Chesapeake Bay Program: Recent Actions Are Positive Steps Toward More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort
Published: 2008-07-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay Program) was created in 1983 when Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to establish a partnership to restore the Bay. The partnership's most recent agreement, Chesapeake 2000, sets out five broad goals to guide the restoration effort through 2010. This testimony summarizes the findings of an October 2005 GAO report (GAO-06-96) on (1) the extent to which measures for assessing restoration progress had been established, (2) the extent to which program reports clearly and accurately described the bay's health, (3) how much funding was provided for the effort for fiscal years 1995 to 2004, and (4) how effectively the effort was being coordinated and managed. It also summarizes actions taken by the program in response to GAO's recommendations. GAO reviewed the program's 2008 report to Congress and discussed recent actions with program officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In 2005, GAO found that the Bay Program had over 100 measures to assess progress toward meeting some restoration commitments and guide program management. However, the program had not developed an integrated approach that would translate these individual measures into an assessment of progress toward achieving the restoration goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000. For example, while the program had appropriate measures to track crab, oyster, and rockfish populations, it did not have an approach for integrating the results of these measures to assess progress toward its goal of protecting and restoring the bay's living resources. In response to GAO's recommendation, the Bay Program has integrated key measures into 3 indices of bay health and 5 indices of restoration progress. In 2005, the reports used by the Bay Program did not provide effective and credible information on the health status of the bay. Instead, these reports focused on individual trends for certain living resources and pollutants, and did not effectively communicate the overall health status of the bay. These reports were also not credible because actual monitoring data had been commingled with the results of program actions and a predictive model, and the latter two tended to downplay the deteriorated conditions of the bay. Moreover, the reports lacked independence, which led to rosier projections of the bay's health than may have been warranted. In response to GAO's recommendations, the Bay Program developed a new report format and has tried to enhance the independence of the reporting process. However, the new process does not adequately address GAO's concerns about independence. From fiscal years 1995 through 2004, the restoration effort received about $3.7 billion in direct funding from 11 key federal agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the District of Columbia. These funds were used for activities that supported water quality protection and restoration, sound land use, vital habitat protection and restoration, living resources protection and restoration, and stewardship and community engagement. During this period, the restoration effort also received an additional $1.9 billion in funding from federal and state programs for activities that indirectly contribute to the restoration effort. In 2005, the Bay Program did not have a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy to help target limited resources to those activities that would best achieve the goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000. The program was focusing on 10 key commitments and had developed numerous planning documents, but some of these documents were inconsistent with each other or were perceived as unachievable by the partners. In response to GAO's recommendations, the Bay Program has taken several actions, such as developing a strategic framework to unify planning documents and identify how it will pursue its goals. While these actions are positive steps, additional actions are needed before the program has the comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy recommended by GAO.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to participate in your second hearing  focusing on the importance of protecting the health of our nation’s great  water bodies, such as the Chesapeake Bay. As you know, the Chesapeake  Bay is the nation’s largest estuary and has been recognized by Congress as  a national treasure. In response to the deteriorating conditions of the bay,  in 1983, the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the District of  Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission; and the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) first partnered to protect and restore the bay by  establishing the Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay Program). Subsequent  agreements in 1987, 1992, and 2000 reaffirmed the partners’ commitment  to bay restoration, and in their most recent agreement, Chesapeake 2000,  which was signed in June 2000, they established 102 commitments  organized under five broad restoration goals to be achieved by 2010.
In October 2005, we issued a report on the Chesapeake Bay restoration  effort that addressed (1) the extent to which the Bay Program had  established appropriate measures for assessing restoration progress, (2)  the extent to which the reporting mechanisms the Bay Program used  clearly and accurately described the bay’s overall health, (3) how much  funding had been provided by federal and state partners for restoring the  Chesapeake Bay for fiscal years 1995 through 2004 and for what purposes,  and (4) how effectively the restoration effort had been coordinated and  managed.
Our report included six recommendations—one recommendation to  develop and implement an integrated approach to measure overall  progress, three recommendations to enhance the effectiveness and  credibility of the Bay Program’s public reporting, and two  recommendations to improve the management and coordination of the  restoration effort. Since our report was issued, the Bay Program, with the  encouragement of Congress, has been taking steps to address the findings  and recommendations we identified in our 2005 report. My testimony  today will therefore cover the concerns we raised in 2005, the  recommendations that we made to address these concerns, and our  assessment of the steps that the Bay Program has taken to address our  recommendations.
For our 2005 report, we reviewed planning and program implementation  documents and funding data from Bay Program partners.  We also  convened a panel of nationally recognized ecosystem restoration and  assessment experts.  For the 2005 report, we conducted our work from  October 2004 to October 2005 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.  For this testimony statement, we updated  our 2005 report by assessing the progress that the Bay Program has made  in implementing our recommendations.  We reviewed Bay Program  documents, such as a July 2008 report to Congress, entitled Strengthening  the Management, Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake  Bay Program and the Bay Program’s Scientific and Advisory Committee  bylaws and operational guidance.  We also looked at partners’ activities  and funding data in the new Bay Program database, and spoke with  officials at EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office.  We conducted our  work in July 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.  These standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.  We  believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
In 2005, we reported that the Bay Program had established over 100  measures to assess progress toward meeting some of its commitments and  provide information to guide management decisions. For example, the  program had measures for assessing trends in various living resources  such as oysters and crabs, and pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus  levels. However, the program had not developed an approach that would  allow it to integrate all of these measures and thereby assess the progress  made by the overall restoration effort in achieving the five goals outlined  in Chesapeake 2000. We recommended that the Bay Program develop  such an approach, which would allow the program to combine its  individual measures into a few broader-scale measures that it could then  use to assess key ecosystem attributes and present an overall assessment  of this complex ecosystem restoration project. In response to our  recommendation, the Bay Program integrated key measures to develop  three indices of bay health and five indices of restoration progress and has  used these indices to present overall assessments of the health of the bay  and the restoration effort.  We believe that these new indices will allow the  Bay Program to provide a better overall assessment of the bay’s health and  the restoration progress.
In 2005, we also found that the Bay Program’s primary mechanism for  reporting on the health status of the bay—the State of the Chesapeake Bay  report—did not provide an effective or credible assessment of the bay’s  current health status. These reports were not effective because, like the  program’s measures, they focused on individual species and pollutants  instead of providing an overall assessment of the bay’s health. Often, these  reports showed diverging trends for certain aspects of the ecosystem,  making it difficult for the public and other stakeholders to determine what  the current condition of the bay really was. These reports were also not  credible because they (1) commingled data on the bay’s health with  program actions and modeling results, which tended to downplay the  deteriorated conditions of the bay and (2) were not subject to an  independent review process. As a result, we concluded that the Bay  Program reports may have been projecting a rosier picture of the health of  the bay than may have been warranted. In response to our  recommendations, the Bay Program took several steps to improve the  effectiveness and credibility of its reports. However, we believe the Bay  Program can take additional steps to establish an independent peer review  process that will enhance the credibility and objectivity of its reports.
For fiscal years 1995 through 2004, we reported that about $3.7 billion in  direct funding was provided for the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort by  11 key federal agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia;  and the District of Columbia. An additional $1.9 billion was provided for  activities that had an indirect impact on bay restoration. Although we did  not make any recommendations about the need to collect and aggregate  information on the amount of funding contributed by the various partners  to the effort, since we issued our report, the Bay Program has set up a  formal data collection effort.  The Bay Program has established a Web- based system for collecting information from its partners on the amount  and source of funding being used and planned for restoration activities.
Finally, in 2005 we reported that the Bay Program did not have a  comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy that would allow it  to strategically target limited resources to the most effective restoration  activities. Recognizing that it could not manage all 102 commitments  outlined in Chesapeake 2000, the Bay Program had focused its efforts on  10 keystone commitments. We also found that although the Bay Program  had developed numerous planning documents, some of these documents  were inconsistent with each other and some of the plans were perceived  to be unachievable by stakeholders. Moreover, the program invested  scarce resources in developing and updating certain plans, even though it  knew that it did not have the resources to implement them. While we  recognized that the Bay Program often had no assurance about the level of  funds that may be available beyond the short term, we concluded that this  large and difficult restoration project cannot be effectively managed and  coordinated without a realistic strategy that unifies all of its planning  documents and targets its limited resources to the most effective  restoration activities. In response to our recommendations, the Bay  Program has taken several actions to improve the coordination and  management of the restoration effort, such as developing a strategic  framework to articulate how the partnership will pursue its goals. While  these actions appear to be positive steps in the right direction, we believe  that additional actions, such as identifying resources and assigning  accountability to partners for implementing the strategy, are needed for  the Bay Program to move forward in a more strategic and well- coordinated manner.
We discussed our assessment of the Bay Program’s actions taken in  response to our recommendations with program officials.  Based on this  discussion, we incorporated technical changes to this statement.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Chesapeake Bay is the largest of the nation’s estuaries, measuring  nearly 200 miles long and 35 miles wide at its widest point. Roughly half of  the bay’s water comes from the Atlantic Ocean, and the other half is  freshwater that drains from the land and enters the bay through the many  rivers and streams in its watershed basin. As shown in figure 1, the bay’s  watershed covers 64,000 square miles and spans parts of six states— Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West  Virginia—and the District of Columbia.
Over time, the bay’s ecosystem has deteriorated. The bay’s “dead zones”— where too little oxygen is available to support fish and shellfish—have  increased, and many species of fish and shellfish have experienced major  declines in population. The decline in the bay’s living resources has been  cause for a great deal of public and political attention.
Responding to public outcry, on December 9, 1983, representatives of  Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the District of Columbia; EPA; and  the Chesapeake Bay Commission signed the first Chesapeake Bay  agreement. Their agreement established the Chesapeake Executive  Council and resulted in the Chesapeake Bay Program—a partnership that  directs and conducts the restoration of the bay. The signatories to the  agreement reaffirmed their commitment to restore the bay in 1987 and  again in 1992. The partners signed the most current agreement,  Chesapeake 2000, on June 28, 2000. Chesapeake 2000—identified by the  Bay Program as its strategic plan—sets out an agenda and goals to guide  the restoration efforts through 2010 and beyond. In Chesapeake 2000, the  signatories agreed to 102 commitments—including management actions,  such as assessing the trends of particular species, as well as actions that  directly affect the health of the bay. These commitments are organized  under the following five broad restoration goals:    Protecting and restoring living resources—14 commitments to  restore, enhance, and protect the finfish, shellfish and other living  resources, their habitats and ecological relationships to sustain all  fisheries and provide for a balanced ecosystem;    Protecting and restoring vital habitats—18 commitments to preserve,  protect, and restore those habitats and natural areas that are vital to  the survival and diversity of the living resources of the bay and its  rivers;    Protecting and restoring water quality—19 commitments to achieve  and maintain the water quality necessary to support the aquatic living  resources of the bay and its tributaries and to protect human health;    Sound land use—28 commitments to develop, promote, and achieve  sound land use practices that protect and restore watershed resources  and water quality, maintain reduced pollutant inputs to the bay and its  tributaries, and restore and preserve aquatic living resources; and    Stewardship and community engagement—23 commitments to  promote individual stewardship and assist individuals, community- based organizations, businesses, local governments, and schools to  undertake initiatives to achieve the goals and commitments of the  agreement.
As the only federal signatory to the Chesapeake Bay agreements, EPA is  responsible for spearheading the federal effort within the Bay Program  through its Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Among other things, the  Chesapeake Bay Program Office is to develop and make available  information about the environmental quality and living resources of the  Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; help the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay  agreement develop and implement specific plans to carry out their  responsibilities; and coordinate EPA’s actions with those of other  appropriate entities to develop strategies to improve the water quality and  living resources in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
section_title: The Bay Program Has Developed an Integrated Approach to Better Assess Overall Restoration Progress
paragraphs: In October 2005, we found that the Bay Program had established 101  measures to assess progress toward meeting some restoration  commitments and provide information to guide management decisions.   For example, the Bay Program had developed measures for determining  trends in individual fish and shellfish populations, such as crabs, oysters,  and rockfish. The Bay Program also had a measure to estimate vehicle  emissions and compare them to vehicle miles traveled to help establish  reduction goals for contaminants found in these emissions.
While the Bay Program had established these 101 measures, we also found  that it had not developed an approach that would allow it to translate  these individual measures into an overall assessment of the progress made  in achieving the five broad restoration goals. For example, although the  Bay Program had developed measures for determining trends in individual  fish and shellfish populations, it had not yet devised a way to integrate  those measures to assess the overall progress made in achieving its Living  Resource Protection and Restoration goal. According to an expert panel  of nationally recognized ecosystem assessment and restoration experts  convened by GAO, in a complex ecosystem restoration project like the  Chesapeake Bay, overall progress should be assessed by using an  integrated approach. This approach should combine measures that  provide information on individual species or pollutants into a few broader- scale measures that can be used to assess key ecosystem attributes, such  as biological conditions.
According to an official from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, the  signatories to the Chesapeake Bay agreement had discussed the need for  an integrated approach for several years, but until recently it was generally  not believed that, given limited resources, the program could develop an  approach that was scientifically defensible. The program began an effort in  November 2004 to develop, among other things, a framework for  organizing the program’s measures and a structure for how the redesign  work should be accomplished. In our 2005 report, we recommended that  the Chesapeake Bay Program Office complete its efforts to develop and  implement such an integrated approach.
In response to our recommendation, a Bay Program task force identified  13 key indicators for measuring the health of the bay and categorized these  indicators into 3 indices of bay health. With the development of these  indices, the Bay Program should be in a better position to assess whether  restoration efforts have improved the health of the bay. These indices will  also help the Bay Program determine whether changes are needed to its  planned restoration activities. The task force also identified 20 key  indicators for measuring the progress of restoration efforts and  categorized these indicators into 5 indices of restoration efforts. According  to the Bay Program, these indices are now being used to assess and report  on the overall progress made in restoring the bay’s health and in  implementing restoration efforts. The Bay Program has linked these  restoration effort indices to the overall restoration goals and this should  help the program better evaluate the progress it has made toward meeting  the overall goals.
section_title: The Bay Program Has Improved Report Formats but Has Not Taken Adequate Steps to Enhance the Independence of the Reporting Process
paragraphs: In 2005, we determined that the Bay Program’s primary mechanism for  reporting on the health status of the bay—the State of the Chesapeake Bay  report—did not effectively communicate the current health status of the  bay. This was because it mirrored the shortcomings in the program’s  measures by focusing on the status of individual species or pollutants  instead of providing information on a core set of ecosystem  characteristics. For example, the 2002 and 2004 State of the Chesapeake  Bay reports provided data on oysters, crab, rockfish, and bay grasses, but  the reports did not provide an overall assessment of the current status of  living resources in the bay or the health of the bay. Instead, data were  reported for each species individually. The 2004 State of the Chesapeake  Bay report included a graphic that depicted oyster harvest levels at  historic lows, with a mostly decreasing trend over time, and a rockfish  graphic that showed a generally increasing population trend over time.  However, the report did not provide contextual information that explained  how these measures were interrelated or what the diverging trends meant  about the overall health of the bay. The experts we consulted agreed that  the 2004 report was visually pleasing but lacked a clear, overall picture of  the bay’s health and told us that the public would probably not be able to  easily and accurately assess the current condition of the bay from the  information reported.
We also found that the credibility of the State of the Chesapeake Bay  reports had been undermined by two key factors. First, the Bay Program  had commingled data from three sources when reporting on the health of  the bay. Specifically, the reports mixed actual monitoring information on  the bay’s health status with results from a predictive model and the  progress made in implementing specific management actions, such as  acres of wetlands restored. The latter two results did little to inform  readers about the current health status of the bay and tended to downplay  the bay’s actual condition. Second, the Bay Program had not established  an independent review process to ensure that its reports were accurate  and credible. The officials who managed and were responsible for the  restoration effort also analyzed, interpreted, and reported the data to the  public. We believe this lack of independence in reporting led to the Bay  Program’s projecting a rosier view of the health of the bay than may have  been warranted. Our expert panelists also told us that an independent  review panel—to either review the bay’s health reports before issuance or  to analyze and report on the health status independently of the Bay  Program—would significantly improve the credibility of the program’s  reports.
In 2005, we recommended that the Chesapeake Bay Program Office revise  its reporting approach to improve the effectiveness and credibility of its  reports by (1) including an assessment of the key ecological attributes that  reflect the bay’s current health conditions, (2) reporting separately on the  health of the bay and on the progress made in implementing management  actions, and (3) establishing an independent and objective reporting  process.
In response to our recommendation that reports should include an  ecological assessment of the health of the bay, the Bay Program has  developed and used a set of 13 indicators of bay health to report on the  key ecological attributes representing the health of the bay. In response to  our recommendation that the program should separately report on the  health of the bay and management actions, the Bay Program has  developed an annual reporting process that distinguishes between  ecosystem health and restoration effort indicators in its annual report  entitled Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Assessment. The most  recent report, entitled Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health and Restoration  Assessment, is divided into four chapters: chapter one is an assessment of  ecosystem health, chapter two describes factors impacting bay and  watershed health, chapter three is an assessment of restoration efforts,  and chapter four provides a summary of local water quality assessments.  We believe that the new report format is a more effective communications  framework and clearly distinguishes between the health of the bay and  management actions being taken.
In response to our recommendation to establish an independent and  objective reporting process, the Bay Program has charged its Scientific  and Technical Advisory Committee with responsibility for assuring the  scientific integrity of the data, indicators, and indices used in the Bay  Program’s publications. In addition, the Bay Program instituted a separate  reporting process on the bay’s health by the University of Maryland Center  for Environmental Science. This report, which is released on the same day  as the Bay Program’s release of the Chesapeake Bay Health and  Restoration Assessment, provides an assessment of the bay’s health in a  report card format. While we recognize that the changes are an  improvement over the reporting process that was in place in 2005, we  remain concerned about the lack of independence in the process.  Although members of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee are  not managing the day-to-day program activities, this committee is a  standing committee of the Bay Program and provides input and guidance  to the Bay Program on how to develop measures to restore and protect the  Chesapeake Bay. In addition, we do not believe that the report card  prepared by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science  is as independent as the Bay Program believes, because several members  of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee are also employees of  the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. We  therefore continue to believe that establishing a more independent  reporting process would enhance the credibility and objectivity of the Bay  Program’s reports.
section_title: Federal Agencies and States Provided Billions of Dollars in Both Direct and Indirect Funding for Restoration Activities
paragraphs: From fiscal years 1995 through 2004, we reported that 11 key federal  agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the  District of Columbia provided almost $3.7 billion in direct funding to  restore the bay. Federal agencies provided a total of approximately $972  million in direct funding, while the states and the District of Columbia  provided approximately $2.7 billion in direct funding for the restoration  effort over the 10-year period. Of the federal agencies, the Department of  Defense’s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided the greatest amount of  direct funding—$293.5 million. Of the states, Maryland provided the  greatest amount of direct funding—more than $1.8 billion—which is over  $1.1 billion more than any other state. Typically, the states provided about  75 percent of the direct funding for restoration, and the funding has  generally increased over the 10-year period. As figure 2 shows, the largest  percentage of direct funding—approximately 47 percent—went to water  quality protection and restoration.
Sound land use ($1.1 billion)
Water quality protection and restoration ($1.7 billion)
We also reported that 10 of the key federal agencies, Pennsylvania, and the  District of Columbia provided about $1.9 billion in additional funding from  fiscal years 1995 through 2004 for activities that indirectly affect bay  restoration. These activities were conducted as part of broader agency  efforts and/or would continue without the restoration effort. Federal  agencies provided approximately $935 million in indirect funding, while  Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia together provided approximately  $991 million in indirect funding for the restoration effort over the 10-year  period.  Of the federal agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture  provided the greatest amount of indirect funding—$496.5 million—primarily  through its Natural Resources Conservation Service. Of the states,  Pennsylvania provided the greatest amount of indirect funding—$863.8  million. As with direct funding, indirect funding for the restoration effort  had also generally increased over fiscal years 1995 through 2004. As figure 3  shows, the largest percentage of indirect funding—approximately 44  percent—went to water quality protection and restoration.
Despite the almost $3.7 billion in direct funding and more than $1.9 billion  in indirect funding that had been provided to restore the bay, the  Chesapeake Bay Commission estimated in a January 2003 report that the  restoration effort faced a funding gap of nearly $13 billion to achieve the  goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000 by 2010. Subsequently, in an October  2004 report, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel  estimated that the restoration effort is grossly underfunded and  recommended that a regional financing authority be created with an initial  capitalization of $15 billion, of which $12 billion would come from the  federal government.
Although we did not recommend that the Bay Program consider  developing a formal process for collecting and aggregating information on  the amount of funding provided by the various restoration partners, the  program has developed a database to capture this information.  Recognizing the need to centrally and consistently account for the  activities and funding sources of all Bay Program partners, the program  created a Web-based form to collect information on the amount and  source of funding being used and planned for restoration activities.  Currently, the Bay Program has collected funding data for 2007 through  2009. However, according to the Bay Program, only the 2007 data— totaling $1.1 billion—represents a comprehensive, quality data set, and the  program has plans to improve this database by having additional partners  provide data and increasing the scope and quality of the information.
section_title: The Bay Program Has Established a Strategic Framework but Key Elements to More Effectively Coordinate and Manage the Restoration Effort Are Still Needed
paragraphs: In our 2005 report we found that although Chesapeake 2000 provides the  current vision and overall strategic goals for the restoration effort, along  with short- and long-term commitments, the Bay Program lacked a  comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy that could provide a  road map for accomplishing the goals outlined in the agreement. In 2003,  the Bay Program recognized that it could not effectively manage all 102  commitments outlined in Chesapeake 2000 and adopted 10 keystone  commitments as a management strategy to focus the partners’ efforts. To  achieve these 10 keystone commitments, the Bay Program had developed  numerous planning documents. However, we found that these planning  documents were not always consistent with each other. For example, the  program developed a strategy for restoring 25,000 acres of wetlands by  2010. Subsequently, each state within the bay watershed and the District of  Columbia developed tributary strategies that described actions for  restoring over 200,000 acres of wetlands—far exceeding the 25,000 acres  that the Bay Program had developed strategies for restoring. While we  recognize that partners should have the freedom to develop higher targets  than established by the Bay Program, we were concerned that having such  varying targets could cause confusion, not only for the partners, but for  other stakeholders about what actions are really needed to restore the  bay, and such varying targets appeared to contradict the effort’s guiding  strategy of taking a cooperative approach to achieving the restoration  goals.
We also found that the Bay Program partners had devoted a significant  amount of their limited resources to developing strategies that were either  not being used by the Bay Program or were believed to be unachievable  within the 2010 time frame. For example, the program invested significant  resources to develop a detailed toxics work plan for achieving the toxics  commitments in Chesapeake 2000. Even though the Bay Program had not  been able to implement this work plan because personnel and funding had  been unavailable, program officials told us that the plan was being revised.  It was therefore unclear to us why the program was investing additional  resources to revise a plan for which the necessary implementation  resources were not available, and which was also not one of the 10  keystone commitments. According to a Bay Program official, strategies are  often developed without knowing what level of resources will be available  to implement them. While the program knows how much each partner has  agreed to provide for the upcoming year, the amount of funding that  partners will provide in the future is not always known. Without knowing  what funding will be available, the Bay Program has been limited in its  ability to target and direct funding toward those restoration activities that  will be the most cost effective and beneficial.
As a result of these findings in 2005, we recommended that the Bay  Program (1) develop a comprehensive, coordinated implementation  strategy and (2) better target limited resources to the most effective and  realistic work plans. In response to our recommendation to develop a  comprehensive and coordinated implementation strategy, the Bay  Program has developed a strategic framework to unify existing planning  documents and articulate how the partnership will pursue its goals.  According to the Bay Program, this framework is intended to provide the  partners with a common understanding of the partnership’s agenda of  work, a single framework for all bay protection and restoration work, and,  through the development of realistic annual targets, a uniform set of  measures to evaluate the partners’ progress in improving the bay.  However, while this framework provides broad strategies for meeting the  Bay Program’s goals, it does not identify the activities that will be  implemented to meet the goals, resources needed to implement the  activities, or the partner(s) who will be responsible for funding and  implementing the activities. Therefore, we continue to believe that  additional work is needed before the strategy that the Bay Program has  developed can be considered a comprehensive, coordinated  implementation strategy that can move the restoration effort forward in a  more strategic and well-coordinated manner.
In response to our recommendation that the program target resources to the  most cost-effective strategies, according to the Bay Program, in addition to  the strategic framework described above, it has developed annual targets that it believes are more realistic and likely to be an activity integration plan system to identify and catalogue  partners’ current and planned implementation activities and  corresponding resources; and program progress dashboards, which provide high-level summaries  of key information, such as status of progress, summaries of  actions and funding, and a brief summary of the challenges and  actions needed to expedite progress.
According to the Bay Program, it has also adopted an adaptive management  process, which will allow it to modify the restoration strategy in response to  testing, monitoring, and evaluating applied strategies and incorporating new  knowledge, and thereby, better inform partners’ actions, emphasis, and  future priorities. Bay Program officials told us that these actions have  started to have the intended effects of promoting enhanced coordination  among the partners, encouraging partners to review and improve their  progress in protecting and restoring the bay, increasing the transparency of  the Bay Program’s operations, and improving the accountability of the Bay  Program and its partners for meeting the bay health and restoration goals.  We believe these actions are positive steps toward responding to our  recommendation and improving the management and coordination of the  Bay Program.
In addition, the Bay Program partners have established a funding priority  framework that lists priorities for agriculture, wastewater treatment, and  land management activities. While these priorities can be used to help  achieve some of the annual targets established by the program, other annual  targets—such as those for underwater bay grasses and oysters—do not  have priorities associated with them.  We believe that a clear set of priorities  linked to the annual targets can help the partners focus the limited  resources available to those activities that provide the greatest benefit to the  health of the bay.
In closing, Madam Chairwoman, it is well recognized that restoring the  Chesapeake Bay is a massive, difficult, and complex undertaking. Our  October 2005 report documented how the success of the program had  been undermined by the lack of (1) an integrated approach to measure  overall progress; (2) independent and credible reporting mechanisms; and  (3) coordinated implementation strategies. These deficiencies had resulted  in a situation in which the Bay Program could not present a clear and  accurate picture of what the restoration effort had achieved, could not  effectively articulate what strategies would best further the broad  restoration goals, and could not identify how to set priorities for using  limited resources. Since our report was issued, the Bay Program, with  encouragement from Congress, has taken our recommendations seriously  and has taken steps to implement them. The Bay Program has made  important progress, and we believe that these initial steps will enable  better management of the restoration effort.  However, additional actions  are still needed to ensure that the restoration effort is moving forward in  the most cost-effective manner.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be  happy to respond to any questions that you or Members of the  Subcommittee may have.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement.  For further  information about this testimony, please contact Anu Mittal at (202) 512- 3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Other individuals making significant  contributions to this testimony were Sherry McDonald, Assistant Director,  and Barbara Patterson.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product 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.