Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program
National Park Service Needs Better Accountability and Oversight of Grantees and Gateways Gao ID: GAO-06-1049 September 14, 2006In 1998, Congress passed the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act to establish a linked network of locations, such as parks, historic seaports, or museums--known as gateways--where the public can access and experience the bay. The National Park Service (Park Service) provides support to the gateways through a related grant program. In 2005, congressional concerns were raised about the Park Service's management of the program. GAO was asked to determine the extent to which the (1) criteria for selecting gateways are transparent and consistently applied; (2) grants have been awarded to support the program goals of conserving and restoring, interpreting, and accessing bay-related resources; and (3) Park Service has taken action to improve program management and oversight. To conduct this work, GAO, among other things, examined Park Service files and interviewed Park Service officials, as well as other officials involved in the program.
The Park Service and the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (CBGN) working group--an advisory body of 17 bay-related agencies and organizations, including the Park Service--use criteria in selecting gateways for the network that are not always transparent and may not be consistently applied. As a result, the Park Service cannot be assured that its process for selecting gateways is always fair and open. Regarding transparency, applicants are not always aware of all the criteria that the Park Service and the CBGN working group use to select gateways because not all the criteria are published. The Park Service and CBGN working group also may not be consistently applying the criteria used to select gateways. For example, some applicants were denied gateway status although they had met all the selection criteria included in the checklist the Park Service uses to review gateway applications, while others were approved although they did not meet all these criteria. The Park Service awarded almost all of its fiscal years 2000 through 2005 grants, totaling $6.28 million, to support the grant program goals of interpretation of and access to bay-related resources but does not yet have a process in place to evaluate whether grants are effectively meeting these program goals, as well as the other program goal of conservation and restoration. During this period, the Park Service awarded 189 grants: 117 for interpretation, 68 for access, and 4 for conservation and restoration. Of the 189 grants, 110 went to 39 gateways that received more than 1 grant for either interpretation or access, with several gateways receiving up to 4 grants for interpretation. According to Park Service staff, several grantees, and GAO's analysis, these grants are for distinct projects or phases of larger projects. Although the Park Service records the program goal(s) associated with each grant project, it does not yet have a process in place to determine the effectiveness of its grants in meeting these goals. The Park Service has a strategic plan that describes program priorities and effectiveness measures, but GAO found several weaknesses in the plan. The Park Service has made progress in outlining and implementing a number of actions to respond to management and oversight concerns first identified in February 2005, but accountability and oversight weaknesses continue. In March 2005, the Park Service developed an action plan that outlined 27 corrective actions and associated time frames to improve program management. The Park Service has implemented 16 of these actions--such as holding a financial management workshop for new grantees and contracting for an external audit of 10 percent of past grants to determine compliance with financial requirements--but 11 actions, mostly to improve oversight, have not been fully implemented. In addition, the following management problems remain: inadequate training, lack of timely grantee reporting, inappropriate grant awards to applicants with incomplete projects or lack of capacity to complete projects on time, a backlog of uncompleted grants, and underperforming gateways.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-1049, Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program: National Park Service Needs Better Accountability and Oversight of Grantees and Gateways
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-1049
entitled 'Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program: National Park service Needs
Better Accountability and Oversight of Grantees and Gateways' which was
released on September 14, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives:
September 2006:
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program:
National Park Service Needs Better Accountability and Oversight of
Grantees and Gateways:
GAO-06-1049:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-1049, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 1998, Congress passed the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act to establish
a linked network of locations, such as parks, historic seaports, or
museums”known as gateways”where the public can access and experience
the bay. The National Park Service (Park Service) provides support to
the gateways through a related grant program. In 2005, congressional
concerns were raised about the Park Service‘s management of the
program.
GAO was asked to determine the extent to which the (1) criteria for
selecting gateways are transparent and consistently applied; (2) grants
have been awarded to support the program goals of conserving and
restoring, interpreting, and accessing bay-related resources; and (3)
Park Service has taken action to improve program management and
oversight. To conduct this work, GAO, among other things, examined Park
Service files and interviewed Park Service officials, as well as other
officials involved in the program.
What GAO Found:
The Park Service and the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (CBGN) working
group”an advisory body of 17 bay-related agencies and organizations,
including the Park Service”use criteria in selecting gateways for the
network that are not always transparent and may not be consistently
applied. As a result, the Park Service cannot be assured that its
process for selecting gateways is always fair and open. Regarding
transparency, applicants are not always aware of all the criteria that
the Park Service and the CBGN working group use to select gateways
because not all the criteria are published. The Park Service and CBGN
working group also may not be consistently applying the criteria used
to select gateways. For example, some applicants were denied gateway
status although they had met all the selection criteria included in the
checklist the Park Service uses to review gateway applications, while
others were approved although they did not meet all these criteria.
The Park Service awarded almost all of its fiscal years 2000 through
2005 grants, totaling $6.28 million, to support the grant program goals
of interpretation of and access to bay-related resources but does not
yet have a process in place to evaluate whether grants are effectively
meeting these program goals, as well as the other program goal of
conservation and restoration. During this period, the Park Service
awarded 189 grants: 117 for interpretation, 68 for access, and 4 for
conservation and restoration. Of the 189 grants, 110 went to 39
gateways that received more than 1 grant for either interpretation or
access, with several gateways receiving up to 4 grants for
interpretation. According to Park Service staff, several grantees, and
GAO‘s analysis, these grants are for distinct projects or phases of
larger projects. Although the Park Service records the program goal(s)
associated with each grant project, it does not yet have a process in
place to determine the effectiveness of its grants in meeting these
goals. The Park Service has a strategic plan that describes program
priorities and effectiveness measures, but GAO found several weaknesses
in the plan.
The Park Service has made progress in outlining and implementing a
number of actions to respond to management and oversight concerns first
identified in February 2005, but accountability and oversight
weaknesses continue. In March 2005, the Park Service developed an
action plan that outlined 27 corrective actions and associated time
frames to improve program management. The Park Service has implemented
16 of these actions”such as holding a financial management workshop for
new grantees and contracting for an external audit of 10 percent of
past grants to determine compliance with financial requirements”but 11
actions, mostly to improve oversight, have not been fully implemented.
In addition, the following management problems remain: inadequate
training, lack of timely grantee reporting, inappropriate grant awards
to applicants with incomplete projects or lack of capacity to complete
projects on time, a backlog of uncompleted grants, and underperforming
gateways.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making a number of recommendations aimed at ensuring that
accountability and oversight is improved. In commenting on a draft of
this report, Interior stated that it concurred with GAO‘s
recommendations and described actions it plans to take to implement
them.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1049].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202)
512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Criteria Used to Select Gateways Are Not Always Transparent and May Not
Be Consistently Applied:
The Park Service Awarded Grants Primarily for Interpretation of and
Access to Bay-Related Resources, but It Has Not Yet Determined Grants'
Effectiveness in Meeting Program Goals:
The Park Service Has Taken Steps to Manage and Oversee Grants More
Effectively but Still Needs to Address Oversight and Accountability
Weaknesses:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Working Group Member
Organizations:
Appendix III: Gateways in the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network:
Appendix IV: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Gateway Selection Process:
Appendix V: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Grant Application, Review,
and Award Process:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Annual Allocations of CBGN Budget Authority and Breakdown
between Grants and Other Network Activities, Fiscal Years 2000-2005:
Table 2: Grant Projects at Seven Selected Gateways That Received More
Than One Grant for Either Interpretation or Access, Fiscal Years 2000-
2005:
Table 3: Park Service's 16 Completed Actions to Improve Grant
Management, as of July 2006:
Table 4: Eleven Actions the Park Service Needs to Complete and the
Status of These Actions, as of July 2006:
Table 5: 152 Gateways in the CBGN, Location, Year Designated, Gateway
Type, Number of Grants Received from Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005,
and Total Grant Funding Awarded:
Figures:
Figure 1: Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Gateways beyond the Fall Line:
Figure 2: Chesapeake Bay and Gateways Within and Adjacent to the Fall
Line:
Figure 3: Distribution of Gateways among States and the District of
Columbia:
Figure 4: Distribution of CBGN Grants among the Types of Grant
Recipients:
Figure 5: Distribution of CBGN Grants by Primary Program Goal, Fiscal
Years 2000-2005:
Figure 6: Projects Funded by CBGN Grants at Adkins Arboretum:
Figure 7: Views at the Dogwood Harbor Gateway 34:
Abbreviations:
CBGN: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
September 14, 2006:
The Honorable Charles H. Taylor:
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Chesapeake Bay, the nation's largest estuary, is a critical
economic, historical, and ecological resource for the roughly 16
million people who live in its 64,000 square-mile watershed, which
includes parts of six states and the District of Columbia. Over time,
the bay area's population has grown dramatically and the land
surrounding the bay has become increasingly developed, which has
limited public access to the bay and contributed to deteriorating water
quality. In 1998, Congress passed the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act to
establish a linked network of state parks, federal parks, or refuges;
historic seaports; archaeological, cultural, historical, or
recreational locations; or other public access and interpretive
locations, where the public can access and experience the bay.[Footnote
1] These locations are known as gateways. The gateways program was
reauthorized in December 2002 for 5 years.[Footnote 2]
The act directs the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with
other federal agencies, state and local governments, nonprofit
organizations, and the private sector, to create this network and
provide technical assistance. It also directs the Secretary to
establish a grant program to provide funds to aid state and local
governments, local communities, nonprofit organizations, and the
private sector in conserving, restoring, and interpreting important
historical, cultural, recreational, and natural resources within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Within the Department of the Interior
(Interior), the National Park Service (Park Service) is responsible for
implementing and overseeing the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (CBGN)
and its related grant program. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2006,
congressional conference reports allocated approximately $11 million to
implement and manage the network and grant program. To help guide the
formation and management of the network and grant program, the Park
Service assembled the CBGN working group, an advisory body of 17 bay-
related agencies and organizations, including the Park
Service.[Footnote 3] (See app. II for a list of working group member
organizations.)
The Park Service has created a network of 152 Chesapeake Bay gateways,
including one hub in St. Michaels, Maryland, that provides an overview
of the network; eight regional information centers; 27 connecting
routes--21 water trails, five land trails, and one scenic byway; and
116 sites, such as museums and wildlife refuges. (See app. III for a
complete list of gateways in the CBGN.) To determine whether a location
should become part of this network, the Park Service developed a
checklist of eligibility criteria that locations must meet to become a
gateway. Starting in 2000, the Park Service solicited gateway
applications and began accepting gateways that met these criteria. Once
a location is approved as a gateway and has signed a memorandum of
understanding with the Park Service, its managing organization is
eligible to apply for grant funding through CBGN's grant program.
Between fiscal years 2000 and 2005, the Park Service awarded 189 grants
to 119 gateways, for a total of approximately $6.28 million.[Footnote
4] The grant awards ranged from $5,000 to $150,000; the average award
was $33,221; and the median award was $20,000. These grants, which must
be matched by an equal amount of nonfederal support, have been awarded
for three primary program goals, as defined by the Park Service:
conservation and restoration, interpretation, and access.[Footnote 5]
Although the Park Service had established the network and grant program
as directed by the act, in 2005, the Surveys and Investigations staff
for the House Committee on Appropriations identified problems with the
management of the program, including concerns about gateway selection,
the types of projects funded, and the Park Service's oversight of the
program. In this context, you asked us to determine the extent to which
the (1) criteria for selecting gateways are transparent and
consistently applied; (2) grants have been awarded to support the
program goals of conserving and restoring, interpreting, and accessing
important resources within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed; and (3) Park
Service has taken action to improve its management and oversight of the
program.
To address the three objectives, we analyzed Park Service and other
documents, including the procedures and practices the Park Service uses
to select gateways; the CBGN strategic plan for 2006 through 2008;
recent reports issued by Interior's Office of Inspector General; and
the Park Service's planned actions to address management and oversight
concerns raised by the Surveys and Investigations staff for the House
Committee on Appropriations. In addition, we met with Park Service
officials and members from most of the 17 organizations in the CBGN
working group to obtain their perspectives on network membership and
the grant program.[Footnote 6] We also observed four CBGN working group
meetings, including the gateway and grant selection meetings.
In addition, to respond to the first objective, we reviewed documents
from the files for the 63 locations that were denied gateway membership
during 2000 through 2006. We also reviewed 102 checklists of
eligibility criteria that were either provided by the Park Service or
in network application files for the 152 locations that were designated
as gateways between 2000 and 2006. For the second objective, we
reviewed Park Service data that identified the primary program goal for
each grant awarded and determined how many gateways received multiple
grants for the same primary goal. For these gateways, we selected a
nonprobability sample of 16 gateways covering 49 grant files.[Footnote
7] We selected our sample to include gateways that received multiple
grants for the same primary program goal and to incorporate a variety
of gateway types. Using a data collection instrument, we reviewed these
grant files to determine the extent to which projects under each grant
to the same gateway differed. We also visited seven gateways that
received multiple grants for the same primary goal to discuss
differences in their projects. We selected our site visit sample based
on the number of grants awarded for the same primary goal, the type of
gateway, the state in which the gateway is located, and the total grant
dollars received. For the third objective, we used a data collection
instrument to review Park Service files for the 27 grants awarded in
fiscal year 2005 to determine the extent to which corrective actions
have been implemented. In addition, while conducting our audit work,
including visiting gateways in our nonprobability sample that received
multiple grants and meeting with working group members, we visited nine
nearby gateways that had not received any grants to see if the gateways
were fulfilling their basic commitments for network membership. A more
detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology is
presented in appendix I. We conducted our work between December 2005
and August 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The Park Service and the CBGN working group use criteria in selecting
gateways for the network that are not always transparent and may not be
consistently applied. With respect to transparency, applicants are not
always aware of all the criteria that the Park Service and the CBGN
working group use to select gateways because not all the criteria are
published. For example, the full definition of the access criterion--
that the gateway has to be open to the public for a certain number of
days per week--is not publicly stated for gateway sites. The Park
Service and CBGN working group also may not be consistently applying
the criteria used to select gateways. For example, some applicants were
approved even though they did not meet all the selection criteria
included in the checklist, while others were denied gateway status even
though they met all these criteria. Since the criteria are not always
transparent and may not be consistently applied, the Park Service
cannot be assured that its process for selecting gateways is always
fair and open.
The Park Service awarded almost all of its fiscal years 2000 through
2005 grants, totaling $6.28 million, to support the grant program goals
of interpretation of and access to bay-related resources, but it does
not yet have a process in place to evaluate whether its grants are
effectively meeting the program's goals. During the period, the Park
Service awarded 189 grants: 117 for interpretation, 68 for access, and
4 for conservation and restoration. Key CBGN program documents state
that the interpretation of and access to bay-related resources will
help the public understand the need to protect and restore the bay. Of
the 189 grants awarded, 110 went to 39 gateways that received more than
1 grant for either interpretation or access, with several gateways
receiving up to 4 grants for interpretation. According to Park Service
staff, several grantees, and our analysis, these grants are for
distinct projects or phases of larger projects. For example, the Adkins
Arboretum gateway (in Ridgely, Maryland) received two grants for
interpretation, each of which supported distinct projects: (1) the
development of an orientation exhibit, an orientation video, and a self-
guided audio tour and (2) the creation of a wetlands boardwalk and
overlook platform. Alternatively, the two grants for interpretation for
the Underground Railroad Scenic Byway (from Dorchester County,
Maryland, through Caroline County, Maryland) each supported a separate
phase of the development of a trail that highlights the life and
contributions of Harriet Tubman[Footnote 8] to the Underground Railroad
in the Chesapeake Bay region. Although the Park Service records the
program goal(s) associated with each grant project, it does not yet
have a process in place to determine the effectiveness of its grants in
meeting the goals of conserving and restoring, interpreting, and
accessing bay-related resources. The Park Service has a strategic plan
that describes program priorities and effectiveness measures, but we
found several weaknesses in the plan, including a lack of benchmarks to
assess progress toward achieving the plan's goals and the use of
measures that are difficult to quantify.
The Park Service has made progress in outlining and implementing a
number of actions to respond to the management and oversight concerns
first identified in February 2005, but several accountability and
oversight weaknesses continue. In March 2005, the Park Service
developed an action plan that outlined 27 corrective actions and
associated time frames to improve program management.[Footnote 9] The
Park Service has implemented 16 of these actions--such as holding a
financial management workshop for new grantees and contracting for an
external audit of 10 percent of past grants to determine compliance
with financial requirements. However, 11 actions, mostly to improve
oversight, have not been fully implemented. Although the Park Service
has made progress in implementing the actions in its plan, we
identified the following five remaining management problems:
* Inadequate training. While the Park Service committed in its action
plan to providing additional grant management training for CBGN staff,
it provided federal grant and cooperative agreement training only to
its CBGN Administrative Officer; and this officer left the program in
August 2006. None of the CBGN project coordinators, who are responsible
for reviewing grant proposals and monitoring the progress of grant
projects, have received such training. According to the CBGN Director,
he plans to provide grant management training to his staff in September
2006.
* Lack of timely grantee reporting. The Park Service committed in its
action plan to stringently enforcing its requirement for grantees to
report quarterly on progress and finances. However, we found that,
approximately 2 months after the reports were due, only 8 of the 27
files for grants awarded in fiscal year 2005 contained both the
quarterly progress and financial reports for the reporting period we
reviewed.
* Inappropriate awards. The Park Service committed in its action plan
to prohibiting the award of a fiscal year 2005 grant to any applicant
with an incomplete or delayed grant project or that failed an
assessment of whether the capacity existed for completing a new grant
on schedule. However, we found that 2 of the 27 grants awarded in
fiscal year 2005 were awarded to such applicants.
* Backlog of uncompleted grants. According to the Park Service, as of
June 30, 2006, 63 of the 162 grants awarded between fiscal years 2000
and 2004 had not been completed or closed out. Completing and closing
out existing grants is now the CBGN's highest priority, according to
the CBGN Director.
* Underperforming gateways. The Park Service does not regularly review
gateways to ensure that they are meeting basic requirements for CBGN
membership, as laid out in their memorandums of understanding with the
Park Service. This lack of oversight may have led, in some instances,
to underperforming gateways that reflect poorly upon the network. For
example, during a visit to the Dogwood Harbor Gateway (on Tilghman
Island, Maryland), we observed that the site lacked the required CBGN
logo sign indicating the site's connection to the network, as well as
any information or staff to relay this connection.
We are recommending that the Secretary of the Interior take steps to
enhance accountability and oversight of the CBGN program by improving
the gateway selection process and its grant management. In responding
to a draft report, Interior stated that it concurred with the
recommendations in the report and described actions it plans to take to
implement them.
Background:
The Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 directed the Secretary of the
Interior to establish (1) a network of state or federal parks or
refuges; historic seaports; archaeological, cultural, historical, or
recreational locations; or other public access and interpretive
locations where the public can access and experience the bay and (2) a
grant program to aid state and local governments, local communities,
nonprofit organizations, and the private sector in accomplishing the
act's objectives. The Secretary delegated responsibility of the CBGN
and grant program to the Park Service, which administers and oversees
the program from the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay
Program Office located in Annapolis, Maryland.[Footnote 10] Program
staff include a Director, an Administrative Officer, and six full-and
part-time project coordinators.[Footnote 11] At the time of our review,
the Administrative Officer's duties included maintaining grant files
and processing grant payments.[Footnote 12] The project coordinators,
among other things, review gateway and grant applications, work with
grantees to ensure that they adhere to the terms of the grant, and
provide technical assistance to the gateways. As directed by the act,
the Park Service provides technical assistance, such as offering
workshops and conferences and training opportunities to gateways,
working with gateways to determine what interpretive elements could
enhance the gateway's offerings, and organizing networking meetings for
the gateways.
For fiscal years 2000 through 2005, congressional conference reports
allocated approximately $9.5 million to the program. An additional $1.5
million was allocated in fiscal year 2006. As table 1 shows, during
fiscal years 2000 through 2005, overall, about two-thirds of the
program's funds were for the grants, and about one-third for other
network costs, including providing a CBGN logo sign for each gateway,
the CBGN map identifying the locations of the gateways, technical
assistance, and administrative costs.
Table 1: Annual Allocations of CBGN Budget Authority and Breakdown
between Grants and Other Network Activities, Fiscal Years 2000-2005:
Fiscal year: 2000;
Allocations of budget authority[A]: $594,000;
CBGN grants[B]: $386,644;
Percentage of total for grants: 65%;
Dollar amounts for other network activities[C]: $207,356;
Percentage of total for other network activities: 35%.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Allocations of budget authority[A]: 798,300[D];
CBGN grants[B]: 556,582;
Percentage of total for grants: 70;
Dollar amounts for other network activities[C]: 241,718;
Percentage of total for other network activities: 30.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Allocations of budget authority[A]: 1,200,000;
CBGN grants[B]: 828,895;
Percentage of total for grants: 69;
Dollar amounts for other network activities[C]: 371,105;
Percentage of total for other network activities: 31.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Allocations of budget authority[A]: 1,987,000;
CBGN grants[B]: 1,381,206;
Percentage of total for grants: 70;
Dollar amounts for other network activities[C]: 605,794;
Percentage of total for other network activities: 30.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Allocations of budget authority[A]: 2,469,000;
CBGN grants[B]: 1,516,560;
Percentage of total for grants: 61;
Dollar amounts for other network activities[C]: 952,440;
Percentage of total for other network activities: 39.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Allocations of budget authority[A]: 2,465,000;
CBGN grants[B]: 1,608,931;
Percentage of total for grants: 65;
Dollar amounts for other network activities[C]: 856,069;
Percentage of total for other network activities: 35.
Fiscal year: Total;
Allocations of budget authority[A]: $9,513,300;
CBGN grants[B]: $6,278,818;
Percentage of total for grants: 66%;
Dollar amounts for other network activities[C]: $3,234,482;
Percentage of total for other network activities: 34%.
Source: Park Service.
[A] Allocations of budget authority are the amounts presented in the
Park Service's budget justification documents.
[B] Park Service grant obligation information.
[C] Dollar amounts for other network activities were calculated by
subtracting the grant obligations for each year from the total
allocation of budget authority.
[D] The total allocation of budget authority for the CBGN program in
fiscal year 2001 was $2,295,000. Within this amount, $798,300 was
provided for CBGN grants and technical assistance, and $1,496,700 was
provided for the purchase of the Holly Farm Beach property.
[End of table]
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network:
As of July 2006, the Park Service designated 152 gateways that included
state parks, federal refuges, museums, and water trails.[Footnote 13]
The majority of these gateways are nonprofit organizations. Figures 1
and 2 show the locations of the gateways. Most of the gateways are
located within or adjacent to the "fall line"--the upper limit of the
tidal reaches of the bay. Likewise, most of the gateways are in
Maryland and Virginia, as figure 3 shows. (App. III provides detailed
information on the gateways.)
Figure 1: Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Gateways beyond the Fall Line:
[See PDF for image]
Sources: Park Service and GAO.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Chesapeake Bay and Gateways Within and Adjacent to the Fall
LIne:
[See PDF for image]
Sources: Park Service and GAO.
Note: Some dots represent more than one gateway. For example, one dot
in the City of Baltimore represents eight gateways.
[End of figure]
Figure 3: Distribution of Gateways among States and the District of
Columbia:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Park Service documents.
Note: For the four gateways that are located in multiple states (or in
multiple states and the District of Columbia), we counted the gateway
as being in each of the relevant locations.
[End of figure]
To join the network, an applicant applies to become one of the
following four types of gateways:
* Hub. Hubs are centers in locations that receive a large number of
visitors. The hubs introduce visitors to baywide themes and provide key
orientation information to the entire network.
* Regional information center. Regional information centers provide key
information to facilitate visitor access to a particular region and
other gateways within the vicinity.
* Connecting route. Connecting routes are water and land trails and
other connections that link gateways through a network of boating,
hiking, walking, biking, or driving routes.
* Site. Sites are the primary places to which visitors are directed in
order to experience and learn about a particular bay-related natural,
cultural, historical, or recreational resource and its role in the
story of the bay.
The Park Service reviews the application using a checklist that lists
multiple criteria. Depending on the type of gateway application, the
checklist contains 6 to 10 specific criteria. Regardless of the type of
gateway, the Park Service considers 7 broad criteria: represents
important bay-related resources, themes, and stories; provides public
access to these resources; demonstrates community support for gateway
status; demonstrates the organizational and operational current and
future management capacity for a gateway; advances network goals, as
described in the CBGN's framework and strategic plan;[Footnote 14]
interprets bay-related themes;[Footnote 15] and meets the particular
characteristics of one of the four types of network gateways. After the
Park Service completes its review, the CBGN working group reviews this
checklist and discusses whether the application should be designated
for gateway status. Based upon its review and the CBGN working group's
discussion, the Park Service notifies the applicant of the agency's
final decision. For those applications approved for designation, the
Park Service establishes a memorandum of understanding with the
gateway's managing organization. For additional details about the
selection criteria and process, see appendix IV.
Grant Program:
Between fiscal years 2000 and 2005, the Park Service awarded 189
grants, totaling about $6.28 million, to 119 gateways. To implement the
grant program, the Park Service enters into cooperative agreements with
recipients--either a gateway's managing organization or a partner
organization, such as Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. A
cooperative agreement is a type of federal assistance agreement used
when the federal government will be substantially involved in the
project. Because such involvement was anticipated in CBGN projects, the
Park Service chose to use cooperative agreements instead of
grants.[Footnote 16] These awards, which require an equal nonfederal
match and currently allow for an 18-month project period, were made to
four types of grant recipients, as shown in figure 4.
Figure 4: Distribution of CBGN Grants among the Types of Grant
Recipients:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Park Service information.
Note: For the four grants that were awarded to more than one grant
recipient, we counted the grant as going toward each of the grant
recipients and their respective types.
[End of figure]
The Park Service offers grants for the following three program goals--
conservation and restoration, interpretation, and access:
* Conservation and restoration: the development of restoration projects
for high-priority natural habitat; restoration and conservation of bay-
related cultural or historic resources that are central to depicting a
gateway's connection to the bay; and the development of programs that
allow volunteers, including visitors, to participate in restoration and
conservation work at the site.
* Interpretation: wayside exhibits and signs; interior and exterior
interpretive exhibits; audiovisual productions; development of guided
or live interpretive programs; interpretive brochures, maps, and
guides; educational programs for kindergarten through twelfth-grade
students; and creation of an interpretive plan for a gateway or group
of gateways.
* Access: environmentally-friendly improvements that provide access to
bay-related resources, the creation of water access points, and the
development of maps or guides that help people use the location.
To receive a grant, a gateway's managing organization or a partner
organization designated to carry out the project must first submit an
application package that includes the application form and a proposed
budget, among other things. The Park Service and CBGN working group
then conduct concurrent reviews using checklists to review the
application on a number of criteria, including whether the applicant
has long-term management plans for the project and whether the project
would significantly and measurably enhance interpretation of bay-
related themes. After these reviews, the Park Service and CBGN working
group meet to discuss whether the applicant should be awarded a grant.
If the CBGN working group and the Park Service determine that
modifications, such as changes to the scope of work or budget, are
necessary, the Park Service contacts the applicant to discuss these
changes. Based upon the discussions with the CBGN working group and the
applicant, the Park Service then makes a final decision, notifies the
applicant, and signs an agreement. For additional details about the
selection process, see appendix V.
Criteria Used to Select Gateways Are Not Always Transparent and May Not
Be Consistently Applied:
The criteria the Park Service and CBGN working group use to select
gateways are not always transparent and may not be consistently applied
and, as a result, the Park Service cannot be assured that its gateways
selection process is always fair and open. The Park Service established
and published selection criteria that applicants are to meet in order
to be recognized as a Chesapeake Bay gateway. The checklist the Park
Service uses to review gateway applications states that applicants must
meet all the criteria on the checklist to be designated as a gateway.
However, we found that the Park Service and CBGN working group use
additional criteria, beyond those included in the checklist, in
deciding on whether to accept an applicant as a gateway but have not
published this information in their application materials.
Specifically, we found the following:
* One of the stated criteria for a gateway site is that it be open to
the public "for the maximum number of days per week feasible, allowing
for seasonal visitation patterns." However, the Park Service and CBGN
working group decided that in order to meet this criterion, gateway
sites must be open at least 4 days a week, including both weekend days,
but they have not included this information in the gateway site
application materials. In contrast, in the application materials for
proposed regional information centers and hubs, the Park Service and
CBGN working group lay out the minimum number of days per week the
locations need to be publicly accessible.
* The Park Service and CBGN working group decided that an environmental
education resource center cannot be designated as a gateway, but the
Park Service has not published this exclusion in its gateway
application materials. The Park Service and the CBGN working group
determined that environmental education centers do not fit into the
network concept because they are not historical, cultural, natural, or
recreational bay-related resources. Some Park Service officials also
stated that because of the large number and similarity of these
centers, it would be difficult to choose among them for gateway status.
Although the Park Service and the CBGN working group documented their
decision to exclude the environmental education center category from
gateway eligibility in an applicant's denial letter, they have not
published this exclusionary criterion in their application
materials.[Footnote 17] According to these Park Service officials,
although the centers, standing alone, cannot be gateways, they are
permitted in the network as part of another gateway (e.g., as part of a
state park). However, this possibility is not clearly stated in the
application materials.
* The Park Service and CBGN working group consider a location's degree
of development when making selection decisions but have not established
development as a criterion. While the Park Service and CBGN working
group have discussed the possibility of modifying selection criteria to
either clarify the degree to which a potential location must be
sufficiently ready to operate as an effective gateway or to potentially
allow for some less-developed sites with high potential to be
designated and then developed further, the Park Service and CBGN
working group have not decided whether to undertake such a
modification.[Footnote 18]
In addition, the CBGN has recently shifted its focus from trying to
establish a network to refining the network, but this change is not
always clearly stated in the application materials. Furthermore, a 2005
Park Service study recommended that the selection criteria for gateway
status need to be revisited to determine if the criteria are aligned
with the program's direction and target thematic and location gaps in
the network.[Footnote 19] For example, although part of the Chesapeake
Bay watershed is in Delaware, currently, there are no designated
gateways in the state. As of July 2006, the Park Service and the CBGN
working group had not acted on this recommendation.
Without clearly defined, transparent criteria, the Park Service and the
CBGN working group cannot be assured that they are consistently
applying all the criteria used in making selection decisions. For
example, during our review of documents, including checklists, that the
Park Service provided for applications accepted into the network and
files for applications that were denied membership, we found instances
in which applicants were denied gateway status because a location was
not sufficiently developed at the time of application review, and other
instances in which applicants were designated as gateways while still
being developed, thereby raising questions about the consistent
application of this unpublished criterion.[Footnote 20] For example, in
2001, one gateway--a museum in Maryland--was accepted, although the
Park Service reviewer indicated that the site should be designated as a
"developmental" site. Conversely, in 2005, the Park Service and CBGN
working group denied an application because the proposed site--a 1-acre
waterfront park along the Potomac River in Washington, D.C.--was not
sufficiently developed, although they believed it had potential as a
gateway and recommended reconsideration of the nomination once
development plans were complete.[Footnote 21]
In addition, our review raises questions about whether the criteria in
the checklist reflect all the factors that are considered when
accepting applicants as gateways and whether these factors are
consistently applied. Specifically, we found that some applicants were
approved even though they did not meet all the selection criteria
included in the checklist, and others were denied gateway status even
though they met all these criteria. For example, the museum designated
as a gateway in 2001, which the Park Service had recommended as a
developmental site, also did not meet three of the required minimum
criteria in the checklist--stewardship, long-term management capability
of the managing organization, and public support. CBGN working group
members also explained that some criteria are more important than
others during the selection process but provided differing views as to
which criteria were the most critical for gateway status or denial.
The Park Service Awarded Grants Primarily for Interpretation of and
Access to Bay-Related Resources, but It Has Not Yet Determined Grants'
Effectiveness in Meeting Program Goals:
The Park Service awarded the vast majority of its grants to support the
program goals for interpretation of and access to bay-related
resources, with 39 gateways receiving multiple grants to support
interpretation and access. Although the Park Service has a strategic
plan for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 and records the primary and, if
applicable, the secondary and tertiary program goals, associated with
each grant project, it does not yet have a process in place to
determine the effectiveness of its awarded grants in meeting the
program goals.
The Vast Majority of Grants Reviewed Were Awarded for Interpretation
and Access:
During fiscal years 2000 through 2005, the Park Service awarded 189
grants to 119 gateways: 117 grants with the primary program goal of
interpretation, 68 for access, and 4 for conservation and restoration.
Of the approximately $6.28 million awarded, $3.68 million was for
grants with the primary program goal of interpretation, $2.35 million
for access, and $240,000 for conservation and restoration. (See fig.
5.)
Figure 5: Distribution of CBGN Grants by Primary Program Goal, Fiscal
Years 2000-2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Park Service documents.
[End of figure]
Most of the grants--152--had one primary program goal; another 36
grants had primary and secondary program goals; and 1 grant had
primary, secondary, and tertiary program goals. When the secondary and
tertiary program goals for the 189 grants awarded from fiscal years
2000 through 2005 are taken into consideration, 145 grants had
interpretive elements, 72 had access elements, and 10 had conservation
and restoration elements. For example, the 2005 grant for the
Rappahannock River Water Trail (in Fredericksburg, Virginia)--for
$130,825--had a primary program goal of access, secondary goal of
conservation and restoration, and tertiary goal of interpretation.
Access activities included extending the water trail to the mouth of
the Chesapeake Bay, creating an overview map, and developing five
interpretive, self-guided tours of the lower section of the
Rappahannock River. Conservation and restoration activities included
developing stewardship programs to involve volunteers in creating low-
impact campsites for overnight paddlers. Lastly, interpretive
activities included renovating an existing facility to establish an on-
site visitor orientation center and expanding the gateway's existing
education curriculum.
While most of the grants awarded to date have been for interpretation
and access, the Park Service's priorities among the three primary goals
are not explicitly stated. Key program documents, such as the CBGN's
framework (June 2000) and the most recent strategic plan for 2006
through 2008, state that the interpretation of and access to bay-
related resources will help the public understand the need to protect
and restore the bay. Park Service staff, CBGN working group members,
and grantees cited the following other reasons for focusing on
interpretation and access:
* One of the Park Service's primary areas of expertise is
interpretation, and most of the CBGN project coordinators have this
expertise.
* Interpretation is the logical first step for a site in the CBGN
because interpretation of a site's bay-related resources allows
visitors to understand the site's larger connection to the Chesapeake
Bay.
* Fewer funding sources are available for interpretive projects
compared with the funding sources available for conservation and
restoration. For example, grant funding is available from federal,
state, private, and nonprofit sources for conservation and restoration,
such as the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Small
Watershed Grants Program, the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality's Water Quality Improvement Fund, and the Chesapeake Bay
Trust's stewardship grants.
* According to the Park Service, present estimates are that only 1 to 2
percent of the Chesapeake Bay's shoreline is publicly accessible;
therefore, CBGN emphasizes projects that increase public access to the
bay.
* Fewer gateway sites apply for conservation and restoration grants, in
part because conservation and restoration projects take more time and
are more expensive.
39 Gateways Received Multiple Grants to Support Interpretation and
Access:
Of the 189 grants awarded during fiscal years 2000 through 2005 to 119
gateways, 110 grants went to 39 gateways that received more than 1
grant for either interpretation or access, with several gateways
receiving up to 4 grants for interpretation. We visited 7 of these 39
gateways to understand the types of projects funded, particularly in
cases where a gateway received more than 1 grant for interpretation or
access. Collectively, the seven gateways received 21 grants--11 for
interpretation, 8 for access, and 2 for conservation and restoration--
with a total value of $1,019,368. (Table 2 lists the seven gateways,
the primary program goal, the dollar amount of each of the grants the
gateway received, the percentage of nonfederal match contributed, and a
description of each project.)
Table 2: Grant Projects at Seven Selected Gateways That Received More
Than One Grant for Either Interpretation or Access, Fiscal Years 2000-
2005:
Gateway: Adkins Arboretum--Ridgley, Md;
A 400-acre preserve on Tuckahoe Creek on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
The area includes forested wetlands, maturing forests, and meadows. The
gateway focuses on conserving native plants in the Mid-Atlantic coastal
plain and has over 600 species of native shrubs, trees, wildflowers,
grasses, and ferns;
Grant year: 2001;
Primary program goal: Access;
Grant amount: $23,100;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149%;
Project description: One-page visitor orientation map and guide
brochure and six interpretive signs on native plant communities.
Gateway: Adkins Arboretum--Ridgley, Md;
A 400-acre preserve on Tuckahoe Creek on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
The area includes forested wetlands, maturing forests, and meadows. The
gateway focuses on conserving native plants in the Mid-Atlantic coastal
plain and has over 600 species of native shrubs, trees, wildflowers,
grasses, and ferns;
Grant year: 2002;
Primary program goal: Interpretation;
Grant amount: 31,000;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
300-349;
Project description: Wetlands boardwalk and overlook platform.
Gateway: Adkins Arboretum--Ridgley, Md;
A 400-acre preserve on Tuckahoe Creek on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
The area includes forested wetlands, maturing forests, and meadows. The
gateway focuses on conserving native plants in the Mid-Atlantic coastal
plain and has over 600 species of native shrubs, trees, wildflowers,
grasses, and ferns;
Grant year: 2004;
Primary program goal: Interpretation;
Grant amount: 61,569;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149;
Project description: Orientation exhibit, orientation video, and self-
guided audio tour.
Gateway: Adkins Arboretum--Ridgley, Md;
A 400-acre preserve on Tuckahoe Creek on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
The area includes forested wetlands, maturing forests, and meadows. The
gateway focuses on conserving native plants in the Mid-Atlantic coastal
plain and has over 600 species of native shrubs, trees, wildflowers,
grasses, and ferns;
Grant year: 2005;
Primary program goal: Conservation and restoration;
Grant amount: 120,000;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
300-349%;
Project description: Development of a low-impact and pervious parking
lot and replacement of the paved lot with a native garden with
interpretive displays.
Gateway: Total CBGN grant funding;
Grant year: [Empty];
Primary program goal: [Empty];
Grant amount: $235,669;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
[Empty];
Project description: [Empty].
Gateway: Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge--Cambridge, Md;
A wildlife refuge located in the Blackwater and Nanticoke River
watersheds on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. It preserves over 26,000
acres as a wintering area for vast numbers of migratory birds. It also
serves as a haven for several threatened or endangered species,
including one of the largest concentrations of nesting bald eagles
along the Atlantic Coast. While primarily a tidal marsh, the refuge
also includes a mature pine forest;
Grant year: 2000;
Primary program goal: Interpretation;
Grant amount: $15,000;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149%;
Project description: New interpretive exhibits on refuge wildlife and
habitats in Visitor Center.
Gateway: Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge--Cambridge, Md;
A wildlife refuge located in the Blackwater and Nanticoke River
watersheds on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. It preserves over 26,000
acres as a wintering area for vast numbers of migratory birds. It also
serves as a haven for several threatened or endangered species,
including one of the largest concentrations of nesting bald eagles
along the Atlantic Coast. While primarily a tidal marsh, the refuge
also includes a mature pine forest;
Grant year: 2001;
Primary program goal: Access;
Grant amount: 20,000;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149[B];
Project description: Development of two water trails, water trail map
and guides, and two wayside signs with safety information.
Gateway: Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge--Cambridge, Md;
A wildlife refuge located in the Blackwater and Nanticoke River
watersheds on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. It preserves over 26,000
acres as a wintering area for vast numbers of migratory birds. It also
serves as a haven for several threatened or endangered species,
including one of the largest concentrations of nesting bald eagles
along the Atlantic Coast. While primarily a tidal marsh, the refuge
also includes a mature pine forest;
Grant year: 2002;
Primary program goal: Access;
Grant amount: 33,000;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149;
Project description: Development of two nature trails with interpretive
kiosks and trail guides.
Gateway: Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge--Cambridge, Md;
A wildlife refuge located in the Blackwater and Nanticoke River
watersheds on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. It preserves over 26,000
acres as a wintering area for vast numbers of migratory birds. It also
serves as a haven for several threatened or endangered species,
including one of the largest concentrations of nesting bald eagles
along the Atlantic Coast. While primarily a tidal marsh, the refuge
also includes a mature pine forest;
Grant year: 2004;
Primary program goal: Conservation and restoration;
Grant amount: 27,500;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149%;
Project description: Partnership with National Aquarium in Baltimore
for a 1.5-acre community, volunteer-based wetlands restoration project.
Gateway: Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge--Cambridge, Md;
A wildlife refuge located in the Blackwater and Nanticoke River
watersheds on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. It preserves over 26,000
acres as a wintering area for vast numbers of migratory birds. It also
serves as a haven for several threatened or endangered species,
including one of the largest concentrations of nesting bald eagles
along the Atlantic Coast. While primarily a tidal marsh, the refuge
also includes a mature pine forest;
Gateway: Total CBGN grant funding;
Grant year: [Empty];
Primary program goal: [Empty];
Grant amount: $95,500;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
[Empty];
Project description: [Empty].
Gateway: Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum--St. Michaels, Md;
The hub and one of the few indoor/outdoor museums focusing on the
history and traditions of the Chesapeake Bay. The museum is located on
18 acres of land along the Miles River and the complex houses examples
of historic bay working boats, numerous exhibits, guns, decoys, ship
models, and the 1879 Hooper Strait Lighthouse;
Grant year: 2000;
Primary program goal: Interpretation;
Grant amount: $40,000;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149%;
Project description: Two interpretive kiosks highlighting bay themes,
interpretive brochures and maps of thematic routes linking gateway
sites, and a revision of the museum's docent manual and training
program.
Gateway: Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum--St. Michaels, Md;
The hub and one of the few indoor/outdoor museums focusing on the
history and traditions of the Chesapeake Bay. The museum is located on
18 acres of land along the Miles River and the complex houses examples
of historic bay working boats, numerous exhibits, guns, decoys, ship
models, and the 1879 Hooper Strait Lighthouse;
Grant year: 2001;
Primary program goal: Interpretation;
Grant amount: 19,200;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
150-199;
Project description: Development of an ongoing, costumed, live
interpretive program on watermen's life and culture.
Gateway: Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum--St. Michaels, Md;
The hub and one of the few indoor/outdoor museums focusing on the
history and traditions of the Chesapeake Bay. The museum is located on
18 acres of land along the Miles River and the complex houses examples
of historic bay working boats, numerous exhibits, guns, decoys, ship
models, and the 1879 Hooper Strait Lighthouse;
Grant year: 2003;
Primary program goal: Interpretation;
Grant amount: 100,000;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
400-449;
Project description: Development of a new, extensive, permanent
exhibit, "At Play on the Bay," which highlights the increasing
recreational activities of the bay, such as the history of recreation,
and the effects of growth on the bay environment.
Gateway: Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum--St. Michaels, Md;
The hub and one of the few indoor/outdoor museums focusing on the
history and traditions of the Chesapeake Bay. The museum is located on
18 acres of land along the Miles River and the complex houses examples
of historic bay working boats, numerous exhibits, guns, decoys, ship
models, and the 1879 Hooper Strait Lighthouse;
Grant year: 2005;
Primary program goal: Access;
Grant amount: 150,000;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
150-199%;
Project description: CBGN Regional Contact Center to provide
information to visitors on how to explore the bay through the CBGN.
Gateway: Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum--St. Michaels, Md;
The hub and one of the few indoor/outdoor museums focusing on the
history and traditions of the Chesapeake Bay. The museum is located on
18 acres of land along the Miles River and the complex houses examples
of historic bay working boats, numerous exhibits, guns, decoys, ship
models, and the 1879 Hooper Strait Lighthouse;
Gateway: Total CBGN grant funding;
Grant year: [Empty];
Primary program goal: [Empty];
Grant amount: $309,200;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
[Empty];
Project description: [Empty].
Gateway: Patuxent River Park-Jug Bay Natural Area--Upper Marlboro, Md;
A 2,000-acre tract of land comprised of various natural habitats that
buffer the Patuxent River. Jug Bay is an important freshwater tidal
estuary in the bay region and it is a component of the Chesapeake Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve, a nationwide network of coastal
estuaries that serve as laboratories for scientific research,
education, and monitoring. More than 250 species of birds have been
recorded in the area;
Grant year: 2002;
Primary program goal: Interpretation;
Grant amount: $5,000;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149%;
Project description: Creation of a self-guided driving, hiking, and
biking tour brochure.
Gateway: Patuxent River Park-Jug Bay Natural Area--Upper Marlboro, Md;
A 2,000-acre tract of land comprised of various natural habitats that
buffer the Patuxent River. Jug Bay is an important freshwater tidal
estuary in the bay region and it is a component of the Chesapeake Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve, a nationwide network of coastal
estuaries that serve as laboratories for scientific research,
education, and monitoring. More than 250 species of birds have been
recorded in the area;
Grant year: 2004;
Primary program goal: Interpretation;
Grant amount: 17,550;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149%;
Project description: 10 interpretive wayside signs and a brochure on
the archeological and historical resources on the Mt. Calvert site.
Gateway: Patuxent River Park-Jug Bay Natural Area--Upper Marlboro, Md;
A 2,000-acre tract of land comprised of various natural habitats that
buffer the Patuxent River. Jug Bay is an important freshwater tidal
estuary in the bay region and it is a component of the Chesapeake Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve, a nationwide network of coastal
estuaries that serve as laboratories for scientific research,
education, and monitoring. More than 250 species of birds have been
recorded in the area;
Gateway: Total CBGN grant funding;
Grant year: [Empty];
Primary program goal: [Empty];
Grant amount: $22,550;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
[Empty];
Project description: [Empty].
Gateway: Rappahannock River Water Trail--Fredericksburg, Va;
The Rappahannock River is the longest free-flowing river in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and extends 184 miles from its origin at
Chester Gap in the Shenandoah National Park of western Virginia to
Stingray Point in the Chesapeake Bay. The water trail includes historic
areas from Kelly's Ford to the Fredericksburg City Docks--the middle
section of the river. While there are many locations along the
Rappahannock that are accessible for paddling and boating, the water
trail is still under development;
Grant year: 2004;
Primary program goal: Access;
Grant amount: $109,674;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149%;
Project description: Development of a water trail, creation of an
interpretive water trail map and guide and Web-based version, four
wayside signs, and six interpretive kiosks on safety and conservation
of the water trail.
Gateway: Rappahannock River Water Trail--Fredericksburg, Va;
The Rappahannock River is the longest free-flowing river in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and extends 184 miles from its origin at
Chester Gap in the Shenandoah National Park of western Virginia to
Stingray Point in the Chesapeake Bay. The water trail includes historic
areas from Kelly's Ford to the Fredericksburg City Docks--the middle
section of the river. While there are many locations along the
Rappahannock that are accessible for paddling and boating, the water
trail is still under development;
Grant year: 2005;
Primary program goal: Access;
Grant amount: 130,825;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149%;
Project description: Expansion of the water trail to the mouth of the
river;
creation of a new overview map and five interpretive, self-guided tours
of the lower Rappahannock;
renovation of an existing facility to establish an on-site visitor
orientation center;
expansion of existing education curriculum;
and development of stewardship programs to involve volunteers in
conservation and restoration work, such as developing low-impact
campsites for overnight paddlers.
Gateway: Rappahannock River Water Trail--Fredericksburg, Va;
The Rappahannock River is the longest free-flowing river in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and extends 184 miles from its origin at
Chester Gap in the Shenandoah National Park of western Virginia to
Stingray Point in the Chesapeake Bay. The water trail includes historic
areas from Kelly's Ford to the Fredericksburg City Docks--the middle
section of the river. While there are many locations along the
Rappahannock that are accessible for paddling and boating, the water
trail is still under development;
Gateway: Total CBGN grant funding;
Grant year: [Empty];
Primary program goal: [Empty];
Grant amount: $240,499;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
[Empty];
Project description: [Empty].
Gateway: Susquehanna River Water Trail-Lower Section--water trail from
Harrisburg, Pa., south to Havre de Grace, Md; The Susquehanna River is
the largest tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. The lower section of the
water trail spans 65 miles from Harrisburg, Pa. to Havre de Grace, Md.
The Lower Susquehanna Water Trail helps users explore the river's
diversity of natural and built environments, as well as contrast the
wilderness and uses of the river for work;
Grant year: 2000;
Primary program goal: Access;
Grant amount: $20,000;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
300-349[B] %;
Project description: Development of an interpretive framework and
signage plan identifying 21 key sites along the river, design and
fabrication of 14 wayside signs, and an interpretive water trail map
and guide to the Pennsylvania portion of the trail's lower section.
Gateway: Susquehanna River Water Trail-Lower Section--water trail from
Harrisburg, Pa., south to Havre de Grace, Md; The Susquehanna River is
the largest tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. The lower section of the
water trail spans 65 miles from Harrisburg, Pa. to Havre de Grace, Md.
The Lower Susquehanna Water Trail helps users explore the river's
diversity of natural and built environments, as well as contrast the
wilderness and uses of the river for work;
Grant year: 2001;
Primary program goal: Interpretation;
Grant amount: 10,500;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
300-349;
Project description: Addition of seven interpretive wayside signs at
key public launches in Pennsylvania.
Gateway: Susquehanna River Water Trail-Lower Section--water trail from
Harrisburg, Pa., south to Havre de Grace, Md; The Susquehanna River is
the largest tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. The lower section of the
water trail spans 65 miles from Harrisburg, Pa. to Havre de Grace, Md.
The Lower Susquehanna Water Trail helps users explore the river's
diversity of natural and built environments, as well as contrast the
wilderness and uses of the river for work;
Grant year: 2002;
Primary program goal: Access;
Grant amount: 18,000;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149[C] %;
Project description: Printing and production of a water trail map and
guide focused on the Maryland portion of the river.
Gateway: Susquehanna River Water Trail-Lower Section--water trail from
Harrisburg, Pa., south to Havre de Grace, Md; The Susquehanna River is
the largest tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. The lower section of the
water trail spans 65 miles from Harrisburg, Pa. to Havre de Grace, Md.
The Lower Susquehanna Water Trail helps users explore the river's
diversity of natural and built environments, as well as contrast the
wilderness and uses of the river for work;
Gateway: Total CBGN grant funding;
Grant year: [Empty];
Primary program goal: [Empty];
Grant amount: $48,500;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
[Empty];
Project description: [Empty].
Gateway: Underground Railroad Scenic Byway--Dorchester County north
through Caroline County, Md; This 64-mile driving route highlights the
life of Harriet Tubman, an abolitionist who served as a conductor on
the Underground Railroad, and key places connected with her in the
Chesapeake Bay region. From Dorchester County, the area she grew up in,
the trail can be followed north through Caroline County, where many
Maryland free blacks and white abolitionists supported the cause of
freedom;
Grant year: 2003;
Primary program goal: Interpretation;
Grant amount: $30,000;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149%;
Project description: "Finding a Way to Freedom" driving route guide,
design of three exhibits to be placed at locations along the Byway, and
installation of one exhibit in The Museum of Rural Life (in Denton,
Md.)
Gateway: Underground Railroad Scenic Byway--Dorchester County north
through Caroline County, Md; This 64-mile driving route highlights the
life of Harriet Tubman, an abolitionist who served as a conductor on
the Underground Railroad, and key places connected with her in the
Chesapeake Bay region. From Dorchester County, the area she grew up in,
the trail can be followed north through Caroline County, where many
Maryland free blacks and white abolitionists supported the cause of
freedom;
Grant year: 2005;
Primary program goal: Interpretation;
Grant amount: 37,450;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
100-149%;
Project description: Fabrication and installation of two exhibits
designed with the 2003 grant, creation of three wayside signs, and
development of an interpretive plan for the Sailwinds Visitor Center.
Gateway: Underground Railroad Scenic Byway--Dorchester County north
through Caroline County, Md; This 64-mile driving route highlights the
life of Harriet Tubman, an abolitionist who served as a conductor on
the Underground Railroad, and key places connected with her in the
Chesapeake Bay region. From Dorchester County, the area she grew up in,
the trail can be followed north through Caroline County, where many
Maryland free blacks and white abolitionists supported the cause of
freedom;
Gateway: Total CBGN grant funding;
Grant year: [Empty];
Primary program goal: [Empty];
Grant amount: $67,450;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
[Empty];
Project description: [Empty].
Gateway: Total CBGN grant funding for the seven gateways;
Grant year: [Empty];
Primary program goal: [Empty];
Grant amount: $1,019,368;
Nonfederal match percentage in ranges: (100 percent is even match)[A]:
[Empty];
Project description: [Empty].
Sources: Park Service documents, gateway documents, and information
provided by grantees.
[A] These nonfederal match ranges are based on estimates provided by
the grantees. For grants that have not been completed, the estimates
represent the anticipated match.
[B] The nonfederal match estimate does not include in-kind
contributions.
[C] This project is not yet complete due to turnover in the project's
managing organization. The current managing organization provided an
estimate of the current match percentage but was not able to estimate
the anticipated match for the entire project.
[End of table]
According to Park Service staff, some working group members, several
grantees, and our analysis, these grants funded distinct projects or
phases of a larger project. For example, the Adkins Arboretum gateway
received two grants for interpretation, each of which supported
distinct projects: (1) the development of an orientation exhibit, an
orientation video, and a self-guided audio tour and (2) the creation of
a wetlands boardwalk and overlook platform. (See fig. 6.)
Figure 6: Projects Funded by CBGN Grants at Adkins Arboretum:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Alternatively, gateways sometimes break up a larger project into
manageable phases in order to complete the project in the allowed 18-
month time frame and meet the matching requirement. For instance, the
Underground Railroad Scenic Byway's two grants for interpretation each
supported a separate phase of the development of a trail that
highlights the life and contributions of Harriet Tubman to the
Underground Railroad in the Chesapeake Bay region.
The Park Service Has Not Yet Determined Grants' Effectiveness in
Meeting Program Goals:
Although the Park Service tracks the program goal(s) for each grant, it
does not have a process to determine the effectiveness of the grants in
meeting its program goals of conservation and restoration,
interpretation, and access. In October 2005, the Park Service issued
its strategic plan for 2006 through 2008, which describes program
priorities and effectiveness measures. However, we have identified the
following weaknesses in this plan:
* The plan does not have benchmarks to assess progress toward achieving
its goals. For example, one of the goals--to "increase awareness and
use of the Gateways Network"--has a target of increasing the number of
visitors who participate in grant-funded programming, exhibits, and
events, but the CBGN program does not have a baseline from which to
measure the attainment of this target.
* The Park Service is not collecting data to establish benchmarks or
measure its progress in achieving its goals. For example, one of the
goals--to "increase the number of gateways providing opportunities for
visitors/volunteers to participate in on-site stewardship activities"-
-targets an increase in the number of stewardship actions taken by
visitors at gateways by 20 percent by 2008. According to the plan, the
Park Service will determine the attainment of this goal by measuring
the number of volunteers and the amount of time they spend
participating in grant-funded activities. However, according to the
Park Service, it does not track the number of volunteers or volunteer
hours that contribute toward achieving its strategic goals.
* Some of the measures included in the strategic plan are difficult to
quantify. For example, to assess its effectiveness in increasing the
number of people who understand the Chesapeake Bay story, the Park
Service plans to measure the number of visitors who demonstrate
understanding of Chesapeake Bay history, culture, and environment and/
or stewardship from grant-funded gateway experiences. However, as the
Park Service recognizes, measuring such outcomes is difficult.
According to a 2005 report by Interior's Inspector General, 12 Interior
grant programs could not demonstrate results because program goals were
not measurable.[Footnote 22] The Inspector General recognized that
while establishing measurable goals for grant programs can be
difficult, such goals are essential to demonstrate results. We have
also reported on the difficulty of measuring outcomes from
grants.[Footnote 23]
The CBGN Director expressed similar concerns about the plan's
usefulness for assessing the effectiveness of the grant program and the
network as a whole. In addition to confirming the problems described
above, he stated that he was uncertain as to whether the goals laid out
in the strategic plan are achievable and in line with what he sees as
the top priorities for the CBGN. He plans, in conjunction with his
staff, the CBGN working group, and gateways, to conduct a comprehensive
review of the strategic plan during fiscal year 2007 to determine if
the plan's goals are measurable and achievable, and represent the
CBGN's current priorities.
The Park Service Has Taken Steps to Manage and Oversee Grants More
Effectively but Still Needs to Address Oversight and Accountability
Weaknesses:
The Park Service developed an action plan to address concerns in
several areas, including planning, financial management, and grantee
oversight. However, as of July 2006, it had only implemented 16 of the
27 actions in its plan. The remaining 11 actions have not been fully
implemented. Moreover, several management problems--inadequate
training, a lack of timely grantee reporting, inappropriate grant
awards, a backlog of incomplete grant projects, and underperforming
gateways--still need to be addressed.
The Park Service Has Made Progress in Implementing Actions in Its Plan
to Improve Grant Program Management:
In March 2005, the Park Service developed an action plan that outlined
27 corrective actions and associated time frames to improve program
management in several areas, including planning, financial management,
and grantee oversight. The Park Service originally had planned to
complete all 27 actions by September 2005. As table 3 shows, as of July
2006, the Park Service had implemented only 16 of these actions.
Table 3: Park Service's 16 Completed Actions to Improve Grant
Management, as of July 2006:
Concern: Lack of Park Service direction, planning, and setting of
priorities;
Action completed:
* Clarified, strengthened, and documented the distinction between
working group recommendations and Park Service decisions. For example,
during the grant review process, Park Service staff analyze
applications, the working group makes recommendations, and the Park
Service makes the final funding decisions;
* Developed annual CBGN program management plan to establish annual
priorities;
* Hired a contractor to analyze geographic and thematic gaps in the
CBGN and estimate potential network growth through 2008. A report was
issued.[A].
Concern: Awarding grants without ensuring that required modifications
to the grant application have been made;
Action completed:
* Developed checklist for certifying that modifications have been made
before issuing the grant award;
* Began using this checklist for fiscal year 2005 grants.
Concern: Ineffective coordination with state and local governments;
Action completed:
* Revised grant review instructions to clearly lay out the expectation
that state representatives in the working group will share relevant
information on applications that are submitted by applicants in their
state;
* Modified grant guidelines to require state applicants to submit a
copy of their application to their state for intergovernmental review
at the time they apply to CBGN.
Concern: Lack of Park Service grant oversight;
Action completed:
* Reviewed incomplete grants awarded from 2000 through 2005 to
establish grant completion deadlines and to determine whether any
grants should be terminated. Park Service identified 11 grants for
termination and has terminated 1 of these--a fiscal year 2000 grant for
$20,000--due to a lack of grantee progress and expiring funds;
* Instituted a formal process for extending the time period of the
grant;
* Sent e-mail notices reminding grantees that their quarterly reports
were due;
* Beginning with fiscal year 2005 grants, clearly stated in grant
agreements when funds will expire;
* Established a grant application review checklist for reviewing
programmatic and financial aspects of the grant application;
* Beginning with fiscal year 2005 grants, included requirements and
instructions in grant agreements for filing quarterly financial status
reports;
* Held a financial management workshop for new grantees;
* Hired a contractor to conduct audits of 17 grants to determine
compliance with financial requirements. These audits identified a few
problems.[B].
Concern: Inappropriate awarding of grants to nonfederal applicants for
projects benefiting federal entities;
Action completed:
* Revised grant application guidelines to allow only grant applications
from nonfederal applicants for projects taking place on federal lands
when the nonfederal entity is fully and directly responsible for
implementing and carrying out the ongoing management of the project.
Source: GAO's analysis of Park Service documents.
[A] Reingold Inc. Gap Analysis. 2005.
[B] Reid Consulting, LLC performed the audits, which identified a few
problems including one grantee that submitted a quarterly report
containing unallowable costs, two grantees that were not on schedule to
meet their matching fund requirements, two grantees that lacked
accounting procedures manuals, and one grantee without a formal
accounting system.
[End of table]
Table 4 describes the remaining problems the Park Service needs to
address in order to complete the remaining 11 actions in its plan. As
the table indicates, most of these actions remaining are for improving
oversight.
Table 4: Eleven Actions the Park Service Needs to Complete and the
Status of These Actions, as of July 2006:
Concern: The proportion of appropriated funds spent on overhead costs
and nongrant activities is too high relative to the funding spent on
grants;
Planned actions: Starting in fiscal year 2005, the Park Service
established a goal of spending between 65 and 75 percent of its annual
allocation of budget authority on grants.
Maintain Park Service program administration costs at a level not to
exceed 5 percent of annual allocation of CBGN budget authority but not
less than $90,000 annually;
Remaining problems: In fiscal year 2005, the Park Service met its goal
of spending between 65 and 75 percent of its annual allocation of
budget authority on grants. However, in fiscal year 2006 it will not
meet this goal. The Park Service plans to spend 58 percent of its
fiscal year 2006 allocation of budget authority on grants because it is
providing more resources toward the administrative costs of eliminating
the backlog of incomplete grants. According to the CBGN Director, the
Park Service does not currently track administrative costs for the
program.
Concern: Lack of Park Service direction, planning, and setting of
priorities;
Planned actions: Develop a strategic plan for the CBGN;
Remaining problems: A strategic plan was issued in 2005, but the Park
Service plans to revise it in 2007 because of concerns about whether
the goals laid out in the 2005 plan are achievable and measurable and
represent current CBGN priorities.
Concern: Lack of measures for program effectiveness;
Planned actions: Establish an outcome measurement process for
evaluating the effectiveness of CBGN grants on a programmatic basis and
prepare initial report. The process will be linked to the strategic
plan outlining CBGN objectives and priorities;
Remaining problems: The Park Service contracted out for the development
of a process to evaluate program effectiveness, but does not believe
the proposed process is usable. The Park Service plans to enter into a
cooperative agreement with a university to conduct a qualitative
evaluation of network effectiveness and plans to fold in some aspects
of the previous contractor's product.
Concern: Lack of Park Service grant oversight;
Planned actions: Ensure that all grant agreements are in compliance
with the directives in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars
on program management and oversight responsibilities;
Remaining problems: As a principal action, the Park Service has
developed an Operating Procedures Manual specifying procedures that
incorporate the guidelines and requirements of OMB circulars to the
CBGN's grant program. The Park Service is in the process of completing
the other steps to improve oversight, which also address adherence to
OMB circulars.
Planned actions: Concern: Organize Park Service grant files on a grant
basis, rather than by gateway, for better documentation and tracking of
grant projects and expenditures;
Remaining problems: Concern: The files have been reorganized by grant,
but the Park Service has not finished updating them.
Planned actions: Concern: Maintain stringent enforcement of quarterly
reporting requirements by grantees, including restricting payments
unless reporting is current;
Remaining problems: Concern: The Park Service has not maintained
stringent enforcement of quarterly reporting requirements. However, it
made some revisions to the quarterly reporting procedure to streamline
it. The Park Service has signed a cooperative agreement with a
nonprofit organization to facilitate completion of required reports, as
well as grantee projects.[A].
Planned actions: Concern: Require fully documented detailed expenditure
reports for both matching and grant funds with all invoices;
Remaining problems: Concern: The Park Service plans to implement this
action by comparing invoices with quarterly reports.
Planned actions: Concern: Beginning in fiscal year 2005, require more
detailed explanations of the scope of work in new grant agreements,
including linking payments to specific project milestones;
Remaining problems: Concern: While the Park Service incorporated
detailed descriptions in the scope of work in new grant agreements, the
lack of quarterly reports prevents the Park Service from always linking
payments to specific project milestones.
Planned actions: Concern: Provide additional grant management training
for Park Service staff;
Remaining problems: Concern: While the CBGN Administrative Officer
completed additional federal grant and cooperative agreement management
training, other Park Service staff overseeing the grants have not
received such training. According to the CBGN Director, he plans to
provide grant management training to his staff in September 2006.
Planned actions: ConcernPlanned actions: Prohibit award of a 2005 CBGN
grant to any applicant with an incomplete outstanding grant: from 2000-
2003, as of July 30, 2005;
from 2004 that is not fully on schedule;
or that fails a specific assessment of whether the capacity exists for
completing a new grant on schedule;
Remaining problems: ConcernRemaining problems: While the Park Service
developed and used a checklist to implement this action, it did not
fully enforce it for fiscal year 2005 grants. The Park Service said it
would enforce this action for fiscal year 2006.
Source: GAO analysis of Park Service documents.
[A] This work will be done by the Association of Partners for Public
Lands.
[End of table]
Several Management Problems Remain:
Although the Park Service has made progress in implementing the actions
in its plan, we identified the following five remaining management
problems:
* Inadequate training. While the Park Service committed in its action
plan to providing additional grant management training for CBGN staff,
it provided federal grant and cooperative agreement training only to
its CBGN Administrative Officer, and this officer left the program in
August 2006. None of the CBGN project coordinators, who are responsible
for reviewing grant proposals and monitoring the progress of grant
projects, have received such training. However, according to the CBGN
Director, project coordinators have had limited training that includes
attending a grant recipient workshop on financial management. This lack
of training is not unique to the CBGN program. In 2005, Interior's
Inspector General reported that over two-thirds of the grant managers
and administrators they surveyed departmentwide had not received any
grant-related training in the last 4 years.[Footnote 24] The Inspector
General concluded that these staff generally lacked sufficient training
to effectively award and monitor grants. According to the CBGN
Director, he plans to provide grant management training to his staff in
September 2006.
* Lack of timely grantee reporting. The Park Service committed in its
action plan to stringently enforcing its requirement for grantees to
report quarterly on progress and finances. However, we found that,
approximately 2 months after the reports were due, only 8 of the 27
files for grants awarded in fiscal year 2005 contained both the
quarterly progress and financial reports for the reporting period we
reviewed. Furthermore, despite the commitment in the CBGN action plan
to restrict reimbursements to grantees who had not yet submitted their
quarterly reports, one grantee who had not submitted a complete report
was reimbursed $3,615.61. Interior's Inspector General raised similar
concerns in its August 2005 report.[Footnote 25] The Inspector General
reported that nearly half of the 92 files reviewed across the
department did not contain the required performance and financial
status reports. According to the CBGN Director, he is going to review
the reporting requirement to determine if reporting on a quarterly
basis is too stringent.
* Inappropriate awards. The Park Service committed in its action plan
to prohibiting the award of a fiscal year 2005 CBGN grant to any
applicant with an incomplete or delayed grant project or that failed an
assessment of whether the capacity existed for completing a new grant
on schedule. However, we found that 2 of the 27 grants awarded in
fiscal year 2005 were awarded to such applicants: one grant was awarded
to an applicant with a 2004 grant not expected to be completed on time
and one to an applicant that, according to the Park Service reviewer,
"has not shown the capacity to accomplish its previous grant project in
a timely manner."
* Backlog of uncompleted grants. According to the Park Service, as of
June 30, 2006, 63 of the 162 grants awarded between fiscal years 2000
and 2004 had not been completed or closed out. Completing and closing
out existing grants is the CBGN's highest priority, according to the
CBGN Director. In 2006, the Inspector General reported that 18 of 23
CBGN grants (fiscal year 2001-June 2005) it reviewed had experienced
delays ranging from 9 months to 3 years.[Footnote 26] The Inspector
General concluded that the Park Service needs to terminate projects
when grantees lack valid reasons for delays. In its response to the
Inspector General's report, the Park Service committed to eliminating
the backlog of incomplete grant projects and placing all grants on a
reasonable and documented time frame for completion.
* Underperforming gateways. The Park Service does not regularly review
gateways to ensure that they are meeting basic requirements for CBGN
membership, as laid out in their memorandums of understanding with the
Park Service. This lack of oversight may have led, in some instances,
to underperforming gateways that reflect poorly upon the network. For
example, during a visit to the Dogwood Harbor gateway (on Tilghman
Island, Maryland), we observed that the site lacked the required CBGN
logo sign that indicates the site's connection to the network, as well
as any information or staff to explain this connection. (See fig. 7.)
Figure 7: Views at the Dogwood Harbor Gateway:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
(a) Paved entrance without a CBGN logo sign.
(b) Skipjacks without any working waterman to observe or interpretive
information to read.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Park Service staff and working group members stated that they have
concerns about gateways that are not fulfilling their commitments, and
they are considering removing some sites from the network. The Park
Service and working group members have started discussing the
possibility of instituting periodic reviews of gateways to ensure they
are continuing to meet the terms of their agreements. Almost all of the
working group members that we interviewed agreed that periodic reviews
of gateways are needed and that, where appropriate, underperforming
gateways should be removed from the network.
Conclusions:
The Park Service is struggling to effectively manage and oversee the
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network and grant program. To its credit, the
Park Service has developed an action plan to address congressional
concerns and has completed many of the actions cited in the plan.
However, the Park Service still has to address several weaknesses in
accountability and oversight to be assured that the CBGN is effective.
In particular, it cannot currently ensure that its process for
selecting gateways is open and fair because it bases its decisions, in
part, on criteria that are not published in the application materials.
Further, based on our review of the Park Service documents, the
criteria for approving or denying gateway membership may not have been
applied consistently. In addition, the Park Service does not have a
process for overseeing gateways to determine whether they are meeting
the basic requirements for network membership, for remedying identified
problems, or for removing underperforming gateways from the network.
Underperforming gateways could discourage visitors from going to other
gateways, appreciating bay-related resources, and promoting the
stewardship of these resources--the ultimate purpose of the program.
Finally, the Park Service has neither assessed the extent to which the
grants it has awarded are effectively meeting program goals, nor has it
fulfilled its commitments to ensure that staff are adequately trained
in grant management, grantees are submitting reports on time so that
progress and expenditures can be properly monitored, and grants are
only awarded to applicants who have completed previous grants and who
have the capacity for managing them effectively.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To enhance accountability and oversight, we recommend that the
Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of the Park Service to
have the Director of the CBGN implement seven actions in the following
areas and be held accountable for implementing them:
Gateway selection and network membership:
* Take steps to make all criteria used to select gateways publicly
available and then consistently apply them.
* Periodically review gateways to determine whether they are meeting
the basic requirements for network membership.
* Develop procedures for resolving identified problems and, where
appropriate, removing underperforming gateways from the network.
Grant management:
* Develop and implement a process to determine the extent to which
grants are effectively meeting program goals.
* Ensure that CBGN staff responsible for grant management are
adequately trained.
* Ensure that grants are awarded only to applicants who completed
grants or to applicants who have demonstrated the capacity for
completing a new grant on schedule.
* Ensure that grantees submit progress and financial reports in a
timely manner.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the
Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. The
Environmental Protection Agency did not have comments on the report.
Interior stated that it concurred with the recommendations in the
report and described actions it plans to take to implement them.
Planned actions include (1) reviewing the criteria used to select
gateways and posting any revisions or clarifications to the CBGN Web
site; (2) completing procedures for periodically reviewing gateways to
determine if they are meeting the basic requirements for network
membership and for terminating those not in compliance; and (3) having
staff attend a grant management workshop offered by the Environmental
Protection Agency in September 2006 and additional training, as
necessary. The periodic reviews of gateways are to begin in October
2006.
We are sending copies of this report to the congressional committees
with jurisdiction over the Department of the Interior and its
activities, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. We also will make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov.]
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VII.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This appendix details the methods we used to assess the National Park
Service's (Park Service) Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (CBGN) and its
related grant program. For this assessment, we determined the extent to
which the (1) criteria for selecting gateways are transparent and
consistently applied; (2) grants have been awarded to support the
program goals of conserving and restoring, interpreting, and accessing
important resources within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed; and (3) Park
Service has taken action to improve its management and oversight of the
program.
To address the three objectives, we analyzed Park Service and other
documents, including the procedures and practices used to select
gateways; the CBGN strategic plan for 2006 through 2008; recent reports
issued by the Department of the Interior's (Interior) Office of
Inspector General; and the Park Service's planned actions to address
management and oversight concerns raised by the Surveys and
Investigations staff for the House Committee on Appropriations. In
addition, we met with Park Service officials and members from most of
the 17 organizations in the CBGN working group to obtain their
perspectives on network membership and the grant program.[Footnote 27]
We also observed four CBGN working group meetings, including the
gateway and grant selection meetings.
In addition, we conducted a reliability review of the Park Service's
data system for the data we received for each of the three objectives
and for presenting background information about the program. Our
assessment consisted of interviews with an official about the data
system and elements and the method of data input, among other areas. We
also compared the electronic data with source documents from the
gateway and grant files, when available. We determined that the data we
used were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
For the first objective--to determine the extent to which the criteria
for selecting network members are transparent and consistently applied-
-we systematically reviewed checklists and denial letters, when
available, for the 63 locations that were denied gateway status during
2000 through 2006. We obtained these documents from either the files or
from Park Service officials.[Footnote 28] In addition, we reviewed the
102 checklists that were either provided by the Park Service or in
network application files for the 152 locations that were designated as
gateways between 2000 and 2006.[Footnote 29] In reviewing both sets of
checklists, there were some items that were unclear. Therefore, we
created a set of decision rules reviewed and agreed upon by the team to
address these cases. For example, if a checklist had a question mark in
the column that indicates the criterion had been met, we did not count
this as having met the particular criterion. Because we cannot be sure
that the accepted checklists we reviewed are the final ones upon which
decisions to designate gateways were based, we compared these
checklists with information received separately from the Park Service
regarding dates of gateway designation in an attempt to verify that we
did, in fact, review the final checklists. In recognition of the
multistep review process used in selecting gateways, we also reviewed
the CBGN working group's meeting minutes, when available, for both
accepted and denied applications to provide additional context for the
Park Service's and the working group's decisions. In the case of denied
locations, we knew some of the files were incomplete so we specifically
reviewed particular documents from the files--the checklists and denial
letters--and meeting minutes, when available.[Footnote 30] We did not
find an explanation in all cases of why an applicant with a checklist
that met or did not meet all criteria was denied or accepted.
For the second objective--to determine the extent to which the Park
Service awarded grants to support the program goals of conserving and
restoring, interpreting, and accessing important resources within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed--we reviewed Park Service data that identified
the primary program goal for each grant awarded and determined the
number of gateways that received multiple grants for the same primary
program goal.[Footnote 31] From these 39 gateways, we selected a
nonprobability sample of 16 gateways covering 49 grant files.[Footnote
32] We selected our sample to include gateways that received multiple
grants for the same primary program goal and to incorporate a variety
of gateway types. Using a data collection instrument, we systematically
reviewed the 49 grant files to determine differences among grants
awarded to the same gateway for the same primary program goal. We also
conducted interviews with grantees and the Park Service officials
responsible for overseeing the grants. In addition, we visited 7
gateways, which we selected from the list of 39 based on the number of
grants awarded for the same primary program goal, the type of gateway,
the state in which the gateway is located, and the total grant dollars
received. In choosing the sample, to avoid duplication, we did not
select sites, except for the hub, visited by the Interior's Office of
Inspector General during its recent study.[Footnote 33] During these
visits, we interviewed grantees, observed grant projects, and discussed
differences in their projects.
For the final objective--to determine the extent to which the Park
Service has taken action to improve its management and oversight of the
program--we used a data collection instrument to systematically review
Park Service files for the 27 grants awarded in fiscal year 2005 to
determine the extent to which corrective actions have been implemented.
In addition, while conducting our audit work, including visiting
gateways in our nonprobability sample that received multiple grants for
the same primary program goal and meeting with working group members,
we visited 9 nearby gateways that had not received any grants to see if
they were fulfilling their basic commitments for network membership. We
also reviewed Park Service data on the number of grants awarded from
fiscal years 2000 through 2005 that have yet to be closed out.
We conducted our work between December 2005 and August 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Working Group Member
Organizations:
This appendix presents information on the Chesapeake Bay Gateways
Network (CBGN) working group member organizations. The following is the
list of member organizations that the National Park Service (Park
Service) provided:
* Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay:
* Chesapeake Bay Commission:
* Chesapeake Bay Foundation:
* Chesapeake Bay Trust:
* Friends of Chesapeake Gateways:
* Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development, Office of
Tourism Development:
* Maryland Department of Natural Resources:
* Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Historical Trust:
* Maryland Department of Transporation:
* Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau
of Recreation and Conservation:
* Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission:
* Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation:
* Virginia Department of Historic Resources:
* Virginia Department of Transportation:
* Virginia Tourism Corporation:
* United States Fish and Wildlife Service:
* United States National Park Service:
According to the Park Service, this list was updated in March 2006.
However, in our efforts to meet with representatives from each of the
CBGN working group organizations, we learned that the Maryland
Department of Transportation representative no longer participates in
the working group, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's sole
representative on the working group no longer works there. According to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee we spoke with, a
replacement has been selected, but that employee had not yet
participated in the CBGN working group and was unaware of any upcoming
meetings or activities. In addition, at the time of our review, the
Maryland Historical Trust representative was on extended leave.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Gateways in the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network:
This appendix provides information on the 152 gateways in the
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (CBGN). It includes the name and
location of each gateway, the year each was designated and its gateway
type, the number of grants for fiscal years 2000 through 2005 the
gateway received, and the total amount of grant funding awarded to the
gateway's managing organization or partner organization during this
period. This information is presented as it was reported by the
National Park Service (Park Service) to us on July 27, 2006.
Consequently, the data are of undetermined reliability and are for
informational purposes only.
Table 5: 152 Gateways in the CBGN, Location, Year Designated, Gateway
Type, Number of Grants Received from Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005,
and Total Grant Funding Awarded:
Gateway: Adkins Arboretum;
Location: Ridgely, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 4;
Total grant funding: $235,669.
Gateway: Anacostia Park;
Location: Washington, D.C;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Anacostia River Community Park;
Location: Washington, D.C;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 18,600.
Gateway: Annapolis and Anne Arundel County Information Center;
Location: Annapolis, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Regional information center;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 12,504.
Gateway: Annapolis Maritime Museum;
Location: Annapolis, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 5;
Total grant funding: 201,585.
Gateway: Baltimore and Annapolis Trail Park;
Location: Annapolis to Glen Burnie, Md;
Year designated: 2003;
Gateway type: Connecting route-land trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Baltimore Visitor Center;
Location: Baltimore, Md;
Year designated: 2004;
Gateway type: Regional information center;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 111,500.
Gateway: Battle Creek Cypress Swamp;
Location: Prince Frederick, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 11,300.
Gateway: Belle Isle State Park;
Location: Lancaster, Va;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 28,825[A].
Gateway: Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge;
Location: Cambridge, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 4;
Total grant funding: 95,500[B].
Gateway: Bladensburg Waterfront Park;
Location: Bladensburg, Md;
Year designated: 2004;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Caledon Natural Area;
Location: King George, Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Calvert Cliffs State Park;
Location: Lusby, Md;
Year designated: 2003;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Calvert Marine Museum;
Location: Solomons, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 64,438.
Gateway: Cape Charles Historic District;
Location: Cape Charles, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 15,000.
Gateway: Captain Salem Avery House Museum;
Location: Shady Side, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 53,625.
Gateway: Chemung Basin Water Trail;
Location: Steuben and Chemung Counties, N.Y;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Connecting route- water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 66,190.
Gateway: Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park;
Location: Along Potomac River from Cumberland, Md. to Washington, D.C;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 56,160.
Gateway: Chesapeake Bay Center at First Landing State Park;
Location: Virginia Beach, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Regional information center;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 28,825[A].
Gateway: Chesapeake Bay Environmental Center;
Location: Grasonville, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 48,750.
Gateway: Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum;
Location: St. Michaels, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Hub;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 5;
Total grant funding: 421,187[ C].
Gateway: Chesapeake Beach Railway Museum;
Location: Chesapeake Beach, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland
Center for Environmental Science;
Location: Solomons, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 30,058.
Gateway: Chesapeake Exploration Center;
Location: Chester, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Regional information center;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 12,360.
Gateway: Chickahominy Riverfront Park;
Location: Williamsburg, Va;
Year designated: 2003;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 51,200.
Gateway: Chippokes Plantation State Park;
Location: Surry, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 33,825[A].
Gateway: Choptank and Tuckahoe Rivers Water Trail;
Location: Caroline and Talbot Counties, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 70,700.
Gateway: Concord Point Lighthouse;
Location: Havre de Grace, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 20,000.
Gateway: Cross Island Trail;
Location: Kent Island, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Connecting route-land trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Dogwood Harbor;
Location: Tilghman Island, Md;
Year designated: 2005;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Dutch Gap Conservation Area;
Location: Chesterfield, Va;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 34,650.
Gateway: Eastern Branch Elizabeth River Water Trail;
Location: Virginia Beach and Norfolk, Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 15,000.
Gateway: Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge;
Location: Rock Hall, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 118,974[D].
Gateway: Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge;
Location: Cape Charles, Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 88,000[ E].
Gateway: Elizabeth River Trail;
Location: Norfolk, Va;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Connecting route-land trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 16,000.
Gateway: Elk Neck State Park;
Location: North East, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 15,300.
Gateway: Fells Point Maritime Museum;
Location: Baltimore, Md;
Year designated: 2003;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 16,678.
Gateway: Fells Point National Register Historic District;
Location: Baltimore, Md;
Year designated: 2004;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 33,135.
Gateway: First Landing State Park;
Location: Virginia Beach, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 56,325[A].
Gateway: Flag Ponds Nature Park;
Location: Lusby, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 32,050[F].
Gateway: Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine;
Location: Baltimore, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 78,880.
Gateway: Fort Washington Park;
Location: Fort Washington, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 40,500[G].
Gateway: Frederick Douglass-Issac Myers Waterfront Park;
Location: Baltimore, Md;
Year designated: 2006;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Galesville Heritage Museum;
Location: Galesville, Md;
Year designated: 2004;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 89,137.
Gateway: Geddes-Piper House;
Location: Chestertown, Md;
Year designated: 2004;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 6,425.
Gateway: George Washington Birthplace National Monument;
Location: Washington Birthplace, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 14,400.
Gateway: George Washington's Ferry Farm;
Location: Fredericksburg, Va;
Year designated: 2005;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Gloucester Point Park;
Location: Gloucester Point, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 68,698.
Gateway: Great Bridge Lock Park;
Location: Chesapeake, Va;
Year designated: 2003;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 83,020.
Gateway: Great Falls Park;
Location: McLean, Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 20,000[H].
Gateway: Greenwell State Park;
Location: Hollywood, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 11,715.
Gateway: Gunpowder Falls State Park;
Location: Kingsville, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 9,600.
Gateway: Gwynns Falls Trail and Greenway;
Location: Baltimore, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Connecting route-land trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 152,000.
Gateway: Havre de Grace Decoy Museum;
Location: Havre de Grace, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 95,000.
Gateway: Historic Annapolis Gateway-City Dock;
Location: Annapolis, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 31,290.
Gateway: Historic London Town and Garden;
Location: Edgewater, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 159,000.
Gateway: Historic St. Mary's City;
Location: St. Mary's City, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 157,072[C].
Gateway: Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve;
Location: Portsmouth, Va;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 4;
Total grant funding: 51,149.
Gateway: Huntley Meadows Park;
Location: Alexandria, Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: J. Millard Tawes Historical Museum and Ward Brothers Workshop;
Location: Crisfield, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: James Mills Scottish Factor Store;
Location: Urbanna, Va;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 14,000.
Gateway: Jamestown Island;
Location: Jamestown, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 13,050.
Gateway: Janes Island State Park;
Location: Crisfield, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 20,000[I].
Gateway: Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum;
Location: St. Leonard, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 106,150.
Gateway: Jones Falls Trail;
Location: Baltimore, Md;
Year designated: 2005;
Gateway type: Connecting route-land trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Juniata River Water Trail;
Location: Central Pa;
Year designated: 2004;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 74,300.
Gateway: King's Landing Park;
Location: Huntingtown, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 32,050[F].
Gateway: Kiptopeke State Park;
Location: Cape Charles, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 116,825[A, E].
Gateway: Lawrence Lewis Jr. Park;
Location: Charles City, Va;
Year designated: 2005;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 10,970.
Gateway: Leesylvania State Park;
Location: Woodbridge, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Lightship Chesapeake and Seven Foot Knoll Lighthouse;
Location: Baltimore, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 107,000.
Gateway: Lower James River Water Trail;
Location: From Richmond to Hampton Roads, Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 103,836.
Gateway: Mariners' Museum;
Location: Newport News, Va;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 8,000.
Gateway: Marshy Point Park (formerly Dundee and Saltpeter Creek Park);
Location: Baltimore, Md;
Year designated: 2004;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Martinak State Park;
Location: Denton, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 16,500.
Gateway: Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge;
Location: Lorton, Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Mason Neck State Park;
Location: Lorton, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 28,825[A].
Gateway: Mathews Blueways Water Trail;
Location: Mathews County, Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 69,110.
Gateway: Mathews County Visitor and Information Center;
Location: Mathews, Va;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Regional information center;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 26,000.
Gateway: Maury River Water Trail;
Location: Rockbridge County, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Merkle Wildlife Sanctuary;
Location: Upper Marlboro, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 5,000[J].
Gateway: Monocacy River Water Trail;
Location: Frederick and Carroll Counties, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Connecting route- water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 19,605.
Gateway: Mount Harmon Plantation;
Location: Earleville, Md;
Year designated: 2006;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Myrtle Point Park;
Location: California, Md;
Year designated: 2006;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Nassawango Creek Preserve-Furnace Town;
Location: Snow Hill, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Nathan of Dorchester;
Location: Cambridge, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 12,850.
Gateway: National Aquarium in Baltimore;
Location: Baltimore, Md;
Year designated: 2004;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 4;
Total grant funding: 261,474[B, D].
Gateway: Nauticus, The National Marine Maritime Center;
Location: Norfolk, Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 100,000.
Gateway: Norfolk Water Trail System;
Location: Norfolk, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 23,250.
Gateway: North Point State Park;
Location: Edgemere, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge;
Location: Woodbridge, Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 16,938.
Gateway: Occoquan Water Trail;
Location: Fairfax and Prince William Counties, Va;
Year designated: 2004;
Gateway type: Connecting route- water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 100,000.
Gateway: Pamunkey Indian Reservation;
Location: King William, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 32,000.
Gateway: Parkers Creek Watershed Nature Preserve;
Location: Port Republic, Md;
Year designated: 2003;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 6,596.
Gateway: Patapsco Valley State Park;
Location: Ellicott City, Md;
Year designated: 2003;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 26,800.
Gateway: Patuxent Research Refuge-National Wildlife Visitor Center;
Location: Laurel, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 14,457.
Gateway: Patuxent River Park-Jug Bay Natural Area;
Location: Upper Marlboro, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 22,550[J].
Gateway: Pemberton Historical Park;
Location: Salisbury, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 34,956.
Gateway: Pickering Creek Audubon Center;
Location: Easton, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 4;
Total grant funding: 152,991.
Gateway: Piney Point Lighthouse Museum and Park;
Location: Piney Point, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 100,000.
Gateway: Piscataway Park;
Location: Accokeek, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 69,900[G].
Gateway: Pocomoke River State Forest and Park;
Location: Snow Hill, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 45,000.
Gateway: Point Lookout State Park;
Location: Scotland, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 45,820.
Gateway: Potomac Gateway Welcome Center;
Location: King George County, Va;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Regional information center;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 10,000.
Gateway: Potomac River Water Trail;
Location: Washington, D.C. to the Chesapeake Bay;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Connecting route- water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 20,000.
Gateway: Powhatan Creek Blueway;
Location: Williamsburg, Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 26,100.
Gateway: Pride of Baltimore;
Location: Baltimore, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 24,987.
Gateway: Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge;
Location: Warsaw, Va;
Year designated: 2006;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Rappahannock River Water Trail;
Location: Fredericksburg, Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 240,499.
Gateway: Raystown Branch Juniata River Water Trail;
Location: Bedford County, Pa;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Connecting route- water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 7,106.
Gateway: Reedville Fisherman's Museum;
Location: Reedville, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 13,500.
Gateway: Richardson Maritime Museum;
Location: Cambridge, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 12,706.
Gateway: Rivanna River Water Trail;
Location: Albemarle and Fluvanna Counties, Va;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Connecting route- water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 24,865.
Gateway: Riverbend Park Visitor Center and Nature Center;
Location: Great Falls, Va;
Year designated: 2003;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 20,000[H].
Gateway: Rock Creek Park;
Location: Washington, D.C;
Year designated: 2005;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 20,000.
Gateway: Sailwinds Visitor Center;
Location: Cambridge, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Regional information center;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 37,450[K].
Gateway: Sandy Point State Park;
Location: Near Annapolis, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Sassafras Natural Resource Management Area;
Location: Kennedyville, Md;
Year designated: 2004;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Schooner Sultana;
Location: Chestertown, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 4;
Total grant funding: 44,502.
Gateway: Shenandoah River State Park;
Location: Bentonville, Va;
Year designated: 2005;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Smallwood State Park;
Location: Marbury, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Smith Island Center;
Location: Ewell, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 4;
Total grant funding: 41,242.
Gateway: Smithsonian Environmental Research Center;
Location: Edgewater, Md;
Year designated: 2005;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Solomons Visitor Information Center;
Location: Solomons, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Regional information center;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 24,520.
Gateway: Sotterley Plantation;
Location: Hollywood, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 91,330.
Gateway: Spruce Knob-Seneca Rocks National Recreation Area;
Location: Seneca Rocks, W.Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 19,200.
Gateway: St. Clement's Island-Potomac River Museum;
Location: Colton's Point, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 20,000.
Gateway: Steamboat Era Museum;
Location: Irvington, Va;
Year designated: 2006;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Stratford Hall Plantation;
Location: Stratford, Va;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Sturgis Memorial Gateway;
Location: Snow Hill, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 20,000.
Gateway: Susquehanna Museum of Havre de Grace;
Location: Havre de Grace, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Susquehanna River Water Trail;
Location: N.Y. segment of the Susquehanna River's North Branch, south
to Harrisburg, Pa;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 4;
Total grant funding: 165,575.
Gateway: Susquehanna River Water Trail-Lower Section;
Location: Harrisburg, Pa., south to Havre de Grace, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 48,500.
Gateway: Susquehanna River Water Trail-West Branch;
Location: Cherry Tree to Sunbury, Pa;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 59,000.
Gateway: Susquehanna State Park;
Location: Jarrettsville, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 13,700.
Gateway: Swatara Creek Water Trail;
Location: Lebanon, Pa;
Year designated: 2004;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 18,150.
Gateway: Terrapin Park;
Location: Stevensville, Md;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 20,000.
Gateway: Tuckahoe State Park;
Location: Queen Anne, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 58,100.
Gateway: Turner's Creek Park;
Location: Kennedyville, Md;
Year designated: 2004;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 28,640.
Gateway: Underground Railroad Scenic Byway;
Location: From Dorchester County, north through Caroline County, Md;
Year designated: 2003;
Gateway type: Connecting route-scenic byway;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 67,450[K].
Gateway: USS Constellation Museum;
Location: Baltimore, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 82,501.
Gateway: Virginia Eastern Shore Water Trails;
Location: Saxis, Va;
Year designated: 2004;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 67,015.
Gateway: Virginia Living Museum;
Location: Newport News, Va;
Year designated: 2003;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 3;
Total grant funding: 270,053.
Gateway: Ward Museum of Wildfowl Art;
Location: Salisbury, Md;
Year designated: 2000;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 30,000.
Gateway: Watermen's Museum;
Location: Yorktown, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 55,498.
Gateway: Westmoreland State Park;
Location: Montross, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 28,825[A].
Gateway: Wharves at Choptank Crossing;
Location: Denton, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 43,100.
Gateway: Wye Grist Mill;
Location: Wye Mills, Md;
Year designated: 2003;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: Wye Island Natural Resource Management Area;
Location: Queenstown, Md;
Year designated: 2002;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 0;
Total grant funding: 0.
Gateway: York River State Park;
Location: Williamsburg, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 28,825[A].
Gateway: York River Water Trail;
Location: Walkerton, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Connecting route-water trail;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 2;
Total grant funding: 95,513.
Gateway: Yorktown Visitor Center and Battlefield;
Location: Yorktown, Va;
Year designated: 2001;
Gateway type: Site;
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: 1;
Total grant funding: 10,000.
Gateway: Total CBGN grant funding;
Location: [Empty];
Year designated: [Empty];
Gateway type: [Empty];
Number of grants fiscal years 2000 through 2005: [Empty];
Total grant funding: $6,278,818[L].
Source: GAO summary of Park Service documents.
Note: When a grant is awarded to more than one gateway, it is reflected
in both the total number of grants and total grant amount.
AOne grant for $28,825 was awarded to eight gateways in Virginia state
parks: Belle Isle, Chesapeake Bay Center, Chippokes, First Landing,
Kiptopeke, Mason Neck, Westmoreland, and York River.
[B] One grant for $27,500 was awarded to the Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge and the National Aquarium in Baltimore.
[C] One grant for $111,987 was awarded to the Chesapeake Bay Maritime
Museum and Historic St. Mary's City.
[D] Two grants for $30,562 and $53,412 were a partnership between
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge and the National Aquarium in
Baltimore.
[E] One grant for $88,000 was awarded to the Eastern Shore of Virginia
National Wildlife Refuge and Kiptopeke State Park.
[F] One grant for $32,050 was awarded to Flag Ponds Nature Park and
King's Landing Park.
[G] One grant for $40,500 was awarded to Fort Washington Park and
Piscataway Park.
[H] One grant for $20,000 was awarded to Great Falls Park and Riverbend
Park.
[I] This grant was awarded and then terminated after CBGN determined
the grantee could not complete the grant project.
[J] One grant for $5,000 was awarded to Merkle Wildlife Sanctuary and
Patuxent River Park-Jug Bay Natural Area.
[K] One grant for $37,450 was awarded to the Sailwinds Visitor Center
and Underground Railroad Scenic Byway.
[L] The total amount awarded column will not add up to the total CBGN
funding amount because the grants that were awarded to more than one
gateway are reflected in the total amount awarded to each of the
gateways that received those grants.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Gateway Selection Process:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Park Service information.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix V Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Grant Application, Review,
and Award Process:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Park Service information.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, DC 20240:
Sep 06 2006:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the U.S. Government
Accountability Office draft report, "Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program:
National Park Service Needs Better Accountability and Oversight of
Grantees and Gateways" (GAO-06-1049). We are pleased to have the
opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Authorized by Congress in 1998, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
(CBGN) brings wildlife refuges, parks, historic sites, museums,
volunteer groups, and water trails together to provide meaningful
experiences of the Chesapeake Bay. The primary goal of CBGN as
envisioned by Congress is to foster citizen stewardship of the Bay by
providing meaningful experiences of the Bay through interpretation,
access, and restoration and conservation activities. This commitment by
the National Park Service (NPS) has been further leveraged by the
Federal and State partnership that was renewed in 2000 and in the NPS
agreement to playing a strategic role in collaborative conservation and
environmental education signed in 2005. The NPS remains committed to
its role in the conservation and restoration of this great national
treasure.
The National Park Service concurs with the recommendations GAO has
outlined in the report. The enclosure enumerates the actions already
taken to improve the management of the grants program and describes the
actions planned by the NPS to implement the GAO recommendations. If you
should have any questions, or need additional information, contact John
Maounis, Director, Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, at 410-267-5778.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robin M. Nazzaro (202) 512-3841:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Andrea Wamstad Brown,
Assistant Director; Laura Gatz; Catherine Kim; Lisa Vojta; Barbara
Patterson; Rebecca Shea; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; and Omari Norman
made key contributions to this report.
(360650):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Pub. L. No. 105-312 §§ 501-502, 112 Stat. 2961-2963.
[2] North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act, § 9, Pub.
L. No. 107-308, 116 Stat. 2446, 2448.
[3] The most up-to-date list of CBGN working group member organizations
(updated in March 2006) provided by the Park Service lists 17
organizations. However, we found that two of these organizations are
not actively involved in the CBGN working group. The Maryland
Department of Transportation representative stated that she no longer
participates on the working group, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service representative no longer worked there. While the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service had identified a replacement representative, this
individual was not aware of any of the group's meetings or activities
and had not yet participated in them.
[4] To implement the grant program, the Park Service enters into
cooperative agreements with recipients. A cooperative agreement is a
type of federal assistance agreement used when the federal government
will be substantially involved in the project. Because such involvement
was anticipated in CBGN projects, the Park Service chose to use
cooperative agreements instead of grants. For ease of presentation, we
refer to the Park Service's cooperative agreements as "grants" in this
report and recipients of these agreements as "grant recipients" or
"grantees."
[5] The Park Service awarded grants to aid in providing access to bay-
related resources because access is identified in the act as a key
purpose of the network.
[6] Although we planned to interview a representative or
representatives from each member organization in the CBGN working
group, we were only able to interview representatives from 14 of the
organizations. The Maryland Department of Transportation representative
stated that she no longer participates on the working group, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service representative no longer worked there, and
the Maryland Historical Trust representative was on extended leave.
[7] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make
inferences about a population because some elements of the population
have no chance of being selected.
[8] Harriet Tubman (1820-1913) was an abolitionist who served as a
conductor on the Underground Railroad, helping to lead slaves to
freedom.
[9] National Park Service. Action Plan and Timeline: Improving National
Park Service Management of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (2005).
[10] One project coordinator is located in the Park Service's
Philadelphia Regional Office, and one is located in Moab, Utah.
[11] The most recent Director was appointed in January 2006.
[12] The Administrative Officer left in August 2006. According to the
CBGN Director, some of the Administrative Officer's grant-related
duties will be performed by a nonprofit organization through a
cooperative agreement.
[13] While the act specifies that the Secretary of the Interior shall
cooperate with the private sector in creating the network, the Park
Service and CBGN working group decided that private, for-profit
organizations are not eligible for designation. However, the Park
Service engages private, for-profit organizations in the network
through other means, such as participation in workshops and
conferences. In addition, private, for-profit organizations have
indirectly received funding through grants awarded to gateways that
have used private, for-profit organizations as subcontractors.
[14] National Park Service. Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Framework
(Annapolis, Md.: June 2000). National Park Service. Chesapeake Bay
Gateways Strategic Plan 2006-2008 (2005).
[15] The program's overarching themes are "interconnectedness,
interdependence, and knowledge and mystery."
[16] For ease of presentation, we refer to the Park Service's
cooperative agreements as "grants" in this report and recipients of
these agreements as "grant recipients" or "grantees."
[17] While the Park Service and CBGN working group decided to exclude
environmental education resource centers from joining the network, the
program's current Director questioned this decision because he believes
that such centers fit well into the CBGN's mission. He added that the
network includes gateways that he would categorize as environmental
education resource centers, and the program may want to reconsider this
decision in the future.
[18] The Park Service developed a checklist for "developed" water
trails and another for "developing" water trails to account for the
fact that when the network was created, the concept of water trails was
a relatively new one. However, such designated gateways, whether
developed or developing, are held to the same standards.
[19] Reingold Inc., Gap Analysis Report for the Chesapeake Bay Gateways
Network, 2005.
[20] Because we cannot be sure that the accepted checklists provided by
the Park Service are the final ones upon which decisions to accept
locations were based, we compared these checklists with information
received separately from the Park Service regarding dates of gateway
designation in an attempt to verify that we reviewed the final
checklists.
[21] In addition, the Park Service's 2005 analysis included this site
in a list of 147 potential sites for possible gateway status. As of
July 2006, the location had not reapplied for gateway status.
[22] Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Audit
Report: Framework Needed to Promote Accountability in Interior's Grant
Management, Report No. W-IN-MOA-0052-2004 (Washington, D.C.: August
2005).
[23] GAO, Grants Management: EPA Needs to Strengthen Efforts to Address
Persistent Challenges, GAO-03-846 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 2003).
[24] Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Report
No. W-IN-MOA-0052-2004.
[25] Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Report
No. W-IN-MOA-0052-2004.
[26] Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Audit
Report: Administration of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network and Grant
Program, National Park Service, Report No. W-IN-NPS-0006-2005
(Sacramento, Calif.: July 2006).
[27] The most up-to-date list of CBGN working group member
organizations (updated in March 2006) lists 17 organizations. Although
we planned to interview a representative or representatives from each
organization, we were only able to interview representatives from 14 of
the organizations. The Maryland Department of Transportation
representative stated that she no longer participates on the working
group, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representative no longer
worked there, and the Maryland Historical Trust representative was on
extended leave.
[28] We could not obtain either a checklist or a letter for 2 of the 63
locations that were denied gateway status.
[29] Checklists for selecting gateways were developed in late 2000. As
a result, not all of the gateways designated in 2000 had checklists. In
addition, the Park Service did not provide a checklist for every
gateway in subsequent years.
[30] Prior to 2003, the program maintained gateway and grant documents
in boxes. Starting in late 2003, a somewhat more systematic approach
was implemented at which point files were constructed. According to a
Park Service official, the grant files are complete while some of the
gateway files for both accepted and denied locations are incomplete.
[31] Some grants are awarded to more than one gateway. In such
instances, we included the grant in the total number of grants received
for each gateway that was associated with the grant award.
[32] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make
inferences about a population, because some elements of the population
have no chance of being selected.
[33] Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Report
No. W-IN-NPS-0006-2005.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
