The partners signed the most current agreement,  Chesapeake 2000, on June 28, 2000. Chesapeake 2000—identified by the  Bay Program as its strategic plan—sets out an agenda and goals to guide  the restoration efforts through 2010 and beyond. 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 inputs to 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. The Bay Program Has Developed an Integrated Approach to Better Assess Overall Restoration Progress

In October 2005, we found that the Bay Program had established 101  measures to assess progress toward meeting some restoration  commitments and provide information to guide management decisions. For example, the Bay Program had developed measures for determining  trends in individual fish and shellfish populations, such as crabs, oysters,  and rockfish. While the Bay Program had established these 101 measures, we also found  that it had not developed an approach that would allow it to translate  these individual measures into an overall assessment of the progress made  in achieving the five broad restoration goals. The task force also identified 20 key  indicators for measuring the progress of restoration efforts and  categorized these indicators into 5 indices of restoration efforts. The Bay Program Has Improved Report Formats but Has Not Taken Adequate Steps to Enhance the Independence of the Reporting Process

In 2005, we determined that the Bay Program’s primary mechanism for  reporting on the health status of the bay—the State of the Chesapeake Bay  report—did not effectively communicate the current health status of the  bay. However, the report did not provide contextual information that explained  how these measures were interrelated or what the diverging trends meant  about the overall health of the bay. Specifically, the reports mixed actual monitoring information on  the bay’s health status with results from a predictive model and the  progress made in implementing specific management actions, such as  acres of wetlands restored. We believe this lack of independence in reporting led to the Bay  Program’s projecting a rosier view of the health of the bay than may have  been warranted. In 2005, we recommended that the Chesapeake Bay Program Office revise  its reporting approach to improve the effectiveness and credibility of its  reports by (1) including an assessment of the key ecological attributes that  reflect the bay’s current health conditions, (2) reporting separately on the  health of the bay and on the progress made in implementing management  actions, and (3) establishing an independent and objective reporting  process. Federal Agencies and States Provided Billions of Dollars in Both Direct and Indirect Funding for Restoration Activities

From fiscal years 1995 through 2004, we reported that 11 key federal  agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the  District of Columbia provided almost $3.7 billion in direct funding to  restore the bay. Sound land use ($1.1 billion)
Water quality protection and restoration ($1.7 billion)
We also reported that 10 of the key federal agencies, Pennsylvania, and the  District of Columbia provided about $1.9 billion in additional funding from  fiscal years 1995 through 2004 for activities that indirectly affect bay  restoration. The Bay Program Has Established a Strategic Framework but Key Elements to More Effectively Coordinate and Manage the Restoration Effort Are Still Needed

In our 2005 report we found that although Chesapeake 2000 provides the  current vision and overall strategic goals for the restoration effort, along  with short- and long-term commitments, the Bay Program lacked a  comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy that could provide a  road map for accomplishing the goals outlined in the agreement. However, we found that these planning  documents were not always consistent with each other. Even though the Bay Program had not  been able to implement this work plan because personnel and funding had  been unavailable, program officials told us that the plan was being revised. In response to our recommendation to develop a  comprehensive and coordinated implementation strategy, the Bay  Program has developed a strategic framework to unify existing planning  documents and articulate how the partnership will pursue its goals.
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 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to establish a partnership to restore the Bay. The partnership's most recent agreement, Chesapeake 2000, sets out five broad goals to guide the restoration effort through 2010. This testimony summarizes the findings of an October 2005 GAO report (GAO-06-96) on (1) the extent to which measures for assessing restoration progress had been established, (2) the extent to which program reports clearly and accurately described the bay's health, (3) how much funding was provided for the effort for fiscal years 1995 to 2004, and (4) how effectively the effort was being coordinated and managed. It also summarizes actions taken by the program in response to GAO's recommendations. GAO reviewed the program's 2008 report to Congress and discussed recent actions with program officials.

What GAO Found

In 2005, GAO found that the Bay Program had over 100 measures to assess progress toward meeting some restoration commitments and guide program management. However, the program had not developed an integrated approach that would translate these individual measures into an assessment of progress toward achieving the restoration goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000. For example, while the program had appropriate measures to track crab, oyster, and rockfish populations, it did not have an approach for integrating the results of these measures to assess progress toward its goal of protecting and restoring the bay's living resources. In response to GAO's recommendation, the Bay Program has integrated key measures into 3 indices of bay health and 5 indices of restoration progress. In 2005, the reports used by the Bay Program did not provide effective and credible information on the health status of the bay. Instead, these reports focused on individual trends for certain living resources and pollutants, and did not effectively communicate the overall health status of the bay. These reports were also not credible because actual monitoring data had been commingled with the results of program actions and a predictive model, and the latter two tended to downplay the deteriorated conditions of the bay. Moreover, the reports lacked independence, which led to rosier projections of the bay's health than may have been warranted. In response to GAO's recommendations, the Bay Program developed a new report format and has tried to enhance the independence of the reporting process. However, the new process does not adequately address GAO's concerns about independence. From fiscal years 1995 through 2004, the restoration effort received about $3.7 billion in direct funding from 11 key federal agencies; the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the District of Columbia. These funds were used for activities that supported water quality protection and restoration, sound land use, vital habitat protection and restoration, living resources protection and restoration, and stewardship and community engagement. During this period, the restoration effort also received an additional $1.9 billion in funding from federal and state programs for activities that indirectly contribute to the restoration effort. In 2005, the Bay Program did not have a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy to help target limited resources to those activities that would best achieve the goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000. The program was focusing on 10 key commitments and had developed numerous planning documents, but some of these documents were inconsistent with each other or were perceived as unachievable by the partners. In response to GAO's recommendations, the Bay Program has taken several actions, such as developing a strategic framework to unify planning documents and identify how it will pursue its goals. While these actions are positive steps, additional actions are needed before the program has the comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy recommended by GAO.