The  Federal Leadership Committee published the Strategy in May 2010. Specifically, it includes 4 broad  goals, 12 measurable goals with deadlines, and 116 actions to restore the  bay by 2025. These actions describe activities to  be taken by federal agencies, often in collaboration with the watershed  states and other entities. The watershed states  are critical partners in the effort to restore the bay, but officials from each  of the states told us that even though their states are conducting bay  restoration work, their states are not working toward the Strategy goals, in  some cases because they view the Strategy as a federal document. Federal and state officials told us that Strategy and  Chesapeake 2000 Agreement goals are similar to some degree. However, the goals also differ in some  ways. For example, both the Strategy and the Chesapeake 2000  Agreement call for managing fish species, but the Strategy identifies  brook trout as a key species for targeted restoration efforts and the  Chesapeake 2000 Agreement does not. Federal and State Officials Identified Three Key Factors That May Reduce the Likelihood of Achieving Strategy Goals and Actions

Officials we surveyed from the 11 federal agencies responsible for the  Strategy identified three key factors that may reduce the likelihood of  achieving Strategy goals and actions, and state officials and subject  matter experts we interviewed raised similar concerns. They reported that  some form of collaboration is necessary to accomplish all of the  Strategy’s measurable goals and the vast majority of its actions. In particular, federal- state collaboration is crucial to accomplishing the Strategy’s goals and  actions. In their survey responses, federal officials indicated that  collaboration with at least one state is necessary to accomplish 96 of the  116 actions in all 12 of the measurable goals. Funding constraints. External phenomena. Specifically, federal officials  reported that external phenomena could reduce the likelihood that 8 of  the measurable goals will be achieved even if all of the actions in those  measurable goals were accomplished. Agency Plans for Assessing Progress on Implementing the Strategy and Restoring Bay Health Are Limited or Not Fully Developed, and It Is Unclear What Indicators Will Be Used to Assess Progress on Bay Health

The Strategy calls for the federal agencies to, among other things,  develop 2-year milestones, an adaptive management process, and  annual progress reports to assess progress made in implementing the  Strategy and restoring the health of the bay. Per the Strategy, the agencies plan to create milestones  every 2 years for measuring progress made toward the measurable  goals, with the first set of 2-year milestones to cover calendar years 2012  and 2013. The Strategy states that  the Federal Leadership Committee will develop a process for  implementing adaptive management, but officials from EPA and other  committee agencies told us that they are still developing this process. It Is Unclear What Indicators Will Be Used to Assess Bay Health

There are now two groups—the Federal Leadership Committee and the  Bay Program—that plan to assess bay health. The Strategy calls for the Federal  Leadership Committee to coordinate with the watershed states to align  the annual progress report with the Bay Barometer, but, according to EPA  officials, the status of this alignment is unclear. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the likelihood that bay restoration is attained, we recommend  that the Administrator of EPA work collaboratively with federal and state  bay restoration stakeholders to take the following four actions:    develop common bay restoration goals to help ensure that federal and  state restoration stakeholders are working toward the same goals,   establish milestones for gauging progress toward measurable goals  for the entire restoration effort,   develop an adaptive management process that will allow restoration  stakeholders to evaluate progress made in restoring the bay and  adjust actions as needed, and identify the indicators that will be used for assessing progress made in  improving bay health and clarify how the entities responsible for  assessing this progress will coordinate their efforts. We also reported that  establishing milestones for an entire effort can improve the chances the  effort can be accomplished efficiently and on time and provide decision  makers with an indication of the incremental progress the agency expects  to make in achieving results. The Strategy provides  specific outcomes to be achieved by the federal agencies, but the  watershed states have not committed to the Strategy, and most  watershed state officials told us that their bay restoration work is  conducted according to their commitments to the Chesapeake 2000  Agreement. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This appendix provides information on the scope of work and the  methodology used to determine (1) the extent to which the Strategy for  Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (the Strategy)  includes measurable goals for restoring the Chesapeake Bay that are  shared by stakeholders and actions to attain these goals; (2) the key  factors, if any, federal and state officials identified that may reduce the  likelihood of achieving Strategy goals and actions; and (3) agency plans  for assessing progress made in implementing the Strategy and restoring  bay health. Assess performance.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Chesapeake Bay, with its watershed in parts of six states and the District of Columbia (watershed states), is an important economic and natural resource that has been in decline. Over decades, federal agencies and watershed states have entered into several agreements to restore the bay, but its health remains impaired. In May 2009, Executive Order 13508 established a Federal Leadership Committee, led by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and directed the committee to issue a strategy by May 2010 to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay (the Strategy). GAO was directed by the explanatory statement of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, to conduct performance assessments of progress made on bay restoration, and this first assessment examines (1) the extent to which the Strategy includes measurable goals for restoring the bay that are shared by stakeholders and actions to attain these goals; (2) the key factors, if any, federal and state officials identified that may reduce the likelihood of achieving Strategy goals and actions; and (3) agency plans for assessing progress made in implementing the Strategy and restoring bay health. GAO reviewed the Strategy, surveyed federal officials, and interviewed watershed state officials and subject matter experts.

What GAO Found

The Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes 4 broad goals, 12 specific measurable goals with deadlines, and 116 actions to restore the bay by 2025. To achieve the broad and measurable goals, federal agencies, often in collaboration with the watershed states and other entities, are responsible for accomplishing the actions. However, not all stakeholders are working toward achieving the Strategy goals. The watershed states are critical partners in the effort to restore the bay, but state officials told GAO that they are not working toward the Strategy goals, in part because they view the Strategy as a federal document. Instead, most state bay restoration work is conducted according to state commitments made in a previous bay restoration agreement, the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Even though Strategy and Chesapeake 2000 Agreement goals are similar to some degree, they also differ in some ways. For example, both call for managing fish species, but the Strategy identifies brook trout as a key species for restoration and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement does not. Federal and state officials said it is critical that all stakeholders work toward the same goals. The Federal Leadership Committee and the Chesapeake Bay Program--a restoration group established in 1983 that includes federal agencies and watershed states--created an action team in June 2010 to work toward aligning bay restoration goals. Officials from the 11 agencies responsible for the Strategy that GAO surveyed identified three key factors that may reduce the likelihood of achieving Strategy goals and actions: a potential lack of collaboration among stakeholders; funding constraints; and external phenomena, such as climate change. State officials and subject matter experts that GAO interviewed raised similar concerns. Federal officials reported that some form of collaboration is needed to accomplish the Strategy's measurable goals and the vast majority of its actions. In particular, federal-state collaboration is crucial, with federal officials indicating that collaboration with at least one state is necessary to accomplish 96 of the 116 actions in the 12 measurable goals. Federal officials also reported that funding constraints could reduce the likelihood of accomplishing 69 of the actions in 11 of the measurable goals. Furthermore, federal officials reported that external phenomena could reduce the likelihood that 8 of the measurable goals will be achieved. The federal agencies have plans for assessing progress made in implementing the Strategy and restoring bay health, but these plans are limited or not fully developed, and it is unclear what indicators will be used to assess bay health. Per the Strategy, the agencies plan to create 2-year milestones for measuring progress made toward the measurable goals, with the first milestones covering 2012 and 2013. However, establishing milestones for an entire effort can improve the chances the effort can be accomplished efficiently and on time. Also, the Strategy states that the Federal Leadership Committee will develop a process for implementing adaptive management--in which agencies evaluate the impacts of restoration efforts and use the results to adjust future actions--but agency officials told GAO they are still developing this process. Moreover, there are now two groups that plan to assess bay health. The Strategy calls for the Federal Leadership Committee to coordinate with the watershed states to align these assessments. However, the status of this alignment is unclear, and if these groups use different indicators to assess bay health, confusion could result about the overall message of progress made.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that EPA work with federal and state stakeholders to develop common goals and clarify plans for assessing progress.