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

Although the Bay Program has established 101 measures, it has not yet  developed an integrated approach that would allow it to translate these  individual measures into an assessment of overall progress toward  achieving the five broad restoration goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000. 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. 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. The Bay Program’s Reports Do Not Effectively Communicate the Status of the Bay’s Health

Mirroring the shortcomings in the program’s measures, the Bay Program’s  primary mechanism for reporting on the health status of the bay—the State  of the Chesapeake Bay report—does not provide an effective or credible  assessment on the bay’s current health status. 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. The Bay Program recognizes that improvements in its current reporting  approach are needed. 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. An additional $1.9 billion in indirect funding was also provided for  activities that affect the restoration effort. Direct Funding for Restoration Activities

Eleven key federal agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and  Virginia; and the District of Columbia provided almost $3.7 billion in direct  funding from fiscal years 1995 through 2004 to restore the bay. The Bay Program Has Not Always Effectively Coordinated and Managed the Restoration Effort

Although Chesapeake 2000 provides the overall vision and strategic goals  for the restoration effort along with short- and long-term commitments, the  Bay Program lacks a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy  that will enable it to achieve the goals laid out in the agreement. Although  the Bay Program has adopted 10 keystone commitments to focus the  partners’ efforts and developed several planning documents, these plans  are sometimes inconsistent with each other. 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. EPA, Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the  Chesapeake Bay Commission generally concurred with the report’s  findings and recommendations. 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. Goals and Commitments in Chesapeake 2000

Chesapeake 2000 contains five broad goals and 102 commitments that the  partners have agreed to accomplish.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay Program) was created in 1983 when Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and EPA agreed to establish a partnership to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Their most recent agreement, Chesapeake 2000, sets out an agenda and five broad goals to guide these efforts through 2010 and contains 102 commitments that the partners agreed to accomplish. GAO was asked to examine (1) the extent to which appropriate measures for assessing restoration progress have been established, (2) the extent to which current reporting mechanisms clearly and accurately describe the bay's overall health, (3) how much funding was provided for the effort for fiscal years 1995 through 2004, and (4) how effectively the effort is being coordinated and managed.

What GAO Found

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.