Chesapeake Bay: Restoration Effort Needs Common Federal and State Goals and Assessment Approach
Published: 2011-09-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Chesapeake Bay, with its watershed in parts of six states and the District of Columbia (watershed states), is an important economic and natural resource that has been in decline. Over decades, federal agencies and watershed states have entered into several agreements to restore the bay, but its health remains impaired. In May 2009, Executive Order 13508 established a Federal Leadership Committee, led by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and directed the committee to issue a strategy by May 2010 to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay (the Strategy). GAO was directed by the explanatory statement of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, to conduct performance assessments of progress made on bay restoration, and this first assessment examines (1) the extent to which the Strategy includes measurable goals for restoring the bay that are shared by stakeholders and actions to attain these goals; (2) the key factors, if any, federal and state officials identified that may reduce the likelihood of achieving Strategy goals and actions; and (3) agency plans for assessing progress made in implementing the Strategy and restoring bay health. GAO reviewed the Strategy, surveyed federal officials, and interviewed watershed state officials and subject matter experts.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes 4 broad goals, 12 specific measurable goals with deadlines, and 116 actions to restore the bay by 2025. To achieve the broad and measurable goals, federal agencies, often in collaboration with the watershed states and other entities, are responsible for accomplishing the actions. However, not all stakeholders are working toward achieving the Strategy goals. The watershed states are critical partners in the effort to restore the bay, but state officials told GAO that they are not working toward the Strategy goals, in part because they view the Strategy as a federal document. Instead, most state bay restoration work is conducted according to state commitments made in a previous bay restoration agreement, the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Even though Strategy and Chesapeake 2000 Agreement goals are similar to some degree, they also differ in some ways. For example, both call for managing fish species, but the Strategy identifies brook trout as a key species for restoration and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement does not. Federal and state officials said it is critical that all stakeholders work toward the same goals. The Federal Leadership Committee and the Chesapeake Bay Program--a restoration group established in 1983 that includes federal agencies and watershed states--created an action team in June 2010 to work toward aligning bay restoration goals. Officials from the 11 agencies responsible for the Strategy that GAO surveyed identified three key factors that may reduce the likelihood of achieving Strategy goals and actions: a potential lack of collaboration among stakeholders; funding constraints; and external phenomena, such as climate change. State officials and subject matter experts that GAO interviewed raised similar concerns. Federal officials reported that some form of collaboration is needed to accomplish the Strategy's measurable goals and the vast majority of its actions. In particular, federal-state collaboration is crucial, with federal officials indicating that collaboration with at least one state is necessary to accomplish 96 of the 116 actions in the 12 measurable goals. Federal officials also reported that funding constraints could reduce the likelihood of accomplishing 69 of the actions in 11 of the measurable goals. Furthermore, federal officials reported that external phenomena could reduce the likelihood that 8 of the measurable goals will be achieved. The federal agencies have plans for assessing progress made in implementing the Strategy and restoring bay health, but these plans are limited or not fully developed, and it is unclear what indicators will be used to assess bay health. Per the Strategy, the agencies plan to create 2-year milestones for measuring progress made toward the measurable goals, with the first milestones covering 2012 and 2013. However, establishing milestones for an entire effort can improve the chances the effort can be accomplished efficiently and on time. Also, the Strategy states that the Federal Leadership Committee will develop a process for implementing adaptive management--in which agencies evaluate the impacts of restoration efforts and use the results to adjust future actions--but agency officials told GAO they are still developing this process. Moreover, there are now two groups that plan to assess bay health. The Strategy calls for the Federal Leadership Committee to coordinate with the watershed states to align these assessments. However, the status of this alignment is unclear, and if these groups use different indicators to assess bay health, confusion could result about the overall message of progress made.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that EPA work with federal and state stakeholders to develop common goals and clarify plans for assessing progress.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Chesapeake Bay is the nation’s largest estuary, and its watershed  spans 64,000 square miles across six states—Delaware, Maryland, New  York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia—and the District of  Columbia, which we collectively refer to as watershed states. The bay  provides habitat for a wide variety of animals and plants and supports  local and regional economies. However, concerns about the bay’s overall  health surfaced as early as the 1930s, and signs of deterioration— declines in water clarity, dwindling oyster populations, and degraded  habitat—became even more apparent in the 1950s and 1960s. In the  1970s and early 1980s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  found that the primary causes for the decline in the bay’s condition were  excess nutrients from agriculture, such as nitrogen and phosphorus;  population growth; and discharges from sewage treatment plants. More  recently, a 2009 bay health assessment found that despite small  improvements in certain areas, the bay continues to have poor water  quality, low populations of many fish and shellfish species, and degraded  habitats.
Responding to public outcry about the degraded state of the bay, EPA  and several watershed states first entered into an agreement in 1983 to  restore and protect the bay. Through this agreement, these states and  EPA began to work together as the Chesapeake Bay Program, a  partnership that directs and conducts the restoration of the bay at the  federal, state, and local levels, and also includes academic institutions  and nonprofit organizations. Since then, EPA and several watershed  states have entered into additional bay restoration agreements. The most  recent agreement, Chesapeake 2000, set out an agenda and goals to  guide restoration and protection efforts from 2000 through 2010 and  beyond, and each of the watershed states made commitments to it.  However, in October 2005, we reported that the success of the  restoration effort had been undermined, in part by the lack of a  comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy and integrated  approaches to measure overall progress. We recommended that EPA  should, among other things, work with the Bay Program to develop an  overall, coordinated implementation strategy and develop and implement  an integrated approach to assess overall restoration progress.  Subsequently, the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated  Appropriations Act, 2008, directed EPA, as the lead federal agency in the  Bay Program, to immediately implement all of our recommendations and  to develop a Chesapeake Bay action plan for the remaining years of the  Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. In response, the Bay Program submitted  a report to Congress describing the steps it took to implement our  recommendations. We testified in July 2008 that the Bay Program had  taken positive steps, such as identifying key indicators for measuring bay  health and restoration progress, to improve the coordination and  management of the restoration effort, but that additional actions were  needed.
In May 2009, the administration stated that, despite decades of efforts by  federal agencies, state and local governments, and other interested  parties, bay restoration was not expected for many years. As a result, the  President issued Executive Order 13508 to take further actions to restore  and protect the bay. The executive order established a Federal  Leadership Committee to oversee the development and coordination of  federal restoration programs and activities and called for the development  by May 2010 of a strategy to protect and restore the bay. The Federal  Leadership Committee is chaired by the EPA Administrator, and includes  senior representatives from the U.S. Departments of Agriculture,  Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, and  Transportation. The executive order noted that although the federal  government should assume a strong leadership role in the restoration of  the bay, success depends on a collaborative effort involving each  watershed state, local governments, and other organizations. The order  stated that the committee shall consult extensively with the watershed  states in the development of the strategy to ensure that federal actions  are closely coordinated with actions by state and local agencies and that  resources; authorities; and expertise of federal, state, and local agencies  are used as efficiently as possible. The committee issued the Strategy for  Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (the Strategy)  in May 2010.
The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated  Appropriations Act, 2008, directed EPA to develop a Chesapeake Bay  action plan and GAO to conduct periodic performance assessments of  progress made on this plan. Because EPA officials told us that the  Strategy is the current plan to restore the bay, as agreed with your  offices, this first performance assessment in response to the mandate  focuses on the Strategy. This report examines (1) the extent to which the  Strategy includes measurable goals for restoring the Chesapeake Bay  that are shared by stakeholders and actions to attain these goals; (2) the  key factors, if any, federal and state officials identified that may reduce  the likelihood of achieving Strategy goals and actions; and (3) agency  plans for assessing progress made in implementing the Strategy and  restoring bay health.
To determine the extent to which the Strategy includes measurable goals  for restoring the Chesapeake Bay that are shared by stakeholders and  actions to attain these goals, we reviewed the Strategy to understand its  structure and identify goals and actions. For the actions, we focused on  the 116 actions that are designed to lead directly to the Strategy’s goals.  We also reviewed previous bay restoration agreements, such as  Chesapeake 2000, to identify previous bay restoration goals. In addition,  we interviewed federal and watershed state officials and representatives  of organizations involved with bay restoration to gain an understanding of  the Strategy and bay restoration efforts. To examine the key factors  federal and state officials identified that may reduce the likelihood of  achieving Strategy goals and actions, we conducted an electronic survey  of the 11 federal agencies responsible for creating and implementing the  Strategy: EPA; the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and  Natural Resources Conservation Service; the Department of Commerce’s  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the Department of  Defense’s Navy and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the Department of  Homeland Security; the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife  Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Geological Survey; and the  Department of Transportation. In addition, we interviewed officials from  each watershed state to obtain their views on factors that could reduce  the likelihood of achieving Strategy goals and actions. We also  interviewed a nonprobability sample of members of academia with bay- related subject matter expertise. Because we used a nonprobability  sample, the information obtained from these interviews is not  generalizable to other members of academia with bay-related expertise.  However, these interviews provided us with information on these  individuals’ views on the attainability of the Strategy’s measurable goals.  We selected these experts primarily through GAO’s prior Chesapeake  Bay work. To examine what plans are in place to assess progress made  in implementing the Strategy and restoring the bay, we reviewed the  Strategy and Strategy-related assessment documents and interviewed  federal officials. A complete description of our scope and methodology is  in appendix I. The questions from our electronic survey of federal agency  officials are available in appendix II.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2010 to September  2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those 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  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Chesapeake Bay is the nation’s largest estuary, measuring nearly  200 miles long and 35 miles wide at its widest point. The bay’s watershed  covers 64,000 square miles and, as shown in figure 1, spans parts of six  states—Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West  Virginia—and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake Bay tributaries  and watershed make up one of the most biologically productive systems  in the world, with more than 3,600 species of plants, fish, and wildlife. The  ecosystem also provides a variety of benefits to the almost 17 million  people who live in the watershed, such as protecting drinking water,  minimizing erosion and flood events related to stormwater runoff, and  numerous recreational opportunities.
Over time, however, the bay’s ecosystem has deteriorated. As mentioned  previously, water quality has deteriorated primarily because of excess  amounts of nutrients entering the bay, which lead to the damage of  animal and plant populations. According to a 2010 EPA bay document,  the single largest source of these pollutants is agricultural runoff. In  addition, population growth and development have further stressed the  ecosystem. The population of the bay watershed has doubled since  1950, adding approximately 1.5 million people every decade, and is  expected to approach 20 million by 2030. With this population increase,  open spaces are being paved and developed, creating hardened surfaces  that send an increasing amount of polluted stormwater into the bay and  its rivers. Furthermore, sediment in the bay, stemming in part from  agriculture and urban lands, has had harmful effects on the bay and its  watershed, such as preventing light from penetrating to the leaves and  stems of underwater grasses that provide habitat and stability to the bay.
The deterioration of the bay’s ecosystem has been the 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 continue today. These efforts include the following:  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.
In 1983, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia,  EPA, and the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission signed the  first Chesapeake Bay agreement, formalizing the Chesapeake Bay  Program. The Bay Program is a partnership of federal agencies,  states, academic institutions, and others that directs and conducts the  restoration of the bay. EPA represents the federal government within  the Bay Program and supports the partnership through its  Chesapeake Bay Program Office. The signatories to the agreement  reaffirmed their commitment to restore the bay in 1987 and again in  1992.
In 2000, the Bay Program signatories signed the most current  agreement, known as the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. It outlined  five broad goals and 102 commitments for the restoration effort.  Delaware, New York, and West Virginia later signed a memorandum  of understanding agreeing to work cooperatively to achieve the  pollution reduction targets identified to meet the water quality goals in  the agreement. The end dates in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement  commitments largely expired in 2010 or earlier. Some of these  commitments have been renewed, but many have not.   Also in 2000, Congress passed the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act,  which directed EPA to take various actions to coordinate the  Chesapeake Bay Program and to support the implementation of the  Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. The act also required other federal  agencies with facilities in the bay watershed to participate in  restoration efforts.
In 2005, we examined the Bay Program’s implementation of the  Chesapeake 2000 Agreement to determine, among other things, the  extent to which appropriate measures for assessing restoration progress  had been established and how effectively the effort was being  coordinated and managed. Among other things, we found that the Bay  Program lacked a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy to  better enable it to achieve the goals outlined in the agreement and  assessment reports did not effectively communicate the status of the  bay’s health. We made several recommendations to the Administrator of  EPA, including to instruct the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to (1) work  with the Bay Program to develop a comprehensive, coordinated  implementation strategy and (2) to develop and implement an integrated  approach to assess overall restoration progress. EPA took several  actions to incorporate our recommendations, such as reducing more than  100 bay health and restoration indicators into three indices of ecosystem  health and five indices of restoration effort.
Subsequently, in the explanatory statement of the Consolidated  Appropriations Act, 2008, Congress directed EPA to implement  immediately all the recommendations in our report, and to develop a  Chesapeake Bay action plan for the remaining years of the Chesapeake  2000 Agreement. The Bay Program responded to the Consolidated  Appropriations Act with a July 2008 report to Congress that described the  program efforts to implement our recommendations, and the development  of an action plan for the Chesapeake Bay. We testified in July 2008 that  the Bay Program had taken several actions in response to our  recommendations, such as developing a strategic framework to unify  planning documents and identify how it will pursue its goals. However,  we also testified that additional actions were needed before the program  had the comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy we  recommended.
On May 12, 2009, the President issued Executive Order 13508,  Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. The executive order noted  that despite significant efforts, water pollution in the Chesapeake Bay  prevents the attainment of state water quality standards, and that  restoration of the bay was not expected for many years. It also stated that  bay restoration will require restoring habitat and living resources,  conserving lands, and improving management of natural resources. The  executive order established the Federal Leadership Committee and  required the committee to develop a strategy to guide efforts to restore  and protect the bay. According to the order, the strategy was to define  environmental goals for the Chesapeake Bay and describe the specific  programs and strategies to be implemented, among other things. The  Federal Leadership Committee published the Strategy in May 2010.
On December 29, 2010, EPA established a total maximum daily load  (TMDL)—a “pollution diet”—for the Chesapeake Bay and the region’s  streams, creeks, and rivers in response to consent decrees stemming  from litigation against the agency. A TMDL is the calculation of the  maximum amount of pollution a body of water can receive and still meet  state water quality standards, and the Clean Water Act requires the  creation of TMDLs for water bodies not attaining their water quality  standards. The bay TMDL was also influenced by a settlement resolving  a lawsuit filed against EPA in which the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and  other entities alleged that EPA had failed to comply with the Clean Water  Act by not taking steps to achieve some of the Chesapeake 2000  Agreement goals. The bay TMDL is the largest ever developed by EPA,  encompassing the entire 64,000-square-mile watershed. It identifies the  necessary pollution reductions from major sources of nitrogen,  phosphorus, and sediment across the District of Columbia and large  sections of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and  West Virginia, and sets pollution limits necessary to meet water quality  standards in the bay and its tidal rivers. To implement the TMDL, EPA is  taking steps to ensure that each watershed state develops a Watershed  Implementation Plan that details how and when it will meet pollution  allocations laid out in the TMDL. Each watershed state submitted its  phase one implementation plan to EPA for review in November 2010, and  must submit a phase two plan by March 2012 and a phase three plan in  2017. If EPA concludes that a watershed state has taken insufficient  steps to implement its Watershed Implementation Plans or to reduce  pollution, the agency is prepared to take one or more actions, including  expanding coverage of wastewater permits to sources that are currently  unregulated. The TMDL marks a change from the historic nature of the  effort, which was based primarily on stakeholder agreements.
section_title: Restoration Strategy Includes Measurable Goals and Actions to Achieve Them, but Not All Bay Restoration Stakeholders Are Working toward These Goals
paragraphs: The Strategy articulates broad restoration goals, specific measurable  goals, and actions to achieve those goals. Specifically, it includes 4 broad  goals, 12 measurable goals with deadlines, and 116 actions to restore the  bay by 2025. The 4 broad goals—restore clean water, recover habitat,  sustain fish and wildlife, and conserve land and increase public access— are identified in the Strategy as the most essential priorities for a healthy  Chesapeake system. To meet these 4 broad goals, the Strategy identifies  12 measurable goals that contain numeric descriptions of results—or  outcomes—to be achieved by 2025 (see table 1). For example, to help  meet the recover habitat broad goal, the Strategy identifies a fish passage  measurable goal to restore historical fish migratory routes by opening  1,000 additional stream miles by 2025, with restoration success indicated  by the presence of river herring, American shad, or American eel. The  Strategy also identifies four supporting strategies—expand citizen  stewardship, develop environmental markets, respond to climate change,  and strengthen science—that were designed, in part, to provide cross- cutting support for attaining the Strategy’s broad goals.
In turn, the 12 measurable goals were designed to be achieved through  the accomplishment of 116 actions. These actions describe activities to  be taken by federal agencies, often in collaboration with the watershed  states and other entities. For example, one action in the fish passage  measurable goal—remove stream barriers and provide fish passage— calls for two federal agencies to work with state and local partners to,  among other things, prioritize stream barriers that inhibit fish passage.  Figure 2 illustrates the relationship of the recover habitat broad goal and  its measurable goals and selected actions. Federal officials we surveyed  reported that about 95 percent of the actions in the Strategy could  definitely or probably be accomplished, assuming current and expected  budget and staff levels, and generally agreed that accomplishing the  actions will lead to the achievement of the measurable and broad goals  by 2025.
Even though the federal agencies have developed a plan with  measurable goals and actions, we found that not all stakeholders are  working toward achieving these measurable goals. The watershed states  are critical partners in the effort to restore the bay, but officials from each  of the states told us that even though their states are conducting bay  restoration work, their states are not working toward the Strategy goals, in  some cases because they view the Strategy as a federal document. As of  July 2011, the watershed states have not committed to the Strategy.  Instead, most watershed state officials told us that their bay restoration  work is conducted according to their commitments to the Chesapeake  2000 Agreement. Federal and state officials told us that Strategy and  Chesapeake 2000 Agreement goals are similar to some degree. For  example, both identify phosphorus and nitrogen reduction as necessary  steps for improving water quality. However, the goals also differ in some  ways. For example, both the Strategy and the Chesapeake 2000  Agreement call for managing fish species, but the Strategy identifies  brook trout as a key species for targeted restoration efforts and the  Chesapeake 2000 Agreement does not. Both agreements also have  oyster restoration goals, but the Strategy identifies a number of tributaries  to be restored and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement focuses on an  increase in the number of oysters in the bay.
In addition, officials from most of the watershed states told us that they  are focused on accomplishing tasks associated with the bay TMDL, such  as developing their Watershed Implementation Plans. Officials from  several federal agencies also observed that the watershed states are fully  occupied with efforts to comply with the TMDL. The bay TMDL was  incorporated into the Strategy’s water quality broad goal, which means  that the pollution reduction steps that the states plan to implement in  order to achieve the TMDL should contribute to the accomplishment of  that Strategy goal. Similarly, each watershed state has identified pollution  reduction activities in its phase one Watershed Implementation Plan that  could contribute incidentally to other Strategy goals, even though the  activities were created to achieve water quality standards and  development on them began before the publication of the Strategy. For  example, each watershed state has identified wetland restoration as part  of its phase one Watershed Implementation Plan, and the Strategy’s  recover habitat goal contains a measurable goal to restore wetlands.  However, it is unclear whether the watershed states’ wetland restoration  activities will be sufficient to help meet the Strategy’s measurable goal for  wetlands. For example, not all of the Watershed Implementation Plans  identify the total wetland acreage to be restored.
It is important for all partners in the restoration effort to be working toward  the same goals. We have previously reported that identifying common  goals is a key characteristic of successful collaborative efforts.  Specifically, we found that having common goals, among other factors,  can help lead to increased participation and cooperation among groups  involved in a collaborative effort and to improve natural resource  conditions. Several of the federal and state officials we interviewed also  said that they believe it is critical that all stakeholders in the bay  restoration effort are working toward the same goals and following the  same plan. For example, a federal official told us that alignment between  the Strategy and state actions would allow for the most integrated,  efficient way of restoring the bay. In addition, a state official told us that  the lack of alignment leads to a lack of support for the Strategy from the  states.
In June 2010, the Federal Leadership Committee and the Bay Program  created an alignment action team to work toward aligning Strategy  restoration efforts with those of the Bay Program, including Chesapeake  2000 Agreement efforts. In addition to the lack of common goals, the  team also identified several other reasons for alignment, including  restoration tracking and communication difficulties caused by  stakeholders focusing on different goals, and that limited resources are  being diverted to addressing organizational confusion rather than  implementation of bay restoration efforts. In January 2011, the alignment  action team proposed developing a new restoration plan to provide a  blueprint for the future of the restoration effort that will align Strategy and  Bay Program goals. The Federal Leadership Committee and Bay  Program have not yet agreed to develop this new plan. Under a process  that was agreed to by both groups, they will work within preexisting Bay  Program groups, called Goal Implementation Teams, to, among other  things, refine priorities and areas of programmatic focus, guided by the  Chesapeake 2000 Agreement and the Strategy. As part of this process, if  the groups decide to negotiate a new agreement, it would not be  negotiated until 2013, according to a July 2011 Bay Program document.
section_title: Federal and State Officials Identified Three Key Factors That May Reduce the Likelihood of Achieving Strategy Goals and Actions
paragraphs: Officials we surveyed from the 11 federal agencies responsible for the  Strategy identified three key factors that may reduce the likelihood of  achieving Strategy goals and actions, and state officials and subject  matter experts we interviewed raised similar concerns. We identified as  key those factors most frequently identified by federal officials:  collaboration, funding constraints, and external phenomena.
Collaboration. First, most of the federal officials we surveyed indicated  that a potential lack of collaboration among stakeholders could reduce the  likelihood of achieving Strategy goals and actions. They reported that  some form of collaboration is necessary to accomplish all of the  Strategy’s measurable goals and the vast majority of its actions. This  collaboration could be between federal agencies, federal and state  agencies, or federal agencies and other entities. In particular, federal- state collaboration is crucial to accomplishing the Strategy’s goals and  actions. In their survey responses, federal officials indicated that  collaboration with at least one state is necessary to accomplish 96 of the  116 actions in all 12 of the measurable goals. For example, the Strategy’s  measurable goal for blue crab calls in part for the development of a new  blue crab population target for 2012 through 2025, but a federal official  reported that setting such a target is a matter of state, not federal,  jurisdiction. The official indicated that the federal agency responsible for  the action will facilitate state agreement on a new target, but that securing  agreement is in the hands of the states, not the agencies. Table 2 shows  the number of actions that, according to federal officials’ survey  responses, need state participation in order to be accomplished.  Appendix III provides additional information on the extent to which  collaboration between federal agencies and watershed states is needed  to accomplish strategy actions.
Even though the watershed states are critical partners in the restoration  effort, most watershed state officials told us that they are generally  unaware of what federal agencies may require of them to implement the  Strategy. Specifically, officials from six of the seven watershed states  noted that they were not aware of the extent to which federal agencies  needed their participation when we told them the number of actions  federal officials had identified that would need state participation to be  accomplished. Some federal and state officials noted that their agencies  are working on bay issues through the Goal Implementation Teams.  Some of these groups are discussing the Strategy, but, according to a  January 2011 Bay Program memorandum, specific state contributions  toward the measurable goals have not been determined.
In addition to the need for federal-state collaboration, collaboration  between two or more federal agencies is necessary to accomplish 40 of  the actions in 8 of the measurable goals, according to our survey results.  Some federal officials told us that collaboration among federal agencies  increased during the development and implementation of the Strategy.  According to some federal officials, this has resulted in closer  relationships between some agencies and more tools and perspectives  being used to restore the watershed. Other officials expressed concern  that recent bay restoration meetings have focused largely on bay water  quality issues with less time spent on other restoration activities and  needs, such as restoring brook trout populations or increasing public  access to the bay.
Funding constraints. The second key factor stakeholders identified that  may reduce the likelihood of achieving Strategy goals and actions is  funding constraints. Specifically, in their survey responses, federal  officials indicated that funding constraints at the federal and state levels,  and among other partners, such as academic institutions, could reduce  the likelihood of accomplishing 69 of the actions in 11 of the measurable  goals. Some federal officials told us that increased federal funding will be  critical to accomplishing the actions and measurable goals. For example,  a federal official reported that achieving the measurable goal for land  conservation is contingent upon increased federal funding, in part  because the recent economic crisis has reduced state land conservation  funding. State land conservation funding is necessary to accomplish  several land conservation actions in the Strategy, according to federal  survey responses. In addition, another federal official told us that the  measurable goal of restoring oyster habitat and populations has been  delayed because of late allocations of fiscal year 2011 funding.
Officials from each of the watershed states also told us that funding  constraints may reduce their ability to restore the bay. For example,  officials from one state told us that their state needs about $38 billion in  wastewater treatment infrastructure to reduce water pollution, and noted  that overall challenging fiscal circumstances mean the state has a limited  capacity to conduct additional bay restoration activities. Similarly, officials  from another state told us that their state has experienced budget cuts in  recent years and that funding constraints could reduce the likelihood of  conducting restoration activities. In addition, fish passage experts we  interviewed told us that states will have to contribute significant funding  for stream restoration projects if the measurable goal of increasing fish  passages is to be achieved. However, states’ current fiscal conditions  may reduce their ability to do so.
External phenomena. The third key factor that may reduce the likelihood  of achieving Strategy goals and actions, according to federal agency  survey responses and subject matter experts, is external phenomena that  are outside the control of the agency, such as climate change or  population growth. Even though the Strategy addresses some external  phenomena, for example, by including a supporting strategy for  responding to climate change, federal officials told us that effects beyond  what was planned for in developing the Strategy could affect the  likelihood of achieving the measurable goals. Specifically, federal officials  reported that external phenomena could reduce the likelihood that 8 of  the measurable goals will be achieved even if all of the actions in those  measurable goals were accomplished. For example, according to one  federal agency’s survey response and a subject matter expert we  interviewed, both climate change and increased development in the  watershed could reduce the likelihood of achieving the measurable goal  to restore naturally reproducing brook trout populations in headwater  streams by 2025. The brook trout expert explained that climate change  may affect stream temperature, which can result in a loss of brook trout.  In addition, the expert told us that an increase in the amount of  impervious surfaces in the watershed as a result of development can  increase polluted runoff and degrade habitat, resulting in a loss of brook  trout. As another example, insufficient or degraded breeding habitat  outside of the bay watershed could reduce the likelihood of achieving the  measurable goal of restoring a 3-year average wintering black duck  population of 100,000 birds by 2025, according to this agency’s survey  response and two subject matter experts.
section_title: Agency Plans for Assessing Progress on Implementing the Strategy and Restoring Bay Health Are Limited or Not Fully Developed, and It Is Unclear What Indicators Will Be Used to Assess Progress on Bay Health
paragraphs: The Strategy calls for the federal agencies to, among other things,  develop 2-year milestones, an adaptive management process, and  annual progress reports to assess progress made in implementing the  Strategy and restoring the health of the bay. However, the milestone  development plan is limited, plans for adaptive management and the  annual progress report are not fully developed, and it is unclear what  indicators will be used to assess progress on bay health.
subsections: section_title: Milestone Development Plan Is Limited
paragraphs: The federal agencies do not plan to develop milestones for the entire  Strategy period. Per the Strategy, the agencies plan to create milestones  every 2 years for measuring progress made toward the measurable  goals, with the first set of 2-year milestones to cover calendar years 2012  and 2013. However, setting the milestones every 2 years allows for the  possibility of moving the target date to the next 2-year milestone period if  the milestone could not be met in those 2 years, thereby prolonging the  time it will take to meet the Strategy’s goals. In addition, without a  blueprint of milestones for the entire restoration effort, it is unclear how  the agencies will determine whether they are on track to achieve the 12  measurable goals and 4 broad goals by 2025. Some restoration activities  may not result in immediate improvements to the health of the bay, and it  may be reasonable to expect slower progress toward a measurable goal  initially, with faster progress made after a number of years into the  restoration effort. On the other hand, some restoration activities may be  easier to accomplish than others, and it may be reasonable to expect  faster progress made toward a measurable goal initially and slower  progress made after a number of years into the effort. By identifying a  blueprint of milestones for the entire restoration effort, the agencies can  show when the actions are expected to result in progress toward the  measurable goals, determine whether these actions are having their  intended result, and make changes to these actions if needed. We have  reported that establishing milestones for an entire effort can improve the  chances the effort can be accomplished efficiently and on time and  provide decision makers with an indication of the incremental progress  the agency expects to make in achieving results.
section_title: Plans for Adaptive Management and Annual Progress Report Are Not Fully Developed
paragraphs: The Federal Leadership Committee has neither developed an adaptive  management process nor identified what performance data it will use to  gauge progress in the annual progress report. The Strategy states that  the Federal Leadership Committee will develop a process for  implementing adaptive management, but officials from EPA and other  committee agencies told us that they are still developing this process.  According to EPA officials, the Federal Leadership Committee agreed to  the seven-step adaptive management decision framework that the Bay  Program adopted in May 2011. This framework, however, was developed  for the Bay Program and does not include clear linkages to the Strategy  actions and measurable goals. It is unclear how it will be used by the  Federal Leadership Committee agencies to adaptively manage Strategy  actions and meet Strategy goals (see app. IV). In August 2011, EPA  officials noted that a fully developed adaptive management process is  needed. A fully developed adaptive management process should allow  the agencies to evaluate whether Strategy actions are leading to the  measurable goals and, if needed, adjust their efforts. This approach  includes assessing the problem, designing a plan that includes  measurable management objectives, monitoring the impacts of the  selected management actions, and evaluating and using the results to  adjust management actions. In 2004, the National Research Council  defined adaptive management as a process that promotes flexible  decision making in the face of uncertainties, as outcomes from  management actions and other events become better understood. In  2011, the National Research Council looked at the Chesapeake Bay  Program’s nutrient reduction program and found that neither EPA nor the  watershed states exhibit a clear understanding of how adaptive  management might be applied in pursuit of the Bay Program’s water  quality goals. We believe a fully developed adaptive management  process is essential to Strategy success because the agencies can  improve bay restoration efforts by learning from management outcomes.  We have previously reported that the lack of a well-developed adaptive  management process impaired the success of collaborative restoration  efforts, such as restoring the South Florida ecosystem and restricting  bison movement in Montana to prevent the spread of disease.
The Strategy also calls for the Federal Leadership Committee to develop  an annual progress report that would, in part, assess the progress made  in implementing the Strategy in the previous year. According to EPA  officials, the agencies will report progress on the actions quarterly to the  committee, and the agencies will use these quarterly reports to develop  an annual progress report that will be issued to the public. In a fiscal year  2011 action plan, the Federal Leadership Committee identified which  federal agency is responsible for implementing each Strategy action and  what the agencies are expected to accomplish in that year. The  committee has also separately designated a lead federal agency for  assessing progress toward each measurable goal, and that progress will  also be included in the annual progress report. According to the Strategy,  the Federal Leadership Committee plans to issue the first annual  progress report in early 2012. The committee has not developed a  template for the annual progress report, however, and federal officials  were unable to tell us what performance data will be collected and  reported in it to gauge progress. Performance information provided by the  agencies in the first quarterly report on progress made during the first  quarter of fiscal year 2011 varies. In some cases the report has no  description of progress made on some actions, general information about  steps taken toward some actions, and detailed information about  progress made in others.
section_title: It Is Unclear What Indicators Will Be Used to Assess Bay Health
paragraphs: There are now two groups—the Federal Leadership Committee and the  Bay Program—that plan to assess bay health. According to the Strategy,  the committee’s annual progress report will review indicators of  environmental conditions in the bay, in addition to progress made in  implementing the Strategy. In addition, since 2004, the Bay Program has  assessed bay restoration progress through annual assessments of the  health and restoration of the bay and its watershed, called the Bay  Barometer. Both the Federal Leadership Committee and the Bay  Program plan to assess bay health in 2011 and publish these  assessments in 2012. However, federal officials told us that they have not  yet determined the content of next year’s Bay Barometer report. It is  therefore unclear if the Federal Leadership Committee and Bay Program  will assess the same or different indicators of progress toward bay health.
Even though two different assessments of bay health in 2012 could  present a consistent message of bay health, they could also result in  confusion. For example, assessments based on different indicators could  draw different, and possibly contradictory, conclusions about progress  made in improving the overall health of the bay. The team created in June  2010 to align Strategy and Bay Program goals reported in January 2011  that the restoration effort is facing difficulty tracking progress and  communicating that progress. The Strategy calls for the Federal  Leadership Committee to coordinate with the watershed states to align  the annual progress report with the Bay Barometer, but, according to EPA  officials, the status of this alignment is unclear.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay have been ongoing for several  decades. The restoration effort has seen some successes in certain  areas, but the overall health of the bay remains degraded. Restoring the  bay is a massive, complex, and difficult undertaking that requires the  concerted effort of many parties. Numerous federal and state agencies  and others all play a role in the effort. To restore the bay in the most  efficient and effective manner, these parties must work together toward  the same goals. The Strategy that federal agencies developed for  protecting and restoring the bay in response to Executive Order 13508  identifies measurable bay restoration goals and actions to achieve these  goals. State participation in the Strategy is necessary to achieve these  goals, yet the watershed states are not committed to the Strategy.  Currently, federal agencies are generally working toward the Strategy  goals, while states are largely focused on accomplishing tasks associated  with the bay TMDL, which supports one of the Strategy goals. Having  common goals, among other factors, can help lead to increased  participation and cooperation among groups involved in a collaborative  effort and improve natural resource conditions.
The Federal Leadership Committee and the Chesapeake Bay Program  have recognized the need to align federal and state efforts to restore the  bay. But regardless of how efforts are aligned, if the agencies do not  identify milestones for accomplishing the entire restoration effort, they  may not be able to show when particular actions are expected to result in  progress toward measurable goals. Furthermore, the agencies have not  yet developed an adaptive management process, which is essential to  evaluating whether actions are leading to goals and make adjustments as  necessary. In addition, the Strategy calls for the Federal Leadership  Committee to coordinate with the watershed states to align Strategy and  Bay Program assessments. However, the status of this alignment is  unclear, and both the committee and Bay Program plan to assess bay  health. If they use different indicators to assess and report, confusion  could result about the overall message of progress made in improving the  health of the bay, because assessments based on different indicators  could draw different, and possibly contradictory, conclusions about the  overall health of the bay.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the likelihood that bay restoration is attained, we recommend  that the Administrator of EPA work collaboratively with federal and state  bay restoration stakeholders to take the following four actions:    develop common bay restoration goals to help ensure that federal and  state restoration stakeholders are working toward the same goals,   establish milestones for gauging progress toward measurable goals  for the entire restoration effort,   develop an adaptive management process that will allow restoration  stakeholders to evaluate progress made in restoring the bay and  adjust actions as needed, and identify the indicators that will be used for assessing progress made in  improving bay health and clarify how the entities responsible for  assessing this progress will coordinate their efforts.
section_title: Agency Comments, Third-Party Views, and our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided EPA and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,  Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, and Transportation with a draft  of this report for their review and comment. We also provided the District  of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia,  West Virginia, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission with a draft of this  report for their review and comment. EPA provided written comments and  generally agreed with our recommendations. EPA also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Its written comments  are reproduced in appendix V. The Department of Homeland Security  provided written comments but did not comment on our  recommendations. Its written comments are reproduced in appendix VI.  The Department of the Interior disagreed with some of our findings and  recommendations. Its written comments are reproduced in appendix VII.  New York provided written comments but did not comment on our  recommendations. New York also provided technical comments, which  we incorporated as appropriate. Its written comments are reproduced in  appendix VIII. The Departments of Agriculture and Transportation, the  District of Columbia, and Virginia provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. The Departments of Commerce and  Defense, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and the  Chesapeake Bay Commission had no comments.
EPA generally agreed with our four recommendations. In commenting on  our recommendation that the Administrator of EPA work collaboratively  with federal and state bay restoration stakeholders to develop common  bay restoration goals, EPA noted that there is a new complexity regarding  restoration goals given the development of the Strategy and that the  completion dates for most Chesapeake 2000 Agreement commitments  are set for 2010 or before. We agree. As we noted in the draft report,  restoring the bay is a massive, complex, and difficult undertaking that  requires the concerted effort of many parties. To restore the bay in the  most efficient and effective manner, these parties must work together  toward the same goals. Having common goals, among other factors, can  help lead to increased participation and cooperation among the groups  involved in the effort. In its comments, EPA stated that the draft report did  not highlight where common goals and common directions are already  present in the Chesapeake Bay Program. We noted in the draft report  that the bay TMDL was incorporated into the Strategy’s water quality  broad goal, which means that the pollution reduction steps that the states  plan to implement to achieve the TMDL should contribute to the  accomplishment of the Strategy goal. In commenting on our  recommendation that the Administrator of EPA work collaboratively with  federal and state bay restoration stakeholders to establish milestones for  gauging progress toward measurable goals for the entire restoration  effort, EPA recognized that a blueprint of milestones through 2025 would  be useful. EPA expressed concern about locking in a too detailed plan for  the entire time period, because it does not wish to limit its ability for  adaptive management. We believe that a blueprint of milestones can  assist in the adaptive management process. As we noted in the draft  report, a blueprint of milestones would allow agencies to show when the  actions are expected to result in progress toward the measurable goals,  determine whether these actions are having their intended result, and  make changes to these actions as needed. We also reported that  establishing milestones for an entire effort can improve the chances the  effort can be accomplished efficiently and on time and provide decision  makers with an indication of the incremental progress the agency expects  to make in achieving results. In commenting on our recommendation that  the Administrator of EPA work collaboratively to develop an adaptive  management process that will allow restoration stakeholders to evaluate  progress made in restoring the bay and adjust actions as needed, EPA  acknowledged that this concern has been raised in previous GAO reports  and in a recent National Academy of Sciences report. EPA also noted  that a seven-step adaptive management decision framework was adopted  by the Bay Program in May 2011 and endorsed by the Bay Program’s  leadership in July 2011. However, as we note in the report, this  framework was developed for the Bay Program and does not include  clear linkages to the Strategy actions and measurable goals. It is unclear  how this framework will be used by the Federal Leadership Committee  agencies to adaptively manage Strategy actions and meet Strategy goals.  It is presented in appendix IV. In commenting on our recommendation  that the Administrator of EPA should work collaboratively to identify the  indicators that will be used for assessing progress made in improving bay  health and clarify how the entities responsible for assessing this progress  will coordinate their efforts, EPA noted that it is now working with its  federal and state partners to identify measures that will be used to assess  bay health, and that this group will make recommendations on which  reports will be used to report measures of progress.
The Department of the Interior stated that it does not agree with some of  our draft report’s findings and recommendations. First, Interior stated that  our draft report did not recognize that the Strategy provides a framework  to advance the Bay Program beyond the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.  As we noted in our draft report, the Chesapeake Bay Program is a  partnership at the federal, state, and local levels. The Strategy provides  specific outcomes to be achieved by the federal agencies, but the  watershed states have not committed to the Strategy, and most  watershed state officials told us that their bay restoration work is  conducted according to their commitments to the Chesapeake 2000  Agreement. The report also noted that an alignment action team was  formed in June 2010 to work toward aligning Strategy restoration efforts  with those of the Bay Program. Second, Interior commented that our  report understated the level of collaboration and coordination with the  States. We noted in the draft report that federal agencies and watershed  states are working on bay issues through the Goal Implementation Teams  and that, according to EPA officials, these teams will be used to refine  priorities and areas of programmatic focus for the restoration effort.  Finally, Interior stated that it believes some of the draft report’s findings  are based on insufficient information. We have provided detailed  responses to this and other Interior comments in appendix VII.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Administrator of EPA, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix IX.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on the scope of work and the  methodology used to determine (1) the extent to which the Strategy for  Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (the Strategy)  includes measurable goals for restoring the Chesapeake Bay that are  shared by stakeholders and actions to attain these goals; (2) the key  factors, if any, federal and state officials identified that may reduce the  likelihood of achieving Strategy goals and actions; and (3) agency plans  for assessing progress made in implementing the Strategy and restoring  bay health.
To determine the extent to which the Strategy includes measurable goals  for restoring the Chesapeake Bay that are shared by stakeholders and  actions to attain these goals, we reviewed the Strategy to understand its  structure and identify goals and actions. For the actions, we focused on  the 116 actions that are designed to lead directly to the Strategy’s goals.  We did not evaluate an additional 51 actions in the Strategy that were  designed to provide cross-cutting support for attaining the goals. We also  reviewed previous bay restoration agreements, such as Chesapeake  2000, to identify previous bay restoration goals. In addition, we  interviewed officials from each of the federal entities involved in  developing and overseeing the implementation of the Strategy, which  make up the Federal Leadership Committee: the Departments of  Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, and  Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We also  interviewed officials from each of the states in the watershed—Delaware,  Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia—and the  District of Columbia, collectively referred to as watershed states in this  report, and representatives of other Chesapeake Bay organizations, such  as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, to gain an understanding of the  Strategy and bay restoration efforts in general.
To determine the key factors federal and state officials identified that may  reduce the likelihood of achieving Strategy goals and actions, we first  surveyed officials from each of the 11 agencies responsible for creating  and implementing the Strategy and received responses from January  2011 through May 2011. These agencies are EPA; the Department of  Agriculture’s Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation  Service; the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration; the Department of Defense’s Navy and U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers; the Department of Homeland Security; the  Department of the Interior’s National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife  Service, and U.S. Geological Survey; and the Department of  Transportation. For each agency, we identified as respondents federal  officials who participated in Strategy development and implementation on  behalf of their agencies, through agency interviews. We used the survey  to obtain and analyze information from each of the agencies about each  action and measurable goal for which the agency had responsibility, and  about each of the Strategy’s four broad goals. The questionnaire used for  this study is available in appendix II. We sent the questionnaire by e-mail,  and respondents returned it by e-mail after marking checkboxes or  entering responses into open answer boxes. All of the agencies  responded to our survey.
To identify key factors that could reduce the likelihood of achieving  Strategy goals and actions, we conducted a content analysis of  responses to question 2 from both the actions and measurable goals  portions of the survey. Two analysts independently reviewed the  agencies’ responses to each question and together identified the  categories most often cited in these responses. They then coded each  survey response into those categories. In cases where differences  between the two reviewers regarding the coding of responses into content  categories were found, all differences were resolved through reviewer  discussion. Ultimately, there was 100 percent agreement between the  reviewers. See appendix III for further analysis we conducted with survey  data.
Because this was not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors. To  ensure the reliability of the data collected through our survey of the 11  Strategy agencies, we took a number of steps to reduce measurement  error, nonresponse error, and respondent bias. These steps included  conducting three pretests in person prior to distributing the survey to  ensure that our questions were clear, precise, and consistently  interpreted; reviewing responses to identify obvious errors or  inconsistencies; and conducting follow-up interviews with officials to  review and clarify responses. We determined the survey data to be  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
In addition to conducting the survey mentioned above, we interviewed  officials from each of the watershed states to determine their knowledge  of and involvement with the Strategy; to identify the factors, if any, that  state officials believe could reduce the likelihood of both Strategy and bay  restoration success; and to ask about state-related federal official survey  responses. We also interviewed a nonprobability sample of individuals  who have expertise in the subject matter of the Strategy’s measurable  goals and solicited their views on the likelihood that the measurable goals  could be achieved. We identified these individuals primarily through  GAO’s prior work on the Chesapeake Bay, and the final list included  mostly faculty and staff from the University of Maryland’s Center for  Environmental Science and the Virginia Institute of Marine Studies. We  asked them questions to determine the nature and extent of their  expertise, and to ensure that they were not currently or recently employed  by EPA and that they had not contributed to the Strategy. We developed  a semistructured interview guide containing open-ended questions to  solicit responses about their familiarity with the Strategy and the  measurable goals that correlated with their area of expertise. We  interviewed nearly all of the experts by telephone. Because we used a  nonprobability sample, the information obtained from these interviews is  not generalizable to other members of academia with bay-related  expertise.
To determine the plans in place for assessing the progress of  implementing the Strategy and restoring the bay, we reviewed the  Strategy and related assessment documents, such as an action plan and  a quarterly progress report. We also reviewed several Bay Barometers,  annual bay restoration assessment documents issued by the  Chesapeake Bay Program. In addition, we interviewed EPA officials who  represent the Federal Leadership Committee and the Chesapeake Bay  Program Office—the office that represents the federal government with  the Chesapeake Bay Program—to discuss how they plan to assess  progress on implementing the Strategy and restoring bay health, and also  to identify any additional methods EPA plans to use to assess progress in  these areas. We also spoke with officials from each of the other Strategy  agencies about their roles in assessing Strategy progress.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2010 to September  2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those 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  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Survey Questions
paragraphs: We surveyed officials from each of the federal agencies involved with  creating and overseeing the implementation of the Strategy using all of  the questions below as stated here. We provided these questions to the  officials in a format that identified the Strategy actions, measurable goals,  and broad goals for which their agency had responsibility as identified in  the Federal Leadership Committee’s Fiscal Year 2011 Action Plan.
In our survey, we asked officials from each Strategy agency the  following questions regarding each action for which the agency has  responsibility:  1. Do you believe this action can be accomplished by the action deadline,  assuming current and expected budget and staff levels? (If no deadline is  specified, please use the overall Strategy deadline of 2025 as the default  deadline.)    Definitely yes    Probably yes    Probably no    Definitely no    Don’t know    My agency is not responsible for this action.  1a. Please explain your answer. (For example, please describe whether  certain portions of this action are more or less likely to be accomplished  by the deadline than others.)  2. What factors do you foresee, if any, that could reduce the likelihood  this action will be accomplished? (Please list and briefly describe the  factors. This could include factors within or beyond your agency’s  control.)  3. Is participation from agencies of any of the following state governments  necessary for your agency to accomplish this action? (Please check all  that apply. Please consider the entire duration of time during which your  agency will be working on this action.)    Delaware    District of Columbia    Maryland    New York    Pennsylvania    Virginia    West Virginia    Other (please list in 3a)    None    Don’t know.  3a. If you checked “Other” in 3, please list the state government(s)  necessary for your agency to accomplish this action.  4. If this action were not completed, how would this affect the likelihood of  achieving the outcome or goal listed below the drop down box?    Achieving the outcome or goal would be far less likely    Achieving the outcome or goal would be somewhat less likely    Achieving the outcome or goal would be no less likely    Don’t know.  4a. Please explain your answer to 4.
We asked officials from each agency the following questions  regarding each measurable goal (which are referred to as outcomes  in the Strategy and in our survey questions) that contain an action  for which the agency has responsibility. For actions in the water  quality broad goal that are listed under more than one measurable  goal, we asked the relevant agencies question 4 twice, once for each  measurable goal.  1. If all the actions for this outcome (including those for which your  agency or other agencies are responsible) are completed, do you believe  the outcome will be achieved?    Definitely yes    Probably yes    Probably no    Definitely no    Don’t know.  1a. Please explain your answer. (For example, please describe whether  certain portions of this outcome are more or less likely to be achieved by  the deadline than others.)  2. If all the actions for this outcome (including those of your agency and  other agencies) are completed, what factors do you foresee, if any, that  could reduce the likelihood that this outcome will be achieved? (Please  list and briefly describe the factors. This could include factors within or  beyond your agency’s control.)  3. How important is this outcome to attaining the goal listed below the  drop down box?    Very important    Somewhat important    Not at all important    Don’t know.
We asked officials from each agency the following questions  regarding each broad goal (which are referred to as goals in the  Strategy and in the survey) that contain an action for which the  agency has responsibility.  1. If all of the outcomes for this goal are achieved, do you believe the goal  will be attained?    Definitely yes    Probably yes    Probably no    Definitely no    Don’t know.  1a. Please explain your answer.  2. How important is achieving this goal to restoring the overall health of  the bay?    Very important    Somewhat important    Not at all important    Don’t know.
We asked officials from each agency the following general  questions.  1. Please provide any additional comments you may have about the  Strategy or your responses in this data collection instrument.  2. Please list any actions for which your agency is responsible that we did  not ask about.
section_title: Appendix III: Collaboration Needed between Federal Agencies and Watershed States to Accomplish Strategy Actions
paragraphs: Collaboration between federal agencies and the watershed states will be  required to complete many of the Strategy actions. In response to  question 3 of the actions portion of our survey, federal officials identified  Strategy actions that require state participation in order to accomplish the  actions. In those cases where federal officials reported that state  participation was necessary to accomplish the action, the officials  identified the necessary state or states. Figure 3 shows the extent of  collaboration that will be needed between federal agencies and  watershed states to accomplish Strategy actions. Each node represents a  federal agency or a state. Each link between a pair of nodes indicates  that the corresponding entities will need to collaborate to accomplish an  action. Thicker links indicate more extensive collaboration because of the  number of times federal officials identified participation from a particular  state as necessary. Table 3 shows the number of actions for which each  federal agency reported that participation from a watershed state was  necessary to accomplish the action.
section_title: Appendix IV: Chesapeake Bay Program Adaptive Management Decision Framework
paragraphs: The Chesapeake Bay program approved the following adaptive  management decision framework on May 10, 2011, as an incremental  step in moving toward adaptive management:  1.  Articulate program goals.
Identify the goals the goal implementation team is working toward.  2.  Describe factors influencing goal attainment.
Identify and prioritize all factors that influence performance toward a  goal. This step can help identify areas for cross-goal implementation  team collaboration.  3.  Assess current management efforts (and gaps).
Identification of gaps/overlaps in existing management programs  addressing the important factors affecting goal attainment.  4.  Develop management strategy.
Coordination and implementation planning by stakeholders.  5.  Develop monitoring program.  6.  Assess performance.
Criteria for success/failure of management efforts should be known  when the strategy is developed and the monitoring program is  designed. This is the analysis that informs program adaptation. This  helps inform next steps.  7.  Manage adaptively.
Based on the monitoring assessment, system models are amended,  and monitoring strategies are revised to improve program  performance.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of the Interior
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1.  Interior commented that the Strategy offers the next generation of  specific outcomes to be achieved by the Chesapeake Bay Program,  which is a partnership at the federal, state, and local levels. As we  noted in our draft report, the Strategy provides specific outcomes to  be achieved by the federal agencies. In addition, we noted that the  watershed states are critical partners in the restoration effort, and  federal officials reported that watershed state action will be necessary  to accomplish 96 of the 116 Strategy actions. However, the watershed  states have not committed to the Strategy, and officials from most of  the states told us that they are generally unaware of what federal  agencies may require from them to implement the Strategy. In  addition, we noted in the draft report that most watershed state  officials told us that their bay restoration work is conducted according  to their commitments to the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. The  Strategy recognizes the need to integrate the goals of the  Chesapeake Bay Program with those of the Strategy. We noted in our  draft report that the Federal Leadership Committee and the Bay  Program created an alignment action team in June 2010 to work  toward aligning Strategy restoration efforts with those of the Bay  Program, including Chesapeake 2000 Agreement efforts. 2.  Interior commented that we understated the level of collaboration and  coordination with the states, and it provided information on the Bay  Program structure and meetings through which collaboration takes  place. As we reported, most of the federal officials we surveyed  indicated that a potential lack of collaboration among stakeholders  could reduce the likelihood of achieving Strategy goals and actions.  We did not comment in our draft report on the extent to which the  federal agencies and watershed states collaborated in the  development of the Strategy. We noted in the draft report that the  federal agencies and watershed states are working on bay issues  through the Goal Implementation Teams and that, according to EPA  officials, bay restoration stakeholders plan to use these teams to  refine priorities and areas of programmatic focus, guided by the  Chesapeake 2000 Agreement and the Strategy. 3.  Interior commented that we did not review or take into account the  Strategy chapter describing how the federal agencies propose to  adapt to climate change. In our draft report, we noted that the  Strategy identifies four supporting strategies, including respond to  climate change, and 51 actions associated with these strategies. In  addition, we reported that federal officials told us that effects of   external phenomena, such as climate change, beyond what was  planned for in developing the Strategy could affect the likelihood of  achieving the measurable goals. 4.  Interior disagreed with our recommendation to EPA to work with  federal and state bay restoration stakeholders to establish milestones  for gauging progress toward measurable goals for the entire  restoration effort. Interior further commented that the 12 measurable  goals provide a blueprint for the long-term success of the program. As  we noted in the draft report, the 12 measurable goals contain numeric  descriptions of results to be achieved by 2025. However, these  measurable goals do not provide a blueprint of milestones to be met  prior to 2025 that would allow the agencies to determine whether they  are on track to meet these measurable goals. We agree that 2-year  milestones can contribute to an adaptive management approach, and  as we noted in the draft report, a blueprint of milestones for the entire  restoration effort can allow the agencies to show when the actions are  expected to result in progress toward the measurable goals,  determine whether the actions are having their intended results, and  make changes to these actions as needed. 5.  Interior commented that we did not include information on the Bay  Program’s seven-step adaptive management decision framework. In  response to this comment, we modified the report to include  information about this framework. However, as we note in the report,  this framework was developed for the Bay Program and does not  include clear linkages to the Strategy actions and measurable goals. It  is unclear how it will be used by the Federal Leadership Committee  agencies to adaptively manage Strategy actions and meet Strategy  goals. In August 2011, EPA officials told us that a fully developed  adaptive management process is needed. 6.  Interior commented that the annual progress report is on schedule to  be completed by January 2012 and that the Council on Environmental  Quality and Office of Management and Budget approved an outline for  the report on August 12, 2011. According to an EPA official, the  outline that Interior refers to in its comments did not address what  performance information will be collected. We continue to believe that  plans for the annual progress report are not fully developed.  7.  Interior commented that a Bay Program team is working to improve  the Bay Barometer publication, which reports on the overall health of  the bay. We noted in our draft report that there are two groups that  plan to assess bay health. The Federal Leadership Committee will  review indicators of environmental conditions in the bay through its  annual progress report, and the Bay Program will report on bay health  and restoration efforts through its Bay Barometer. As we reported, the  content of the next Bay Barometer report has not yet been  determined, and it is unclear if the groups will assess the same or  different indicators of progress.
section_title: Appendix VIII: Comments from the State of New York
section_title: Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Barbara Patterson, Assistant  Director; Lucas Alvarez; Elizabeth Beardsley; Mark Braza; Russ Burnett;  David Dornisch; Lina Khan; Marietta Mayfield Revesz; Ben Shouse; Kiki  Theodoropoulos; and Michelle K. Treistman made significant  contributions to this report. Elizabeth H. Curda and Kim S. Frankena also  made important contributions to this report.