Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Needed to Better Guide Restoration Efforts
Published: 2006-07-13T00:00:00

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 Chesapeake Bay. The partnership's most recent agreement, Chesapeake 2000, sets out an agenda and 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 appropriate measures for assessing restoration progress have been established, (2) the extent to which current reporting mechanisms clearly and accurately describe the bay's overall health, (3) how much funding was provided for the effort for fiscal years 1995 through 2004, and (4) how effectively the effort is being coordinated and managed.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Bay Program had developed over 100 measures to assess progress toward meeting certain restoration commitments and providing information to guide management decisions. However, the program had not yet developed an integrated approach that would allow it to translate these individual measures into an assessment of overall progress toward achieving the five broad restoration goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000. For example, while the Bay Program 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 the agreement's goal of protecting and restoring the bay's living resources. In response to GAO's recommendation, the Bay Program adopted an initial integrated approach in January 2006. The State of the Chesapeake Bay reports did not provide effective and credible information on the current health status of the bay. Because these reports focused on individual trends for certain living resources and pollutants, it was not easy for the public to determine what these data collectively said about the overall health status of the bay. The credibility of these reports had been undermined because the program had commingled actual monitoring data with results of program actions and a predictive model, and the latter two tended to downplay the deteriorated conditions of the bay. Moreover, the Bay Program's reports were prepared by the same program staff who were responsible for managing the restoration effort, which led to reports that projected a rosier picture of the bay's health than may have been warranted. In response to GAO's recommendation, the program has developed a new reporting format and plans to have the new report independently assessed. 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 other federal and state programs for activities that indirectly contributed to the restoration effort. 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. Although the program had adopted 10 key commitments to focus the partners' efforts and had developed numerous planning documents, some of these documents were inconsistent with each other or were perceived as unachievable by program partners. In response to GAO's recommendation, the Bay Program is currently developing a Web-based system to unify its various planning documents and has adopted a funding priority framework. These actions, while important, fall short of the strategy recommended by GAO.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to participate in your oversight hearing of  the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. 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.
My testimony today is based on GAO’s October 2005 report on the  Chesapeake Bay restoration effort and addresses (1) the extent to which  the Bay Program has established appropriate measures for assessing  restoration progress, (2) the extent to which the reporting mechanisms the  Bay Program uses clearly and accurately describe the bay’s overall health,  (3) how much funding was provided 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 is being  coordinated and managed.
In summary, we found the following:    The Bay Program had established over 100 measures to assess trends  in various living resources such as oysters and crabs, and pollutants  such as nitrogen and phosphorus. However, the program had not yet  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 Chesapeake Bay Program Office  develop such an approach that would allow the program to combine its  individual measures into a few broader-scale measures that could then  be used to assess key ecosystem attributes and present an overall  assessment of this complex ecosystem restoration project. In response  to our recommendation, the Bay Program has developed an initial  approach, but more work is still needed before a fully integrated  approach for assessing restoration progress can be implemented.
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 believe that the Bay  Program reports projected a rosier picture of the health of the bay than  may have been warranted. In response to our recommendation to  clarify how it reports on the health of the bay and management actions  to restore the bay, the Bay Program has developed a new reporting  format that separately describes the bay’s current health and the  progress made in implementing management actions. In addition, the  Bay Program plans to have its Scientific and Technical Advisory  Committee provide an independent assessment of the new reports.  This assessment is scheduled to be completed by late summer.
About $3.7 billion in direct funding was provided for the restoration  effort by 11 key federal agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania,  and Virginia; and the District of Columbia from fiscal years 1995  through 2004. An additional $1.9 billion was provided for activities that  had an indirect impact on bay restoration.
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. Although the Bay Program had developed  numerous planning documents, some of the 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  recognize that the Bay Program often has no assurance about the level  of funds that may be available beyond the short term, 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 recommendation to develop a  comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy, the Bay Program  is developing a Web-based approach that will unify its various planning  documents and adopted a funding priority framework. However, the  program has not yet developed a comprehensive implementation  strategy that reflects what can realistically be accomplished given  available resources. We continue to believe that such a strategy is  needed for the program to move forward in a more strategic and well- coordinated manner.
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, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; the 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. Subsequent agreements in  1987 and again in 1992 reaffirmed the signatories’ commitment to restore  the bay. 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 loadings for 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’s Measures Had Not Been Integrated to Assess Overall Restoration Progress
paragraphs: The Bay Program had established 101 measures to assess progress on  individual aspects of the Bay. 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 had  also developed other measures to provide the information it needs to  make management decisions. For example, to help inform its decisions  regarding the effects of airborne nitrogen compounds and chemical  contaminants in the bay ecosystem and to help establish reduction goals  for these contaminants, the Bay Program had a measure to estimate  vehicle emissions and compare them to vehicle miles traveled.
While the Bay Program had established these 101 measures, 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.
The signatories to the Chesapeake Bay agreement have discussed the need  for an integrated approach over the past several years. However,  according to an official from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, until  recently they did not believe that the program could develop an approach  that was scientifically defensible, given their limited resources. 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 report, we  recommended that the Chesapeake Bay Program Office complete its  efforts to develop and implement such an integrated approach. In January  2006, the Bay Program formally adopted an initial integrated approach for  assessing both bay health and management actions taken to restore the  bay. However, according to a Bay Program official, more work is needed  before a fully integrated approach for assessing restoration progress can  be implemented.
section_title: The Bay Program’s Reports Did Not Effectively Communicate the Status of the Bay’s Health
paragraphs: The Bay Program’s primary mechanism for reporting on the health status  of the bay—the State of the Chesapeake Bay report—was intended to  provide the citizens of the bay region with a snapshot of the bay’s health.  However, our review found that the State of the Chesapeake Bay report  did not effectively communicate the current health status of the bay  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 depicts oyster harvest levels at historic lows, with a mostly  decreasing trend over time, and a rockfish graphic that shows a generally  increasing population trend over time. However, the report did not provide  contextual information that explained how these measures are  interrelated or what the diverging trends meant about the overall health of  the bay. Our experts 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 results  of specific management actions. 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 believe that an independent review  panel—to either review the bay’s health reports before issuance or to  analyze and report on the health status independently of the Bay  Program—would significantly improve the credibility of the program’s  reports. We recommended that the Chesapeake Bay Program Office revise  its reporting approach to improve the effectiveness and credibility of its  reports. In response to our recommendation, the Bay Program developed a  new reporting format that was released for public review and comment in  March 2006. The new report, entitled Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and  Restoration Assessment, is divided into two parts: part one is an  assessment of ecosystem health and part two is an assessment of progress  made in implementing management actions. The new report appears to  have a more effective communications framework and clearly  distinguishes between the health of the bay and the management actions  being taken. In addition, the Bay Program plans to have its Scientific and  Technical Advisory Committee independently review the new report and  the process used to develop it. This review is planned for completion by  late summer.
section_title: Federal Agencies and States Provided Billions of Dollars in Both Direct and Indirect Funding for Restoration Activities
paragraphs: Eleven key federal agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and  Virginia; and the District of Columbia provided almost $3.7 billion in direct  funding from fiscal years 1995 through 2004 to restore the bay. 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 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)
Ten of the key federal agencies, Pennsylvania, and the District of  Columbia provided about $1.9 billion in additional funding from fiscal  years 1995 through 2004 for activities that indirectly affected 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 the 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 has been provided for activities 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.
section_title: The Bay Program Has Not Always Effectively Coordinated and Managed the Restoration Effort
paragraphs: Chesapeake 2000 and prior agreements have provided the overall  direction for the restoration effort over the past two decades. Although  Chesapeake 2000 provides the current vision and overall strategic goals  for the restoration effort, along with short- and long-term commitments,  we found that 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 are 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 appear to contradict the  effort’s guiding strategy of taking a cooperative approach to achieving the  restoration goals.
We also found that the Bay Program 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 is unclear to us why the program is investing additional resources to  revise a plan for which the necessary implementation resources are not  available, and which is 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 is limited in its ability to target and  direct funding toward those restoration activities that will be the most cost  effective and beneficial.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Office recognizes that some of the plans are  inconsistent and unachievable. The office told us that it was determining  how to reconcile the program’s various plans and stated that these plans  were developed to identify what actions will be needed to achieve the  commitments of Chesapeake 2000 and were not developed considering  available resources. The office also recognizes that there is a fundamental  gap between what needs to be done to achieve some of the commitments  and what can be achieved within the current resources available.  According to Chesapeake Bay Program Office officials, the development of  an overall implementation plan that takes into account available resources  had been discussed, but that the partners could not agree on such a plan.  We recommended that the Chesapeake Bay Program Office develop a  comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy that takes into  account available resources.
In response to our recommendations, the Bay Program has taken several  actions. The Chesapeake Bay Program Office is currently developing a  Web-based system to link and organize the program’s various planning  documents. In addition, program partners adopted a funding priorities  framework in October 2005 that designates three broad funding  priorities—agriculture, wastewater treatment, and developed and  developing lands—for accelerating the implementation of the states’  tributary strategies. While these actions are important, they fall short of  the comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy we  recommended. The program still needs to reconcile the inconsistencies of  the program’s various planning documents and clearly link the 10 keystone  commitments with the funding priority framework adopted by program  partners. We continue to believe that the development of a  comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy that lays out what  the program plans to accomplish and that is directly linked to the funding  that is available would allow the program to move forward in a more  strategic and well-coordinated manner.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, it is well recognized that restoring the  Chesapeake Bay is a massive, difficult, and complex undertaking. While  the Bay Program has made significant strides, our October 2005 report  documented how the success of the program has 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 have 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 limited resources should be prioritized. We are  encouraged that the Bay Program is taking actions to address our  recommendations because, without these actions, we do not believe the  Bay Program will be able to change the status quo and move the  restoration effort forward in the most cost-effective manner.
Mr. Chairman, 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: For further information about this testimony, please contact Anu Mittal at  (202) 512-3841. Other individuals making significant contributions to this  testimony were Sherry McDonald, Assistant Director; Bart Fischer; and  James Krustapentus.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.