a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

October 2005 CHESAPEAKE BAY 

PROGRAM

Improved Strategies 

Are Needed to Better 

Assess, Report, and 

Manage Restoration 

Progress

GAO-06-96
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-96.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Anu Mittal at 

(202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-06-96, a report to 

congressional requesters 

October 2005

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM 

Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better 

Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration 

Progress 

The Bay Program has over 100 measures to assess progress toward meeting 

certain restoration commitments and providing information to guide 

management decisions. However, the program has not yet developed an 

integrated approach that would allow it to translate these individual 

measures into an assessment of overall progress toward achieving the five 

broad restoration goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000. For example, while the 

Bay Program has appropriate measures to track crab, oyster, and rockfish 

populations, it does not have an approach for integrating the results of these 

measures to assess progress toward the agreement’s goal of protecting and 

restoring the bay’s living resources. The Bay Program has recognized that it 

may need an integrated approach for assessing overall progress in restoring 

the bay and, in November 2004, a task force began working on this effort. 

The State of the Chesapeake Bay reports are the Bay Program’s primary 

mechanism for reporting the current health status of the bay. However, these 

reports do not effectively communicate the bay’s current conditions because 

they focus on the status of individual species or pollutants instead of 

providing information on a core set of ecosystem characteristics. Moreover, 

the credibility of these reports has been negatively impacted because the 

program has commingled various kinds of data such as monitoring data, 

results of program actions, and the results of its predictive model without 

clearly distinguishing among them. As a result, the public cannot easily 

determine whether the health of the bay is improving or not. Moreover, the 

lack of independence in the Bay Program’s reporting process has led to 

negative trends being downplayed and a rosier picture of the bay’s health 

being reported than may have been warranted. The program has recognized 

that improvements are needed and is developing new reporting formats. 

From fiscal years 1995 through 2004, the restoration effort received about 

$3.7 billion in direct funding from 11 key federal agencies; the states of 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the District of Columbia. These 

funds were used for activities that supported water quality protection and 

restoration, sound land use, vital habitat protection and restoration, living 

resource protection and restoration, and stewardship and community 

engagement. During this time period, the restoration effort also received an 

additional $1.9 billion in indirect funding. 

 

The Bay Program does not have a comprehensive, coordinated 

implementation strategy to better enable it to achieve the goals outlined in 

Chesapeake 2000. Although the program has adopted 10 key commitments 

to focus partners’ efforts and developed plans to achieve them, some of 

these plans are inconsistent with each other or are perceived as 

unachievable by program partners. The limited assurances about the 

availability of resources beyond the short term further complicate the Bay 

Program’s ability to effectively coordinate restoration efforts and 

strategically manage its resources. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay 

Program) was created in 1983 

when Maryland, Pennsylvania, 

Virginia, the District of Columbia, 

the Chesapeake Bay Commission, 

and EPA agreed to establish a 

partnership to restore the 

Chesapeake Bay. Their most recent 

agreement, Chesapeake 2000, sets 

out an agenda and five broad goals 

to guide these efforts through 2010 

and contains 102 commitments that 

the partners agreed to accomplish. 

GAO was asked to examine (1) the 

extent to which appropriate 

measures for assessing restoration 

progress have been established, (2) 

the extent to which current 

reporting mechanisms clearly and 

accurately describe the bay’s 

overall health, (3) how much 

funding was provided for the effort 

for fiscal years 1995 through 2004, 

and (4) how effectively the effort is 

being coordinated and managed. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the 

Administrator of EPA instruct the 

Chesapeake Bay Program Office to 

(1) complete its efforts to develop 

and implement an integrated 

assessment approach; (2) revise its 

reporting approach to improve the 

effectiveness and credibility of its 

reports; and (3) develop a 

comprehensive, coordinated 

implementation strategy that takes 

into account available resources. 

In commenting on this report, the 

signatories to the Chesapeake 2000

agreement generally agreed with 

GAO’s recommendations. 
Page i GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 7

The Bay Program’s Measures Have Not Been Integrated to Assess 

Overall Restoration Progress 13

The Bay Program’s Reports Do Not Effectively Communicate the 

Status of the Bay’s Health 17

Federal Agencies and States Have Provided Billions of Dollars in 

Both Direct and Indirect Funding for Restoration Activities 22

The Bay Program Has Not Always Effectively Coordinated and 

Managed the Restoration Effort 30

Conclusions 35

Recommendations for Executive Action 36

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 39

Appendix II: Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000 42

Appendix III: Chesapeake Bay Program Partners 54

Appendix IV: Summary of Expert Panel Observations on Assessing and 

Reporting on Restoration Progress 59

Appendix V: Funding Information 64

Appendix VI: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 72

Appendix VII: Comments from the Chesapeake Bay Commission 74

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Commonwealth of Virginia 76

Appendix IX: Comments from the District of Columbia 79

Appendix X: Comments from the State of Maryland 81

Appendix XI: Comments from the State of Pennsylvania 84

Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 87

Tables Table 1: Direct Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies, States, 

and District of Columbia, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, 

in Constant 2004 Dollars 24
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Table 2: Indirect Funding Provided for the Chesapeake Bay 

Restoration Effort, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in 

Constant 2004 Dollars 27

Table 3: Direct Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies 

According to Primary Commitment Addressed, Fiscal 

Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars 64

Table 4: Indirect Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies 

According to Primary Commitment Addressed, Fiscal 

Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars 68

Table 5: Direct Funding Provided by the States and the District of 

Columbia According to Primary Commitment Addressed, 

Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 

Dollars 70

Table 6: Indirect Funding Provided by the States and the District of 

Columbia According to Primary Commitment Addressed, 

Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 

Dollars 71

Figures Figure 1: Chesapeake Bay Watershed 8

Figure 2: Examples of Sources of Pollution in the Bay 

Ecosystem 10

Figure 3: Chesapeake Bay Program Organizational Chart 12

Figure 4: Direct Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies, States, 

and the District of Columbia, Fiscal Years 1995 through 

2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars 23

Figure 5: Percentage of the Total Direct Funding Provided for 

Addressing Each of the Five Chesapeake 2000 Goals, 

Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004 25

Figure 6: Indirect Funding Provided by Federal Agencies, States, 

and the District of Columbia, Fiscal Years 1995 through 

2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars 26

Figure 7: Percentage of the Total Indirect Funding Provided for 

Addressing Each of the Five Chesapeake 2000 Goals, 

Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004 28

Abbreviations

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation
Contents

Page iii GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

October 28, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes

United States Senate

The Honorable John W. Warner

United States Senate

Recognized by Congress as a national treasure, the Chesapeake Bay is the 

nation’s largest estuary, with its watershed spanning 64,000 square miles, 

including parts of six states and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake 

Bay is also biologically diverse, providing habitat for more than 3,600 

species of plants, fish, and shellfish. With the highest land-to-water ratio of 

any estuary in the world, the bay is particularly susceptible to activities that 

take place on surrounding lands. For example, urban sprawl significantly 

affects the bay’s ecosystem. From 1950 to 2000, the population in the 

watershed nearly doubled, from just over 8 million to nearly 16 million. By 

2020, it is estimated that the population in the bay’s watershed will reach 

approximately 18 million. 

Concerns about the bay’s overall health surfaced as early as the 1930s. 

Signs of deterioration in the bay’s condition—declines in water clarity, 

oyster populations, and underwater grasses that provide habitat for 

shellfish—became even more apparent in the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1970s 

and early 1980s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that 

excess nutrients from agricultural development, population growth, and 

discharges from sewage treatment plants were the primary causes for the 

decline in the bay’s condition. 

Responding to the public outcry about the degraded state of the 

Chesapeake Bay, the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the 

District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission—a tristate 

legislative assembly representing Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and 

EPA agreed in 1983 to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. Their 

agreement established the Chesapeake Executive Council and resulted in 

the Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay Program) a partnership that directs and 
Page 2 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

conducts the restoration of the bay. The Bay Program currently includes 

partners at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as academic 

institutions and nonprofit organizations. EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program 

Office provides support to the Chesapeake Executive Council and, among 

other things, is responsible for developing and providing information on 

the environmental quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay 

ecosystem. In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office is responsible 

for coordinating EPA’s activities with other federal agencies and state and 

local authorities participating in the restoration effort.

Subsequent agreements in 1987, 1992, and 2000 reaffirmed the signatories’ 

commitment to bay restoration. The most recent, Chesapeake 2000, 

envisions a Chesapeake Bay watershed that includes abundant, diverse 

populations of living resources and healthy, clean streams and rivers that 

can sustain strong local and regional economies. Chesapeake 2000—

identified by the Bay Program as its strategic plan—sets out an agenda and 

goals to guide the restoration and protection efforts through 2010 and 

beyond. In Chesapeake 2000, the signatories agreed to 102 commitments—

including management actions, such as assessing trends of particular 

species, as well as actions that directly affect the health of the bay. These 

commitments are organized under the following five broad restoration 

goals:

• Protecting and restoring living resources—14 commitments to restore, 

enhance, and protect the finfish, shellfish and other living resources, 

their habitats and ecological relationships to sustain all fisheries and 

provide for a balanced ecosystem; 

• Protecting and restoring vital habitats—18 commitments to preserve, 

protect, and restore those habitats and natural areas that are vital to the 

survival and diversity of the living resources of the bay and its rivers; 

• Protecting and restoring water quality—19 commitments to achieve 

and maintain the water quality necessary to support the aquatic living 

resources of the bay and its tributaries and to protect human health; 

• Sound land use—28 commitments to develop, promote, and achieve 

sound land use practices that protect and restore watershed resources 

and water quality, maintain reduced pollutant loadings for the bay and 

its tributaries, and restore and preserve aquatic living resources; and 
Page 3 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

• Stewardship and community engagement—23 commitments to 

promote individual stewardship and assist individuals, communitybased organizations, businesses, local governments and schools to 

undertake initiatives to achieve the goals and commitments of the 

agreement. 

Over time, the Bay Program has been lauded as a model for 

intergovernmental cooperation and for its extensive studies on the bay and 

its problems. Recently, however, the Bay Program has come under 

increasing scrutiny as some have questioned whether the Bay Program has 

overstated the progress made in restoring the bay’s health.

In this context, you asked us to examine (1) the extent to which the Bay 

Program has established appropriate measures for assessing restoration 

progress, (2) the extent to which the reporting mechanisms the Bay 

Program uses clearly and accurately describe the bay’s overall health, (3) 

how much funding was provided for restoring the Chesapeake Bay for 

fiscal years 1995 through 2004 and for what purposes, and (4) how 

effectively the restoration effort is being coordinated and managed.

To determine the extent to which the Bay Program has established 

appropriate measures for assessing progress and clearly and accurately 

reporting on the bay’s health, we obtained and analyzed documents on 

measures the Bay Program uses to assess progress in restoring the bay’s 

health, and we reviewed Bay Program reports. In addition, we convened a 

panel of nationally recognized ecosystem assessment and restoration 

experts. The panel discussed (1) critical elements of an effective 

assessment process, (2) how progress in restoring an ecosystem should be 

assessed, and (3) key attributes of effective reports on ecosystem 

health. To determine the amount of funding provided for the restoration 

effort from fiscal years 1995 through 2004, we obtained and analyzed 

financial information from key federal agencies,1

 Maryland, Pennsylvania, 

Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Key federal agencies were identified 

as those that participated in Chesapeake Bay Program committees or that 

provided more than $250,000 annually, on average, in direct funding. For 

the purposes of this report, we defined direct funds as those that are 

1

Key federal agencies include the Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency, U.S. 

Forest Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service; Department of Commerce’s 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Department of Defense’s Army, Army 

Corps of Engineers, and Navy/Marine Corps; Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and National Park Service; and EPA.
Page 4 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

provided exclusively for bay restoration activities (e.g., increasing the 

oyster population) or those that would no longer be made available in the 

absence of the restoration effort. To determine how effectively the 

restoration effort is being coordinated and managed, we obtained and 

analyzed planning documents and agreements from Bay Program 

partners. In addition, to address all of our objectives, we interviewed a 

wide range of program partners, including representatives of federal, state, 

and local agencies; the Chesapeake Bay Commission; interest groups, such 

as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay; 

and academia. We also interviewed nonpartner groups, such as the 

Maryland Watermen’s Association. In addition, we reviewed associated 

studies. A more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and 

methodology is presented in appendix I. We performed our work between 

October 2004 and October 2005 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

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

progress for some of the commitments in Chesapeake 2000, but it has not 

yet developed an approach that would allow it to integrate these measures 

and assess overall progress toward achieving the five broad restoration 

goals. Specifically, the Bay Program has developed 46 measures that are 

appropriate to assess progress toward meeting those restoration 

commitments that are quantifiable. For example, the program has 

established measures that are appropriate to assess changes in (1) the 

oyster population to meet its commitment to achieve a tenfold increase in 

native oysters by 2010 and (2) the acreage of bay grasses, which serve as 

habitat for crabs and other species, for its commitment to restore 185,000 

acres of bay grasses by 2010. In addition, the Bay Program has developed 

55 other measures that do not directly assess progress toward meeting 

specific commitments; instead, they provide information to guide 

management decisions. Despite having over 100 measures, the Bay 

Program lacks an integrated approach that would allow it to collectively 

determine what the individual measures mean for the overall health of the 

bay and the achievement of the five broad restoration goals. For example, 

while the Bay Program has measures to track crab, oyster, and rockfish 

populations, it does not have an approach for integrating the results of 

these measures to assess progress toward the overarching goal of 

protecting and restoring the bay’s living resources. The Bay Program has 

recognized that it may need an integrated approach for assessing overall 

progress in restoring the bay and, in November 2004, a task force began 

working on this effort. 
Page 5 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

The Bay Program’s primary reporting mechanism—a report entitled the 

State of the Chesapeake Bay—is neither an effective reporting tool nor 

does it provide credible information on the bay’s current health status. 

These reports are not effective because they do not provide an overall 

assessment of the bay’s health; instead, they focus on the status of 

individual species and pollutants. Moreover, the reports do not explain the 

relative impact that opposite trends for different species, such as a 

decreasing oyster population and an increasing rockfish population mean 

for the bay’s health. Our expert panel agreed that the reports lacked a clear, 

overall picture of the bay’s health. These reports are also not credible 

because they commingle the results of management actions and the results 

of a predictive model with monitoring information on the bay’s health. 

Because the results of management actions and the predictive model tend 

to be more positive than the results of monitoring data, such an approach 

tends to downplay any lack of improvement in the condition of the bay. 

Our expert panel noted that the Bay Program reports are overly oriented to 

reporting on the progress of the program’s management actions at the 

expense of communicating information on the health status of the bay. The 

credibility of the Bay Program’s reports is also impaired by the lack of an 

independent review process. The officials who manage and are responsible 

for the restoration effort also analyze, interpret, and report the monitoring 

data to the public. We believe this lack of independence in reporting has led 

to the Bay Program projecting a rosier view of the health of the bay than 

may have been warranted. Our expert panelists believe that either 

establishing an independent review panel to review the State of the 

Chesapeake Bay reports before they are issued or establishing an 

independent group to analyze and report on the bay’s health would 

significantly improve the credibility of the Bay Program’s reports. The Bay 

Program has recognized that improvements in its current reporting 

approach are needed and is developing new reporting formats that it hopes 

will more clearly describe the bay’s current health and the status of the 

restoration effort. 

About $3.7 billion in direct funding was provided for the restoration effort 

(as reported by 11 key federal agencies; the states of Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the District of Columbia) from fiscal years 

1995 through 2004. This funding was used for the following purposes:

• $1.7 billion for water quality protection and restoration activities, such 

as upgrades to wastewater treatment plants and technical assistance for 

the implementation of agricultural best management practices; 
Page 6 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

• $1.1 billion for sound land use activities, such as land acquisition and 

support for smart growth initiatives; 

• $491 million for vital habitat protection and restoration activities, such 

as wetland restoration and studies for determining the best methods for 

protecting and restoring submerged aquatic vegetation; 

• $233 million for living resource protection and restoration activities, 

such as oyster studies and creating fish passages in areas of blockage; 

and

• $156 million for stewardship and community engagement activities, 

such as educational programs, publications, and informational forums.

An additional $1.9 billion in indirect funding—which we define for the 

purposes of this report as funds not provided exclusively for bay 

restoration (e.g., activities that are part of a broader agency effort) and that 

would continue to exist in the absence of the restoration effort—was 

provided for activities that contribute to the restoration effort. For 

example, the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation 

Service provides funding for programs that help farmers implement 

agricultural best management practices. This assistance is part of the 

agency’s nationwide efforts and would continue even if the bay restoration 

effort did not exist. 

The Bay Program does not have a comprehensive, coordinated 

implementation strategy, which has impacted its ability to achieve the goals 

laid out in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. Although the Bay Program has 

focused its efforts on developing plans to implement 10 key commitments, 

some of these plans are inconsistent with each other and are often 

perceived to be unachievable within the 2010 time frame. As a result, Bay 

Program partners have been left without a clear understanding of which 

work plan should be followed or what actions need to be taken. Moreover, 

the Bay Program is limited in its ability to strategically target resources 

because it has no assurance about the level of funds that may be available 

beyond the short term. Nonetheless the program has, in some cases, used 

its limited resources to develop work plans that ultimately could not be 

implemented because funds were not available. More importantly, the 

plans describe the actions that are needed to restore the bay but may not 

reflect what can be realistically accomplished by the program with 

available resources.
Page 7 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

To improve the Bay Program’s ability to assess, report, and manage the 

restoration effort, we are recommending that the Administrator of EPA 

instruct the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to (1) complete its efforts to 

develop and implement an integrated assessment approach; (2) revise its 

reporting approach; and (3) work with Bay Program partners to develop a 

comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy that takes into 

account available resources. In commenting on our report, the signatories 

to the Bay Program generally agreed with our recommendations. 

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

nearly 200 miles long and 35 miles wide at its widest point and, with its 

tributaries, the bay covers more than 4,500 square miles. However, the bay 

is relatively shallow, averaging only 21 feet deep. Roughly half of the bay’s 

water comes from the Atlantic Ocean, and the other half is freshwater that 

drains from the land and enters the bay through its many rivers and streams 

in the watershed basin. The Susquehanna River, which flows through 

Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania, provides about 50 percent of the 

freshwater that enters the bay. As shown in figure 1, the bay’s watershed 

covers 64,000 square miles and spans parts of six states—Delaware, 

Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia—and the 

District of Columbia. 
Page 8 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Figure 1: Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay is also biologically diverse, providing habitat for a 

wide variety of fish, shellfish, other animals, and plants. Blue crab, ducks, 

herring, oysters, shad, and striped bass are just some of the resources that 

live in or on the bay. 

Over time, the bay’s ecosystem has deteriorated. The bay’s “dead zones”—

where too little oxygen is available to support fish and shellfish—have 

increased, and many species of fish and shellfish have experienced major 

declines in population. The deterioration has occurred primarily because of 

excess amounts of nutrients entering the bay, which damage species and 

plant populations; the single largest source of these pollutants is 

agricultural runoff. Overharvesting key species, such as oysters and crabs,

New York

Virginia

Maryland

Pennsylvania

D.C.

West Virginia

Delaware

Chesapeake Bay watershed

Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program Office and GAO.

Susquehanna River

Patuxent River

Potomac River

York River

James River

Rappahannock River

Location of Chesapeake Bay 

watershed
Page 9 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

has also contributed to the deterioration of the ecosystem. In addition, 

population growth and development have further stressed the ecosystem. 

For example, in the past decade, the amount of land in the watershed 

covered by impervious surfaces—surfaces through which water cannot 

flow—increased by about 41 percent, increasing the amount of polluted 

runoff that enters into streams and rivers and eventually runs into the bay.2

With a very high land-to-water ratio, the bay is particularly sensitive to 

activities on land. Figure 2 shows some of the land activities that contribute 

to pollution in the bay’s ecosystem. 

2

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

Environmental Protection: Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That 

Protects Air and Water Quality, GAO-02-12 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2001).
Page 10 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Figure 2: Examples of Sources of Pollution in the Bay Ecosystem

The decline in the bay’s living resources has been cause for a great deal of 

public and political attention. Efforts to manage the bay’s ecosystem and 

protect its living resources began as early as the 1930s and have continued 

through the present. In 1980, Maryland and Virginia, later joined by 

Pennsylvania, established the Chesapeake Bay Commission to serve as an 

advisory body on the Chesapeake Bay to their state legislatures and as a 

liaison to Congress. On December 9, 1983, the Governors of Maryland and 

Air deposition

Precipitation

Groundwater

Agricultural

lands

Urban areas

Industrial

facilities

Tributary feeding the

Chesapeake Bay

Runoff

Runoff

Runoff

Source: GAO (data), Art Explosion (images).
Page 11 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Virginia; the Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania; the Mayor of the District 

of Columbia; the Administrator of EPA; and the Chair of the Chesapeake 

Bay Commission signed the first Chesapeake Bay agreement. Their 

agreement resulted in the Chesapeake Bay Program, a partnership that 

directs and conducts the restoration of the bay. The signatories to the 

agreement reaffirmed their commitment to restore the bay in 1987 and 

again in 1992. They signed the most current agreement, Chesapeake 2000, 

on June 28, 2000. 

Chesapeake 2000 envisions an ecosystem with abundant, diverse 

populations of living resources fed by healthy streams and rivers that 

sustain strong local and regional economies and a unique quality of life. 

The agreement has served as the Bay Program’s strategic plan, and it 

outlines five broad goals and 102 commitments for the restoration effort. 

Appendix II lists the goals and commitments outlined in Chesapeake 2000.

The Bay Program, led by the Chesapeake Executive Council, has many 

partners, including federal agencies, states, academic institutions, and 

others (see app. III for a list of partners). While the Chesapeake Bay 

Program is a voluntary partnership among the states and the federal 

government, some activities of the Chesapeake Bay Program are 

implemented to meet the requirements of federal or state law. For example, 

the responsibility to establish water quality standards is both a 

commitment under the Chesapeake 2000 agreement and a requirement 

under the federal Clean Water Act.

The Bay Program has seven committees and eight subcommittees, which 

form the organizational and planning structure for the restoration effort. In 

addition, the subcommittees have many work groups that plan and 

implement various aspects of the restoration effort. The organizational 

structure of the Bay Program is shown in figure 3. 
Page 12 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Figure 3: Chesapeake Bay Program Organizational Chart

As the only federal signatory to the Chesapeake Bay agreements, EPA is 

responsible for spearheading the federal effort within the Bay Program 

through its Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Amendments to the Clean 

Water Act direct the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to provide support to 

the Chesapeake Executive Council. Specifically, the Chesapeake Bay 

Program Office is to, among other things,

• develop and make available information about the environmental 

quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; 

• in cooperation with appropriate federal, state, and local authorities, help 

the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay agreement develop and 

implement specific plans to carry out their responsibilities; and

• coordinate EPA’s actions with those of other appropriate entities to 

develop strategies to improve the water quality and living resources in 

the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

In addition, the Administrator of EPA, in coordination with other members 

of the Chesapeake Executive Council, must ensure that management plans 

are developed and that the signatories implement the plans to achieve and 

maintain, among other things, (1) the nutrient goals for the quantity of 

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Office.

Chesapeake Executive Council

Principals’ Staff

Committee Citizens Advisory

Committee

Local Government

Advisory Committee

Scientific and Technical

Advisory Committee Implementation

Committee

Federal Agencies

Committee

Budget Steering

Committee

Nutrient Toxics Monitoring

and Analysis Modeling Living

Resources

Land, Growth, and

Stewardship

Communications

and Education

Subcommittees
Page 13 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed 

and (2) the water quality requirements necessary to restore living resources 

in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The amendments to the Clean Water Act 

also directed the Administrator of EPA to submit a report to Congress 

every 5 years on the condition of the bay’s ecosystem. 

The Bay Program’s 

Measures Have Not 

Been Integrated to 

Assess Overall 

Restoration Progress 

Although the Bay Program has established 101 measures, it has not yet 

developed an integrated approach that would allow it to translate these 

individual measures into an assessment of overall progress toward 

achieving the five broad restoration goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000. 

Instead, the Bay Program’s measures either assess progress toward 

achieving the restoration commitments that are quantifiable or provide 

information for making management decisions. The Bay Program has 

recognized that it may need an integrated approach to assess the overall 

progress of the restoration effort and established a task team to undertake 

this effort. 

The Bay Program Has 

Established 101 Measures 

for Some of its 

Commitments

The Bay Program has established 101 measures, of which 46 are 

appropriate for assessing progress made in achieving 18 of the 21 

quantifiable commitments contained in Chesapeake 2000.

3

 The number of 

measures associated with each of these commitments varies; the more 

complex the assessment the more measures the Bay Program has 

developed and uses to assess progress. For example, assessing progress 

toward the commitment of correcting the nutrient- and sediment-related 

problems in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2010 under the 

Water Quality Protection and Restoration goal is complex, requiring the 

measurement of several pollutants and various aspects of water quality. 

The Bay Program uses 17 measures to assess progress for this 

commitment. In contrast, it is less complex to assess the commitment 

under the Sound Land Use goal to, by 2010, expand by 30 percent the 

system of public access points to the bay, its tributaries, and related 

resource sites in an environmentally sensitive manner. For this 

commitment, the Bay Program uses only one measure to track the number 

of new and enhanced public access sites within the Chesapeake Bay 

3

Of the 102 commitments contained in Chesapeake 2000, 21 are quantifiable, and 81 are 

nonquantifiable. The 21 quantifiable commitments are associated with four of the five broad 

goals. The Stewardship and Community Engagement goal has no quantifiable 

commitments. 
Page 14 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

watershed. According to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, because no 

other restoration effort had developed measures that they could use, the 

program had to develop nearly all of the underlying science and 

methodologies for their measures. In addition, to ensure the 

appropriateness of these measures, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

requires a rigorous review of all of the measures before they are adopted. 

For the most part, our expert panel agreed that the Bay Program has 

established appropriate measures to assess specific aspects of the 

restoration effort. Several members of the Bay Program’s Scientific and 

Technical Advisory Committee echoed this view.

The remaining three quantifiable commitments, for which the Bay Program 

has not yet established any measures, include the following:

• By 2010, establish a goal of implementing plans to preserve key 

wetlands while addressing surrounding land use in 25 percent of the 

land area of each state’s bay watershed. 

• By 2010, the District of Columbia, working with its watershed partners, 

will reduce pollution loads to the Anacostia River in order to eliminate 

public health concerns and achieve the living resource, water quality, 

and habitat goals of Chesapeake 2000 and past agreements.4

• By 2003, develop partnerships with at least 30 interpretive sites to 

enhance their presentation of bay-related themes.5

The Bay Program has also developed 55 other measures to provide 

information it needs to make management decisions. For example, under 

the Water Quality Protection and Restoration goal, the Bay Program has 

made a commitment to assess the effects of airborne nitrogen compounds 

and chemical contaminants in the bay ecosystem and to help establish 

reduction goals for these contaminants. To help inform decision making for 

this commitment, the Bay Program has a measure for estimated vehicle 

emissions compared with vehicle miles traveled. In addition, for the 

4

Although the Bay Program has not established measures for this commitment, the District 

of Columbia has developed a number of measures for assessing its progress in meeting this 

commitment. 

5

Although the Bay Program has not established measures for this commitment, the National 

Park Service, which has responsibility for this commitment, has developed a measure for 

assessing its progress in meeting this commitment. 
Page 15 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

commitment under the Living Resource Protection and Restoration goal 

to restore fish passage to more than 1,357 miles of river, the Bay Program 

has two measures that provide information about fish population levels. 

The Bay Program also uses three measures—the number of residents in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed, the relationship between this population and 

the amount of municipal wastewater flow, and the volume of river water 

flowing into the Chesapeake Bay—to track general information about the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

The Bay Program Lacks an 

Integrated Approach for 

Assessing Progress Toward 

Goals

While the Bay Program has established measures to assess progress made 

in meeting some of the individual commitments of Chesapeake 2000, it has 

not developed an approach that can be used to assess progress toward 

achieving the five broad restoration goals. For example, the Bay Program 

has measures for determining

• trends in individual fish and shellfish populations, such as crabs, 

oysters, and rockfish, but it has not yet devised a way to integrate those 

measures to assess the overall progress made in achieving its Living 

Resource Protection and Restoration goal; 

• the acres of bay grasses in the bay, the acres of wetlands restored, and 

the miles of forest buffers restored, but it has not developed an 

approach for integrating those measures to assess the overall progress 

made in achieving its Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration goal; 

and 

• attributes of water quality—such as levels of dissolved oxygen, water 

clarity, and chlorophyll a6

—but has not developed an approach for 

combining these measures to determine progress toward achieving its 

goal of Water Quality Protection and Restoration.

According to our expert panel, in a complex ecosystem restoration project 

like the Chesapeake Bay, overall progress should be assessed by using an 

integrated approach. This approach should combine measures that provide 

information on individual species or pollutants into a few broader scale 

measures that can be used to assess key ecosystem attributes, such as 

biological conditions. One such framework was developed in 2002 by EPA’s 

6

Chlorophyll a is a measure of aquatic algae, which provides food for fish and other 

organisms. Too much aquatic algae reduces water clarity and depletes oxygen. 
Page 16 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Science Advisory Board and can serve as a tool to assist Bay Program 

officials in deciding what ecological attributes to measure and how to 

aggregate measurements into an understandable picture of ecological 

integrity.7

In developing such an approach, the Bay Program also faces the challenge 

of finding a way to incorporate the results achieved in implementing the 81 

nonquantifiable commitments contained in Chesapeake 2000 with the 

results achieved in implementing the 21 quantifiable commitments. For 

example, under the Water Quality Protection and Restoration goal, the 

Bay Program has a nonquantifiable commitment to reduce the potential 

risk of pesticides flowing into the bay by educating watershed residents on 

best management practices for pesticide use. Not only does the Bay 

Program currently have no method for measuring the progress made on 

this commitment, but it also has no approach for integrating these results 

with the results of the other 19 commitments listed under the water quality 

goal. Consequently, the program cannot currently assess the progress made 

in meeting the water quality goal. 

According to an official from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, it is 

difficult to assess progress made in restoring an ecosystem that is as 

scientifically complex as the bay. The official also noted that the partners 

have discussed the need for an integrated approach over the past several 

years but have disagreed on whether the Bay Program could develop an 

approach that is scientifically defensible, given their limited resources. 

Recently, however, the partners are more optimistic that an integrated 

approach can be developed that will provide a clearer sense of the overall 

health of the bay, as well as restoration progress. 

In November 2004, a Bay Program task force began an effort to develop, 

among other things, a framework for organizing the Bay Program’s 

measures and proposed a structure for how the redesign work would be 

accomplished by the Bay Program’s subcommittees. The Bay Program’s 

Implementation Committee adopted this framework in April 2005. In July 

2005, the Bay Program’s Monitoring and Analysis Subcommittee created a 

work group to head this effort. The Bay Program plans to have an initial 

integrated approach developed by January 2006. 

7

Environmental Protection Agency, A Framework For Assessing and Reporting on 

Ecological Condition: A Science Advisory Board Report (Washington, D.C.: June 2002).
Page 17 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

The Bay Program’s 

Reports Do Not 

Effectively 

Communicate the 

Status of the Bay’s 

Health

Mirroring the shortcomings in the program’s measures, the Bay Program’s 

primary mechanism for reporting on the health status of the bay—the State 

of the Chesapeake Bay report—does not provide an effective or credible 

assessment on the bay’s current health status. This is because these reports 

(1) focus on individual species and pollutants instead of providing an 

overall assessment of the bay’s health, (2) commingle data on the bay’s 

health attributes with program actions, and (3) lack an independent review 

process. As a result, when these reports are issued, they do not provide 

information in a manner that would allow the public and stakeholders to 

easily determine how effective program activities have been in improving 

the health of the bay. The Bay Program has recognized that improvements 

in its current reporting approach are needed and is developing new 

reporting formats that it hopes will more clearly describe the bay’s current 

health and the status of the restoration effort. 

Bay Program Reports Do 

Not Effectively 

Communicate the Current 

Health Status of the Bay

The State of the Chesapeake Bay report has been issued approximately 

every 2 to 4 years since 1984 and is intended to provide the citizens of the 

bay region with a snapshot of the bay’s health.8 The Bay Program included 

the 2002 report as part of its required report to Congress on the status of 

the bay in 2003.9

 However, the State of the Chesapeake Bay report does not 

effectively communicate the current health status of the bay because 

instead of providing information on a core set of ecosystem characteristics 

it focuses on the status of individual species or pollutants. For example: 

• The 2002 and 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay reports provided data 

on oysters, crab, rockfish, and bay grasses, but the reports did not 

provide an overall assessment of the current status of living resources in 

the bay or the health of the bay. Instead, these data were reported for 

each species individually, with graphics showing current levels as well 

as trends over time. 

• The 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay report shows a graphic that 

depicts oyster harvest levels at historic lows, with a mostly decreasing 

trend over time, and a rockfish graphic that shows a generally increasing 

8

In the last 10 years, the Bay Program has issued four State of the Chesapeake Bay reports. 

These reports were issued in 1995, 1999, 2002, and 2004. 

9

The first report to Congress on the condition of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, required by 

amendments to the Clean Water Act, was submitted in 2003.
Page 18 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

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

contextual information that states how these measures are interrelated 

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

the bay. 

• The 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay report shows water clarity and 

algae trends in the bay’s major tributaries. These data include some 

varying trends, but the report provides no context for how these trends 

relate to one another or what the data show, collectively, about the 

overall health of the bay.

According to our expert panel, effective reports on the health of an 

ecosystem should contain information on key ecological attributes—

derived from a broader set of indicators that portray ecosystem conditions. 

The State of the Chesapeake Bay report, however, does not provide such an 

overall assessment of the bay’s health. Instead, our expert panel noted that 

the Bay Program has many fine scale indicators that measure individual 

aspects within the ecosystem, such as the oyster population or nutrient 

concentrations. While the expert panel agreed that the 2004 report was 

visually pleasing, they thought that it lacked a clear, overall picture of the 

bay’s health. They noted that without an overall assessment of the bay’s 

health, the public would probably not be able to easily and accurately 

assess the current condition of the bay from the information reported.

Bay Program Reports Lack 

Credibility

The credibility of the State of the Chesapeake Bay reports has been 

undermined by two key factors. First, the Bay Program has commingled 

data from three sources when reporting on the health of the bay. 

Specifically, the reports mix information on the bay’s health status with 

results from a predictive model and the results of specific management 

actions. The latter two results do little to inform readers about the current 

health status of the bay and tend to downplay the bay’s actual condition. 

Second, the Bay Program has not established an independent review 

process to ensure the objectivity and accuracy of its reports. According to 

our expert panel, establishing such a process would significantly improve 

the credibility of the Bay Program’s reports.

Bay Program Commingles Data 

on the Bay’s Health with Other 

Data

The Bay Program uses the following three kinds of data when preparing the 

State of the Chesapeake Bay reports: 

• Monitoring data describe the actual status of individual species or 

pollutants in the bay, such as the number of acres of bay grasses or the 
Page 19 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

concentration of nutrients in the tributaries. Generally, these data tend 

to show a more negative picture of bay health. For example, monitoring 

data on the blue crab population show that this population is at risk, 

with below-average levels in all but 2 years since 1991. Similarly, water 

clarity, which is critical to the health of underwater grasses that provide 

important habitat for many bay animals, is degrading in 17 areas in the 

bay and its tributaries, improving in only 1 area, and unchanged in 22 

areas. In addition, while trends in the number of acres of bay grasses 

and dissolved oxygen levels have held relatively constant, the rockfish 

population has generally increased. 

• Data on management actions include information on the extent to 

which the Bay Program has met its management commitments, such 

as the number of wetland acres that have been restored and the miles 

of forest buffers that have been established. Generally, these data 

tend to be more positive. For example, the 2004 State of the 

Chesapeake Bay reported that the program is over half way toward 

meeting its commitment to restore 25,000 acres of wetlands by 

2010. In addition, the miles of forest buffers restored have increased 

every year since 1996. These actions are important because they 

contribute to the bay’s health in the long term. However, they do not 

immediately affect the bay’s health and do not describe its current 

health condition. 

• Results from the Bay Program’s predictive model provide estimates 

of the long-term effect that certain management actions may have in 

reducing nutrient and sediment loads in the bay. The results from the 

predictive model are estimates and also tend to depict a positive 

picture. For example, because the model results indicate that 

loadings of phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment have all been 

reduced since 1985, the 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay reported 

that phosphorus loading decreased from approximately 27 million 

pounds per year to less than 20 million pounds per year by 

2002. These statements, however, are based on estimates from the 

model and are not based on actual monitoring data of phosphorus 

concentrations in the bay. While the modeling results provide 

important forecast data on future impacts of various management 

actions, these results, like the results of management actions, do not 

describe the actual health conditions of the bay. 

Even though only one of these three types of data describe actual health 

conditions in the bay, all three types of data are commingled in the Bay 
Page 20 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Program’s State of the Chesapeake Bay reports. For example, in the 2002 

report, the Bay Program reported an increase in the number of river miles 

opened for migratory fish, which is the result of a management action; in 

the same section, it also reported a decrease in the oyster population, 

which is an important factor in determining the bay’s health.10 Similarly, on 

a two-page spread in the 2004 report, the Bay Program presented 

monitoring data on five health indicators and information on three 

management indicators; the report also includes model results indicating 

improvements in nitrogen loadings.

We believe that by commingling the data in this manner, the Bay Program 

not only downplays the deteriorated condition of the bay but also confuses 

the reader by mixing information that is relevant with information that is 

irrelevant to understanding the current condition of the bay. Our expert 

panel agreed that a key attribute that influences the credibility of reports 

on ecosystem health is whether they contain relevant information. Our 

expert panel also noted that the Bay Program reports are overly oriented to 

reporting on the progress of the program’s management actions at the 

expense of communicating information on the health status of the bay. 

Similarly, while they agreed that models can provide useful information 

about the impact of management actions on the future state of an 

ecosystem, these results should not be used in a report on actual health 

conditions. 

Several Bay Program partners that we spoke with also noted that the 

reports tend to be unduly positive and have not effectively communicated 

the status of the bay’s health. They believe that the reports failed to clearly 

distinguish between information on health and progress made in 

implementing management initiatives. In addition, several partners told us 

that the use of the predictive model to report on the actual health of the bay 

is inappropriate because the model forecasts potential outcomes of 

management actions and does not represent the actual health conditions of 

the bay. 

The Bay Program recognizes that improvements in its current reporting 

approach are needed. The program is also developing new reporting 

formats that it believes will more clearly describe the bay’s current health 

and the status of the restoration effort. As part of this effort, the Bay 

Program plans to issue separate reports in January and March 2006, one 

10The Bay Program uses oyster harvest levels to report on the oyster population. 
Page 21 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

that would focus on the results of management actions and the other on the 

bay’s health status. The Bay Program also believes that their current efforts 

to develop an integrated approach for assessing progress will contribute to 

their efforts to more effectively report on the bay’s health. 

The Bay Program Lacks an 

Independent Report Review 

Process

The credibility of the State of the Chesapeake Bay reports is further 

impaired because the Bay Program does not have an independent review 

process to ensure that its reports are accurate and credible. The officials 

who manage and are responsible for the restoration effort also analyze, 

interpret, and report the data to the public. No process currently exists to 

involve any other organization or group in this process. For example, 

according to a member of the Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical 

Advisory Committee, this committee, which has responsibility for 

providing scientific and technical advice to the Chesapeake Bay Program, 

is not involved in developing the reports and is not part of the review 

process. Instead, the reports are developed by the Communications and 

Education Subcommittee using data provided by the Monitoring and 

Analysis Subcommittee. The reports are then reviewed by representatives 

from each of the signatory jurisdictions prior to publication. We believe this 

lack of independence in reporting has led to the Bay Program projecting a 

rosier view of the health of the bay than may have been warranted. 

According to representatives of two of the signatories to the agreement, the 

signatories find it advantageous to positively report on the bay’s health, 

because positive trends help sustain both political and public interest as 

well as support for the effort. Therefore, the Bay Program has an incentive 

to present the most positive picture to the public of the progress that has 

been made in restoring the bay’s health. Chesapeake Bay Program officials 

acknowledged that concerns have been expressed that past reports 

projected a rosier view than was warranted. The officials noted that they 

believe that the 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay report is less positive 

and pointed out that the report states that the bay and its watershed are in 

peril. 

Our expert panelists believe that an independent review panel—to either 

review the bay’s health reports before issuance or to analyze and report on 

the health status independently of the Bay Program—would significantly 

improve the credibility of the program’s reports. Some program partners 

we interviewed also echoed the need for an independent review panel and 

stated that it would help improve the Bay Program’s reports. For example, 

according to one partner, an independent group with no vested interest in 

the outcome of the reports could improve credibility. 
Page 22 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Federal Agencies and 

States Have Provided 

Billions of Dollars in 

Both Direct and 

Indirect Funding for 

Restoration Activities

An estimated $3.7 billion in direct funding was provided to restore the 

Chesapeake Bay from fiscal years 1995 through 2004.11 This funding was 

provided for such purposes as water quality protection and restoration, 

sound land use, vital habitat protection and restoration, living resource 

protection and restoration, and stewardship and community engagement. 

An additional $1.9 billion in indirect funding was also provided for 

activities that affect the restoration effort. These activities are conducted 

as part of broader agency efforts and/or would continue without the 

restoration effort.

Direct Funding for 

Restoration Activities

Eleven key federal agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 

Virginia; and the District of Columbia provided almost $3.7 billion in direct 

funding from fiscal years 1995 through 2004 to restore the bay. As shown in 

figure 4, the states typically provided about 75 percent of the direct funding 

for restoration, and the funding has generally increased over the 10-year 

period.

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

Columbia, the fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30. 
Page 23 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Figure 4: Direct Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies, States, and the District 

of Columbia, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars 

Federal agencies provided a total of approximately $972 million in direct 

funding, while the states and the District of Columbia provided 

approximately $2.7 billion in direct funding for the restoration effort over 

the 10-year period. Of the federal agencies, the Department of Defense’s 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided the greatest amount of direct 

funding. Of the states, Maryland provided the greatest amount of direct 

funding—more than $1.8 billion—which is over $1.1 billion more than any 

other state. Table 1 shows the amount of direct funding these entities 

provided. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

States and the District of Columbia

Federal agencies

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Dollars in millions

$148.6

$215.8

$246.3 $266.7

$364.7 $348.1

$482.3

$558.2 $539.8

$486.6
Page 24 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Table 1: Direct Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies, States, and District of 

Columbia, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

The percentage of direct funding provided for each of the five goals in 

Chesapeake 2000 varies. The largest percentage of direct funding—

approximately 47 percent—went to water quality protection and 

Dollars in millions

Federal agency Amount of direct funding

Department of Defense

Army Corps of Engineers $293.5

Army 56.1

Navy/Marines 5.8

Total—Department of Defense $355.4

EPA (total) $253.7

Department of Agriculture

Farm Service Agency 167.0

Natural Resources Conservation Service 51.5

U.S. Forest Service 11.9

Total—Department of Agriculture $230.4

Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 45.7

U.S. Geological Survey 24.2

National Park Service 7.5

Total—Department of the Interior $77.4

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration $55.5

Total—federal agencies $972.4

State

Maryland 1,862.4

Virginia 752.6

District of Columbia 41.8

Pennsylvania 28.1

Total—all states $2,684.8

Grand total $3,657.2
Page 25 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

restoration. The smallest percentage of direct funding—about 4 percent—

was provided for stewardship and community engagement. Figure 5 shows 

the percentage of direct funding provided for each of the goals. 

Figure 5: Percentage of the Total Direct Funding Provided for Addressing Each of 

the Five Chesapeake 2000 Goals, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004

Note: Examples of water quality protection and restoration activities include upgrades to wastewater 

treatment plants and technical assistance for the implementation of agricultural best management 

practices. Examples of sound land use activities include land acquisition and support for smart growth 

initiatives. Examples of vital habitat protection and restoration activities include wetland restoration and 

studies for determining the best methods for protecting and restoring submerged aquatic vegetation. 

Examples of living resource protection and restoration activities include oyster studies and creating 

fish passages in areas of blockage. Examples of stewardship and community engagement activities 

include educational programs, publications, and informational forums.

Indirect Funding for 

Activities That Affect the 

Restoration Effort

Ten of the key federal agencies, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia 

provided about $1.9 billion in additional funding from fiscal years 1995 

through 2004 for activities that have an indirect impact on bay restoration. 

These activities are conducted as part of broader agency efforts and/or 

would continue without the restoration effort. For example, the 

Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service 

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

Water quality protection and restoration

($1.7 billion)

Sound land use ($1.1 billion)

Vital habitat protection and restoration

($491 million)

Living resource protection and restoration

($233 million)

4%

Stewardship and community engagement

($156 million)

6%

13%

30%

47%
Page 26 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

provides funding for programs that assist farmers in implementing 

agricultural best management practices. This assistance is part of the 

agency’s nationwide efforts and would continue even if the bay restoration 

effort did not exist. Similarly, the majority of Pennsylvania’s funding is 

included in the total for indirect funding because, while the state’s 

restoration efforts are important for restoring the bay, such as reducing 

agricultural runoff, bay restoration is not the primary purpose of the 

funding. 

As with direct funding, indirect funding for the restoration effort has also 

generally increased over fiscal years 1995 through 2004. As shown in figure 

6, federal agencies typically provided about half of the indirect funding for 

the restoration effort. 

Figure 6: Indirect Funding Provided by Federal Agencies, States, and the District of 

Columbia, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars 

Federal agencies provided approximately $935 million in indirect funding, 

while Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia provided approximately 

$991 million in indirect funding for the restoration effort over the 10-year 

States and the District of Columbia

Federal agencies

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Dollars in millions

$131.6

$107.8

$139.3

$149.6 $157.1

$188.7 $179.3

$227.3

$302.1

$343.2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350
Page 27 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

period. Of the federal agencies, the Department of Agriculture provided the 

greatest amount of indirect funding, primarily through the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. Of the states, Pennsylvania provided the 

greatest amount of indirect funding. Table 2 shows the amount of indirect 

funding these entities provided.

Table 2: Indirect Funding Provided for the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Effort, Fiscal 

Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars

Dollars in millions

Federal agency Amount of indirect funding

Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service $306.1

Farm Service Agency 136.5

U.S. Forest Service 54.0

Total—Department of Agriculture $496.5

EPA (total) $181.4

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

$114.0

Department of Defense

Navy/Marines 69.9

Army 17.3

Army Corps of Engineers 0

Total—Department of Defense $87.2

Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 51.8

National Park Service 2.2

U.S. Geological Survey 1.7

Total—Department of the Interior $55.7

Total—federal agencies $934.9

State

Pennsylvania 863.8

District of Columbia 127.2

Maryland 0

Virginia 0

Total—all states $991.0
Page 28 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

The percentage of indirect funding provided for each of the five goals in 

Chesapeake 2000 varies. The largest percentage of indirect funding—

approximately 44 percent—went to water quality protection and 

restoration. The smallest percentage of indirect funding—approximately 4 

percent—went to living resource protection and restoration. Figure 7 

shows the percentage of indirect funding that was provided for each of the 

five goals. 

Figure 7: Percentage of the Total Indirect Funding Provided for Addressing Each of 

the Five Chesapeake 2000 Goals, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004

Appendix V contains additional details on funds obligated for the 

restoration of the Chesapeake Bay from fiscal years 1995 through 2004.

Grand total $1,925.9

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Federal agency Amount of indirect funding

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

Water quality protection and restoration

($841 million)

Sound land use ($702 million)

Vital habitat protection and restoration

($209 million)

Stewardship and community engagement

($102 million)

4%

Living resource protection and restoration

($72 million)

5%

11%

36%

44%
Page 29 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Although almost $3.7 billion in direct funding and more than $1.9 billion in 

indirect funding has been provided for activities to restore the Chesapeake 

Bay, estimates for the amount of funding needed to restore the bay far 

surpass these figures. A January 2003 Chesapeake Bay Commission report 

estimated that the restoration effort faced a funding gap of nearly $13 

billion to achieve the goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000 by 2010. In 

addition, the report found that the Water Quality Protection and 

Restoration goal faced the largest funding gap. Subsequently, in an October 

2004 report to the Chesapeake Executive Council, the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel estimated that the restoration effort 

is grossly underfunded.12 The finance panel found that the lack of adequate 

funding and implementation has left the bay effort far short of its goals and 

recommended that a regional financing authority be created with an initial 

capitalization of $15 billion of which $12 billion would come from the 

federal government.

In addition to the funding provided for the restoration of the bay, EPA 

provided more than $1 billion to Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania 

through its Clean Water State Revolving Fund program during fiscal years 

1995 through 2004. The states use this funding, along with a required 20 

percent match, to capitalize their state revolving funds. The funds provide 

low-cost loans or other financial assistance for a wide range of water 

quality infrastructure projects and other activities, such as implementing 

agricultural best management practices and urban storm water 

management. The District of Columbia, which is exempted from 

establishing a loan program, received more than $58 million from the 

program as grants for water quality projects during the same time period. 

Some of the projects funded may contribute to the bay’s restoration. For 

example, a $100 million loan was made to Arlington County, Virginia, in 

2004 for upgrading a wastewater treatment facility to enhance nutrient 

removal. 

12The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel was established to identify 

funding sources sufficient to implement basinwide cleanup plans so that the bay and tidal 

tributaries would be restored sufficiently by 2010 to remove them from the list of impaired 

waters under the Clean Water Act. The panel was composed of 15 leaders from the private 

sector, government, and environmental community. 
Page 30 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

The Bay Program Has 

Not Always Effectively 

Coordinated and 

Managed the 

Restoration Effort

Although Chesapeake 2000 provides the overall vision and strategic goals 

for the restoration effort along with short- and long-term commitments, the 

Bay Program lacks a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy 

that will enable it to achieve the goals laid out in the agreement. Although 

the Bay Program has adopted 10 keystone commitments to focus the 

partners’ efforts and developed several planning documents, these plans 

are sometimes inconsistent with each other. Furthermore, the Bay Program 

is limited in its ability to strategically target resources because it has no 

assurance about the level of funds that may be available beyond the short 

term. According to Bay Program officials, they recognize that inconsistent 

strategies have been developed and are currently determining how to 

reconcile these various strategies. 

The Bay Program Lacks a 

Coordinated 

Implementation Strategy

Chesapeake 2000 and prior agreements have provided the overall direction 

for the restoration effort over the past two decades. However, the Bay 

Program generally lacks a comprehensive, coordinated implementation 

strategy that could provide a road map for accomplishing the goals outlined 

in the agreement. Several Bay Program partners we interviewed expressed 

frustration because the Bay Program has not developed a clear, realistic 

plan for how it will meet the restoration goals. For example, a signatory to 

the Chesapeake Bay agreements noted that while Chesapeake 2000 

contains the correct goals and appropriately identifies actions needed to 

restore the bay, the Bay Program does not have a plan in place that will 

allow the program to meet these goals. Similarly, a federal partner in the 

effort expressed frustration with the Chesapeake Executive Council for not 

convening a meeting of partners after the agreement was signed to decide 

how to proceed with the restoration effort and for not having a clear, 

overall plan for achieving program goals. According to one state partner, 

there is no clear strategy for how the restoration goals should be achieved, 

and such a strategy is needed to help ensure better progress toward 

achieving the Chesapeake 2000 commitments.

Recognizing that it could not effectively manage all 102 commitments 

outlined in Chesapeake 2000, in 2003, the Bay Program adopted 10 

keystone commitments as a management strategy to focus the partners’ 

efforts. The program believes that these commitments, if accomplished, 

will provide the greatest benefit to the bay. These commitments include the 

following: 
Page 31 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

• By 2010, achieve, at a minimum, a tenfold increase in native oysters in 

the Chesapeake Bay, based upon a 1994 baseline. 

• By 2007, revise and implement existing fisheries management plans to 

incorporate ecological, social, and economic considerations; 

multispecies fisheries management; and ecosystem approaches.

• By 2002, implement a strategy to accelerate protection and restoration 

of submerged aquatic vegetation beds in areas of critical importance to 

the bay's living resources.

• By 2010, work with local governments, community groups, and 

watershed organizations to develop and implement locally supported 

watershed management plans in two-thirds of the bay watershed 

covered by the agreement. These plans would address the protection, 

conservation, and restoration of stream corridors, riparian forest 

buffers, and wetlands for the purposes of improving habitat and water 

quality, with collateral benefits for optimizing stream flow and water 

supply. 

• By 2010, achieve a net resource gain by restoring 25,000 acres of tidal 

and nontidal wetlands.

• Conserve existing forests along all streams and shorelines.

• By 2010, correct the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the 

Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries sufficiently to remove the bay 

and the tidal portions of its tributaries from the list of impaired waters 

under the Clean Water Act.

• Strengthen programs for land acquisition and preservation within each 

state that are supported by funding and target the most valued lands for 

protection. Permanently preserve from development 20 percent of the 

land area in the watershed by 2010.

• By 2012, reduce the rate of harmful sprawl development of forest and 

agricultural land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 30 percent 

measured as an average over 5 years from the baseline of 1992-97, with 

measures and progress reported regularly to the Chesapeake Executive 

Council.
Page 32 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

• Beginning with the class of 2005, provide a meaningful bay or stream 

outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before 

graduation from high school.

To achieve the 10 keystone commitments, the Bay Program has developed 

numerous planning documents, such as subcommittee and work group 

plans, state tributary strategies, and species-specific management plans. 

These planning documents, however, are not always consistent with each 

other. For example, a work group of the Bay Program’s Living Resources 

Subcommittee developed a strategy for restoring 25,000 acres of wetlands 

by 2010—a commitment under the Vital Habitat Protection and 

Restoration goal. This plan, developed in 2000, describes a strategy of 

restoring 2,500 acres per year through 2010. Subsequently, each state 

within the bay watershed and the District of Columbia developed a 

tributary strategy that describes the actions needed to achieve and 

maintain nitrogen and phosphorus load reductions necessary to remove the 

bay and its tributaries from the impaired waters list by 2010—a 

commitment under the Water Quality Protection and Restoration goal. In 

these strategies, the states describe actions for restoring over 200,000 acres 

of wetlands—far exceeding the 25,000 acres that the Bay Program has 

developed strategies for restoring.13 Similarly, a work group of the Nutrient 

Subcommittee developed a plan in 2004 to restore at least 10,000 miles of 

forest buffers by 2010—a commitment under the Vital Habitat Protection 

and Restoration goal. However, the tributary strategies developed by 

Pennsylvania and Virginia describe actions to restore a total of about 45,000 

miles of forest buffers by 2010—more than four times the amount called for 

in the Bay Program’s plan. 

While we recognize the partners have the freedom to develop higher targets 

than established by the Bay Program, having such varying targets causes 

confusion, not only for the partners, but other stakeholders regarding what 

actions are actually needed to restore the bay. Moreover, such an approach 

appears to contradict the underlying principles of the partnership that was 

formed because the partners recognized that a cooperative approach was 

needed. According to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, the program 

recognizes that inconsistent strategies have been developed and is now 

determining how to reconcile these various strategies. The officials also 

noted that some strategies, like the tributary strategies, have only recently 

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

and Delaware.
Page 33 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

been developed and the partners did not realize, until these strategies were 

developed, the extent of the additional work that would be required to 

meet the water quality commitments in Chesapeake 2000. 

The Bay Program Is Limited 

in Its Ability to Strategically 

Target Resources

Since 2000, Bay Program partners have devoted a significant amount of 

their limited resources to developing strategies for achieving the 

commitments outlined in Chesapeake 2000. However, as various partners 

have acknowledged, several of these strategies are either not being used by 

the Bay Program or are believed to be unachievable within the 2010 time 

frame. 

According to a Bay Program official, some work groups have invested 

significant resources in developing detailed plans for accomplishing 

specific commitments, but after the plans were developed, the program 

realized it had no resources available to implement the plans. For example, 

the Toxics Subcommittee invested significant resources to develop a 

detailed toxics work plan for achieving the toxics commitments in 

Chesapeake 2000. Even though the Bay Program has not been able to 

implement this work plan as planned because personnel and funding have 

not been available, program officials told us that the plan is currently being 

revised. It is unclear to us why the program is investing additional 

resources to revise this plan when the necessary resources are not 

available to implement it, and it is not one of the keystone commitments. 

According to the Chair of the Toxics Subcommittee, the work groups are 

generally responsible for developing strategies for achieving the 

commitments in Chesapeake 2000 without knowing what level of 

resources will be available to implement the strategies. Strategies are often 

developed in this way because, according to a Bay Program official, while 

they know how much each partner has agreed to provide for the upcoming 

year, they do not know how much funding partners will provide in the 

future. This funding challenge was recognized by the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel, which reported that no summary 

cost of all needed restoration activities is available. The panel also noted 

that the lack of adequate funding and implementation has left the Bay 

Program far short of its goals. Without knowing what funding will be 

available to accomplish restoration activities, the Bay Program is limited in 

its ability to target and direct funding toward those restoration activities 

that will be the most cost effective and beneficial. 

The Bay Program has also spent a significant amount of resources 

developing strategies that some partners believe are unachievable. For 
Page 34 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

example, the Bay Program has developed an oyster management plan for 

its commitment to achieve, by 2010, a tenfold increase in oysters, based 

upon a 1994 baseline. Maryland and Virginia have also developed statespecific plans for implementing the strategies laid out in the oyster 

management plans. Although the Bay Program has developed these 

detailed strategies and implementation plans, it also states in the oyster 

management plan that it will be unlikely to achieve the commitment 

because of low abundance, degraded habitat, and disease. Several partners 

also told us that they believe that the oyster commitment will be impossible 

to achieve. Similarly, states have spent years developing tributary 

strategies, but several Bay Program partners have told us that these 

strategies are not feasible, particularly given current funding levels and 

time frames. A member of the implementation committee told us that, even 

if the necessary funding was provided, the Bay Program does not have the 

personnel or equipment needed to implement all of the strategies that have 

been developed. Furthermore, it is not possible to meet the commitment of 

removing the bay and its tributaries from the impaired waters list by 

2010. According to several partners we spoke with, while point source 

reductions called for in these strategies are achievable, nonpoint 

sourcereductions are not.14 In addition, several partners told us that other 

goals are also unachievable. For example, several local government 

representatives told us that, overall, the Bay Program’s goals are 

unachievable. They believe that the lack of a realistic plan that is based on 

available resources has discouraged partners and stalled the restoration 

effort.

The Chesapeake Bay Program Office recognizes that some of the plans that 

have been developed are unachievable but stated that the plans were 

developed to identify what actions will be needed to achieve the 

commitments of Chesapeake 2000. The office also recognizes that there is 

a fundamental gap between what needs to be done to achieve some of the 

commitments and what can be achieved with the current resources 

available. Chesapeake Bay Program Office officials noted that the 

development of an overall implementation plan that takes into account 

available resources had been discussed, but that no agreement could be 

reached among the partners.

14Point sources of pollution are discrete conveyances, such as pipes and drains from 

wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities from which pollutants are discharged. 

Nonpoint sources of pollution are sources of pollution that are not from a specific source, 

for example, agricultural runoff.
Page 35 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

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

undertaking. The ultimate success of the restoration hinges on several 

factors, of which a well-coordinated and managed implementation 

approach is key. To its credit, the Bay Program has made significant strides 

in developing over 100 different measures of progress, publishing dozens of 

reports on the state of the bay, and creating several documents that lay out 

strategies for fulfilling commitments outlined in Chesapeake 2000 that are 

intended to move the Bay Program closer to meeting the overall restoration 

goals. However, despite the extensive efforts that have gone into managing 

the restoration program, the lack of (1) integrated approaches to measure 

overall progress, (2) independent and credible reporting mechanisms, and 

(3) coordinated implementation strategies is undermining the success of 

the restoration effort and potentially eroding public confidence and 

continued support. We believe that the combined impact of these 

deficiencies has already resulted in a situation in which the Bay Program 

cannot effectively present a clear and credible picture of what the 

restoration effort has achieved, what strategies will best further 

Chesapeake 2000’s restoration goals, and how limited resources should be 

channeled to develop and implement the most effective strategies. 

With over two decades of restoration experience to rely on, we believe that 

the Bay Program is well positioned to seriously reevaluate how it measures 

and reports on both restoration progress and the actual health status of the 

bay. Given the billions of dollars that have already been invested in this 

project and the billions more that are almost certainly needed, 

stakeholders and the public should have ready access to reliable 

information that presents an accurate assessment of restoration progress 

and the actual health status of the bay. Moreover, the long-term partnership 

is uniquely positioned to undertake a hard look at what strategies have 

been the most cost effective and beneficial to the restoration effort and use 

this information not only to inform their future actions but also to ensure 

that they are not developing strategies that will be at cross-purposes or 

develop unrealistic implementation plans that do not reflect available 

resources. 
Page 36 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

To improve the methods used by the Bay Program to assess progress made 

on the restoration effort, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA 

instruct the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to complete its plans to 

develop and implement an integrated approach to assess overall 

restoration progress. In doing so, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

should ensure that this integrated approach clearly ties to the five broad 

restoration goals identified in Chesapeake 2000. 

To improve the effectiveness and credibility of the Bay Program’s reports 

on the health of the bay, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA 

instruct the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to take the following three 

actions to revise its reporting approach:

• include an assessment of the key ecological attributes that reflect the 

bay’s current health conditions, 

• report separately on the health of the bay and on the progress made in 

implementing management actions, and 

• establish an independent and objective reporting process. 

To ensure that the Bay Program is managed and coordinated effectively, we 

also recommend that the Administrator of EPA instruct the Chesapeake 

Bay Program Office to work with Bay Program partners to take the 

following two actions: 

• develop an overall, coordinated implementation strategy that unifies the 

program’s various planning documents, and 

• establish a means to better target its limited resources to ensure that the 

most effective and realistic work plans are developed and implemented. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the signatories of the Chesapeake 2000

agreement—the Administrator of EPA; the Governors of Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the Mayor of the District of Columbia; and the 

Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission—for their review 

and comment. EPA, Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the 

Chesapeake Bay Commission generally concurred with the report’s 

findings and recommendations. Although Pennsylvania did not specifically 

comment on the report’s findings and recommendations, it noted—as did 
Page 37 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

other commenters—that the Bay Program is undertaking actions to 

address the issues discussed in our report. We are encouraged that the 

signatories generally agree with our recommendations. Without such 

actions, we believe that the program will be unable to change the status 

quo and move forward in a more strategic and well-coordinated manner. 

In their written comments, all of the signatories also emphasized the 

importance of the tributary strategies developed by the states to the 

restoration effort. Virginia stated that these strategies will serve as the 

basis of the comprehensive implementation plan that we recommended, 

but noted that any regional implementation plan developed must provide 

states with the flexibility to operate within their own cultural, legal, and 

political environments. Maryland echoed this concern, stating that while a 

comprehensive, coordinated strategy is important, each jurisdiction must 

maintain the ability to implement strategies that it believes will be most 

successful in achieving the collective goal of reducing nutrient and 

sediment inputs into the Chesapeake Bay. We recognize the importance of 

the tributary strategies and agree that states need flexibility in 

implementing these strategies. However, we continue to believe that it is 

important to develop an overall, coordinated implementation strategy for 

the Bay Program that unifies the various planning documents developed. In 

its comments, EPA stated that the tributary strategies have been developed 

to guide the restoration effort to eventual success and indicated that the 

Bay Program is now aligning its management plans to take better 

advantage of available resources for the restoration effort. EPA also 

provided technical comments and clarifications that we incorporated, as 

appropriate. The signatories’ written comments are presented in 

appendixes VI through XI. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees; the Administrator of EPA; the Governors of 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the Mayor of the District of 

Columbia; the Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission; and 

the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We also will make 

copies available to others on request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

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

at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Page 38 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

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

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix XII.

Anu K. Mittal

Director, Natural Resources

 and Environment
Page 39 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

We were asked to address several issues concerning the Chesapeake Bay 

Program’s (Bay Program) restoration effort. Specifically, we were asked to 

determine (1) the extent to which the Bay Program has established 

appropriate measures for assessing restoration progress, (2) the extent to 

which the reporting mechanisms the Bay Program uses clearly and 

accurately describe the bay’s overall health, (3) how much funding was 

provided for restoring the Chesapeake Bay for fiscal years 1995 through 

2004 and for what purposes, and (4) how effectively the restoration effort is 

being coordinated and managed.

To determine the extent to which the Bay Program has established 

appropriate measures for assessing restoration progress, we obtained 

documentation on the measures being used by the Bay Program to assess 

progress and their linkages to commitments in Chesapeake 2000. We 

analyzed these measures to determine which measures provide 

information about progress in achieving quantifiable commitments and 

which provide information needed to make management decisions. We also 

analyzed the measures to determine their appropriateness for measuring 

progress toward the quantifiable commitments. 

To determine the extent to which the reporting mechanisms the Bay 

Program uses clearly and accurately describe the bay’s overall health, we 

obtained a variety of reports issued by the Bay Program, including all of the 

State of the Chesapeake Bay reports. We analyzed these reports to identify 

the types of information included in the reports, the consistency of the 

information provided over time, and the format and presentation of the 

reports. We did not assess the reliability of the data provided in the reports. 

To identify the critical elements of effective assessment and reporting 

processes, pros and cons of different assessment and reporting processes, 

and alternative methods of measuring and reporting progress that may be 

applicable to the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, we assembled a panel 

of recognized experts on the following environmental restoration topics: 

indicator development, modeling, methods for reporting restoration 

progress, watershed restoration, and ecosystem restoration. To identify 

experts on these topics, we used the “snowball” technique. We identified 

experts through a literature search and Internet search. As we contacted 

experts, we verified their independence from the Chesapeake Bay Program 

and asked for additional contacts of experts. We selected 60 environmental 

restoration experts as potential panelists. From these 60 experts, we chose 

the final eight panelists on the basis of the following criteria: (1) 

recommendations we received from others knowledgeable in the field of 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 40 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

environmental restoration; (2) the individual’s area of expertise and 

experience; (3) the type of organization represented, including academic 

institutions, government, and private industry; and (4) geographic 

representation. (The names and affiliations of the panel members are listed 

in app. IV). On May 17, 2005, we held an all-day meeting with the eight 

panelists at our office in Washington, D.C. Before the meeting, we provided 

each panel member with a set of eight general discussion questions. At the 

end of each discussion, we asked the panelists to respond, using an 

anonymous ballot, to a set of questions that were based on the general 

discussion topics. We recorded and transcribed the meeting to ensure that 

we accurately captured the panel members’ statements. 

To obtain information on the funding provided for the restoration effort, we 

developed a data collection instrument that we distributed to key federal 

agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the 

District of Columbia. Key federal agencies were identified as those that 

participated in high-level Chesapeake Bay Program committees or that 

provided more than $250,000 annually, on average, in direct funding. For 

the purposes of this report, we defined direct funds as those that were 

provided exclusively for bay restoration (e.g., increasing the oyster 

population) or those that would no longer be made available in the absence 

of the restoration effort. To make the comparison more meaningful, we 

present funding data in constant 2004 dollars. Unless otherwise noted, all 

figures are obligation amounts and include administrative costs. We 

reviewed the data from the federal agencies and states for consistency and 

reliability and, when possible, compared the data with data from other 

sources, such as data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. After reviewing the data and 

comparing it with other sources, we sent the data back to the federal 

agencies and states for verification and updates as needed. In addition, we 

asked for explanations of any inconsistencies that we identified. After 

receiving the verified/updated data, we once again reviewed the data for 

consistency and reliability. Finally, we contacted the agencies and states 

with any outstanding questions concerning the data and conducted 

additional data reliability checks.

To determine how effectively the restoration effort is being coordinated 

and managed, we obtained documentation on the organizational structure 

of the program, the roles and responsibilities of the committees and 

subcommittees, and planning documents developed to address the 

commitments. We analyzed the planning documents for consistency and 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 41 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

thoroughness. In addition, we obtained information on the status of 

keystone and other commitments. 

To obtain EPA’s insights on all four objectives, we met with officials from 

the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to discuss its monitoring and 

assessment, reporting, funding, and coordination and management 

responsibilities. Through these discussions, we obtained an array of 

documents and perspectives related to all four objectives. To obtain 

insights from the other signatories of the Chesapeake Bay agreements, we 

met with officials from the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the District of 

Columbia, and the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Through 

these efforts, we obtained documents and information related to all four 

objectives.

To obtain insights from other federal partners to the Bay Program, we met 

with officials from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

and the Interior. To obtain insights from academic partners to the Bay 

Program, we met with officials from the Chesapeake Research Consortium, 

College of William and Mary’s Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, and University of Maryland’s 

Center for Environmental Science. To obtain insights from other Bay 

Program partners, we met with the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Governments. We also met with officials from nonpartner organizations, 

such as the Maryland Watermen’s Association and the Northeast-Midwest 

Institute. 

We conducted our review from October 2004 through October 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 42 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Appendix II

Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000 ApendxiI

Chesapeake 2000 contains five broad goals and 102 commitments that the 

partners have agreed to accomplish. These goals and commitments are 

listed below.

Living Resource Protection 

and Restoration Goal

Restore, enhance and protect the finfish, shellfish and other living 

resources, their habitats and ecological relationships to sustain all fisheries 

and provide for a balanced ecosystem. 

Oysters By 2010, achieve, at a minimum, a tenfold increase in native oysters in the 

Chesapeake Bay, based upon a 1994 baseline.

By 2002, develop and implement a strategy to achieve this increase by using 

sanctuaries sufficient in size and distribution, aquaculture, continued 

disease research and disease-resistant management strategies, and other 

management approaches.

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

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

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

help establish and implement a national program designed to 

substantially reduce and, where possible, eliminate the introduction of 

non-native species carried in ballast water; and

by 2002, develop and implement an interim voluntary ballast water 

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

By 2001, identify and rank non-native, invasive aquatic and terrestrial 

species, which are causing or have the potential to cause significant 

negative impacts to the bay’s aquatic ecosystem. 

By 2003, develop and implement management plans for those species 

deemed problematic to the restoration and integrity of the bay’s ecosystem.

Fish Passage and Migratory and 

Resident Fish

By June 2002, identify the final initiatives necessary to achieve our existing 

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

currently blocked river habitat by 2003 and establish a monitoring program 

to assess outcomes.
Appendix II

Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000

Page 43 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

By 2002, set a new goal with implementation schedules for additional 

migratory and resident fish passages that addresses the removal of physical 

blockages. In addition, the goal will address the removal of chemical 

blockages caused by acid mine drainage. Projects should be selected for 

maximum habitat and stock benefit.

By 2002, assess trends in populations for priority migratory fish species. 

Determine tributary-specific target population sizes based upon projected 

fish passage, and current and projected habitat available, and provide 

recommendations to achieve those targets.

By 2003, revise fish management plans to include strategies to achieve 

target population sizes of tributary-specific migratory fish.

Multispecies Management By 2004, assess the effects of different population levels of filter feeders 

such as menhaden, oysters, and clams on bay water quality and habitat.

By 2005, develop ecosystem-based multispecies management plans for 

targeted species.

By 2007, revise and implement existing fisheries management plans to 

incorporate ecological, social, and economic considerations, multispecies 

fisheries management and ecosystem approaches.

Crabs By 2001, establish harvest targets for the blue crab fishery and begin 

implementing complementary state fisheries management strategies 

baywide. Manage the blue crab fishery to restore a healthy spawning 

biomass, size, and age structure.

Vital Habitat Protection 

and Restoration Goal

Preserve, protect, and restore those habitats and natural areas that are vital 

to the survival and diversity of the living resources of the bay and its rivers. 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Recommit to the existing goal of protecting and restoring 114,000 acres of 

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).1

1

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

Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000

Page 44 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

By 2002, revise SAV restoration goals and strategies to reflect historic 

abundance, measured as acreage and density from the 1930s to the present. 

The revised goals will include specific levels of water clarity that are to be 

met in 2010. Strategies to achieve these goals will address water clarity, 

water quality, and bottom disturbance.

By 2002, implement a strategy to accelerate protection and restoration of 

SAV beds in areas of critical importance to the bay's living resources.

Watersheds By 2010, work with local governments, community groups, and watershed 

organizations to develop and implement locally supported watershed 

management plans in two-thirds of the bay watershed covered by the 

agreement. These plans would address the protection, conservation, and 

restoration of stream corridors, riparian forest buffers, and wetlands for 

the purposes of improving habitat and water quality, with collateral 

benefits for optimizing stream flow and water supply. 

By 2001, each jurisdiction will develop guidelines to ensure the aquatic 

health of stream corridors. Guidelines should consider optimal surface and 

groundwater flows.

By 2002, each jurisdiction will work with local governments and 

communities that have watershed management plans to select pilot 

projects that promote stream corridor protection and restoration.

By 2003, include the State of the Bay report, and make available to the 

public, local governments, and others, information concerning the aquatic 

health of stream corridors based on adopted regional guidelines.

By 2004, each jurisdiction, working with local governments, community 

groups, and watershed organizations, will develop stream corridor 

restoration goals based on local watershed management planning. 

Wetlands Achieve a no-net loss of existing wetlands acreage and function in the 

signatories' regulatory programs.

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

nontidal wetlands.

To do this, the signatories to the agreement commit to achieve and 

maintain an average restoration rate of 2,500 acres per year basin wide by 

2005 and beyond. They will evaluate their success in 2005.
Appendix II

Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000

Page 45 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Provide information and assistance to local governments and community 

groups for the development and implementation of wetlands preservation 

plans as a component of a locally based integrated watershed management 

plan.

Establish a goal of implementing the wetlands plan component in 25 

percent of the land area of each state's bay watershed by 2010. The plans 

would preserve key wetlands while addressing surrounding land use so as 

to preserve wetland functions.

Evaluate the potential impact of climate change on the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed, particularly with respect to its wetlands, and consider potential 

management options.

Forests By 2002, ensure that measures are in place to meet the riparian forest 

buffer restoration goal of 2,010 miles by 2010.2

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

Conserve existing forests along all streams and shorelines.

Promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests through 

conservation easements, greenways, purchase, and other land 

conservation mechanisms.

Water Quality Protection 

and Restoration Goal

Achieve and maintain the water quality necessary to support the aquatic 

living resources of the bay and its tributaries and to protect human health. 

Nutrients and Sediments Continue efforts to achieve and maintain the 40 percent nutrient reduction 

goal agreed to in 1987, as well as the goals being adopted for the tributaries 

south of the Potomac River.3

By 2010, correct the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the 

Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries sufficiently to remove the bay and 

2

According to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, this commitment was superseded by 

commitment number 34. 

3

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

Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000

Page 46 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

the tidal portions of its tributaries from the list of impaired waters under 

the Clean Water Act. In order to achieve this:

By 2001, define the water quality conditions necessary to protect 

aquatic living resources and then assign load reductions for nitrogen 

and phosphorus to each major tributary;

Using a process parallel to that established for nutrients, determine the 

sediment load reductions necessary to achieve the water quality 

conditions that protect aquatic living resources, and assign load 

reductions for sediment to each major tributary by 2001;

By 2002, complete a public process to develop and begin 

implementation of revised Tributary Strategies to achieve and maintain 

the assigned loading goals;

By 2003, the jurisdictions with tidal waters will use their best efforts to 

adopt new or revised water quality standards consistent with the 

defined water quality conditions. Once adopted by the jurisdictions, 

EPA will work expeditiously to review the new or revised standards, 

which will then be used as the basis for removing the bay and its tidal 

rivers from the list of impaired waters; and 

By 2003, work with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and 

others to adopt and begin implementing strategies that prevent the loss 

of the sediment retention capabilities of the lower Susquehanna River 

dams. 

Chemical Contaminants The signatories commit to fulfilling the 1994 goal of a Chesapeake Bay free 

of toxics by reducing or eliminating the input of chemical contaminants 

from all controllable sources to levels that result in no toxic or 

bioaccumulative impact on the living resources that inhabit the bay or on 

human health.

By fall of 2000, reevaluate and revise, as necessary, the “Chesapeake Bay 

Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy” focusing on:

Complementing state and federal regulatory programs to go beyond 

traditional point source controls, including nonpoint sources such as 

groundwater discharge and atmospheric deposition, by using a 

watershed-based approach; and
Appendix II

Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000

Page 47 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Understanding the effects and impacts of chemical contaminants to 

increase the effectiveness of management actions.

Through continual improvement of pollution prevention measures and 

other voluntary means, strive for zero release of chemical contaminants 

from point sources, including air sources.

Particular emphasis shall be placed on achieving, by 2010, elimination of 

mixing zones for persistent or bioaccumulative toxics.

Reduce the potential risk of pesticides to the bay by targeting education, 

outreach, and implementation of integrated pest management and specific 

best management practices on those lands that have higher potential for 

contributing pesticide loads to the bay.

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

Elizabeth River and their watersheds as models for urban river restoration 

in the bay basin. 

By 2010, the District of Columbia, working with its watershed partners, will 

reduce pollution loads to the Anacostia River in order to eliminate public 

health concerns and achieve the living resource, water quality, and habitat 

goals of the current and past agreements. 

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

contaminants on the bay ecosystem and help establish reduction goals for 

these contaminants.

Boat Discharge By 2003, establish appropriate areas within the Chesapeake Bay and its 

tributaries as “no discharge zones” for human waste from boats.

By 2010, expand by 50 percent the number and availability of waste pumpout facilities.

By 2006, reassess progress in reducing the impact of boat waste on the bay 

and its tributaries. This assessment will include evaluating the benefits of 

further expanding no discharge zones, as well as increasing the number of 

pump-out facilities.
Appendix II

Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000

Page 48 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Sound Land Use Goal Develop, promote, and achieve sound land use practices which protect and 

restore watershed resources and water quality, maintain reduced pollutant 

loadings for the bay and its tributaries, and restore and preserve aquatic 

living resources. 

Land Conservation By 2001, complete an assessment of the bay’s resource lands, including 

forests and farms, emphasizing their role in the protection of water quality 

and critical habitats, as well as cultural and economic viability. 

Provide financial assistance or new revenue sources to expand the use of 

voluntary and market-based mechanisms such as easements, purchase, or 

transfer of development rights and other approaches to protect and 

preserve natural resource lands. 

Strengthen programs for land acquisition and preservation within each 

state that are supported by funding 

and target the most valued lands for protection. 

Permanently preserve from development 20 percent of the land area in the 

watershed by 2010.

Provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for 

or revise plans, ordinances, and subdivision regulations to provide for the 

conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands.

In cooperation with local governments, develop and maintain in each 

jurisdiction a strong geographic information system to track the 

preservation of resource lands and support the implementation of sound 

land use practices. 

Development, Redevelopment, 

and Revitalization

By 2012, reduce the rate of harmful sprawl development of forest and 

agricultural land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 30 percent measured 

as an average over 5 years from the baseline of 1992-97, with measures and 

progress reported regularly to the Chesapeake Executive Council.

By 2005, in cooperation with local government, identify and remove state 

and local impediments to low impact development designs to encourage 

the use of such approaches and minimize water quality impacts.
Appendix II

Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000

Page 49 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Work with communities and local governments to encourage sound land 

use planning and practices that address the impacts of growth, 

development, and transportation on the watershed.

By 2002, review tax policies to identify elements that discourage 

sustainable development practices or encourage undesirable growth 

patterns. Promote the modification of such policies and the creation of tax 

incentives that promote the conservation of resource lands and encourage 

investments consistent with sound growth management principles. 

The jurisdictions will promote redevelopment and remove barriers to 

investment in underutilized urban, suburban, and rural communities by 

working with localities and development interests. 

By 2002, develop analytical tools that will allow local governments and 

communities to conduct watershed-based assessments of the impacts of 

growth, development, and transportation decisions.

By 2002, compile information and guidelines to assist local governments 

and communities to promote ecologically-based designs in order to limit 

impervious cover in undeveloped and moderately developed watersheds 

and reduce the impact of impervious cover in highly developed watersheds.

Provide information to the development community and others so they 

may champion the application of sound land use practices.

By 2003, work with local governments and communities to develop landuse management and water resource protection approaches that encourage 

the concentration of new residential development in areas supported by 

adequate water resources and infrastructure to minimize impacts on water 

quality.

By 2004, the jurisdictions will evaluate local implementation of stormwater, 

erosion control, and other locally-implemented water quality protection 

programs that affect the bay system and ensure that these programs are 

being coordinated and applied effectively in order to minimize the impacts 

of development. 

Working with local governments and others, develop and promote 

wastewater treatment options, such as nutrient reducing septic systems, 

which protect public health and minimize impacts to the bay’s resources. 
Appendix II

Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000

Page 50 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Strengthen brownfield redevelopment. By 2010, rehabilitate and restore 

1,050 brownfield sites to productive use.

Working with local governments, encourage the development and 

implementation of emerging urban stormwater retrofit practices to 

improve their water quantity and quality function.

Transportation By 2002, the signatory jurisdictions will promote coordination of 

transportation and land use planning to encourage compact, mixed use 

development patterns, revitalization in existing communities and 

transportation strategies that minimize adverse effects on the bay and its 

tributaries.

By 2002, each state will coordinate its transportation policies and programs 

to reduce the dependence on automobiles by incorporating travel 

alternatives such as telework, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit options, as 

appropriate, in the design of projects so as to increase the availability of 

alternative modes of travel as measured by increased use of those 

alternatives.

Consider the provisions of the federal transportation statutes for 

opportunities to purchase easements to preserve resource lands adjacent 

to rights of way and special efforts for stormwater management on both 

new and rehabilitation projects.

Establish policies and incentives that encourage the use of clean vehicle 

and other transportation technologies that reduce emissions.

Public Access By 2010, expand by 30 percent the system of public access points to the 

bay, its tributaries, and related resource sites in an environmentally 

sensitive manner by working with state and federal agencies, local 

governments, and stakeholder organizations.

By 2005, increase the number of designated water trails in the Chesapeake 

Bay region by 500 miles.

Enhance interpretation materials that promote stewardship at natural, 

recreational, historical, and cultural public access points within the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Appendix II

Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000

Page 51 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

By 2003, develop partnerships with at least 30 sites to enhance place-based 

interpretation of bay-related resources and themes and stimulate volunteer 

involvement in resource restoration and conservation.

Stewardship and 

Community Engagement

Goal

Promote individual stewardship and assist individuals, community-based 

organizations, businesses, local governments, and schools to undertake 

initiatives to achieve the goals and commitments of the agreement. 

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

awareness and personal involvement on behalf of the bay and local 

watersheds.

Provide information to enhance the ability of citizen and community 

groups to participate in bay restoration activities on their property and in 

their local watershed.

Expand the use of new communications technologies to provide a 

comprehensive and interactive source of information on the Chesapeake 

Bay and its watershed for use by public and technical audiences. 

By 2001, develop and maintain a Web-based clearinghouse of this 

information specifically for use by educators.

Beginning with the class of 2005, provide a meaningful bay or stream 

outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before 

graduation from high school.

Continue to forge partnerships with the Department of Education and 

institutions of higher learning in each jurisdiction to integrate information 

about the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed into school curricula and 

university programs.

Provide students and teachers alike with opportunities to directly 

participate in local restoration and protection projects, and to support 

stewardship efforts in schools and on school property.

By 2002, expand citizen outreach efforts to more specifically include 

minority populations by, for example, highlighting cultural and historical 

ties to the bay, and providing multicultural and multilingual educational 

materials on stewardship activities and bay information.
Appendix II

Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000

Page 52 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Community Engagement Jurisdictions will work with local governments to identify small 

watersheds where community-based actions are essential to meeting bay 

restoration goals—in particular wetlands, forested buffers, stream 

corridors, and public access and work with local governments and 

community organizations to bring an appropriate range of Bay Program 

resources to these communities.

Enhance funding for locally based programs that pursue restoration and 

protection projects that will assist in the achievement of the goals of this 

and past agreements.

By 2001, develop and maintain a clearinghouse for information on local 

watershed restoration efforts, including financial and technical assistance.

By 2002, each signatory jurisdiction will offer easily-accessible information 

suitable for analyzing environmental conditions at a small watershed scale.

Strengthen the Chesapeake Bay Program’s ability to incorporate local 

governments into the policy decision making process. 

By 2001, complete a reevaluation of the Local Government Participation 

Action Plan and make necessary changes in Bay Program and jurisdictional 

functions based upon the reevaluation. 

Improve methods of communication with and among local governments on 

bay issues and provide adequate opportunities for discussion of key issues.

By 2001, identify community watershed organizations and partnerships. 

Assist in establishing new organizations and partnerships where interest 

exists. These partners will be important to successful watershed 

management efforts in distributing information to the public, and engaging 

the public in the bay restoration and preservation effort.

By 2005, identify specific actions to address the challenges of communities 

where historically poor water quality and environmental conditions have 

contributed to disproportional health, economic, or social impacts.

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

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

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

relevant goals, commitments, and guidance of the agreement.
Appendix II

Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000

Page 53 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Ensure that the design and construction of signatory-funded 

development and redevelopment projects are consistent with all 

relevant goals, commitments, and guidance of the agreement.

Expand the use of clean vehicle technologies and fuels on the basis of 

emission reductions, so that a significantly greater percentage of each 

signatory government’s fleet of vehicles use some form of clean technology.

By 2001, develop an Executive Council Directive to address stormwater 

management to control nutrient, sediment, and chemical contaminant 

runoff from state, federal, and District of Columbia-owned land.

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

promoting communication and by seeking agreements on issues of mutual 

concern.

Work with nonsignatory bay states to establish links with community-based 

organizations throughout the bay watershed.
Page 54 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Appendix III

Chesapeake Bay Program Partners ApendxiI

The Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay Program) is a regional partnership that 

includes many partners, including federal agencies, states, a tristate 

legislative commission, academic institutions, and others. As noted below, 

six of the partners are signatories to the Chesapeake Bay agreements. The 

six signatories make up the Chesapeake Executive Council, which meets 

annually to establish policy direction for the Bay Program. 

Federal Agencies • U.S. Department of Agriculture 

• Agricultural Research Service

• Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service 

• Farm Service Agency 

• National Arboretum 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service 

• U.S. Forest Service

• U.S. Department of Commerce 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

• U.S. Department of Defense 

• Defense Logistics Agency 

• U.S. Department of the Air Force 

• U.S. Department of the Army 

• U.S. Department of the Navy 

• U.S. Department of Education 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Signatory) 

• U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
Appendix III

Chesapeake Bay Program Partners

Page 55 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

• U.S. Coast Guard 

• U.S. Department of the Interior 

• National Park Service 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• U.S. Geological Survey

• U.S. Department of Transportation 

• U.S. Federal Highway Administration 

• U.S. Postal Service 

• U.S. General Services Administration 

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

• National Capital Planning Commission 

States • Delaware 

• District of Columbia (Signatory) 

• Maryland (Signatory) 

• New York 

• Pennsylvania (Signatory) 

• Virginia (Signatory) 

• West Virginia 

Tristate Legislative 

Commission

• Chesapeake Bay Commission (Signatory) 
Appendix III

Chesapeake Bay Program Partners

Page 56 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Academic Institutions • Academy of Natural Sciences 

• Chesapeake Research Consortium 

• College of William and Mary 

• Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

• Cornell Cooperative Extension (New York) 

• Old Dominion University 

• Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography 

• Department of Biological Sciences

• Pennsylvania State University 

• Smithsonian Institution 

• Smithsonian Environmental Research Center 

• University of Delaware Cooperative Extension 

• University of the District of Columbia 

• University of Maryland 

• Regional Earth Science Applications Center 

• University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science 

• University of Pennsylvania 

• University of Virginia 

• Virginia SeaGrant Program 

• Virginia Cooperative Extension Office 
Appendix III

Chesapeake Bay Program Partners

Page 57 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

• West Virginia University 

• West Virginia Extension Service 

Others • Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 

• American Forests 

• Anacostia Watershed Society 

• Center for Chesapeake Communities 

• Center for Watershed Protection 

• Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

• Chesapeake Bay Information Network 

• Chesapeake Bay Trust 

• Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network 

• International City/County Management Association 

• Local Government Environmental Assistance Network 

• Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 

• Low Impact Development Center 

• Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 

• Montgomery County Environmental Protection 

• National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

• Potomac Conservancy 

• Susquehanna River Basin Commission 
Appendix III

Chesapeake Bay Program Partners

Page 58 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

• Upper Susquehanna Coalition 

• 680 watershed organizations 
Page 59 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Appendix IV

Summary of Expert Panel Observations on 

Assessing and Reporting on Restoration 

Progress ApendxiIV

This appendix provides the names and affiliations of our expert panel 

members and summarizes the discussions held at an all-day meeting. The 

information presented in this appendix may not represent the views of 

every panel member and should not be considered to be the views of GAO.

Members of Our Expert 

Panel

The following individuals were members of the GAO expert panel on the 

Chesapeake Bay restoration effort:

• Allan, J. David, Professor, School of Natural Resources & Environment, 

University of Michigan;

• Harwell, Mark, Professor, Florida A&M University;

• Gunderson, Lance, Associate Professor, Department of Environmental 

Studies, Emory University;

• Hill, Brian, Chief of the Watershed Research Branch, Mid-Continent 

Ecology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

• Kusler, Jon, Executive Director, Association of State Wetland Managers;

• Nuttle, William, Consultant, Eco-Hydrology;

• Reed, Denise, Associate Professor, Department of Geology and 

Geophysics, University of New Orleans; and

• Stevenson, R. Jan, Professor, Department of Zoology, Michigan State 

University.

Summary of Panel 

Observations

On May 17, 2005, we held an all-day meeting with the eight panelists at our 

office in Washington, D.C. Before the meeting, we provided each panel 

member with background information on the Chesapeake Bay Program 

(Bay Program) and a set of eight general discussion questions. At the end of 

each discussion, we asked the panelists to respond, using an anonymous 

ballot, to a series of questions that were based on the general discussion 

topics. The eight discussion topics covered three overarching themes: (1) 

assessing the health status of an ecosystem, (2) reporting the health status 

of an ecosystem, and (3) assessing progress of a restoration effort.
Appendix IV

Summary of Expert Panel Observations on 

Assessing and Reporting on Restoration 

Progress

Page 60 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Assessing the Health of an 

Ecosystem

For the first theme of the day, the panelists spoke on three general 

discussion topics to identify the critical elements of an effective 

assessment process. 

Discussion Topic 1: Core Set of 

Ecosystem Characteristics

Panelists agreed that identifying a core set of broad ecosystem 

characteristics is very important when assessing the health of an 

ecosystem and needs to be determined for each individual ecosystem. Our 

panel of experts did not identify these characteristics, saying instead that 

only experts on the Chesapeake Bay should do so. In assessing the health 

of an ecosystem, our panel said, bay experts should first gain an 

understanding of the desired end points—the particular characteristics of 

the system that end users deem important. However, the panel cautioned 

that the bay’s experts should identify a limited number of essential 

characteristics—about four to six. Experience in developing conceptual 

models for other ecosystems has shown that it is not possible to manage 

for 100 different characteristics. The Bay Program has over 100 specific 

indicators of various ecosystem characteristics. 

Discussion Topic 2: Key 

Indicators

The panelists generally agreed that the Bay Program has the essential 

indicators that must be used at a minimum to assess the health of an 

ecosystem. The Bay Program has many indicators that measure individual 

aspects within the ecosystem, such as the oyster population. However, the 

Bay Program needs more indicators that provide information about the 

biological condition of the ecosystem as a whole and that reflect stress and 

response relationships. Then patterns and status can be determined and 

trends can be assessed. Criteria for selecting good environmental 

indicators are available in literature. 

The panel also noted that models are useful, but it is important to 

understand the intended use of the model and its limitations. The Bay 

Program’s predictive model is intended to help weigh alternative actions 

and determine how effective different management actions may be in 

restoring the ecosystem. The model can be used to make predictions about 

what the condition of the ecosystem may be in particular future years, and 

the Bay Program can then confirm those predictions with subsequent 

monitoring. The Bay Program should not use a predictive model to report 

on current conditions, which should be based on actual measurements. 

Discussion Topic 3: Overarching 

Indices

Panelists agreed that a limited number of integrated measures can be used 

to assess an ecosystem. A few integrated measures that describe the 

overall health of the system are valuable in making an overall assessment 
Appendix IV

Summary of Expert Panel Observations on 

Assessing and Reporting on Restoration 

Progress

Page 61 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

of the system and are well suited for reporting on the overall health. The 

overall health of a system can be described in a qualitative sense, with a 

grade for example. Overarching indicators can be used to assign grades to 

between four and six different ecological characteristics. 

Reporting the Health of an 

Ecosystem

For the second theme of the day, the panelists spoke on three general 

discussion topics to identify the critical elements of effective reporting. 

Discussion Topic 4: Reporting 

the Health of the Chesapeake 

Bay

Panelists generally agreed that, based on information provided in the Bay 

Program reports, the public would probably not be able to clearly and 

accurately understand the health of the Chesapeake Bay. While panelists 

found the 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay report visually appealing, they 

believed it lacked a clear, overall picture of system health. In addition, Bay 

Program reports emphasize health and management of the program in one 

document and are overly oriented to reporting on the progress of the 

program at the expense of communicating information of the health status 

of the bay. The panelists believed that an independent assessment of the 

bay’s health is probably necessary to provide a clear and accurate report on 

the status of the bay’s health. 

Discussion Topic 5: 

Characteristics of Effective 

Reporting

Panelists agreed that effective reports on the health of an ecosystem 

contain information that is relevant, accurate, timely, consistent, thorough, 

precise, objective, transparent, and peer reviewed or verified. Panelists 

noted that the strength of the Bay Program’s reports depends on the 

public’s perception of the Bay Program’s integrity and that, if the reports 

underwent an independent science review before publication, the public 

would have sufficient trust in the product so that other reports on the bay’s 

health, such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation report, would not be 

perceived as needed. 

Discussion Topic 6: Reporting 

Methods

Panelists generally agreed that the report card method is effective for 

clearly and accurately reporting ecosystem health. Panelists also noted that 

it is important to distinguish between management initiatives to reduce 

stressors within the ecosystem and the biological effects of these initiatives 

and report on them separately. Instead, the Bay Program often mixes 

indicators, which causes confusion. A report on the health of the bay 

should give a measure for the current condition of each ecosystem 

attribute, such as a grade; an indication of the trend, such as an arrow; and 

summary text that explains what it all means. 
Appendix IV

Summary of Expert Panel Observations on 

Assessing and Reporting on Restoration 

Progress

Page 62 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Assessing Progress of a 

Restoration Effort

For the third theme of the day, the panelists spoke on two general 

discussion topics to identify how progress in restoring an ecosystem 

should be assessed. 

Discussion Topic 7: Information 

Needed to Determine Progress

Chesapeake 2000 includes many commitments that are not quantifiable; 

instead, the commitments are focused on actions to strengthen, develop, or 

plan for various aspects of the restoration effort. Many of the commitments 

need to be refined so that they are quantifiable. Panelists noted, for 

example, that Chesapeake 2000 has a commitment to conserve existing 

forests along all streams and shorelines. The commitment raises questions 

about whether that means every single forest, a particular number of miles, 

or to prevent or manage the decline so that it is not more than a certain 

percentage per year. Panelists also pointed out that it is possible to have a 

program that is progressing very well from a management perspective but 

is not showing any evidence of cleanup toward the restoration goals. They 

cited three signs of progress: programmatic progress, progress in reducing 

stressors to the ecosystem, and progress in achieving desired ecological 

outcomes. The Bay Program has mixed these measures of progress and has 

used programmatic progress to imply that the program is achieving 

ecological outcomes. 

Discussion Topic 8: Complicating 

Factors

The panelists agreed that external factors that affect the health of an 

ecosystem, such as weather and population growth, should be 

incorporated into an assessment of restoration progress. Similarly, actions 

taken to restore the ecosystem, such as the implementation of agricultural 

best management practices, that may not have an impact of the ecosystem 

for several years should be incorporated into an assessment of progress 

made in restoring an ecosystem. Panelists also agreed that reports on the 

health of an ecosystem should be distinctly separate from reports on 

restoration progress. 
Appendix IV

Summary of Expert Panel Observations on 

Assessing and Reporting on Restoration 

Progress

Page 63 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

[This page left intentionally blank]
Page 64 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Appendix V

Funding Information ApendxiV

Table 3: Direct Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies According to Primary Commitment Addressed, Fiscal Years 1995 

through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars 

Dollars in millions

Commitment Armya

Army Corps

of Engineers EPA

Farm Service

Agency

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

Living Resource Protection and Restoration

Oysters $0.1 $13.3 $4.8 $0.0 $11.2

Exotic species 0.6 0.6 2.9 0.0 4.1

Fish passage and migratory and resident fish 0.1 14.4 9.9 0.0 0.1

Multispecies management 2.1 0.1 6.0 0.0 8.7

Crabs 0.1 0.0 3.0 0.0 10.1

Total $3.0 $28.4 $26.6 $0.0 $34.2

Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration

Submerged aquatic vegetation 3.1 2.7 6.1 0.0 1.9

Watersheds 1.4 13.0 15.5 0.0 1.3

Wetlands 1.7 147.3 4.2 5.6 0.5

Forests 1.4 0.1 3.6 4.1 0.0

Total $7.5 $163.0 $29.5 $9.7 $3.7

Water Quality Protection and Restoration

Nutrients and sediments 11.4 75.2 142.8e 105.5 1.8

Chemical contaminants 10.7 0.0d 8.0 0.0 5.8

Priority urban waters 0.1 26.8 6.5 0.0 0.0

Air pollution 13.6 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0

Boat discharge 0.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0

Total $35.9 $102.1 $163.0 $105.5 $7.6

Sound Land Use

Land conservation 0.9 0.0 2.7 51.8 0.0

Development, redevelopment, and revitalization 0.7 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0

Transportation 0.0 0.0d 2.5 0.0 0.0

Public access 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0

Total $4.1 $0.0 $12.2 $51.8 $0.0

Stewardship and Community Engagement

Education and outreach 2.0 0.1 12.1 0.0 5.6

Community engagement 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0

Government by example 3.5 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0

Partnerships 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 4.3

Total $5.7 $0.1 $22.4 $0.0 $9.9

Grand Total $56.1 $293.5 $253.7 $167.0 $55.5
Appendix V

Funding Information

Page 65 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

National Park

Serviceb

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Navy/Marine

Corpsc

U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest

Service

U.S. Geological

Survey Total

$0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.0d $0.0 $0.0 $29.5

0.0 0.0 0.6 4.7 0.0 0.0 $13.5

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 $25.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 d 0.0d 0.0 1.8 $18.6

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $13.2

$0.0 $0.0 $0.9 $5.2 $0.0 $1.8 $100.0

0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 $16.4

0.0 0.0 1.4 15.2 2.4 0.0 $50.1

0.0 0.0 0.6 3.8 1.4 0.6 $165.7

0.0 0.0 0.4 1.5 2.4 0.0 $13.4

$0.0 $0.0 $3.1 $20.5 $6.2 $2.5 $245.7

0.0 51.5 0.1 0.0d 1.2 16.8 $406.4

0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.4 $26.4

0.0 0.0 0.0d 0.0 0.0 0.0 $33.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $17.1

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 $2.6

$0.0 $51.5 $0.4 $1.4 $1.2 $17.2 $485.8

0.0 0.0 0.2 15.7 1.2 1.0 $73.6

0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 $5.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $2.6

7.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 $12.5

$7.1 $0.0 $0.4 $16.2 $1.2 $1.0 $94.0

0.0 0.0 0.6 2.3 2.1 1.7 $26.5

0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.0 $6.2

0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 $7.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $7.1

$0.3 $0.0 $1.1 $2.4 $3.3 $1.7 $46.8

$7.5 $51.5 $5.8 $45.7 $11.9 $24.2 $972.4
Appendix V

Funding Information

Page 66 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Army amounts for fiscal years 1995 through 1997 are based upon the best professional judgment of 

an Army official and were calculated using an average of the individual commitments from fiscal years 

1998 through 2004.

b

No funding information was provided prior to 2000 due to limited involvement of the National Park 

Service with the Bay Program.

c

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

d

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

e

Prior to 2002, bay watershed-specific data are not available, and thus no Section 319 funds—funds 

provided in EPA grants to assist states in implementing nonpoint source management programs—are 

included in the table for the years 1995-2001. According to an EPA official, many Section 319 projects 

would benefit the nutrient and sediment goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program. 
Appendix V

Funding Information

Page 67 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

[This page left intentionally blank]
Appendix V

Funding Information

Page 68 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Table 4: Indirect Funding Provided by the Federal Agencies According to Primary Commitment Addressed, Fiscal Years 1995 

through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars 

Dollars in millions

Commitment Armya

Army Corps

of Engineers EPA

Farm Service

Agency

 National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

Living Resource Protection and Restoration

Oysters $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.8

Exotic species 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8

Fish passage and migratory and resident fish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

Multispecies management 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9

Crabs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

Total $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $28.4

Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration

Submerged aquatic vegetation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

Watersheds 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2

Wetlands 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 7.3

Forests 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0

Total $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $14.4 $12.1

Water Quality Protection and Restoration

Nutrients and sediments 0.0 0.0 181.4f 16.2 2.2

Chemical contaminants 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1

Priority urban waters 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0d

Air pollution 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6

Boat discharge 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total $5.0 $0.0 $181.4 $16.2 $8.9

Sound Land Use

Land conservation 9.7 0.0 0.0 105.8 6.3

Development, redevelopment, and revitalization 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Transportation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6

Public access 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total $9.7 $0.0 $0.0 $105.8 $15.9

Stewardship and Community Engagement

Education and outreach 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9

Community engagement 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Government by example 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Partnerships 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.7

Total $2.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $48.7

Grand Total $17.3 $0.0 $181.4 $136.5 $114.0
Appendix V

Funding Information

Page 69 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

National Park

Serviceb

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Navy/Marine

Corpsc

U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest

Service

U.S. Geological

Survey Total

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.8

0.0 0.0 0.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 $15.1

0.0 0.0 0.0d 6.9 1.2 0.0 $8.4

0.0 0.0 0.7 2.5 0.0 0.0 $17.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0.6

$0.0 $0.0 $0.7 $32.9e $1.2 $0.0 $63.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0.7

0.0 37.0 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 $43.1

0.0 13.1 3.5 5.1 0.0 0.7 $32.8

0.0 0.8 0.4 2.5 19.5 0.0 $34.5

$0.0 $50.9 $4.1 $9.6e $19.5 $0.7 $111.3

0.0 221.9 36.1 0.5 6.0 1.0 $465.3

0.0 0.0 24.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 $28.0

0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0.3

0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0d 0.0 $9.9

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0.0

$0.0 $221.9 $62.5 $0.5 $6.0 $1.0 $503.5

0.0 33.2 1.0 1.7 7.8 0.0 $165.7

0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $9.6

1.5 0.0 0.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 $4.6

$1.5 $33.2 $1.7 $4.5 $7.8 $0.0 $180.2

0.2 0.0 0.1 2.0 9.7 0.0 $14.0

0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0d 9.7 0.0 $10.4

0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0d 0.0 0.0 $2.6

0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0d 0.0 0.0 $47.2

$0.6 $0.0 $0.8 $4.4e $19.5 $0.0 $76.6

$2.2 $306.1 $69.9 $51.8 $54.0 $1.7 $934.9
Appendix V

Funding Information

Page 70 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Army amounts for fiscal years 1995 through 1997 are based upon the best professional judgment of 

an Army official and were calculated using an average of the individual commitments from fiscal years 

1998 through 2004. An Army official estimated that, in addition to the amounts reported, individual 

Army installations have environmental budgets ranging from $2 million to $7 million for environmental 

activities that would indirectly impact Bay restoration. The Army did not include those amounts in the 

table.

b

No funding information was provided prior to 2000 due to limited involvement of the National Park 

Service with the Bay Program.

c

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

d

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

e

 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was unable to categorize federal assistance funding according to 

the individual commitments addressed. Instead, the amounts for federal assistance funding were listed 

according to the broad goal that it addressed. As a result, the total for this goal does not equal the sum 

of the individual commitments.

f

Prior to 2002, bay watershed-specific data are not available, and thus no Section 319 funds—funds 

provided in EPA grants to assist states in implementing nonpoint source management programs—are 

included in the table for the years 1995-2001. According to an EPA official, many Section 319 projects 

would benefit the nutrient and sediment goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Table 5: Direct Funding Provided by the States and the District of Columbia According to Primary Commitment Addressed, 

Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Maryland data for 1995 does not include the Departments of State Planning or Education. Maryland 

data for 1996 to 1999 is based on a draft report. Maryland calculated funding amounts for 2001 by 

averaging the amounts for 2000 and 2002. 

b

The District of Columbia was unable to provide funding information for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 

because its program was configured differently during that time. In addition, the District of Columbia 

provided obligations where possible with the exception of its contribution to the Blue Plains wastewater 

treatment facility, which is an estimate of biological nutrient removal implementation, operation, and 

maintenance costs.

Dollars in millions

Commitment Marylanda Virginia Pennsylvania

District of

Columbiab Total

Living resource protection and restoration $82.4 $50.1 $0.0 $0.0 $132.5

Vital habitat protection and restoration 189.3 51.0 0.0 5.0 $245.3

Water quality protection and restoration 743.6 381.0 28.1 36.7 $1,189.4

Sound land use 744.8 263.5 0.0 0.0 $1,008.3

Stewardship and community engagement 102.2 6.9 0.0 0.1 $109.2

Total $1,862.4 $752.6 $28.1 $41.8 $2,684.8
Appendix V

Funding Information

Page 71 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Table 6: Indirect Funding Provided by the States and the District of Columbia According to Primary Commitment Addressed, 

Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004, in Constant 2004 Dollars 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Maryland data for 1995 does not include the Departments of State Planning or Education. Maryland 

data for 1996 to 1999 is based on a draft report. Maryland calculated funding amounts for 2001 by 

averaging the amounts for 2000 and 2002. 

b

The District of Columbia was unable to provide funding information for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 

because its program was configured differently during that time. In addition, the District of Columbia 

provided obligations where possible with the exception of its contribution to the Blue Plains wastewater 

treatment facility, which is an estimate of biological nutrient removal implementation, operation, and 

maintenance costs.

Dollars in millions

Commitment Maryland a Virginia Pennsylvania

District of

Columbiab Total

Living resource protection and restoration $0.0 $0.0 $8.5 $0.0 $8.5

Vital habitat protection and restoration 0.0 0.0 98.0 0.0 $98.0

Water quality protection and restoration 0.0 0.0 210.8 126.5 $337.3

Sound land use 0.0 0.0 521.7 0.0 $521.7

Stewardship and community engagement 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.7 $25.4

Total $0.0 $0.0 $863.8 $127.2 $991.0
Page 72 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Appendix VI

Comments from the Environmental 

Protection Agency ApendxiVI
Appendix VI

Comments from the Environmental 

Protection Agency

Page 73 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 74 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Appendix VII

Comments from the Chesapeake Bay 

Commission ApendxiVI
Appendix VII

Comments from the Chesapeake Bay 

Commission

Page 75 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 76 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Appendix VIII

Comments from the Commonwealth of 

Virginia ApendxiVI

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Office of the Governor P.O. Box 1475 

Richmond, Virginia 23218

W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. 

Secretary of Natural Resources

(804) 786-0044

Fax: (804) 371-8333

TTY: (804) 786-7765

October 18, 2005 

Ms. Anu K. Mittal 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 

United State Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

Washington, DC 29548 

Dear Ms. Mittal: 

On behalf of Governor Warner, I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on 

the Draft Report (“the Report”) on the Chesapeake Bay Program prepared by the United States 

Government Accountability Office (“GAO”). 

The Report contains three primary recommendations. First, it calls on the Administrator 

of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to direct the Chesapeake Bay 

Program (“the Program”) to “complete its efforts to develop and implement an integrated 

assessment approach.” 

Although I agree that the Program should complete this task, I believe that any such 

assessment must be developed with the understanding that the Chesapeake Bay watershed is a 

complex ecosystem. As you know, the Program is the collective effort of the signatories to the 

Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 2000, and in some cases the headwater states of Delaware, New 

York and West Virginia. These partners strive to present to the public through a single voice the 

condition of the Bay in the most understandable terms possible; however, it is oftentimes 

difficult to express complex ecological interactions in overly simple terms. Virginia, together 

with its Bay partners, will continue to support scientifically defensible measures of ecosystem 

health that can be accurately communicated, and we will offer the expert advice and guidance of 

our agencies in this effort. 

The second recommendation calls upon the Program to revise its reporting approach. 

Since 2004, the Program has been moving in the direction suggested by GAO, and it continues to 

refine its reporting to better serve the public and policy makers. I cannot agree with the 

representation made by two of the signatories, as stated on page 23 of the Report, that all of the 

Program partners “find it advantageous” to give a rosier view of the Bay’s health than conditions 

warrant. In Virginia, it has been our policy and practice to be honest with the public and policy
Appendix VIII

Comments from the Commonwealth of 

Virginia

Page 77 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Ms. Anu K. Mittal 

October 18, 2005 

Page 2 

makers regarding the degraded condition of the Chesapeake Bay. When there is good news to 

report, we report it, but we have not been shy when reporting bad news as well. 

I am also concerned about the frequent allegation that the information presented by the 

Program is not “credible.” The Report does not suggest that information presented by the 

Program is not accurate, but rather that it is sometimes presented in an improper context, or in a 

manner that confuses different types of data. I hope that GAO will review its comments on 

credibility with this observation in mind and that it will not leave the reader with the impression 

that the public has been intentionally mislead or that the data presented by the Program meets 

anything but the highest scientific standards. 

Finally, GAO recommends that the program develop a “comprehensive implementation 

plan that takes into account available resources.” I would argue that that the tributary strategies 

developed independently by each of the Bay partners (signatories and head water states), and the 

implementation activities associated with them, will serve as the basis for the plan that GAO 

proposes.

I hope that readers of the report will understand that Virginia has begun implementation 

of our tributary strategies. For point sources, we have instituted a comprehensive regulatory 

management program that will reduce and cap nutrient discharges from sewage treatment plants 

and industrial facilities. We have reinvigorated our grant program to assist municipal facilities 

with the cost of upgrades. 

With respect to non-point sources, we are making significant strides in addressing urban 

storm water management, and we are working closely with our farmers to reduce the adverse 

impacts to water quality that result from a variety of agricultural practices. We are also seeking 

consistent funding for our agricultural grant programs. Moreover, we fully recognize that our 

tributary strategies are not static documents, and we are committed to making changes and 

revisions to them in order to adapt to new circumstances and resources as we continue to 

implement these strategies. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia certainly supports thoughtful and achievable 

implementation plans developed through the Program partnership; however, we believe that the 

states must be given the flexibility to operate within their own cultural, legal and political 

environments. The implementation path Virginia chooses must be accomplished in the context 

of our state law and budgets, and any regional implementation plan must reflect this reality. 

I would also suggest that this recommendation highlights the significant role that the 

federal government must continue to play in the Bay partnership. In the current fiscal year the 

Governor and the Virginia General Assembly, working together, made the largest appropriation 

to the Water Quality Improvement Fund in our history. Maryland has begun collecting the 

Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fee, and Pennsylvania has passed Growing Greener II. These 

actions are resulting in multi-million dollar investments in water quality by the states at this time,
Appendix VIII

Comments from the Commonwealth of 

Virginia

Page 78 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Ms. Anu K. Mittal 

October 18, 2005 

Page 3 

and we will work to insure that it continues in the coming years. We hope that our federal 

partner will also step up its commitment to match this unprecedented level of state support. 

The restoration of the Chesapeake Bay will not be easy or cheap. The partners are 

engaged in a long-term enterprise that will only be successful through the full participation of 

federal, state and local governments, as well as the private sector. 

I appreciate the time and thought that went into the development of the helpful 

recommendations by GAO, and I look forward to the implementation of those recommendations. 

I also look forward to the positive results that can occur only with the continuation of the 

partnership embodied in the Program. 

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to comment on the Report. If I can be of 

further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. 

WTMJr/cbd 
Page 79 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Appendix IX

Comments from the District of Columbia ApendxiIX
Appendix IX

Comments from the District of Columbia

Page 80 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 81 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Appendix X

Comments from the State of Maryland ApendxiX
Appendix X

Comments from the State of Maryland

Page 82 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program
Appendix X

Comments from the State of Maryland

Page 83 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 84 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Appendix XI

Comments from the State of Pennsylvania ApendxiXI
Appendix XI

Comments from the State of Pennsylvania

Page 85 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program
Appendix XI

Comments from the State of Pennsylvania

Page 86 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 87 GAO-06-96 Chesapeake Bay Program

Appendix XII

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiXI

GAO Contact Anu K. Mittal (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov

Staff 

Acknowledgments

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

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

key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Mark 

Braza, Liz Curda, Anne Inserra, Lynn Musser, Mehrzad Nadji, Carol 

Herrnstadt Shulman, and Amy Webbink.

(360524)
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