Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress
Published: 2005-10-28T00:00:00

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 EPA agreed to establish a partnership to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Their most recent agreement, Chesapeake 2000, sets out an agenda and five broad goals to guide these efforts through 2010 and contains 102 commitments that the partners agreed to accomplish. GAO was asked to examine (1) the extent to which appropriate measures for assessing restoration progress have been established, (2) the extent to which current reporting mechanisms clearly and accurately describe the bay's overall health, (3) how much funding was provided for the effort for fiscal years 1995 through 2004, and (4) how effectively the effort is being coordinated and managed.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Bay Program has over 100 measures to assess progress toward meeting certain restoration commitments and providing information to guide management decisions. However, the program has not yet developed an integrated approach that would allow it to translate these individual measures into an assessment of overall progress toward achieving the five broad restoration goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000. For example, while the Bay Program has appropriate measures to track crab, oyster, and rockfish populations, it does not have an approach for integrating the results of these measures to assess progress toward the agreement's goal of protecting and restoring the bay's living resources. The Bay Program has recognized that it may need an integrated approach for assessing overall progress in restoring the bay and, in November 2004, a task force began working on this effort. The State of the Chesapeake Bay reports are the Bay Program's primary mechanism for reporting the current health status of the bay. However, these reports do not effectively communicate the bay's current conditions because they focus on the status of individual species or pollutants instead of providing information on a core set of ecosystem characteristics. Moreover, the credibility of these reports has been negatively impacted because the program has commingled various kinds of data such as monitoring data, results of program actions, and the results of its predictive model without clearly distinguishing among them. As a result, the public cannot easily determine whether the health of the bay is improving or not. Moreover, the lack of independence in the Bay Program's reporting process has led to negative trends being downplayed and a rosier picture of the bay's health being reported than may have been warranted. The program has recognized that improvements are needed and is developing new reporting formats. From fiscal years 1995 through 2004, the restoration effort received about $3.7 billion in direct funding from 11 key federal agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the District of Columbia. These funds were used for activities that supported water quality protection and restoration, sound land use, vital habitat protection and restoration, living resource protection and restoration, and stewardship and community engagement. During this time period, the restoration effort also received an additional $1.9 billion in indirect funding. The Bay Program does not have a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy to better enable it to achieve the goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000. Although the program has adopted 10 key commitments to focus partners' efforts and developed plans to achieve them, some of these plans are inconsistent with each other or are perceived as unachievable by program partners. The limited assurances about the availability of resources beyond the short term further complicate the Bay Program's ability to effectively coordinate restoration efforts and strategically manage its resources.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Recognized by Congress as a national treasure, the Chesapeake Bay is the  nation’s largest estuary, with its watershed spanning 64,000 square miles,  including parts of six states and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake  Bay is also biologically diverse, providing habitat for more than 3,600  species of plants, fish, and shellfish. With the highest land-to-water ratio of  any estuary in the world, the bay is particularly susceptible to activities that  take place on surrounding lands. For example, urban sprawl significantly  affects the bay’s ecosystem. From 1950 to 2000, the population in the  watershed nearly doubled, from just over 8 million to nearly 16 million.  By  2020, it is estimated that the population in the bay’s watershed will reach  approximately 18 million.
Concerns about the bay’s overall health surfaced as early as the 1930s.   Signs of deterioration in the bay’s condition—declines in water clarity,  oyster populations, and underwater grasses that provide habitat for  shellfish—became even more apparent in the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1970s  and early 1980s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that  excess nutrients from agricultural development, population growth, and  discharges from sewage treatment plants were the primary causes for the  decline in the bay’s condition.
Responding to the public outcry about the degraded state of the  Chesapeake Bay, the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the  District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission—a tristate  legislative assembly representing Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and  EPA agreed in 1983 to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.  Their  agreement established the Chesapeake Executive Council and resulted in  the Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay Program) a partnership that directs and  conducts the restoration of the bay. The Bay Program currently includes  partners at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as academic  institutions and nonprofit organizations. EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program  Office provides support to the Chesapeake Executive Council and, among  other things, is responsible for developing and providing information on  the environmental quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay  ecosystem. In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office is responsible  for coordinating EPA’s activities with other federal agencies and state and  local authorities participating in the restoration effort.
Subsequent agreements in 1987, 1992, and 2000 reaffirmed the signatories’  commitment to bay restoration. The most recent, Chesapeake 2000,  envisions a Chesapeake Bay watershed that includes abundant, diverse  populations of living resources and healthy, clean streams and rivers that  can sustain strong local and regional economies. Chesapeake 2000— identified by the Bay Program as its strategic plan—sets out an agenda and  goals to guide the restoration and protection efforts through 2010 and  beyond. In Chesapeake 2000, the signatories agreed to 102 commitments— including management actions, such as assessing trends of particular  species, as well as actions that directly affect the health of the bay. These  commitments are organized under the following five broad restoration  goals:  Protecting and restoring living resources—14 commitments to restore,  enhance, and protect the finfish, shellfish and other living resources,  their habitats and ecological relationships to sustain all fisheries and  provide for a balanced ecosystem;   Protecting and restoring vital habitats—18 commitments to preserve,  protect, and restore those habitats and natural areas that are vital to the  survival and diversity of the living resources of the bay and its rivers;    Protecting and restoring water quality—19 commitments to achieve  and maintain the water quality necessary to support the aquatic living  resources of the bay and its tributaries and to protect human health;    Sound land use—28 commitments to develop, promote, and achieve  sound land use practices that protect and restore watershed resources  and water quality, maintain reduced pollutant loadings for the bay and  its tributaries, and restore and preserve aquatic living resources; and    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.
Over time, the Bay Program has been lauded as a model for  intergovernmental cooperation and for its extensive studies on the bay and  its problems. Recently, however, the Bay Program has come under  increasing scrutiny as some have questioned whether the Bay Program has  overstated the progress made in restoring the bay’s health.
In this context, you asked us to examine (1) the extent to which the Bay  Program has established appropriate measures for assessing restoration  progress, (2) the extent to which the reporting mechanisms the Bay  Program uses clearly and accurately describe the bay’s overall health, (3)  how much funding was provided for restoring the Chesapeake Bay for  fiscal years 1995 through 2004 and for what purposes, and (4) how  effectively the restoration effort is being coordinated and managed.
To determine the extent to which the Bay Program has established  appropriate measures for assessing progress and clearly and accurately  reporting on the bay’s health, we obtained and analyzed documents on  measures the Bay Program uses to assess progress in restoring the bay’s  health, and we reviewed Bay Program reports. In addition, we convened a  panel of nationally recognized ecosystem assessment and restoration  experts. The panel discussed (1) critical elements of an effective  assessment process, (2) how progress in restoring an ecosystem should be  assessed, and (3) key attributes of effective reports on ecosystem  health. To determine the amount of funding provided for the restoration  effort from fiscal years 1995 through 2004, we obtained and analyzed  financial information from key federal agencies, Maryland, Pennsylvania,  Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Key federal agencies were identified  as those that participated in Chesapeake Bay Program committees or that  provided more than $250,000 annually, on average, in direct funding. For  the purposes of this report, we defined direct funds as those that are  provided exclusively for bay restoration activities (e.g., increasing the  oyster population) or those that would no longer be made available in the  absence of the restoration effort. To determine how effectively the  restoration effort is being coordinated and managed, we obtained and  analyzed planning documents and agreements from Bay Program  partners. In addition, to address all of our objectives, we interviewed a  wide range of program partners, including representatives of federal, state,  and local agencies; the Chesapeake Bay Commission; interest groups, such  as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay;  and academia. We also interviewed nonpartner groups, such as the  Maryland Watermen’s Association. In addition, we reviewed associated  studies. A more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and  methodology is presented in appendix I. We performed our work between  October 2004 and October 2005 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
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 and, with its  tributaries, the bay covers more than 4,500 square miles. However, the bay  is relatively shallow, averaging only 21 feet deep. Roughly half of the bay’s  water comes from the Atlantic Ocean, and the other half is freshwater that  drains from the land and enters the bay through its many rivers and streams  in the watershed basin. The Susquehanna River, which flows through  Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania, provides about 50 percent of the  freshwater that enters the bay.  As shown in figure 1, the bay’s watershed  covers 64,000 square miles and spans parts of six states—Delaware,  Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia—and the  District of Columbia.
The Chesapeake Bay is also biologically diverse, providing habitat for a  wide variety of fish, shellfish, other animals, and plants. Blue crab, ducks,  herring, oysters, shad, and striped bass are just some of the resources that  live in or on the bay.
Over time, the bay’s ecosystem has deteriorated. The bay’s “dead zones”— where too little oxygen is available to support fish and shellfish—have  increased, and many species of fish and shellfish have experienced major  declines in population. The deterioration has occurred primarily because of  excess amounts of nutrients entering the bay, which damage species and  plant populations; the single largest source of these pollutants is  agricultural runoff. Overharvesting key species, such as oysters and crabs,  has also contributed to the deterioration of the ecosystem. In addition,  population growth and development have further stressed the ecosystem.   For example, in the past decade, the amount of land in the watershed  covered by impervious surfaces—surfaces through which water cannot  flow—increased by about 41 percent, increasing the amount of polluted  runoff that enters into streams and rivers and eventually runs into the bay.  With a very high land-to-water ratio, the bay is particularly sensitive to  activities on land. Figure 2 shows some of the land activities that contribute  to pollution in the bay’s ecosystem.
The decline in the bay’s living resources has been cause for a great deal of  public and political attention. Efforts to manage the bay’s ecosystem and  protect its living resources began as early as the 1930s and have continued  through the present. In 1980, Maryland and Virginia, later joined by  Pennsylvania, established the Chesapeake Bay Commission to serve as an  advisory body on the Chesapeake Bay to their state legislatures and as a  liaison to Congress. On December 9, 1983, the Governors of Maryland and  Virginia; the Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania; the Mayor of the District  of Columbia; the Administrator of EPA; and the Chair of the Chesapeake  Bay Commission signed the first Chesapeake Bay agreement. Their  agreement resulted in the Chesapeake Bay Program, a partnership that  directs and conducts the restoration of the bay. The signatories to the  agreement reaffirmed their commitment to restore the bay in 1987 and  again in 1992. They signed the most current agreement, Chesapeake 2000,  on June 28, 2000.
Chesapeake 2000 envisions an ecosystem with abundant, diverse  populations of living resources fed by healthy streams and rivers that  sustain strong local and regional economies and a unique quality of life.   The agreement has served as the Bay Program’s strategic plan, and it  outlines five broad goals and 102 commitments for the restoration effort.   Appendix II lists the goals and commitments outlined in Chesapeake 2000.
The Bay Program, led by the Chesapeake Executive Council, has many  partners, including federal agencies, states, academic institutions, and  others (see app. III for a list of partners). While the Chesapeake Bay  Program is a voluntary partnership among the states and the federal  government, some activities of the Chesapeake Bay Program are  implemented to meet the requirements of federal or state law. For example,  the responsibility to establish water quality standards is both a  commitment under the Chesapeake 2000 agreement and a requirement  under the federal Clean Water Act.
The Bay Program has seven committees and eight subcommittees, which  form the organizational and planning structure for the restoration effort. In  addition, the subcommittees have many work groups that plan and  implement various aspects of the restoration effort. The organizational  structure of the Bay Program is shown in figure 3.
As the only federal signatory to the Chesapeake Bay agreements, EPA is  responsible for spearheading the federal effort within the Bay Program  through its Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Amendments to the Clean  Water Act direct the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to provide support to  the Chesapeake Executive Council. Specifically, the Chesapeake Bay  Program Office is to, among other things,  develop and make available information about the environmental  quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;   in cooperation with appropriate federal, state, and local authorities, help  the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay agreement develop and  implement specific plans to carry out their responsibilities; and  coordinate EPA’s actions with those of other appropriate entities to  develop strategies to improve the water quality and living resources in  the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
In addition, the Administrator of EPA, in coordination with other members  of the Chesapeake Executive Council, must ensure that management plans  are developed and that the signatories implement the plans to achieve and  maintain, among other things, (1) the nutrient goals for the quantity of  nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed  and (2) the water quality requirements necessary to restore living resources  in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The amendments to the Clean Water Act  also directed the Administrator of EPA to submit a report to Congress  every 5 years on the condition of the bay’s ecosystem.
section_title: The Bay Program’s Measures Have Not Been Integrated to Assess Overall Restoration Progress
paragraphs: Although the Bay Program has established 101 measures, it has not yet  developed an integrated approach that would allow it to translate these  individual measures into an assessment of overall progress toward  achieving the five broad restoration goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000.  Instead, the Bay Program’s measures either assess progress toward  achieving the restoration commitments that are quantifiable or provide  information for making management decisions. The Bay Program has  recognized that it may need an integrated approach to assess the overall  progress of the restoration effort and established a task team to undertake  this effort.
subsections: section_title: The Bay Program Has Established 101 Measures for Some of its Commitments
paragraphs: The Bay Program has established 101 measures, of which 46 are  appropriate for assessing progress made in achieving 18 of the 21  quantifiable commitments contained in Chesapeake 2000. The number of  measures associated with each of these commitments varies; the more  complex the assessment the more measures the Bay Program has  developed and uses to assess progress. For example, assessing progress  toward the commitment of correcting the nutrient- and sediment-related  problems in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2010 under the  Water Quality Protection and Restoration goal is complex, requiring the  measurement of several pollutants and various aspects of water quality.   The Bay Program uses 17 measures to assess progress for this  commitment. In contrast, it is less complex to assess the commitment  under the Sound Land Use goal to, by 2010, expand by 30 percent the  system of public access points to the bay, its tributaries, and related  resource sites in an environmentally sensitive manner. For this  commitment, the Bay Program uses only one measure to track the number  of new and enhanced public access sites within the Chesapeake Bay  watershed. According to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, because no  other restoration effort had developed measures that they could use, the  program had to develop nearly all of the underlying science and  methodologies for their measures. In addition, to ensure the  appropriateness of these measures, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office  requires a rigorous review of all of the measures before they are adopted.  For the most part, our expert panel agreed that the Bay Program has  established appropriate measures to assess specific aspects of the  restoration effort. Several members of the Bay Program’s Scientific and  Technical Advisory Committee echoed this view.
The remaining three quantifiable commitments, for which the Bay Program  has not yet established any measures, include the following:  By 2010, establish a goal of implementing plans to preserve key  wetlands while addressing surrounding land use in 25 percent of the  land area of each state’s bay watershed.
By 2010, the District of Columbia, working with its watershed partners,  will reduce pollution loads to the Anacostia River in order to eliminate  public health concerns and achieve the living resource, water quality,  and habitat goals of Chesapeake 2000 and past agreements.
By 2003, develop partnerships with at least 30 interpretive sites to  enhance their presentation of bay-related themes.
The Bay Program has also developed 55 other measures to provide  information it needs to make management decisions.  For example, under  the Water Quality Protection and Restoration goal, the Bay Program has  made a commitment to assess the effects of airborne nitrogen compounds  and chemical contaminants in the bay ecosystem and to help establish  reduction goals for these contaminants. To help inform decision making for  this commitment, the Bay Program has a measure for estimated vehicle  emissions compared with vehicle miles traveled.  In addition, for the  commitment under the Living Resource Protection and Restoration goal  to restore fish passage to more than 1,357 miles of river, the Bay Program  has two measures that provide information about fish population levels.   The Bay Program also uses three measures—the number of residents in the  Chesapeake Bay watershed, the relationship between this population and  the amount of municipal wastewater flow, and the volume of river water  flowing into the Chesapeake Bay—to track general information about the  Chesapeake Bay watershed.
section_title: The Bay Program Lacks an Integrated Approach for Assessing Progress Toward Goals
paragraphs: While the Bay Program has established measures to assess progress made  in meeting some of the individual commitments of Chesapeake 2000, it has  not developed an approach that can be used to assess progress toward  achieving the five broad restoration goals. For example, the Bay Program  has measures for determining  trends in individual fish and shellfish populations, such as crabs,  oysters, and rockfish, but it has not yet devised a way to integrate those  measures to assess the overall progress made in achieving its Living  Resource Protection and Restoration goal;   the acres of bay grasses in the bay, the acres of wetlands restored, and  the miles of forest buffers restored, but it has not developed an  approach for integrating those measures to assess the overall progress  made in achieving its Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration goal;  and     attributes of water quality—such as levels of dissolved oxygen, water  clarity, and chlorophyll a—but has not developed an approach for  combining these measures to determine progress toward achieving its  goal of Water Quality Protection and Restoration.
According to our expert panel, in a complex ecosystem restoration project  like the Chesapeake Bay, overall progress should be assessed by using an  integrated approach. This approach should combine measures that provide  information on individual species or pollutants into a few broader scale  measures that can be used to assess key ecosystem attributes, such as  biological conditions. One such framework was developed in 2002 by EPA’s  Science Advisory Board and can serve as a tool to assist Bay Program  officials in deciding what ecological attributes to measure and how to  aggregate measurements into an understandable picture of ecological  integrity.
In developing such an approach, the Bay Program also faces the challenge  of finding a way to incorporate the results achieved in implementing the 81  nonquantifiable commitments contained in Chesapeake 2000 with the  results achieved in implementing the 21 quantifiable commitments. For  example, under the Water Quality Protection and Restoration goal, the  Bay Program has a nonquantifiable commitment to reduce the potential  risk of pesticides flowing into the bay by educating watershed residents on  best management practices for pesticide use. Not only does the Bay  Program currently have no method for measuring the progress made on  this commitment, but it also has no approach for integrating these results  with the results of the other 19 commitments listed under the water quality  goal. Consequently, the program cannot currently assess the progress made  in meeting the water quality goal.
According to an official from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, it is  difficult to assess progress made in restoring an ecosystem that is as  scientifically complex as the bay. The official also noted that the partners  have discussed the need for an integrated approach over the past several  years but have disagreed on whether the Bay Program could develop an  approach that is scientifically defensible, given their limited resources.   Recently, however, the partners are more optimistic that an integrated  approach can be developed that will provide a clearer sense of the overall  health of the bay, as well as restoration progress.
In November 2004, a Bay Program task force began an effort to develop,  among other things, a framework for organizing the Bay Program’s  measures and proposed a structure for how the redesign work would be  accomplished by the Bay Program’s subcommittees. The Bay Program’s  Implementation Committee adopted this framework in April 2005. In July  2005, the Bay Program’s Monitoring and Analysis Subcommittee created a  work group to head this effort. The Bay Program plans to have an initial  integrated approach developed by January 2006.
section_title: The Bay Program’s Reports Do Not Effectively Communicate the Status of the Bay’s Health
paragraphs: Mirroring the shortcomings in the program’s measures, the Bay Program’s  primary mechanism for reporting on the health status of the bay—the State  of the Chesapeake Bay report—does not provide an effective or credible  assessment on the bay’s current health status. This is because these reports  (1) focus on individual species and pollutants instead of providing an  overall assessment of the bay’s health, (2) commingle data on the bay’s  health attributes with program actions, and (3) lack an independent review  process. As a result, when these reports are issued, they do not provide  information in a manner that would allow the public and stakeholders to  easily determine how effective program activities have been in improving  the health of the bay. The Bay Program has recognized that improvements  in its current reporting approach are needed and is developing new  reporting formats that it hopes will more clearly describe the bay’s current  health and the status of the restoration effort.
subsections: section_title: Bay Program Reports Do Not Effectively Communicate the Current Health Status of the Bay
paragraphs: The State of the Chesapeake Bay report has been issued approximately  every 2 to 4 years since 1984 and is intended to provide the citizens of the  bay region with a snapshot of the bay’s health.The Bay Program included  the 2002 report as part of its required report to Congress on the status of  the bay in 2003. However, the State of the Chesapeake Bay report does not  effectively communicate the current health status of the bay because  instead of providing information on a core set of ecosystem characteristics  it focuses on the status of individual species or pollutants. For example:   The 2002 and 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay reports provided data  on oysters, crab, rockfish, and bay grasses, but the reports did not  provide an overall assessment of the current status of living resources in  the bay or the health of the bay. Instead, these data were reported for  each species individually, with graphics showing current levels as well  as trends over time.
The 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay report shows a graphic that  depicts oyster harvest levels at historic lows, with a mostly decreasing  trend over time, and a rockfish graphic that shows a generally increasing  population trend over time. However, the report does not provide  contextual information that states how these measures are interrelated  or explain what the diverging trends mean about the overall health of  the bay.
The 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay report shows water clarity and  algae trends in the bay’s major tributaries. These data include some  varying trends, but the report provides no context for how these trends  relate to one another or what the data show, collectively, about the  overall health of the bay.
According to our expert panel, effective reports on the health of an  ecosystem should contain information on key ecological attributes— derived from a broader set of indicators that portray ecosystem conditions.  The State of the Chesapeake Bay report, however, does not provide such an  overall assessment of the bay’s health. Instead, our expert panel noted that  the Bay Program has many fine scale indicators that measure individual  aspects within the ecosystem, such as the oyster population or nutrient  concentrations. While the expert panel agreed that the 2004 report was  visually pleasing, they thought that it lacked a clear, overall picture of the  bay’s health. They noted that without an overall assessment of the bay’s  health, the public would probably not be able to easily and accurately  assess the current condition of the bay from the information reported.
section_title: Bay Program Reports Lack Credibility
paragraphs: The credibility of the State of the Chesapeake Bay reports has been  undermined by two key factors. First, the Bay Program has commingled  data from three sources when reporting on the health of the bay.  Specifically, the reports mix information on the bay’s health status with  results from a predictive model and the results of specific management  actions. The latter two results do little to inform readers about the current  health status of the bay and tend to downplay the bay’s actual condition.  Second, the Bay Program has not established an independent review  process to ensure the objectivity and accuracy of its reports. According to  our expert panel, establishing such a process would significantly improve  the credibility of the Bay Program’s reports.
subsections: section_title: Bay Program Commingles Data on the Bay’s Health with Other Data
paragraphs: The Bay Program uses the following three kinds of data when preparing the  State of the Chesapeake Bay reports:   Monitoring data describe the actual status of individual species or  pollutants in the bay, such as the number of acres of bay grasses or the  concentration of nutrients in the tributaries. Generally, these data tend  to show a more negative picture of bay health. For example, monitoring  data on the blue crab population show that this population is at risk,  with below-average levels in all but 2 years since 1991. Similarly, water  clarity, which is critical to the health of underwater grasses that provide  important habitat for many bay animals, is degrading in 17 areas in the  bay and its tributaries, improving in only 1 area, and unchanged in 22  areas. In addition, while trends in the number of acres of bay grasses  and dissolved oxygen levels have held relatively constant, the rockfish  population has generally increased.
Data on management actions include information on the extent to  which the Bay Program has met its management commitments, such  as the number of wetland acres that have been restored and the miles  of forest buffers that have been established.  Generally, these data  tend to be more positive. For example, the 2004 State of the  Chesapeake Bay reported that the program is over half way toward  meeting its commitment to restore 25,000 acres of wetlands by  2010. In addition, the miles of forest buffers restored have increased  every year since 1996. These actions are important because they  contribute to the bay’s health in the long term. However, they do not  immediately affect the bay’s health and do not describe its current  health condition.
Results from the Bay Program’s predictive model provide estimates  of the long-term effect that certain management actions may have in  reducing nutrient and sediment loads in the bay. The results from the  predictive model are estimates and also tend to depict a positive  picture. For example, because the model results indicate that  loadings of phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment have all been  reduced since 1985, the 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay reported  that phosphorus loading decreased from approximately 27 million  pounds per year to less than 20 million pounds per year by  2002. These statements, however, are based on estimates from the  model and are not based on actual monitoring data of phosphorus  concentrations in the bay. While the modeling results provide  important forecast data on future impacts of various management  actions, these results, like the results of management actions, do not  describe the actual health conditions of the bay.
Even though only one of these three types of data describe actual health  conditions in the bay, all three types of data are commingled in the Bay  Program’s State of the Chesapeake Bay reports. For example, in the 2002  report, the Bay Program reported an increase in the number of river miles  opened for migratory fish, which is the result of a management action; in  the same section, it also reported a decrease in the oyster population,  which is an important factor in determining the bay’s health. Similarly, on  a two-page spread in the 2004 report, the Bay Program presented  monitoring data on five health indicators and information on three  management indicators; the report also includes model results indicating  improvements in nitrogen loadings.
We believe that by commingling the data in this manner, the Bay Program  not only downplays the deteriorated condition of the bay but also confuses  the reader by mixing information that is relevant with information that is  irrelevant to understanding the current condition of the bay. Our expert  panel agreed that a key attribute that influences the credibility of reports  on ecosystem health is whether they contain relevant information. Our  expert panel also noted that the Bay Program reports are overly oriented to  reporting on the progress of the program’s management actions at the  expense of communicating information on the health status of the bay.  Similarly, while they agreed that models can provide useful information  about the impact of management actions on the future state of an  ecosystem, these results should not be used in a report on actual health  conditions.
Several Bay Program partners that we spoke with also noted that the  reports tend to be unduly positive and have not effectively communicated  the status of the bay’s health. They believe that the reports failed to clearly  distinguish between information on health and progress made in  implementing management initiatives. In addition, several partners told us  that the use of the predictive model to report on the actual health of the bay  is inappropriate because the model forecasts potential outcomes of  management actions and does not represent the actual health conditions of  the bay.
The Bay Program recognizes that improvements in its current reporting  approach are needed. The program is also developing new reporting  formats that it believes will more clearly describe the bay’s current health  and the status of the restoration effort. As part of this effort, the Bay  Program plans to issue separate reports in January and March 2006, one  that would focus on the results of management actions and the other on the  bay’s health status. The Bay Program also believes that their current efforts  to develop an integrated approach for assessing progress will contribute to  their efforts to more effectively report on the bay’s health.
section_title: The Bay Program Lacks an Independent Report Review Process
paragraphs: The credibility of the State of the Chesapeake Bay reports is further  impaired because the Bay Program does not have an independent review  process to ensure that its reports are accurate and credible. The officials  who manage and are responsible for the restoration effort also analyze,  interpret, and report the data to the public. No process currently exists to  involve any other organization or group in this process. For example,  according to a member of the Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical  Advisory Committee, this committee, which has responsibility for  providing scientific and technical advice to the Chesapeake Bay Program,  is not involved in developing the reports and is not part of the review  process. Instead, the reports are developed by the Communications and  Education Subcommittee using data provided by the Monitoring and  Analysis Subcommittee. The reports are then reviewed by representatives  from each of the signatory jurisdictions prior to publication. We believe this  lack of independence in reporting has led to the Bay Program projecting a  rosier view of the health of the bay than may have been warranted.   According to representatives of two of the signatories to the agreement, the  signatories find it advantageous to positively report on the bay’s health,  because positive trends help sustain both political and public interest as  well as support for the effort. Therefore, the Bay Program has an incentive  to present the most positive picture to the public of the progress that has  been made in restoring the bay’s health. Chesapeake Bay Program officials  acknowledged that concerns have been expressed that past reports  projected a rosier view than was warranted. The officials noted that they  believe that the 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay report is less positive  and pointed out that the report states that the bay and its watershed are in  peril.
Our expert panelists believe that an independent review panel—to either  review the bay’s health reports before issuance or to analyze and report on  the health status independently of the Bay Program—would significantly  improve the credibility of the program’s reports. Some program partners  we interviewed also echoed the need for an independent review panel and  stated that it would help improve the Bay Program’s reports. For example,  according to one partner, an independent group with no vested interest in  the outcome of the reports could improve credibility.
section_title: Federal Agencies and States Have Provided Billions of Dollars in Both Direct and Indirect Funding for Restoration Activities
paragraphs: An estimated $3.7 billion in direct funding was provided to restore the  Chesapeake Bay from fiscal years 1995 through 2004.This funding was  provided for such purposes as water quality protection and restoration,  sound land use, vital habitat protection and restoration, living resource  protection and restoration, and stewardship and community engagement.   An additional $1.9 billion in indirect funding was also provided for  activities that affect the restoration effort. These activities are conducted  as part of broader agency efforts and/or would continue without the  restoration effort.
subsections: section_title: Direct 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. As shown in  figure 4, the states typically provided about 75 percent of the direct funding  for restoration, and the funding has generally increased over the 10-year  period.
Federal agencies provided a total of approximately $972 million in direct  funding, while the states and the District of Columbia provided  approximately $2.7 billion in direct funding for the restoration effort over  the 10-year period. Of the federal agencies, the Department of Defense’s  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided the greatest amount of direct  funding. Of the states, Maryland provided the greatest amount of direct  funding—more than $1.8 billion—which is over $1.1 billion more than any  other state. Table 1 shows the amount of direct funding these entities  provided.
The percentage of direct funding provided for each of the five goals in  Chesapeake 2000 varies. The largest percentage of direct funding— approximately 47 percent—went to water quality protection and  restoration. The smallest percentage of direct funding—about 4 percent— was provided for stewardship and community engagement. Figure 5 shows  the percentage of direct funding provided for each of the goals.
section_title: Indirect Funding for Activities That Affect the Restoration Effort
paragraphs: Ten of the key federal agencies, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia  provided about $1.9 billion in additional funding from fiscal years 1995  through 2004 for activities that have an indirect impact on bay restoration.  These activities are conducted as part of broader agency efforts and/or  would continue without the restoration effort. For example, the  Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service  provides funding for programs that assist farmers in implementing  agricultural best management practices. This assistance is part of the  agency’s nationwide efforts and would continue even if the bay restoration  effort did not exist. Similarly, the majority of Pennsylvania’s funding is  included in the total for indirect funding because, while the state’s  restoration efforts are important for restoring the bay, such as reducing  agricultural runoff, bay restoration is not the primary purpose of the  funding.
As with direct funding, indirect funding for the restoration effort has also  generally increased over fiscal years 1995 through 2004. As shown in figure  6, federal agencies typically provided about half of the indirect funding for  the restoration effort.
Federal agencies provided approximately $935 million in indirect funding,  while Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia provided approximately  $991 million in indirect funding for the restoration effort over the 10-year  period. Of the federal agencies, the Department of Agriculture provided the  greatest amount of indirect funding, primarily through the Natural  Resources Conservation Service. Of the states, Pennsylvania provided the  greatest amount of indirect funding. Table 2 shows the amount of indirect  funding these entities provided.
The percentage of indirect funding provided for each of the five goals in  Chesapeake 2000 varies. The largest percentage of indirect funding— approximately 44 percent—went to water quality protection and  restoration. The smallest percentage of indirect funding—approximately 4  percent—went to living resource protection and restoration. Figure 7  shows the percentage of indirect funding that was provided for each of the  five goals.
Appendix V contains additional details on funds obligated for the  restoration of the Chesapeake Bay from fiscal years 1995 through 2004.
Although almost $3.7 billion in direct funding and more than $1.9 billion in  indirect funding has been provided for activities to restore the Chesapeake  Bay, estimates for the amount of funding needed to restore the bay far  surpass these figures. A January 2003 Chesapeake Bay Commission report  estimated that the restoration effort faced a funding gap of nearly $13  billion to achieve the goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000 by 2010. In  addition, the report found that the Water Quality Protection and  Restoration goal faced the largest funding gap. Subsequently, in an October  2004 report to the Chesapeake Executive Council, the Chesapeake Bay  Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel estimated that the restoration effort  is grossly underfunded.The finance panel found that the lack of adequate  funding and implementation has left the bay effort far short of its goals and  recommended that a regional financing authority be created with an initial  capitalization of $15 billion of which $12 billion would come from the  federal government.
In addition to the funding provided for the restoration of the bay, EPA  provided more than $1 billion to Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania  through its Clean Water State Revolving Fund program during fiscal years  1995 through 2004. The states use this funding, along with a required 20  percent match, to capitalize their state revolving funds. The funds provide  low-cost loans or other financial assistance for a wide range of water  quality infrastructure projects and other activities, such as implementing  agricultural best management practices and urban storm water  management. The District of Columbia, which is exempted from  establishing a loan program, received more than $58 million from the  program as grants for water quality projects during the same time period.  Some of the projects funded may contribute to the bay’s restoration. For  example, a $100 million loan was made to Arlington County, Virginia, in  2004 for upgrading a wastewater treatment facility to enhance nutrient  removal.
section_title: The Bay Program Has Not Always Effectively Coordinated and Managed the Restoration Effort
paragraphs: Although Chesapeake 2000 provides the overall vision and strategic goals  for the restoration effort along with short- and long-term commitments, the  Bay Program lacks a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy  that will enable it to achieve the goals laid out in the agreement. Although  the Bay Program has adopted 10 keystone commitments to focus the  partners’ efforts and developed several planning documents, these plans  are sometimes inconsistent with each other. Furthermore, the Bay Program  is limited in its ability to strategically target resources because it has no  assurance about the level of funds that may be available beyond the short  term. According to Bay Program officials, they recognize that inconsistent  strategies have been developed and are currently determining how to  reconcile these various strategies.
subsections: section_title: The Bay Program Lacks a Coordinated Implementation Strategy
paragraphs: Chesapeake 2000 and prior agreements have provided the overall direction  for the restoration effort over the past two decades. However, the Bay  Program generally lacks a comprehensive, coordinated implementation  strategy that could provide a road map for accomplishing the goals outlined  in the agreement. Several Bay Program partners we interviewed expressed  frustration because the Bay Program has not developed a clear, realistic  plan for how it will meet the restoration goals. For example, a signatory to  the Chesapeake Bay agreements noted that while Chesapeake 2000  contains the correct goals and appropriately identifies actions needed to  restore the bay, the Bay Program does not have a plan in place that will  allow the program to meet these goals.  Similarly, a federal partner in the  effort expressed frustration with the Chesapeake Executive Council for not  convening a meeting of partners after the agreement was signed to decide  how to proceed with the restoration effort and for not having a clear,  overall plan for achieving program goals. According to one state partner,  there is no clear strategy for how the restoration goals should be achieved,  and such a strategy is needed to help ensure better progress toward  achieving the Chesapeake 2000 commitments.
Recognizing that it could not effectively manage all 102 commitments  outlined in Chesapeake 2000, in 2003, the Bay Program adopted 10  keystone commitments as a management strategy to focus the partners’  efforts. The program believes that these commitments, if accomplished,  will provide the greatest benefit to the bay. These commitments include the  following:   By 2010, achieve, at a minimum, a tenfold increase in native oysters in  the Chesapeake Bay, based upon a 1994 baseline.
By 2007, revise and implement existing fisheries management plans to  incorporate ecological, social, and economic considerations;  multispecies fisheries management; and ecosystem approaches.
By 2002, implement a strategy to accelerate protection and restoration  of submerged aquatic vegetation beds in areas of critical importance to  the bay's living resources.
By 2010, work with local governments, community groups, and  watershed organizations to develop and implement locally supported  watershed management plans in two-thirds of the bay watershed  covered by the agreement. These plans would address the protection,  conservation, and restoration of stream corridors, riparian forest  buffers, and wetlands for the purposes of improving habitat and water  quality, with collateral benefits for optimizing stream flow and water  supply.
By 2010, achieve a net resource gain by restoring 25,000 acres of tidal  and nontidal wetlands.
Conserve existing forests along all streams and shorelines.
By 2010, correct the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the  Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries sufficiently to remove the bay  and the tidal portions of its tributaries from the list of impaired waters  under the Clean Water Act.
Strengthen programs for land acquisition and preservation within each  state that are supported by funding and target the most valued lands for  protection. Permanently preserve from development 20 percent of the  land area in the watershed by 2010.
By 2012, reduce the rate of harmful sprawl development of forest and  agricultural land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 30 percent  measured as an average over 5 years from the baseline of 1992-97, with  measures and progress reported regularly to the Chesapeake Executive  Council.
Beginning with the class of 2005, provide a meaningful bay or stream  outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before  graduation from high school.
To achieve the 10 keystone commitments, the Bay Program has developed  numerous planning documents, such as subcommittee and work group  plans, state tributary strategies, and species-specific management plans.  These planning documents, however, are not always consistent with each  other. For example, a work group of the Bay Program’s Living Resources  Subcommittee developed a strategy for restoring 25,000 acres of wetlands  by 2010—a commitment under the Vital Habitat Protection and  Restoration goal. This plan, developed in 2000, describes a strategy of  restoring 2,500 acres per year through 2010.  Subsequently, each state  within the bay watershed and the District of Columbia developed a  tributary strategy that describes the actions needed to achieve and  maintain nitrogen and phosphorus load reductions necessary to remove the  bay and its tributaries from the impaired waters list by 2010—a  commitment under the Water Quality Protection and Restoration goal.  In  these strategies, the states describe actions for restoring over 200,000 acres  of wetlands—far exceeding the 25,000 acres that the Bay Program has  developed strategies for restoring. Similarly, a work group of the Nutrient  Subcommittee developed a plan in 2004 to restore at least 10,000 miles of  forest buffers by 2010—a commitment under the Vital Habitat Protection  and Restoration goal. However, the tributary strategies developed by  Pennsylvania and Virginia describe actions to restore a total of about 45,000  miles of forest buffers by 2010—more than four times the amount called for  in the Bay Program’s plan.
While we recognize the partners have the freedom to develop higher targets  than established by the Bay Program, having such varying targets causes  confusion, not only for the partners, but other stakeholders regarding what  actions are actually needed to restore the bay. Moreover, such an approach  appears to contradict the underlying principles of the partnership that was  formed because the partners recognized that a cooperative approach was  needed. According to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, the program  recognizes that inconsistent strategies have been developed and is now  determining how to reconcile these various strategies. The officials also  noted that some strategies, like the tributary strategies, have only recently  been developed and the partners did not realize, until these strategies were  developed, the extent of the additional work that would be required to  meet the water quality commitments in Chesapeake 2000.
section_title: The Bay Program Is Limited in Its Ability to Strategically Target Resources
paragraphs: Since 2000, Bay Program partners have devoted a significant amount of  their limited resources to developing strategies for achieving the  commitments outlined in Chesapeake 2000. However, as various partners  have acknowledged, several of these strategies are either not being used by  the Bay Program or are believed to be unachievable within the 2010 time  frame.
According to a Bay Program official, some work groups have invested  significant resources in developing detailed plans for accomplishing  specific commitments, but after the plans were developed, the program  realized it had no resources available to implement the plans.  For example,  the Toxics Subcommittee invested significant resources to develop a  detailed toxics work plan for achieving the toxics commitments in  Chesapeake 2000. Even though the Bay Program has not been able to  implement this work plan as planned because personnel and funding have  not been available, program officials told us that the plan is currently being  revised. It is unclear to us why the program is investing additional  resources to revise this plan when the necessary resources are not  available to implement it, and it is not one of the keystone commitments.  According to the Chair of the Toxics Subcommittee, the work groups are  generally responsible for developing strategies for achieving the  commitments in Chesapeake 2000 without knowing what level of  resources will be available to implement the strategies. Strategies are often  developed in this way because, according to a Bay Program official, while  they know how much each partner has agreed to provide for the upcoming  year, they do not know how much funding partners will provide in the  future. This funding challenge was recognized by the Chesapeake Bay  Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel, which reported that no summary  cost of all needed restoration activities is available. The panel also noted  that the lack of adequate funding and implementation has left the Bay  Program far short of its goals. Without knowing what funding will be  available to accomplish restoration activities, the Bay Program is limited in  its ability to target and direct funding toward those restoration activities  that will be the most cost effective and beneficial.
The Bay Program has also spent a significant amount of resources  developing strategies that some partners believe are unachievable. For  example, the Bay Program has developed an oyster management plan for  its commitment to achieve, by 2010, a tenfold increase in oysters, based  upon a 1994 baseline. Maryland and Virginia have also developed state- specific plans for implementing the strategies laid out in the oyster  management plans. Although the Bay Program has developed these  detailed strategies and implementation plans, it also states in the oyster  management plan that it will be unlikely to achieve the commitment  because of low abundance, degraded habitat, and disease. Several partners  also told us that they believe that the oyster commitment will be impossible  to achieve. Similarly, states have spent years developing tributary  strategies, but several Bay Program partners have told us that these  strategies are not feasible, particularly given current funding levels and  time frames. A member of the implementation committee told us that, even  if the necessary funding was provided, the Bay Program does not have the  personnel or equipment needed to implement all of the strategies that have  been developed. Furthermore, it is not possible to meet the commitment of  removing the bay and its tributaries from the impaired waters list by  2010. According to several partners we spoke with, while point source  reductions called for in these strategies are achievable, nonpoint  sourcereductions are not. In addition, several partners told us that other  goals are also unachievable. For example, several local government  representatives told us that, overall, the Bay Program’s goals are  unachievable. They believe that the lack of a realistic plan that is based on  available resources has discouraged partners and stalled the restoration  effort.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Office recognizes that some of the plans that  have been developed are unachievable but stated that the plans were  developed to identify what actions will be needed to achieve the  commitments of Chesapeake 2000. The office also recognizes that there is  a fundamental gap between what needs to be done to achieve some of the  commitments and what can be achieved with the current resources  available. Chesapeake Bay Program Office officials noted that the  development of an overall implementation plan that takes into account  available resources had been discussed, but that no agreement could be  reached among the partners.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Restoring the Chesapeake Bay is a massive, complex, and difficult  undertaking. The ultimate success of the restoration hinges on several  factors, of which a well-coordinated and managed implementation  approach is key. To its credit, the Bay Program has made significant strides  in developing over 100 different measures of progress, publishing dozens of  reports on the state of the bay, and creating several documents that lay out  strategies for fulfilling commitments outlined in Chesapeake 2000 that are  intended to move the Bay Program closer to meeting the overall restoration  goals. However, despite the extensive efforts that have gone into managing  the restoration program, the lack of (1) integrated approaches to measure  overall progress, (2) independent and credible reporting mechanisms, and  (3) coordinated implementation strategies is undermining the success of  the restoration effort and potentially eroding public confidence and  continued support. We believe that the combined impact of these  deficiencies has already resulted in a situation in which the Bay Program  cannot effectively present a clear and credible picture of what the  restoration effort has achieved, what strategies will best further  Chesapeake 2000’s restoration goals, and how limited resources should be  channeled to develop and implement the most effective strategies.
With over two decades of restoration experience to rely on, we believe that  the Bay Program is well positioned to seriously reevaluate how it measures  and reports on both restoration progress and the actual health status of the  bay. Given the billions of dollars that have already been invested in this  project and the billions more that are almost certainly needed,  stakeholders and the public should have ready access to reliable  information that presents an accurate assessment of restoration progress  and the actual health status of the bay. Moreover, the long-term partnership  is uniquely positioned to undertake a hard look at what strategies have  been the most cost effective and beneficial to the restoration effort and use  this information not only to inform their future actions but also to ensure  that they are not developing strategies that will be at cross-purposes or  develop unrealistic implementation plans that do not reflect available  resources.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the methods used by the Bay Program to assess progress made  on the restoration effort, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA  instruct the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to complete its plans to  develop and implement an integrated approach to assess overall  restoration progress. In doing so, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office  should ensure that this integrated approach clearly ties to the five broad  restoration goals identified in Chesapeake 2000.
To improve the effectiveness and credibility of the Bay Program’s reports  on the health of the bay, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA  instruct the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to take the following three  actions to revise its reporting approach:  include an assessment of the key ecological attributes that reflect the  bay’s current health conditions,   report separately on the health of the bay and on the progress made in  implementing management actions, and   establish an independent and objective reporting process.
To ensure that the Bay Program is managed and coordinated effectively, we  also recommend that the Administrator of EPA instruct the Chesapeake  Bay Program Office to work with Bay Program partners to take the  following two actions:   develop an overall, coordinated implementation strategy that unifies the  program’s various planning documents, and   establish a means to better target its limited resources to ensure that the  most effective and realistic work plans are developed and implemented.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the signatories of the Chesapeake 2000  agreement—the Administrator of EPA; the Governors of Maryland,  Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the Mayor of the District of Columbia; and the  Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission—for their review  and comment. EPA, Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the  Chesapeake Bay Commission generally concurred with the report’s  findings and recommendations. Although Pennsylvania did not specifically  comment on the report’s findings and recommendations, it noted—as did  other commenters—that the Bay Program is undertaking actions to  address the issues discussed in our report. We are encouraged that the  signatories generally agree with our recommendations. Without such  actions, we believe that the program will be unable to change the status  quo and move forward in a more strategic and well-coordinated manner.
In their written comments, all of the signatories also emphasized the  importance of the tributary strategies developed by the states to the  restoration effort. Virginia stated that these strategies will serve as the  basis of the comprehensive implementation plan that we recommended,  but noted that any regional implementation plan developed must provide  states with the flexibility to operate within their own cultural, legal, and  political environments. Maryland echoed this concern, stating that while a  comprehensive, coordinated strategy is important, each jurisdiction must  maintain the ability to implement strategies that it believes will be most  successful in achieving the collective goal of reducing nutrient and  sediment inputs into the Chesapeake Bay. We recognize the importance of  the tributary strategies and agree that states need flexibility in  implementing these strategies. However, we continue to believe that it is  important to develop an overall, coordinated implementation strategy for  the Bay Program that unifies the various planning documents developed. In  its comments, EPA stated that the tributary strategies have been developed  to guide the restoration effort to eventual success and indicated that the  Bay Program is now aligning its management plans to take better  advantage of available resources for the restoration effort. EPA also  provided technical comments and clarifications that we incorporated, as  appropriate. The signatories’ written comments are presented in  appendixes VI through XI.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees; the Administrator of EPA; the Governors of  Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the Mayor of the District of  Columbia; the Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission; and  the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We also will make  copies available to others on request. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix XII.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: We were asked to address several issues concerning the Chesapeake Bay  Program’s (Bay Program) restoration effort. Specifically, we were asked to  determine (1) the extent to which the Bay Program has established  appropriate measures for assessing restoration progress, (2) the extent to  which the reporting mechanisms the Bay Program uses clearly and  accurately describe the bay’s overall health, (3) how much funding was  provided for restoring the Chesapeake Bay for fiscal years 1995 through  2004 and for what purposes, and (4) how effectively the restoration effort is  being coordinated and managed.
To determine the extent to which the Bay Program has established  appropriate measures for assessing restoration progress, we obtained  documentation on the measures being used by the Bay Program to assess  progress and their linkages to commitments in Chesapeake 2000. We  analyzed these measures to determine which measures provide  information about progress in achieving quantifiable commitments and  which provide information needed to make management decisions. We also  analyzed the measures to determine their appropriateness for measuring  progress toward the quantifiable commitments.
To determine the extent to which the reporting mechanisms the Bay  Program uses clearly and accurately describe the bay’s overall health, we  obtained a variety of reports issued by the Bay Program, including all of the  State of the Chesapeake Bay reports. We analyzed these reports to identify  the types of information included in the reports, the consistency of the  information provided over time, and the format and presentation of the  reports. We did not assess the reliability of the data provided in the reports.
To identify the critical elements of effective assessment and reporting  processes, pros and cons of different assessment and reporting processes,  and alternative methods of measuring and reporting progress that may be  applicable to the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, we assembled a panel  of recognized experts on the following environmental restoration topics:  indicator development, modeling, methods for reporting restoration  progress, watershed restoration, and ecosystem restoration.  To identify  experts on these topics, we used the “snowball” technique. We identified  experts through a literature search and Internet search. As we contacted  experts, we verified their independence from the Chesapeake Bay Program  and asked for additional contacts of experts. We selected 60 environmental  restoration experts as potential panelists. From these 60 experts, we chose  the final eight panelists on the basis of the following criteria: (1)  recommendations we received from others knowledgeable in the field of  environmental restoration; (2) the individual’s area of expertise and  experience; (3) the type of organization represented, including academic  institutions, government, and private industry; and (4) geographic  representation. (The names and affiliations of the panel members are listed  in app. IV). On May 17, 2005, we held an all-day meeting with the eight  panelists at our office in Washington, D.C. Before the meeting, we provided  each panel member with a set of eight general discussion questions. At the  end of each discussion, we asked the panelists to respond, using an  anonymous ballot, to a set of questions that were based on the general  discussion topics. We recorded and transcribed the meeting to ensure that  we accurately captured the panel members’ statements.
To obtain information on the funding provided for the restoration effort, we  developed a data collection instrument that we distributed to key federal  agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the  District of Columbia. Key federal agencies were identified as those that  participated in high-level Chesapeake Bay Program committees or that  provided more than $250,000 annually, on average, in direct funding. For  the purposes of this report, we defined direct funds as those that were  provided exclusively for bay restoration (e.g., increasing the oyster  population) or those that would no longer be made available in the absence  of the restoration effort. To make the comparison more meaningful, we  present funding data in constant 2004 dollars. Unless otherwise noted, all  figures are obligation amounts and include administrative costs. We  reviewed the data from the federal agencies and states for consistency and  reliability and, when possible, compared the data with data from other  sources, such as data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. After reviewing the data and  comparing it with other sources, we sent the data back to the federal  agencies and states for verification and updates as needed. In addition, we  asked for explanations of any inconsistencies that we identified. After  receiving the verified/updated data, we once again reviewed the data for  consistency and reliability. Finally, we contacted the agencies and states  with any outstanding questions concerning the data and conducted  additional data reliability checks.
To determine how effectively the restoration effort is being coordinated  and managed, we obtained documentation on the organizational structure  of the program, the roles and responsibilities of the committees and  subcommittees, and planning documents developed to address the  commitments. We analyzed the planning documents for consistency and  thoroughness. In addition, we obtained information on the status of  keystone and other commitments.
To obtain EPA’s insights on all four objectives, we met with officials from  the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to discuss its monitoring and  assessment, reporting, funding, and coordination and management  responsibilities. Through these discussions, we obtained an array of  documents and perspectives related to all four objectives. To obtain  insights from the other signatories of the Chesapeake Bay agreements, we  met with officials from the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the District of  Columbia, and the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.  Through  these efforts, we obtained documents and information related to all four  objectives.
To obtain insights from other federal partners to the Bay Program, we met  with officials from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,  and the Interior. To obtain insights from academic partners to the Bay  Program, we met with officials from the Chesapeake Research Consortium,  College of William and Mary’s Virginia Institute of Marine Science,  Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, and University of Maryland’s  Center for Environmental Science. To obtain insights from other Bay  Program partners, we met with the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay,  Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Metropolitan Washington Council of  Governments. We also met with officials from nonpartner organizations,  such as the Maryland Watermen’s Association and the Northeast-Midwest  Institute.
We conducted our review from October 2004 through October 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000
paragraphs: Chesapeake 2000 contains five broad goals and 102 commitments that the  partners have agreed to accomplish. These goals and commitments are  listed below.
subsections: section_title: Living Resource Protection and Restoration Goal
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Oysters
paragraphs: By 2010, achieve, at a minimum, a tenfold increase in native oysters in the  Chesapeake Bay, based upon a 1994 baseline.
By 2002, develop and implement a strategy to achieve this increase by using  sanctuaries sufficient in size and distribution, aquaculture, continued  disease research and disease-resistant management strategies, and other  management approaches.
section_title: Exotic Species
paragraphs: In 2000, establish a Chesapeake Bay Program Task Force to work cooperatively with the U.S. Coast Guard, the ports, the shipping  industry, environmental interests, and others at the national level to  help establish and implement a national program designed to  substantially reduce and, where possible, eliminate the introduction of  non-native species carried in ballast water; and by 2002, develop and implement an interim voluntary ballast water  management program for the waters of the bay and its tributaries.
By 2001, identify and rank non-native, invasive aquatic and terrestrial  species, which are causing or have the potential to cause significant  negative impacts to the bay’s aquatic ecosystem.
By 2003, develop and implement management plans for those species  deemed problematic to the restoration and integrity of the bay’s ecosystem.
section_title: Fish Passage and Migratory and Resident Fish
paragraphs: By June 2002, identify the final initiatives necessary to achieve our existing  goal of restoring fish passage for migratory fish to more than 1,357 miles of  currently blocked river habitat by 2003 and establish a monitoring program  to assess outcomes.
By 2002, set a new goal with implementation schedules for additional  migratory and resident fish passages that addresses the removal of physical  blockages. In addition, the goal will address the removal of chemical  blockages caused by acid mine drainage. Projects should be selected for  maximum habitat and stock benefit.
By 2002, assess trends in populations for priority migratory fish species.  Determine tributary-specific target population sizes based upon projected  fish passage, and current and projected habitat available, and provide  recommendations to achieve those targets.
By 2003, revise fish management plans to include strategies to achieve  target population sizes of tributary-specific migratory fish.
section_title: Multispecies Management
paragraphs: By 2004, assess the effects of different population levels of filter feeders  such as menhaden, oysters, and clams on bay water quality and habitat.
By 2005, develop ecosystem-based multispecies management plans for  targeted species.
By 2007, revise and implement existing fisheries management plans to  incorporate ecological, social, and economic considerations, multispecies  fisheries management and ecosystem approaches.
section_title: Crabs
paragraphs: By 2001, establish harvest targets for the blue crab fishery and begin  implementing complementary state fisheries management strategies  baywide. Manage the blue crab fishery to restore a healthy spawning  biomass, size, and age structure.
section_title: Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration Goal
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
paragraphs: Recommit to the existing goal of protecting and restoring 114,000 acres of  submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).
By 2002, revise SAV restoration goals and strategies to reflect historic  abundance, measured as acreage and density from the 1930s to the present.  The revised goals will include specific levels of water clarity that are to be  met in 2010. Strategies to achieve these goals will address water clarity,  water quality, and bottom disturbance.
By 2002, implement a strategy to accelerate protection and restoration of  SAV beds in areas of critical importance to the bay's living resources.
section_title: Watersheds
paragraphs: By 2010, work with local governments, community groups, and watershed  organizations to develop and implement locally supported watershed  management plans in two-thirds of the bay watershed covered by the  agreement. These plans would address the protection, conservation, and  restoration of stream corridors, riparian forest buffers, and wetlands for  the purposes of improving habitat and water quality, with collateral  benefits for optimizing stream flow and water supply.
By 2001, each jurisdiction will develop guidelines to ensure the aquatic  health of stream corridors.  Guidelines should consider optimal surface and  groundwater flows.
By 2002, each jurisdiction will work with local governments and  communities that have watershed management plans to select pilot  projects that promote stream corridor protection and restoration.
By 2003, include the State of the Bay report, and make available to the  public, local governments, and others, information concerning the aquatic  health of stream corridors based on adopted regional guidelines.
By 2004, each jurisdiction, working with local governments, community  groups, and watershed organizations, will develop stream corridor  restoration goals based on local watershed management planning.
section_title: Wetlands
paragraphs: Achieve a no-net loss of existing wetlands acreage and function in the  signatories' regulatory programs.
By 2010, achieve a net resource gain by restoring 25,000 acres of tidal and  nontidal wetlands.
To do this, the signatories to the agreement commit to achieve and  maintain an average restoration rate of 2,500 acres per year basin wide by  2005 and beyond. They will evaluate their success in 2005.
Provide information and assistance to local governments and community  groups for the development and implementation of wetlands preservation  plans as a component of a locally based integrated watershed management  plan.
Establish a goal of implementing the wetlands plan component in 25  percent of the land area of each state's bay watershed by 2010. The plans  would preserve key wetlands while addressing surrounding land use so as  to preserve wetland functions.
Evaluate the potential impact of climate change on the Chesapeake Bay  watershed, particularly with respect to its wetlands, and consider potential  management options.
section_title: Forests
paragraphs: By 2002, ensure that measures are in place to meet the riparian forest  buffer restoration goal of 2,010 miles by 2010.
By 2003, establish a new goal to expand buffer mileage.
Conserve existing forests along all streams and shorelines.
Promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests through  conservation easements, greenways, purchase, and other land  conservation mechanisms.
section_title: Water Quality Protection and Restoration Goal
paragraphs: Achieve and maintain the water quality necessary to support the aquatic  living resources of the bay and its tributaries and to protect human health.
subsections: section_title: Nutrients and Sediments
paragraphs: Continue efforts to achieve and maintain the 40 percent nutrient reduction  goal agreed to in 1987, as well as the goals being adopted for the tributaries  south of the Potomac River.
By 2010, correct the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the  Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries sufficiently to remove the bay and  the tidal portions of its tributaries from the list of impaired waters under  the Clean Water Act. In order to achieve this: By 2001, define the water quality conditions necessary to protect  aquatic living resources and then assign load reductions for nitrogen  and phosphorus to each major tributary; Using a process parallel to that established for nutrients, determine the  sediment load reductions necessary to achieve the water quality  conditions that protect aquatic living resources, and assign load  reductions for sediment to each major tributary by 2001; By 2002, complete a public process to develop and begin  implementation of revised Tributary Strategies to achieve and maintain  the assigned loading goals; By 2003, the jurisdictions with tidal waters will use their best efforts to  adopt new or revised water quality standards consistent with the  defined water quality conditions. Once adopted by the jurisdictions,  EPA will work expeditiously to review the new or revised standards,  which will then be used as the basis for removing the bay and its tidal  rivers from the list of impaired waters; and  By 2003, work with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and  others to adopt and begin implementing strategies that prevent the loss  of the sediment retention capabilities of the lower Susquehanna River  dams.
section_title: Chemical Contaminants
paragraphs: The signatories commit to fulfilling the 1994 goal of a Chesapeake Bay free  of toxics by reducing or eliminating the input of chemical contaminants  from all controllable sources to levels that result in no toxic or  bioaccumulative impact on the living resources that inhabit the bay or on  human health.
By fall of 2000, reevaluate and revise, as necessary, the “Chesapeake Bay  Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy” focusing on: Complementing state and federal regulatory programs to go beyond  traditional point source controls, including nonpoint sources such as  groundwater discharge and atmospheric deposition, by using a  watershed-based approach; and Understanding the effects and impacts of chemical contaminants to  increase the effectiveness of management actions.
Through continual improvement of pollution prevention measures and  other voluntary means, strive for zero release of chemical contaminants  from point sources, including air sources.
Particular emphasis shall be placed on achieving, by 2010, elimination of  mixing zones for persistent or bioaccumulative toxics.
Reduce the potential risk of pesticides to the bay by targeting education,  outreach, and implementation of integrated pest management and specific  best management practices on those lands that have higher potential for  contributing pesticide loads to the bay.
section_title: Priority Urban Waters
paragraphs: Support the restoration of the Anacostia River, Baltimore Harbor, and  Elizabeth River and their watersheds as models for urban river restoration  in the bay basin.
By 2010, the District of Columbia, working with its watershed partners, will  reduce pollution loads to the Anacostia River in order to eliminate public  health concerns and achieve the living resource, water quality, and habitat  goals of the current and past agreements.
section_title: Air Pollution
paragraphs: By 2003, assess the effects of airborne nitrogen compounds and chemical  contaminants on the bay ecosystem and help establish reduction goals for  these contaminants.
section_title: Boat Discharge
paragraphs: By 2003, establish appropriate areas within the Chesapeake Bay and its  tributaries as “no discharge zones” for human waste from boats.
By 2010, expand by 50 percent the number and availability of waste pump- out facilities.
By 2006, reassess progress in reducing the impact of boat waste on the bay  and its tributaries. This assessment will include evaluating the benefits of  further expanding no discharge zones, as well as increasing the number of  pump-out facilities.
section_title: Sound Land Use Goal
paragraphs: Develop, promote, and achieve sound land use practices which protect and  restore watershed resources and water quality, maintain reduced pollutant  loadings for the bay and its tributaries, and restore and preserve aquatic  living resources.
subsections: section_title: Land Conservation
paragraphs: By 2001, complete an assessment of the bay’s resource lands, including  forests and farms, emphasizing their role in the protection of water quality  and critical habitats, as well as cultural and economic viability.
Provide financial assistance or new revenue sources to expand the use of  voluntary and market-based mechanisms such as easements, purchase, or  transfer of development rights and other approaches to protect and  preserve natural resource lands.
Strengthen programs for land acquisition and preservation within each  state that are supported by funding  and target the most valued lands for protection.
Permanently preserve from development 20 percent of the land area in the  watershed by 2010.
Provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for  or revise plans, ordinances, and subdivision regulations to provide for the  conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands.
In cooperation with local governments, develop and maintain in each  jurisdiction a strong geographic information system to track the  preservation of resource lands and support the implementation of sound  land use practices.
section_title: Development, Redevelopment, and Revitalization
paragraphs: By 2012, reduce the rate of harmful sprawl development of forest and  agricultural land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 30 percent measured  as an average over 5 years from the baseline of 1992-97, with measures and  progress reported regularly to the Chesapeake Executive Council.
By 2005, in cooperation with local government, identify and remove state  and local impediments to low impact development designs to encourage  the use of such approaches and minimize water quality impacts.
Work with communities and local governments to encourage sound land  use planning and practices that address the impacts of growth,  development, and transportation on the watershed.
By 2002, review tax policies to identify elements that discourage  sustainable development practices or encourage undesirable growth  patterns. Promote the modification of such policies and the creation of tax  incentives that promote the conservation of resource lands and encourage  investments consistent with sound growth management principles.
The jurisdictions will promote redevelopment and remove barriers to  investment in underutilized urban, suburban, and rural communities by  working with localities and development interests.
By 2002, develop analytical tools that will allow local governments and  communities to conduct watershed-based assessments of the impacts of  growth, development, and transportation decisions.
By 2002, compile information and guidelines to assist local governments  and communities to promote ecologically-based designs in order to limit  impervious cover in undeveloped and moderately developed watersheds  and reduce the impact of impervious cover in highly developed watersheds.
Provide information to the development community and others so they  may champion the application of sound land use practices.
By 2003, work with local governments and communities to develop land- use management and water resource protection approaches that encourage  the concentration of new residential development in areas supported by  adequate water resources and infrastructure to minimize impacts on water  quality.
By 2004, the jurisdictions will evaluate local implementation of stormwater,  erosion control, and other locally-implemented water quality protection  programs that affect the bay system and ensure that these programs are  being coordinated and applied effectively in order to minimize the impacts  of development.
Working with local governments and others, develop and promote  wastewater treatment options, such as nutrient reducing septic systems,  which protect public health and minimize impacts to the bay’s resources.
Strengthen brownfield redevelopment. By 2010, rehabilitate and restore  1,050 brownfield sites to productive use.
Working with local governments, encourage the development and  implementation of emerging urban stormwater retrofit practices to  improve their water quantity and quality function.
section_title: Transportation
paragraphs: By 2002, the signatory jurisdictions will promote coordination of  transportation and land use planning to encourage compact, mixed use  development patterns, revitalization in existing communities and  transportation strategies that minimize adverse effects on the bay and its  tributaries.
By 2002, each state will coordinate its transportation policies and programs  to reduce the dependence on automobiles by incorporating travel  alternatives such as telework, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit options, as  appropriate, in the design of projects so as to increase the availability of  alternative modes of travel as measured by increased use of those  alternatives.
Consider the provisions of the federal transportation statutes for  opportunities to purchase easements to preserve resource lands adjacent  to rights of way and special efforts for stormwater management on both  new and rehabilitation projects.
Establish policies and incentives that encourage the use of clean vehicle  and other transportation technologies that reduce emissions.
section_title: Public Access
paragraphs: By 2010, expand by 30 percent the system of public access points to the  bay, its tributaries, and related resource sites in an environmentally  sensitive manner by working with state and federal agencies, local  governments, and stakeholder organizations.
By 2005, increase the number of designated water trails in the Chesapeake  Bay region by 500 miles.
Enhance interpretation materials that promote stewardship at natural,  recreational, historical, and cultural public access points within the  Chesapeake Bay watershed.
By 2003, develop partnerships with at least 30 sites to enhance place-based  interpretation of bay-related resources and themes and stimulate volunteer  involvement in resource restoration and conservation.
section_title: Stewardship and Community Engagement Goal
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Education and Outreach
paragraphs: Make education and outreach a priority in order to achieve public  awareness and personal involvement on behalf of the bay and local  watersheds.
Provide information to enhance the ability of citizen and community  groups to participate in bay restoration activities on their property and in  their local watershed.
Expand the use of new communications technologies to provide a  comprehensive and interactive source of information on the Chesapeake  Bay and its watershed for use by public and technical audiences.
By 2001, develop and maintain a Web-based clearinghouse of this  information specifically for use by educators.
Beginning with the class of 2005, provide a meaningful bay or stream  outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before  graduation from high school.
Continue to forge partnerships with the Department of Education and  institutions of higher learning in each jurisdiction to integrate information  about the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed into school curricula and  university programs.
Provide students and teachers alike with opportunities to directly  participate in local restoration and protection projects, and to support  stewardship efforts in schools and on school property.
By 2002, expand citizen outreach efforts to more specifically include  minority populations by, for example, highlighting cultural and historical  ties to the bay, and providing multicultural and multilingual educational  materials on stewardship activities and bay information.
section_title: Community Engagement
paragraphs: Jurisdictions will work with local governments to identify small  watersheds where community-based actions are essential to meeting bay  restoration goals—in particular wetlands, forested buffers, stream  corridors, and public access and work with local governments and  community organizations to bring an appropriate range of Bay Program  resources to these communities.
Enhance funding for locally based programs that pursue restoration and  protection projects that will assist in the achievement of the goals of this  and past agreements.
By 2001, develop and maintain a clearinghouse for information on local  watershed restoration efforts, including financial and technical assistance.
By 2002, each signatory jurisdiction will offer easily-accessible information  suitable for analyzing environmental conditions at a small watershed scale.
Strengthen the Chesapeake Bay Program’s ability to incorporate local  governments into the policy decision making process.
By 2001, complete a reevaluation of the Local Government Participation  Action Plan and make necessary changes in Bay Program and jurisdictional  functions based upon the reevaluation.
Improve methods of communication with and among local governments on  bay issues and provide adequate opportunities for discussion of key issues.
By 2001, identify community watershed organizations and partnerships.  Assist in establishing new organizations and partnerships where interest  exists. These partners will be important to successful watershed  management efforts in distributing information to the public, and engaging  the public in the bay restoration and preservation effort.
By 2005, identify specific actions to address the challenges of communities  where historically poor water quality and environmental conditions have  contributed to disproportional health, economic, or social impacts.
section_title: Government by Example
paragraphs: By 2002, each signatory will put in place processes to: Ensure that all properties owned, managed, or leased by the signatories  are developed, redeveloped, and used in a manner consistent with all  relevant goals, commitments, and guidance of the agreement.
Ensure that the design and construction of signatory-funded  development and redevelopment projects are consistent with all  relevant goals, commitments, and guidance of the agreement.
Expand the use of clean vehicle technologies and fuels on the basis of  emission reductions, so that a significantly greater percentage of each  signatory government’s fleet of vehicles use some form of clean technology.
By 2001, develop an Executive Council Directive to address stormwater  management to control nutrient, sediment, and chemical contaminant  runoff from state, federal, and District of Columbia-owned land.
section_title: Partnerships
paragraphs: Strengthen partnerships with Delaware, New York, and West Virginia by  promoting communication and by seeking agreements on issues of mutual  concern.
Work with nonsignatory bay states to establish links with community-based  organizations throughout the bay watershed.
section_title: Chesapeake Bay Program Partners
paragraphs: The Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay Program) is a regional partnership that  includes many partners, including federal agencies, states, a tristate  legislative commission, academic institutions, and others. As noted below,  six of the partners are signatories to the Chesapeake Bay agreements. The  six signatories make up the Chesapeake Executive Council, which meets  annually to establish policy direction for the Bay Program.
subsections: section_title: Federal Agencies
paragraphs: Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration   U.S. Department of the Air Force   U.S. Department of the Army   U.S. Department of the Navy   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Signatory)
section_title: States
paragraphs: District of Columbia (Signatory)
Maryland (Signatory)
Pennsylvania (Signatory)
Virginia (Signatory)
section_title: Tristate Legislative Commission
paragraphs: Chesapeake Bay Commission (Signatory)
section_title: Academic Institutions
paragraphs: College of William and Mary   Virginia Institute of Marine Science   Cornell Cooperative Extension (New York)
section_title: Others
section_title: Summary of Expert Panel Observations on Assessing and Reporting on Restoration Progress
paragraphs: This appendix provides the names and affiliations of our expert panel  members and summarizes the discussions held at an all-day meeting. The  information presented in this appendix may not represent the views of  every panel member and should not be considered to be the views of GAO.
subsections: section_title: Members of Our Expert Panel
paragraphs: The following individuals were members of the GAO expert panel on the  Chesapeake Bay restoration effort:
Allan, J. David, Professor, School of Natural Resources & Environment,   Harwell, Mark, Professor, Florida A&M University;  Gunderson, Lance, Associate Professor, Department of Environmental  Studies, Emory University;  Hill, Brian, Chief of the Watershed Research Branch, Mid-Continent  Ecology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;  Kusler, Jon, Executive Director, Association of State Wetland Managers;  Nuttle, William, Consultant, Eco-Hydrology;  Reed, Denise, Associate Professor, Department of Geology and  Geophysics, University of New Orleans; and  Stevenson, R. Jan, Professor, Department of Zoology, Michigan State  University.
section_title: Summary of Panel Observations
paragraphs: On May 17, 2005, we held an all-day meeting with the eight panelists at our  office in Washington, D.C. Before the meeting, we provided each panel  member with background information on the Chesapeake Bay Program  (Bay Program) and a set of eight general discussion questions. At the end of  each discussion, we asked the panelists to respond, using an anonymous  ballot, to a series of questions that were based on the general discussion  topics. The eight discussion topics covered three overarching themes: (1)  assessing the health status of an ecosystem, (2) reporting the health status  of an ecosystem, and (3) assessing progress of a restoration effort.
section_title: Assessing the Health of an Ecosystem
paragraphs: For the first theme of the day, the panelists spoke on three general  discussion topics to identify the critical elements of an effective  assessment process.
subsections: section_title: Discussion Topic 1: Core Set of Ecosystem Characteristics
paragraphs: Panelists agreed that identifying a core set of broad ecosystem  characteristics is very important when assessing the health of an  ecosystem and needs to be determined for each individual ecosystem.  Our  panel of experts did not identify these characteristics, saying instead that  only experts on the Chesapeake Bay should do so. In assessing the health  of an ecosystem, our panel said, bay experts should first gain an  understanding of the desired end points—the particular characteristics of  the system that end users deem important. However, the panel cautioned  that the bay’s experts should identify a limited number of essential  characteristics—about four to six. Experience in developing conceptual  models for other ecosystems has shown that it is not possible to manage  for 100 different characteristics. The Bay Program has over 100 specific  indicators of various ecosystem characteristics.
section_title: Discussion Topic 2: Key Indicators
paragraphs: The panelists generally agreed that the Bay Program has the essential  indicators that must be used at a minimum to assess the health of an  ecosystem. The Bay Program has many indicators that measure individual  aspects within the ecosystem, such as the oyster population. However, the  Bay Program needs more indicators that provide information about the  biological condition of the ecosystem as a whole and that reflect stress and  response relationships. Then patterns and status can be determined and  trends can be assessed. Criteria for selecting good environmental  indicators are available in literature.
The panel also noted that models are useful, but it is important to  understand the intended use of the model and its limitations.  The Bay  Program’s predictive model is intended to help weigh alternative actions  and determine how effective different management actions may be in  restoring the ecosystem. The model can be used to make predictions about  what the condition of the ecosystem may be in particular future years, and  the Bay Program can then confirm those predictions with subsequent  monitoring. The Bay Program should not use a predictive model to report  on current conditions, which should be based on actual measurements.
section_title: Discussion Topic 3: Overarching Indices
paragraphs: Panelists agreed that a limited number of integrated measures can be used  to assess an ecosystem. A few integrated measures that describe the  overall health of the system are valuable in making an overall assessment  of the system and are well suited for reporting on the overall health.  The  overall health of a system can be described in a qualitative sense, with a  grade for example. Overarching indicators can be used to assign grades to  between four and six different ecological characteristics.
section_title: Reporting the Health of an Ecosystem
paragraphs: For the second theme of the day, the panelists spoke on three general  discussion topics to identify the critical elements of effective reporting.
subsections: section_title: Discussion Topic 4: Reporting the Health of the Chesapeake Bay
paragraphs: Panelists generally agreed that, based on information provided in the Bay  Program reports, the public would probably not be able to clearly and  accurately understand the health of the Chesapeake Bay. While panelists  found the 2004 State of the Chesapeake Bay report visually appealing, they  believed it lacked a clear, overall picture of system health. In addition, Bay  Program reports emphasize health and management of the program in one  document and are overly oriented to reporting on the progress of the  program at the expense of communicating information of the health status  of the bay. The panelists believed that an independent assessment of the  bay’s health is probably necessary to provide a clear and accurate report on  the status of the bay’s health.
section_title: Discussion Topic 5: Characteristics of Effective Reporting
paragraphs: Panelists agreed that effective reports on the health of an ecosystem  contain information that is relevant, accurate, timely, consistent, thorough,  precise, objective, transparent, and peer reviewed or verified. Panelists  noted that the strength of the Bay Program’s reports depends on the  public’s perception of the Bay Program’s integrity and that, if the reports  underwent an independent science review before publication, the public  would have sufficient trust in the product so that other reports on the bay’s  health, such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation report, would not be  perceived as needed.
section_title: Discussion Topic 6: Reporting Methods
paragraphs: Panelists generally agreed that the report card method is effective for  clearly and accurately reporting ecosystem health. Panelists also noted that  it is important to distinguish between management initiatives to reduce  stressors within the ecosystem and the biological effects of these initiatives  and report on them separately. Instead, the Bay Program often mixes  indicators, which causes confusion. A report on the health of the bay  should give a measure for the current condition of each ecosystem  attribute, such as a grade; an indication of the trend, such as an arrow; and  summary text that explains what it all means.
section_title: Assessing Progress of a Restoration Effort
paragraphs: For the third theme of the day, the panelists spoke on two general  discussion topics to identify how progress in restoring an ecosystem  should be assessed.
subsections: section_title: Discussion Topic 7: Information Needed to Determine Progress
paragraphs: Chesapeake 2000 includes many commitments that are not quantifiable;  instead, the commitments are focused on actions to strengthen, develop, or  plan for various aspects of the restoration effort. Many of the commitments  need to be refined so that they are quantifiable. Panelists noted, for  example, that Chesapeake 2000 has a commitment to conserve existing  forests along all streams and shorelines. The commitment raises questions  about whether that means every single forest, a particular number of miles,  or to prevent or manage the decline so that it is not more than a certain  percentage per year. Panelists also pointed out that it is possible to have a  program that is progressing very well from a management perspective but  is not showing any evidence of cleanup toward the restoration goals. They  cited three signs of progress: programmatic progress, progress in reducing  stressors to the ecosystem, and progress in achieving desired ecological  outcomes. The Bay Program has mixed these measures of progress and has  used programmatic progress to imply that the program is achieving  ecological outcomes.
section_title: Discussion Topic 8: Complicating Factors
paragraphs: The panelists agreed that external factors that affect the health of an  ecosystem, such as weather and population growth, should be  incorporated into an assessment of restoration progress. Similarly, actions  taken to restore the ecosystem, such as the implementation of agricultural  best management practices, that may not have an impact of the ecosystem  for several years should be incorporated into an assessment of progress  made in restoring an ecosystem.  Panelists also agreed that reports on the  health of an ecosystem should be distinctly separate from reports on  restoration progress.
section_title: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Comments from the Chesapeake Bay Commission
section_title: Comments from the Commonwealth of Virginia
paragraphs: W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.
Director, Natural Resources and Environment  United State Government Accountability Office (GAO)
On behalf of Governor Warner, I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on  the Draft Report (“the Report”) on the Chesapeake Bay Program prepared by the United States  Government Accountability Office (“GAO”).
The Report contains three primary recommendations.  First, it calls on the Administrator  of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to direct the Chesapeake Bay  Program (“the Program”) to “complete its efforts to develop and implement an integrated  assessment approach.”
Although I agree that the Program should complete this task, I believe that any such  assessment must be developed with the understanding that the Chesapeake Bay watershed is a  complex ecosystem.  As you know, the Program is the collective effort of the signatories to the  Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 2000, and in some cases the headwater states of Delaware, New  York and West Virginia.  These partners strive to present to the public through a single voice the  condition of the Bay in the most understandable terms possible; however, it is oftentimes  difficult to express complex ecological interactions in overly simple terms.  Virginia, together  with its Bay partners, will continue to support scientifically defensible measures of ecosystem  health that can be accurately communicated, and we will offer the expert advice and guidance of  our agencies in this effort.
The second recommendation calls upon the Program to revise its reporting approach.
Since 2004, the Program has been moving in the direction suggested by GAO, and it continues to  refine its reporting to better serve the public and policy makers.  I cannot agree with the  representation made by two of the signatories, as stated on page 23 of the Report, that all of the  Program partners “find it advantageous” to give a rosier view of the Bay’s health than conditions  warrant.  In Virginia, it has been our policy and practice to be honest with the public and policy makers regarding the degraded condition of the Chesapeake Bay.  When there is good news to  report, we report it, but we have not been shy when reporting bad news as well.
I am also concerned about the frequent allegation that the information presented by the  Program is not “credible.”  The Report does not suggest that information presented by the  Program is not accurate, but rather that it is sometimes presented in an improper context, or in a  manner that confuses different types of data.  I hope that GAO will review its comments on  credibility with this observation in mind and that it will not leave the reader with the impression  that the public has been intentionally mislead or that the data presented by the Program meets  anything but the highest scientific standards.
Finally, GAO recommends that the program develop a “comprehensive implementation  plan that takes into account available resources.”  I would argue that that the tributary strategies  developed independently by each of the Bay partners (signatories and head water states), and the  implementation activities associated with them, will serve as the basis for the plan that GAO  proposes.
I hope that readers of the report will understand that Virginia has begun implementation  of our tributary strategies.  For point sources, we have instituted a comprehensive regulatory  management program that will reduce and cap nutrient discharges from sewage treatment plants  and industrial facilities.  We have reinvigorated our grant program to assist municipal facilities  with the cost of upgrades.
With respect to non-point sources, we are making significant strides in addressing urban  storm water management, and we are working closely with our farmers to reduce the adverse  impacts to water quality that result from a variety of agricultural practices.  We are also seeking  consistent funding for our agricultural grant programs.  Moreover, we fully recognize that our  tributary strategies are not static documents, and we are committed to making changes and  revisions to them in order to adapt to new circumstances and resources as we continue to  implement these strategies.
The Commonwealth of Virginia certainly supports thoughtful and achievable  implementation plans developed through the Program partnership; however, we believe that the  states must be given the flexibility to operate within their own cultural, legal and political  environments.  The implementation path Virginia chooses must be accomplished in the context  of our state law and budgets, and any regional implementation plan must reflect this reality.
I would also suggest that this recommendation highlights the significant role that the  federal government must continue to play in the Bay partnership.  In the current fiscal year the  Governor and the Virginia General Assembly, working together, made the largest appropriation  to the Water Quality Improvement Fund in our history.  Maryland has begun collecting the  Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fee, and Pennsylvania has passed Growing Greener II.  These  actions are resulting in multi-million dollar investments in water quality by the states at this time, and we will work to insure that it continues in the coming years.  We hope that our federal  partner will also step up its commitment to match this unprecedented level of state support.
The restoration of the Chesapeake Bay will not be easy or cheap.  The partners are  engaged in a long-term enterprise that will only be successful through the full participation of  federal, state and local governments, as well as the private sector.
I appreciate the time and thought that went into the development of the helpful  recommendations by GAO, and I look forward to the implementation of those recommendations.
I also look forward to the positive results that can occur only with the continuation of the  partnership embodied in the Program.
Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to comment on the Report.  If I can be of  further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.
section_title: Comments from the District of Columbia
section_title: Comments from the State of Maryland
section_title: Comments from the State of Pennsylvania
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Sherry McDonald, Assistant  Director; Bart Fischer; James Krustapentus; and Barbara Patterson made  key contributions to this report.  Also contributing to this report were Mark  Braza, Liz Curda, Anne Inserra, Lynn Musser, Mehrzad Nadji, Carol  Herrnstadt Shulman, and Amy Webbink.