These are my impressions.  Of the 3 reports, the CBF’s report comes across as the grimmest.  I think this report is intended for elected officials.  The UMCES’s report is intended for scientists who are actively researching the Bay and for “non-active” scientists who may work at the EPA and can influence environmental policy.  The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Bay Barometer is actually uplifting.  After reading the Bay Barometer, I felt positive about the Bay’s future because this report lists easy steps that the average person can do to improve the Bay’s health.

Overall, I believe each report states the same conclusion - that while the Bay's health is poor, it is ever so slowly improving.  Improvements in a few parameters (water quality, organisms, etc.) are often offset by either stagnation or decline in other parameters.  Neither report paints a rosy picture - there is still much work to do.  Yes, there is a different audience for the reports.  It is important for scientific information to be shared with not only scientists, but government policy makers, both those conversant in scientific language and those who are not, and the general public, with or without a vested interest in Bay issues. The CBF report did paint the grimmest state of the Bay.  However, since they are a foundation, they need to plea to the public for funding to help improve the Bay's health.