Trail Frederick and 

Carroll Counties, 

Md.

2000 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

2 19,605

Mount Harmon Plantation Earleville, Md. 2006 Site 0 0

(Continued From Previous Page)

Gateway Location

Year 

designated

Gateway 

type

Number of grants 

fiscal years 2000 

through 2005 Total grant funding
Appendix III

Gateways in the Chesapeake Bay Gateways 

Network 

Page 46 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Myrtle Point Park California, Md. 2006 Site 0 0

Nassawango Creek Preserve–

Furnace Town

Snow Hill, Md. 2002 Site 0 0

Nathan of Dorchester Cambridge, Md. 2002 Site 1 12,850

National Aquarium in Baltimore Baltimore, Md. 2004 Site 4 261,474b, d

Nauticus, The National Marine 

Maritime Center 

Norfolk, Va. 2002 Site 1 100,000

Norfolk Water Trail System Norfolk, Va. 2001 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

1 23,250

North Point State Park Edgemere, Md. 2002 Site 0 0

Occoquan Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Woodbridge, Va. 2002 Site 1 16,938

Occoquan Water Trail Fairfax and Prince 

William Counties, 

Va.

2004 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

1 100,000

Pamunkey Indian Reservation King William, Va. 2001 Site 1 32,000

Parkers Creek Watershed Nature 

Preserve 

Port Republic, Md. 2003 Site 1 6,596

Patapsco Valley State Park Ellicott City, Md. 2003 Site 1 26,800

Patuxent Research Refuge–

National Wildlife Visitor Center 

Laurel, Md. 2002 Site 1 14,457

Patuxent River Park–Jug Bay 

Natural Area 

Upper Marlboro, Md. 2002 Site 2 22,550j

Pemberton Historical Park Salisbury, Md. 2002 Site 2 34,956

Pickering Creek Audubon Center Easton, Md. 2001 Site 4 152,991

Piney Point Lighthouse Museum 

and Park 

Piney Point, Md. 2001 Site 1 100,000

Piscataway Park Accokeek, Md. 2000 Site 3 69,900g

Pocomoke River State Forest and 

Park 

Snow Hill, Md. 2002 Site 1 45,000

Point Lookout State Park Scotland, Md. 2001 Site 2 45,820

Potomac Gateway Welcome 

Center

King George 

County, Va.

2000 Regional 

information 

center

1 10,000

Potomac River Water Trail Washington, D.C. to 

the Chesapeake 

Bay

2000 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

1 20,000

Powhatan Creek Blueway Williamsburg, Va. 2002 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

1 26,100

(Continued From Previous Page)

Gateway Location

Year 

designated

Gateway 

type

Number of grants 

fiscal years 2000 

through 2005 Total grant funding
Appendix III

Gateways in the Chesapeake Bay Gateways 

Network 

Page 47 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Pride of Baltimore Baltimore, Md. 2001 Site 2 24,987

Rappahannock River Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Warsaw, Va. 2006 Site 0 0

Rappahannock River Water Trail Fredericksburg, Va. 2002 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

2 240,499

Raystown Branch Juniata River 

Water Trail 

Bedford County, Pa. 2002 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

1 7,106

Reedville Fisherman's Museum Reedville, Va. 2001 Site 2 13,500

Richardson Maritime Museum Cambridge, Md. 2002 Site 1 12,706

Rivanna River Water Trail Albemarle and 

Fluvanna Counties, 

Va.

2000 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

2 24,865

Riverbend Park Visitor Center and 

Nature Center 

Great Falls, Va. 2003 Site 1 20,000h

Rock Creek Park Washington, D.C. 2005 Site 1 20,000

Sailwinds Visitor Center Cambridge, Md. 2002 Regional 

information 

center

1 37,450k

Sandy Point State Park Near Annapolis, Md. 2002 Site 0 0

Sassafras Natural Resource 

Management Area 

Kennedyville, Md. 2004 Site 0 0

Schooner Sultana Chestertown, Md. 2002 Site 4 44,502

Shenandoah River State Park Bentonville, Va. 2005 Site 0 0

Smallwood State Park Marbury, Md. 2002 Site 0 0

Smith Island Center Ewell, Md. 2000 Site 4 41,242

Smithsonian Environmental 

Research Center 

Edgewater, Md. 2005 Site 0 0

Solomons Visitor Information 

Center 

Solomons, Md. 2001 Regional 

information 

center

1 24,520

Sotterley Plantation Hollywood, Md. 2002 Site 2 91,330

Spruce Knob–Seneca Rocks 

National Recreation Area 

Seneca Rocks, 

W.Va.

2002 Site 1 19,200

St. Clement's Island–Potomac 

River Museum 

Colton's Point, Md. 2000 Site 1 20,000

Steamboat Era Museum Irvington, Va. 2006 Site 0 0

Stratford Hall Plantation Stratford, Va. 2002 Site 0 0

Sturgis Memorial Gateway Snow Hill, Md. 2000 Site 1 20,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Gateway Location

Year 

designated

Gateway 

type

Number of grants 

fiscal years 2000 

through 2005 Total grant funding
Appendix III

Gateways in the Chesapeake Bay Gateways 

Network 

Page 48 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Susquehanna Museum of Havre 

de Grace 

Havre de Grace, 

Md.

2001 Site 0 0

Susquehanna River Water Trail N.Y. segment of the 

Susquehanna 

River’s North 

Branch, south to 

Harrisburg, Pa.

2000 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

4 165,575

Susquehanna River Water Trail–

Lower Section 

Harrisburg, Pa., 

south to Havre de 

Grace, Md.

2000 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

3 48,500

Susquehanna River Water Trail–

West Branch 

Cherry Tree to 

Sunbury, Pa.

2000 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

3 59,000

Susquehanna State Park Jarrettsville, Md. 2001 Site 1 13,700

Swatara Creek Water Trail Lebanon, Pa. 2004 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

1 18,150

Terrapin Park Stevensville, Md. 2001 Site 1 20,000

Tuckahoe State Park Queen Anne, Md. 2002 Site 1 58,100

Turner's Creek Park Kennedyville, Md. 2004 Site 1 28,640

Underground Railroad Scenic 

Byway

From Dorchester 

County, north 

through Caroline 

County, Md.

2003 Connecting 

route–scenic 

byway

2 67,450k

USS Constellation Museum Baltimore, Md. 2002 Site 2 82,501

Virginia Eastern Shore Water 

Trails

Saxis, Va. 2004 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

2 67,015

Virginia Living Museum Newport News, Va. 2003 Site 3 270,053

Ward Museum of Wildfowl Art Salisbury, Md. 2000 Site 1 30,000

Watermen's Museum Yorktown, Va. 2001 Site 2 55,498

Westmoreland State Park Montross, Va. 2001 Site 1 28,825a

Wharves at Choptank Crossing Denton, Md. 2002 Site 2 43,100

Wye Grist Mill Wye Mills, Md. 2003 Site 0 0

Wye Island Natural Resource 

Management Area 

Queenstown, Md. 2002 Site 0 0

York River State Park Williamsburg, Va. 2001 Site 1 28,825a

York River Water Trail Walkerton, Va. 2001 Connecting 

route–water 

trail

2 95,513

(Continued From Previous Page)

Gateway Location

Year 

designated

Gateway 

type

Number of grants 

fiscal years 2000 

through 2005 Total grant funding
Appendix III

Gateways in the Chesapeake Bay Gateways 

Network 

Page 49 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Source: GAO summary of Park Service documents.

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

grants and total grant amount.

a

One grant for $28,825 was awarded to eight gateways in Virginia state parks: Belle Isle, Chesapeake 

Bay Center, Chippokes, First Landing, Kiptopeke, Mason Neck, Westmoreland, and York River. 

b

One grant for $27,500 was awarded to the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and the National 

Aquarium in Baltimore. 

c

One grant for $111,987 was awarded to the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum and Historic St. 

Mary’s City. 

d

Two grants for $30,562 and $53,412 were a partnership between Eastern Neck National Wildlife 

Refuge and the National Aquarium in Baltimore. 

e

One grant for $88,000 was awarded to the Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge and 

Kiptopeke State Park.

f

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

g

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

h

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

i

This grant was awarded and then terminated after CBGN determined the grantee could not complete 

the grant project.

j

One grant for $5,000 was awarded to Merkle Wildlife Sanctuary and Patuxent River Park–Jug Bay 

Natural Area. 

k

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

Byway.

l

The total amount awarded column will not add up to the total CBGN funding amount because the 

grants that were awarded to more than one gateway are reflected in the total amount awarded to each 

of the gateways that received those grants.

Yorktown Visitor Center and 

Battlefield 

Yorktown, Va. 2001 Site 1 10,000

Total CBGN grant funding $6,278,818l

(Continued From Previous Page)

Gateway Location

Year 

designated

Gateway 

type

Number of grants 

fiscal years 2000 

through 2005 Total grant funding
Page 50 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Appendix IV

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Gateway 

Selection Process ApendxiIV

Guidelines

recommend 

consultation 

with the Park 

Service prior 

to submitting 

nomination 

package.

The 

organization 

submits a

nomination 

package.

Approve:

The Park 

Service and 

gateway’s

managing 

organization 

sign a

memorandum of 

understanding.

Deny:

The organization 

may reapply

for network 

membership.

The CBGN 

working group 

reviews the Park 

Service’s

findings and 

makes a

recommendation 

with which the 

Park Service 

typically concurs.

Park Service 

staff conducts

a site visit (if 

one has not 

already 

occurred).

The Park Service 

completes a checklist 

based on the following 

seven criteria:

• represents important 

bay-related 

resources, themes, 

and stories;

• provides access for 

the public to those 

resources;

• demonstrates

community support for 

participation in the 

network;

• demonstrates the 

organizational and 

operational capacity 

for management as a

gateway both now and 

in the future;

• advances network 

goals as described in 

the strategic plan and 

framework document;

• interprets, or is

moving to interpret, 

bay themes; and

• meets the particular 

characteristics of one 

of the four types of 

gateways.

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service information.
Page 51 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Appendix V

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Grant 

Application, Review, and Award Process ApendxiV

The Park 

Service solicits

applications

through its

Web site and 

an email notice 

to designated 

gateways.

The gateway’s

managing 

organization or 

a partner 

organization 

designated to 

carry out the 

project submits

a grant 

application 

package. 

The package 

includes the 

following:

• cover letter,

• narrative 

application form,

• budget and 

scope of work,

• site map, and

• environmental 

and cultural 

analysis.

Accept:

The Park Service and 

the managing or 

partner organization 

sign a cooperative 

agreement.

Deny:

The Park Service 

sends a denial letter 

with reasons for 

denial to the 

managing or partner 

organization. 

The Park Service 

contacts the 

applicant to 

discuss any 

necessary 

modifications. 

Based on its

discussions with 

the CBGN 

working group 

and the applicant, 

the Park Service 

makes a final 

decision and 

notifies the 

applicant.

Park Service staff 

and the CBGN 

working group 

jointly review and 

make a

recommendation 

on each 

application. They 

also determine 

whether any 

modifications are 

necessary.

Park Service 

staff conducts

a detailed 

review of each

application. 

CBGN 

working group 

members

individually 

review and 

rate each 

application. 

Ratings are 

based on 

13-15 factors, 

depending on 

the type of 

project.

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service information.
Page 52 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiVI
Page 53 GAO-06-1049 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program

Appendix VII

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contact Robin M. Nazzaro (202) 512-3841

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Andrea Wamstad Brown, 

Assistant Director; Laura Gatz; Catherine Kim; Lisa Vojta; Barbara 

Patterson; Rebecca Shea; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; and Omari Norman 

made key contributions to this report.

(360650)
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 (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 

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

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548