$
<
33
\
***** $X
mj
¦p..	,\s
PRO"*4-
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Evaluation Report
Development Growth Outpacing
Progress in Watershed Efforts to
Restore the Chesapeake Bay
Report No. 2007-P-00031
September 10, 2007

-------
Report Contributors:
Anthony Chirigotis
Dan Engelberg
Linda Fuller
Kathryn Hess
Frank Pelczarski
Laura Tarn
Abbreviations
CBPO	Chesapeake Bay Program Office (EPA)
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESD	Environmentally Sensitive Development
GAO	Government Accountability Office
LEED-ND	Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Developments
MS4	Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NEMO	Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials
NPDES	National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OIG	Office of Inspector General
TMDL	Total Maximum Daily Load
Cover photo: Farmland is lost to encroachment from housing developments in
central Maryland. (Photo courtesy U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service)

-------
tf£D sr^
/ \ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	2007-P-00031
?	nffironflncnorW^onoral	September 10, 2007
0*	U ¦ O • L. I I V11 Ul IIIICI I Lul a I UlCvll
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
PRO"*^
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
This review is one of several
conducted by the Office of
Inspector General in response
to a congressional request.
We sought to determine how
well the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is
assisting its Chesapeake Bay
partners in restoring the Bay.
This report focuses on
progress to reduce nutrient and
sediment loads from
developed and developing
land sources.
Background
Over 64,000 square miles of
land drain to the Chesapeake
Bay. Population in the
watershed exceeds 16 million
and is projected to surpass
19 million before 2030.
Excessive loads of nutrients
and sediments have been
identified as primary causes of
Bay degradation. From 1985
to 2005, EPA estimated loads
from developed land sources
increased up to 16 percent,
while loads from wastewater
disposal and agriculture
decreased.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2007/
20070910-2007-P-00031.pdf
Development Growth Outpacing Progress in
Watershed Efforts to Restore the Chesapeake Bay
What We Found
EPA and its Chesapeake Bay watershed partners will not meet load reduction
goals for developed lands by 2010 as established in the Chesapeake 2000
Agreement. In fact, new development is increasing nutrient and sediment loads at
rates faster than restoration efforts are reducing them. Developed lands contribute
less than one-third of the Bay loads but would require about two-thirds of the
overall estimated restoration costs. Consequently, EPA and its Bay partners
focused on more cost-effective approaches, such as upgrading wastewater
facilities and implementing agricultural best practices. Additional challenges
impeding progress include:
•	Lack of community-level loading caps.
•	Shortage of up-to-date information on development patterns.
•	Ineffective use of regulatory program to achieve reductions.
•	Limited information and guidance on planning and applying
environmentally sensitive development practices.
•	Limited funding available for costly practices.
A cost-effective start to reversing the trend of increasing loads from developed
land is for communities to concentrate on new development. Opportunities
abound for EPA to show greater leadership in identifying practices that result in
no-net increases in nutrient and sediment loads from new development and
assisting communities in implementing these practices. If communities do not
sufficiently address runoff from new development, loads from developed lands
will continue to increase rather than diminish. As a result, restoration costs will
increase, and the Bay will not be restored to the health envisioned in the
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement because water quality degradation and loss of
aquatic life will continue.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office Director prepare
and implement a strategy that demonstrates leadership in reversing the trend of
increasing nutrient and sediment loads from developed and developing lands.
The strategy should include developing a set of environmentally sensitive design
practices and support for the use of those practices. The Chesapeake Bay Program
Office Director should also work with Bay partners to set realistic, community-
level goals for reducing loads from developed and developing lands. In addition,
the EPA Region 3 Water Protection Division Director should establish a
stormwater permitting approach that achieves greater nutrient and sediment
reductions. EPA concurred with the recommendations in this report.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
September 10, 2007
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Development Growth Outpacing Progress in Watershed Efforts
to Restore the Chesapeake Bay
Report No. 2007-P-00031.
Wade T. Najjum	./ f
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
FROM:
TO:
Donald S. Welsh
Regional Administrator, Region 3
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe
the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report
represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position.
Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with
established resolution procedures.
The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $783,489.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed upon
actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further release of this report to
the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 202-566-0827
or naiium.wade@epa.gov; Dan Engelberg, Director, at 202-566-0830 or engelberg.dan@epa.gov;
or Linda Fuller, Project Manager, at 617-918-1485 or fuller.linda@epa.gov.

-------
Development Growth Outpacing Progress in
Watershed Efforts to Restore the Chesapeake Bay
Table of C
Chapters
1	Introduction		1
Purpose		1
Background		2
Bay Watershed Environmental Setting and Demographics		2
Bay Pollution Sources and Impacts		3
Restoration Partnerships		5
Loading Caps for Developed and Developing Lands		6
Noteworthy Achievements		7
Scope and Methodology		7
2	Load Reduction Goals Will Not Be Met		8
Losing Ground in Meeting Reduction Goals		8
EPA Could Better Support Local Community Efforts		10
Challenges Impede Load Reduction Progress		10
Lack of Community-Level Loading Caps		10
Shortage of Up-to-Date Information on Development Patterns		12
Ineffective Use of Regulatory Program		13
Limited Information and Guidance on Planning and Applying ESD....	14
Limited Funding A vailable for Costly Practices		17
Conclusions		19
Recommendations		20
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation		20
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits		21
Appendices
A Details on Scope and Methodology		22
B Community Practices to Minimize Impacts of Development
on a Watershed		26
C Details on Load Reduction Progress		28
D Agency Response to Draft Report		30
E Distribution		31

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
In 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its Chesapeake
Bay Program partners (Bay partners) agreed to improve the water quality of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2010. EPA and its partners planned to
improve the water quality to the level needed for the waters to be removed from
EPA's impaired waters list. Based on stakeholder concerns, U.S. Senator Barbara
A. Mikulski of Maryland requested that the EPA Office of Inspector General
(OIG) evaluate progress being made in reducing nutrient and sediment loads to
the Bay. This report focuses on progress in reducing contributions from
developed and developing lands. We previously reported on progress in reducing
agricultural and air deposition sources. An additional report on municipal
wastewater treatment discharges is forthcoming.
Controlling sources of nutrients and sediments from developed and developing
lands is important in light of continuing population growth and development
within the Bay's watershed. To determine the extent to which the Bay partners
are meeting their restoration commitments and the extent of EPA's support, we
sought to answer the following questions:
•	Can the goals for reducing nutrient and sediment loads from developed and
developing lands be accomplished and sustained to restore the ecological
health of the Chesapeake Bay by 2010?
•	To what extent is EPA supporting the Chesapeake Bay Program partners in
their efforts to implement and sustain load reduction practices on developed
and developing lands within the watershed?
•	What challenges must be overcome to effectively implement management
practices to meet and sustain reduction goals for nutrient and sediment loads
from developed and developing lands within the Chesapeake Bay watershed?
1

-------
Background
Bay Watershed Environmental Setting and Demographics
The Chesapeake Bay provides
economic and recreational
opportunities estimated to exceed
$33 billion annually, according to a
1989 economic study by the State of
Maryland. Over 64,000 square miles
of land drain to the Bay or one of its
tributaries (see Figure 1-1).
The watershed includes more than
1,600 local governments, the District
of Columbia, and parts of six States:
•	Virginia
•	Maryland
•	Pennsylvania
•	New York
•	Delaware
•	West Virginia
The population in the watershed area exceeds 16 million and is projected to
surpass 19 million before 2030. Population is particularly concentrated along
Interstate 95. The major urban areas in the watershed all lay on tributaries or the
Bay. Some of these major urban areas and tributaries are shown in Figures 1-2
and 1-3, respectively.
Major Tributaries in
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
•	Susquehanna
•	Patuxent
•	Potomac
•	Shenandoah
•	Rappahannock
•	York
•	James
Figure 1-3. (Source: EPA OIG review)
Much of the population growth is projected to occur in the suburban and rural
edges of these metropolitan areas. For example, the population of Loudoun and
Spotsylvania Counties, Virginia, are projected to more than double between 2000
and 2030.
2
mt
, \
Pennsylvania
Maryland
« Delaware
West Virginia
Virginia
|	[ _ j Chesapeake Bay \A
Figure 1-1. Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Office)
Major Urban Areas in
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
•	Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
•	Baltimore, Maryland
•	District of Columbia
•	Annapolis, Maryland
•	Richmond, Virginia
•	Hampton Roads, Virginia
(Norfolk-Virginia Beach area)
Figure 1-2. (Source: EPA OIG review)

-------
Different restoration approaches are needed in different parts of the watershed
because of variations in governmental structure, physical geography, and land
use. The watershed stretches from the Appalachian Mountains to tidewater
regions. Land use also varies, with developed lands (urban areas and mixed open)
covering 20 percent of the watershed, forests 57 percent, agriculture 22 percent,
and non-tidal water 1 percent.
Bay Pollution Sources and Impacts
Excessive loads of nutrients and sediments have been identified as the primary
cause of water quality degradation and loss of aquatic life in the Bay and its
tributaries.
Figure 1-4. Modeled distribution of density
of nitrogen loading rates from developed
land sources in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed.
(Source: U.S. Geological Survey Sparrow Model)
Nutrients: Nitrogen and phosphorus are
essential nutrients for plant growth, but in
excessive quantities promote growth of algal
blooms. As the algae die and decompose,
oxygen in the water is consumed. Without
oxygen, fish, crabs, and many other aquatic
dwellers cannot live.
Sediments: Water flowing off the
watershed landscape carries suspended
sediment - particles of sand, silt, clay, and
organic material. These sediments block
sunlight from passing through the water,
impact aquatic habitat, and hinder the
growth of submerged aquatic vegetation.
The major population centers in the
watershed are easily identified on the map of
modeled loads of nitrogen from developed
lands (Figure 1-4); they are the areas of high
loading rates. Applications of fertilizers
onto home lawns, golf courses, and
parklands contribute nitrogen and
phosphorus. Other sources of nitrogen
include atmospheric deposition and septic
(onsite wastewater disposal). Sources of
sediment include disturbance of land during
construction and erosion of stream banks
and sediments already accumulated in
streams.
EXPLANATION
Total nitrogen,
in kilograms per
hectare per year
2.5-3
3.5-1
3

-------
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) currently divides the loads from
developed lands into three categories: urban runoff, septic systems, and runoff
from mixed open areas (such as golf courses and parks). Based on 2005
estimated loads to the Bay, these three categories together account for 24 percent
of the nitrogen load, 30 percent of the phosphorus load, and 18 percent of the
sediment load (see Figure 1-5).
Nitrogen Loads - 2005
Forest
15%
Phosphorus Loads - 2005
Forest 2%
Agriculture
40%
Wastewater
20%
Wastewater
22%
Mixed Open
13%
Septic 5%
Mixed Open 7%
Urban Runoff
12%
Atmospheric Deposition
to Non-Tidal Water 1%
Agriculture
45%
Urban Runoff
17%
Atmospheric Deposition
to Non-Tidal Water 1%
Sediment Loads - 2005
Forest
20%
Mixed Open
Urban Runoff
10%
Agriculture
62%
Figure 1-5. Estimated loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment into Bay for 2005.
(Source: CBPO, Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, v. 4.3)
In this report, these three sources will be considered together as a developed-land
sector, even though only some of the lands grouped in the mixed open category
are developed lands. Most of the report focuses on runoff from developed and
developing lands; septic systems are discussed only when related to new
development. Relative to the estimated loads from other major source sectors -
agriculture, wastewater facilities, and forests - the developed-land sector
contributes significantly, but is not the largest source.
4

-------
About a third of the nitrogen delivered to the Bay comes from mobile and
stationary air emission sources, such as automobiles and power plants. This air-
delivered component of the nitrogen load is included in Figure 1-5 with each land
use area on which it falls. This nitrogen is quickly swept by stormwater from the
impervious surfaces that dominate developed lands and is carried to the receiving
water. We addressed efforts to reduce the air-delivered component of the
nitrogen load to the Bay in our report EPA Relying on Existing Clean Air Act
Regulations to Reduce Atmospheric Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay and its
Watershed, issued in February 2007.
Development converts a natural landscape to impervious surfaces, such as roads,
driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, rooftops and storm drains. This traditionally
has detrimental environmental impacts. A natural landscape slows and adsorbs
precipitation, releasing it gradually to local streams. Developed lands quickly
channel water, nutrients, sediment, and trash into local streams and rivers, eroding
streambanks, polluting the waterways, and changing how water moves through
the watershed. In general, water quality of a local stream is likely to be impacted
when the amount of impervious surface exceeds 10 percent of the stream's
watershed.
Restoration Partnerships
Chesapeake 2000 is the latest agreement to establish a partnership among the
watershed jurisdictions and the Federal Government to protect and restore the
Bay. The agreement was signed by members of the Chesapeake Executive
Council - the governors of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; the mayor of
the District of Columbia; the chairman of the tri-State legislative Chesapeake Bay
Commission; and the EPA Administrator (representing the Federal Government).
The Council establishes the policy direction and motivates the Bay partners to
take the expensive and vital steps needed to achieve and sustain the restoration
goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.
CBPO was established by a 1987 amendment to the Clean Water Act to provide
support to the Chesapeake Executive Council. Part of CBPO's charge in Section
117 of the Act is coordinating the actions of EPA with those of appropriate
officials of other Federal agencies and State and local authorities to develop
strategies to:
•	Improve the water quality and living resources in the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem.
•	Obtain the support of the appropriate officials of the agencies and
authorities in achieving the objectives of Chesapeake Bay agreements.
5

-------
Loading Caps for Developed and Developing Lands
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a collaborative partnership among the Federal
Government, District of Columbia, and States. The partners collectively
determined the loads of nutrients and sediment that the Bay and tidal waters could
assimilate and the goals needed to achieve the restoration envisioned in the
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. The partners allocated these load caps by river
basin and jurisdiction (State or District of Columbia). Each jurisdiction then drew
its own strategy for how it would meet the cap load allocations. In their tributary
strategies, the jurisdictions identified management practices to achieve the
reductions needed in each sector, relying on current permit requirements, as well
as efforts that extend beyond requirements. Each jurisdiction chose to place
reductions on the various sectors based on its current loading rates, governmental
structure, economic goals, and environmental priorities.
Table 1-1 shows the total
2010 loading caps for developed and
developing lands established by the
partners. The reductions needed to
reach these goals are relatively minor
compared to those expected from
agriculture sources and wastewater
treatment facilities. Loads from
Table 1-1. 2010 Loading Caps for
Developed and Developing Lands

Loading

(in millions)
Nitrogen (Ibs/yr)
44.27
Phosphorus (Ibs/yr)
3.77
Sediment (tons/yr)
0.64
Source: Estimates from Chesapeake Bay
Program Phase 4.3 watershed model
developed lands account for up to
30 percent of nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay,
whereas the reduction goals for developed and developing
lands make up less than 10 percent of the overall reductions
needed to achieve Bay restoration. In their tributary
strategies, Bay partners indicated reduction goals for
developed and developing lands would be met through
control of stormwater quality and quantity, promotion of
environmentally sensitive development (ESD), upgrade of
septic systems, education of the public, and direct decrease
of sources.
Corrective action was taken to
restore a stream previously
impacted by excessive runoff
from developed land, Cecil
County, Maryland. (OIG Photo)
The primary regulatory program for achieving load
reductions on developed and developing lands is the Federal
stormwater program. This program was added to the Clean
Water Act in 1987 and is a component of EPA's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
Most relevant are parts of the program that control runoff
from construction sites and municipal stormwater.
Construction activities that disturb one or more acres are
currently regulated regardless of location. The goal of the
construction requirements is to stabilize sediment. EPA
Office of Water develops national general stormwater
6

-------
permits for construction and industrial activities that apply in areas where State
permitting authorities do not have jurisdiction. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System permits were added to the NPDES program to better control physical,
biological, and chemical effects that runoff from developed lands can have on the
receiving waters. Programs outside regulatory requirements are also used to meet
load reduction goals. Some of these programs include citizen education, stream
restoration, volunteer monitoring, brownfields restoration, and stormwater system
retrofitting.
Noteworthy Achievements
EPA and its Bay partners have developed several noteworthy approaches to
reduce nutrients and sediment entering the Bay from developed and developing
lands. One example is the September 2006 memorandum of understanding
between the Chesapeake Executive Council and two manufacturers of home lawn
fertilizer. These manufacturers agreed to reduce by 50 percent the amount of
phosphorus in their products by 2009. In addition, they promised to study the
possibility of reducing nitrogen levels in their fertilizers.
Other noteworthy achievements include promoting innovative techniques for
controlling stormwater and supporting compliance with stormwater regulations.
These achievements are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2. In some cases,
they are highlighted in green sidebar boxes.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this evaluation from December 2005 through November 2006 in
accordance with Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller
General of the United States. We used a variety of methods to evaluate whether
the goals for developed and developing lands would be met, to assess EPA's level
of support of the efforts, and to identify challenges. Appendix A contains detailed
information on the scope and methodology of our evaluation. We specifically
evaluated progress toward meeting the caps on nutrient and sediment loads from
developed and developing lands and the goal to reduce the rate of sprawl
development. We limited our evaluation to efforts within the signatory
jurisdictions of the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
We consulted primary documents, conducted interviews, visited nine local
communities, and developed a set of practices for minimizing the impacts of
development on the watershed (see Appendix B).
7

-------
Chapter 2
Load Reduction Goals Will Not Be Met
EPA and its Chesapeake Bay watershed partners will not meet load reduction
goals for developed lands by 2010 as established in the Chesapeake 2000
Agreement. In fact, new development is increasing nutrient and sediment loads at
rates faster than restoration efforts are reducing them. Developed lands contribute
less than one-third of the Bay loads but would require about two-thirds of the
overall estimated restoration costs. Consequently, EPA and its Bay partners
focused on more cost-effective approaches, such as upgrading wastewater
facilities and implementing agricultural best practices. Additional challenges
impeding progress include:
•	Lack of community-level loading caps.
•	Shortage of up-to-date information on development patterns.
•	Ineffective use of regulatory program to achieve reductions.
•	Limited information and guidance on planning and applying
environmentally sensitive development practices.
•	Limited funding available for costly practices.
A cost-effective start to reversing the trend of increasing loads from developed
land is for communities to concentrate on new development. Opportunities
abound for EPA to show greater leadership in identifying practices that result in
no-net increases in nutrient and sediment loads with new development and
assisting communities in implementing these practices. If communities do not
sufficiently address runoff from new development, loads from developed lands
will continue to increase rather than diminish. Restoration costs will increase and
the Bay will not be restored to the health envisioned in the Chesapeake 2000
Agreement because water quality degradation and loss of aquatic life will
continue.
Losing Ground in Meeting Reduction Goals
New development is increasing nutrient and sediment loads at rates faster than
loads are being reduced from developed lands. Little progress has been reported
in reaching nutrient and sediment load reduction goals from developed lands.
Judging just the load reductions from implementing the actions laid out in the
tributary strategies, about 18 to 28 percent of each reduction goal was reported as
being achieved in 2005 for developed lands. At this rate, full implementation of
the developed land part of the strategies will not occur until 2028 at the earliest -
many years after the 2010 goal.
8

-------
Table 2-1. Increasing Reductions Needed

Reductions
Reductions



Needed Based
Needed
Increase in
Percentage

on 2000
Based on 2005
Reductions
of

Loadings
Loadings
Needed
Increase

(in millions)
(in millions)
(in millions)

Nitrogen (Ibs/yr)
16.40
17.48
1.08
7%
Phosphorus (Ibs/yr)
1.55
1.75
0.20
13%
Sediment (tons/yr)
0.22
0.26
0.04
18%
Source: Estimates from Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 4.3 watershed model
CBPO estimates that impervious surfaces in the Bay watershed grew significantly
- by 41 percent - in the 1990s. Meanwhile, the population increased by only
8 percent. Because progress in reducing loads is being offset by increasing loads
from new development, greater reductions will be needed to meet the goals (see
Table 2-1). Additional information on the tracking of loads from developed and
developing lands is provided in Appendix C.
CBPO estimated that loads from developed and developing lands increased while
loads from agriculture and wastewater facilities decreased. Loads from developed
and developing lands were 12 to 16 percent higher in 2005 than in 1985. More
than 90 percent of these loads are from the District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
To meet the reductions in loads laid out by the jurisdictions, the adaptive
management approach of the federally-mandated municipal stormwater program
needs to be accelerated. Since 1990, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4) permits have been required for medium and large cities to discharge
stormwater runoff. Regulations for smaller urban areas took effect more recently
and do not apply to all small developed areas, such as rural town centers.
However, States can elect to extend coverage, which Maryland did.
Where total maximum daily load (TMDL) allocations have been established for
local waters, Bay restoration may also benefit. A TMDL is an estimated load of a
particular pollutant that a waterbody can safely assimilate and an allocation of that
load to the pollutant's sources. These waste load allocations are then incorporated
into new and renewed permits. The calculation of TMDL allocations is part of
Clean Water Act requirements for restoring impaired waters. Many of the rivers,
streams, and creeks within the Bay watershed, as well as the Bay itself, are on the
Federal impaired waters list. TMDL allocations have been, or will be, established
for these impaired waters. If Bay waters are not restored by 2010, a Bay-wide
TMDL will need to be established by Bay partners. Chesapeake 2000 was
adopted partly to avoid needing a Bay-wide TMDL. Without giving up on
achieving the 2010 restoration goals, the partners are collaborating to lay
groundwork for a possible Bay-wide TMDL.
9

-------
EPA Could Better Support Local Community Efforts
EPA has taken steps to support efforts by its Bay partners and local communities
to reduce nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay from developed and developing
lands, as well as to reduce the rate of growth of sprawl development. However,
some of these steps are incomplete, local communities still face numerous
challenges, and opportunities remain for the CBPO to provide greater leadership.
The Clean Water Act defined part of CBPO's role as working in cooperation with
Federal, State, and local authorities in developing and implementing strategies to
restore the Bay. In addition, EPA identified the Bay as a critical ecosystem in its
2006-2011 Strategic Plan with an objective to restore and protect the Bay's
overall aquatic system health. EPA committed to increasing the current pace of
restoration to achieve water quality standards as soon as possible. It would do
this by working with its Bay partners to identify opportunities to reduce nutrient
and sediment loads and find new economies and innovations to accelerate
progress dramatically. Examples of this EPA support are included in the
"Noteworthy Achievement" boxes on subsequent pages.
EPA and its Bay partners are relying on local communities to change their
development strategies to minimize impacts of new development on the
watershed. EPA could be more supportive of local communities in overcoming
the challenges they face to achieve and sustain the Bay restoration goals. Specific
challenges EPA needs to address to better support local community efforts are
included in the following section.
Challenges Impede Load Reduction Progress
Part of CBPO's charge is to work in cooperation with Federal, State, and local
authorities to develop and implement strategies to restore the Bay. EPA and its
State partners are relying on local communities to reduce sources of nutrients and
sediment and adopt ESD practices. We identified five challenges that CBPO and
its State and local partners need to cooperatively address to reduce loads from
developed and developing lands: setting community goals, gathering information
on recent development, increasing stormwater permit requirements, providing
guidance on ESD, and securing funding for needed practices. Details on these
challenges follow.
Lack of Community-Level Loading Caps
According to the CBPO, specific nutrient and sediment loading caps have not
been set for local communities, even though the local level is where stormwater
and development are managed. Consequently, communities have an insufficient
understanding and diminished inclination to contribute to meeting the overall cap
loads needed to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Successful restoration to achieve
Bay water quality goals requires that these community-level goals be established
10

-------
and communicated to all partners, including the local communities. Local
partners then need to accept these goals and their own roles and responsibilities
for achieving them.
As explained in the section "Loading Caps
for Developed and Developing Lands," each
jurisdiction chose how to allocate by sector
the reductions needed for Bay restoration.
In determining reduction goals from
developed and developing lands for each
major tributary watershed, States started
with the reductions in nutrient and sediment
loads that were expected through the current
permit cycle of the stormwater management
program. They next layered into the plan
other efforts to reach needed reductions.
Additional efforts included changes in
development practices, retrofitting existing
developed lands, enhancing green
infrastructure (see box), and restoring
impaired streams. Some communities
already are undertaking these efforts. To
achieve Bay restoration, communities across
the watershed will need to implement these
practices that extend beyond their current
regulatory requirements and possibly the
needs of their local waters. They should
know the magnitude and nature of the
additional efforts that will be needed.
However, eight of the nine communities we
visited had not been given specific load reduction goals. The one exception was
the District of Columbia. As a signatory jurisdiction, the District was given
specific reduction goals in the initial allocation process.
When EPA and its Bay partners re-evaluate their Bay restoration strategies in
2008, they should seek local community input and buy-in on setting realistic goals
for reducing loads from developed and developing
lands. EPA and its partners will need to cascade
the overall goals down to community-level
reduction goals. Much of the work needed to
make these reductions is expensive and not
required by regulations. Without specific goals
and implementation strategies, many communities
may have limited appreciation of what they need
to do to contribute to Bay restoration.
Noteworthy Achievement
Using Green Infrastructure
to Protect Water Quality
EPA's Administrator recently
signed a statement promoting
community and utility use of green
infrastructure. Also, EPA's
Assistant Administrator for Water
called for EPA water programs "to
exert leadership in the consistent
and reliable implementation of
green infrastructure approaches."
Green infrastructure protects
water quality and provides other
environmental and societal
benefits. Examples of green
infrastructure include green roofs,
urban tree canopy, rain gardens,
and riparian buffers. In Rooftops
to Rivers: Green Strategies for
Controlling Stormwater and
Combined Sewer Overflows, the
National Resources Defense
Council reported that some of the
more aggressive and innovative
green infrastructure approaches to
stormwater are located around the
Chesapeake Bay.
A "green," stormwater-management roof on
an EPA building in Arlington, Virginia (EPA
photo).
11

-------
Community-level reduction goals could help local governments manage new
development and redevelopment to eliminate adverse impacts. States could create
trading and offset programs that include stormwater controls if community-level
nutrient and sediment reduction goals are set. Without these specific goals,
certifying that a proposed action is beyond what is needed to meet the Chesapeake
Bay cap load allocations and is, therefore, available for trading, would be
difficult. Effective trading and offset programs could assist progress in reducing
loads from developed and developing lands. Finally, community-level reduction
goals could assist in establishing water-quality based targets in regulatory
programs, such as TMDLs and NPDES permits.
Shortage of Up-to-Date Information on Development Patterns
Since 2000, EPA and its Bay partners have not reported on progress in reducing
the rate of sprawl development. According to the CBPO Associate Director for
Ecosystem Management, CBPO and its Bay partners did not report on progress
partly because of an inability to define sprawl development in an easily
measurable way. Also, the partners lacked access to sufficiently reliable and
updated data on land-use changes and implementation of management practices.
One of the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement is to reduce the growth rate
of sprawl development and periodically report to the Executive Council on this
progress.
Bay partners adopted growth in impervious surfaces on a watershed basis as their
measurement for meeting the sprawl growth goal. However, obtaining reliable,
up-to-date information at the watershed scale has not been practical. Further, this
information, even if available, may not assist local communities because it is at
the wrong scale for their growth management and planning needs. EPA's future
efforts to develop better measures and report on development should be done in
ways that assist local communities in making informed decisions on development.
When EPA and its Bay partners consider allocating nutrient and sediment
reduction goals to the community level, they should include local communities in
committing to reducing sprawl development. The local communities could
provide the Chesapeake Bay Program reliable and up-to-date information on
changes in development in their jurisdictions. In return, local communities would
be recognized for their progress, and would have access to better information on
development changes in nearby communities.
EPA also needs updated land use data to improve the usefulness of its new
watershed model as a predictive management tool. We encourage EPA to
continue its efforts to develop 5-year forecasts of land use out to the year 2030.
If these forecasts are developed with up-to-date local and State input, they will be
useful in local efforts.
12

-------
Ineffective Use of Regulatory Program
EPA and its Bay partners could have achieved greater load reductions by more
effectively using their stormwater regulatory program. The MS4 permit is the
primary regulatory tool for EPA and its Bay Partners to use in assisting
communities in reducing nutrient and sediment loads from developed and
developing lands. Actions implemented under these permits mitigate the local
effects of storm runoff on rivers and streams. To promote greater load reductions,
the Chesapeake Executive Council directed the Chesapeake Bay Program in 2004
to develop approaches for stormwater management that are "more prevention-
oriented, more effective and efficient, and that make the best use of regulatory,
voluntary and incentive tools." EPA and its Bay partners recently took steps to
achieve more progress in the regulatory stormwater program. However, effective
stormwater management in the watershed remains hampered by the lack of
adequate research on new management practices, absence of waste load
allocations, and limitations of the legislated form of the program.
Stormwater management was added to the Clean Water Act in 1987 to mitigate
negative impacts of runoff from developed lands on the receiving water bodies. It
relies on an adaptive management approach, in which communities implement a
reasonable set of mitigation measures, monitor results, and then propose a new set
of measures for the next permit cycle. This approach differs from the numerical
effluent limits used in permits for wastewater discharge.
Some of the attributes of MS4 permits that may limit their effectiveness in
achieving Bay restoration goals include lack of numerical water-quality goals,
implementation that evolves with each 5-year permit cycle, no requirements to
retrofit stormwater systems to achieve greater environmental protection, and their
reliance on technology-based rather than water quality-based approaches. In
addi tion, some of the actions taken address problems other than nutrient and
sediment loads, such as reducing flooding risks, and are relatively inefficient at
removing nutrients. Further, not all developed and developing lands are covered
by MS4 permits.
While these attributes make the MS4 permit a
less-than-ideal tool for achieving restoration
goals, State permit writers and EPA could have
strengthened the MS4 permits when the
opportunities arose, as they chose to do with
NPDES wastewater treatment permits. The
communities that we visited focus their watershed
efforts on meeting the requirements of their
stormwater management programs. This suggests
that if EPA and its Bay partners were to
strengthen the MS4 permits to include greater
nutrient and sediment reductions, the
A bioretention stormwater management
system designed to treat rooftop and
parking lot runoff, Cecil County, Maryland
(EPA OIG Photo)
13

-------
communities would implement the needed steps. Measurable, numerical goals in
line with the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement and a probable Bay-wide TMDL
should be considered for future permits.
EPA and its Bay partners can further strengthen their regulatory approach by
consistently linking stormwater permit requirements and TMDLs for impaired
local waters. Even though TMDLs may be developed to correct local
impairments, not impairment of the Bay, local TMDL implementation and Bay
restoration can be linked. Actions taken to correct local impairments may serve
as the foundation needed to reduce loads to the Bay from developed and
developing lands. Improved coordination between local TMDL and Bay
restoration efforts may accelerate progress in both programs.
EPA Region 3 is conducting a Review of EPA's Regulatory Programs and
Authorities to Meet Chesapeake Bay Restoration Objectives. The aim is for EPA
and its Bay partners "to use a strategic combination of NPDES regulatory tools,
state authorities and especially local planning, zoning and erosion and sediment
control authorities to develop this more cost-effective, preventive approach to
stormwater management." In response, EPA Region 3 formed a permanent
workgroup with its Bay partners. Although we did not evaluate the effectiveness
of this new "Stormcatchers" program, it aims to improve the utility of stormwater
permits. It would do so by better integrating permits with TMDLs, improving
monitoring of stormwater, promoting use of ESD practices, and assisting
communities in developing local program funding.
Limited Information and Guidance on Planning and Applying ESD
Some communities are unprepared to achieve the load reduction goals from
developed and developing lands while accommodating economic and population
growth. Some communities already have extensive responsibilities related to the
Clean Water Act. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay goals adds further responsibilities
not required under the Act. Communities may also be reluctant to invest in
practices without further information on effectiveness. EPA can support local
communities by:
(1)	completing a set of stormwater management principles to guide growth
and development through ESD;
(2)	addressing potential conflicts between environmental and economic goals,
and
(3)	expanding educational opportunities so that community officials can make
more-informed development decisions.
Completing ESD principles. EPA has not prepared a watershed-wide set of
stormwater management principles to guide growth and new development.
EPA promised these principles in response to a May 2005 Urban Summit of
stakeholders. The principles should already be completed based on EPA's
schedule. When interviewed in October 2006, the CBPO Director said that 2006
14

-------
budget cuts prevented EPA from
accomplishing this task. While some
watershed communities are recognized
national leaders in adopting mitigating
practices to address growth (see box at
top right), the trend of increasing loads
from developed lands will be halted only
if communities across the Bay watershed
adopt ESD practices to minimize
impacts of new development. The
CBPO needs to complete the promised
set of ESD principles and create a
program endorsing these practices.
Developers advised us that communities
took a long time to approve new
practices because they did not know
how reliable the practices were. An
endorsement program could help to
provide information on effectiveness of
practices and promote quicker
acceptance of the practices.
ESD practices should be considered at the beginning of new development
planning (see box at bottom left). Traditionally, stormwater planning and
permitting have been considered engineering steps
that are accomplished at the end of development
planning. However, effective stormwater
management includes an initial assessment of site
suitability and extends to consideration of collective
impacts of numerous decisions that might reach
beyond a municipality's boundary. EPA and its
partners are working to better support this shift at
the local planning level.
Some Bay communities lack the resources to
develop their own set of best principles and would
benefit from EPA and its partners doing so. We
understand that EPA needs to prioritize its tasks.
However the absence of the promised set of
principles hinders the achievement of load
reductions in some communities. The set of
practices for minimizing the impacts of
development on the watershed (Appendix B),
prepared by the OIG from EPA guidance
documents with the assistance of experts, could be
considered as a starting point.
Noteworthy Achievement
Leaders in ESD Practices
The watershed organization Friends
of the Rappahannock has been
promoting environmental awareness
in the rapidly growing north-central
part of Virginia (the southern
extremes of the District of Columbia
commuting area) since 1985. The
Friends organization and others are
featured in an educational video on
ESD practices, Reigning in the
Storm. The video, produced by the
Northern Virginia Regional
Commission, has been adapted for
use elsewhere. Another community,
Prince George's County, Maryland,
has proven ESD practices can be
effective even in heavily urban
environments with space limits.
Noteworthy Achievement
Certification Program for
Neighborhood Development
A certification program being
developed by the U.S. Green
Building Council, Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design
for Neighborhood Developments
(LEED-ND), emphasizes smart
growth aspects of development,
while also recognizing important
green building practices that are the
core of their current building
certification program. LEED-ND will
require proper siting and
conservation of wetlands and
waterbodies and will provide credit
for minimizing site disturbance
through site design and during
construction and stormwater
management, among other ESD
practices. Over 20 developments in
the watershed have applied for
certification consideration under the
pilot phase of LEED-ND.
15

-------
Increased leadership from the CBPO is needed to reverse the trend of increasing
loads from developed and developing lands. The principles will not achieve and
sustain Bay restoration unless communities apply them. Therefore, CBPO needs
to prepare and implement a strategy on how it will work with its State and local
partners, developers, Federal agencies, and other stakeholders to adopt these
principles. EPA should promote inclusion of these or similar principles into
stormwater permits, local building codes, and new development plans.
Addressing potential conflicts. Potential conflicts between communities'
environmental and economic goals have not been addressed completely.
Determining the potential impacts of the tributary strategies on communities'
growth is critical for ensuring that these communities will identify and surmount
challenges. In response to a 2001 Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report, EPA committed to review "key EPA rules and programs to determine if
they conflict with local growth management efforts or have unintentional effects
on development patterns." However, EPA has made limited progress in
conducting these reviews and needs to evaluate how the Chesapeake Bay
restoration may conflict with local growth management efforts.
An example of the type of analysis that is required surrounds the potential conflict
between tributary strategy targets and anticipated growth in Cecil County,
Maryland. The county is projected to nearly double in population between 2000
and 2030, partly due to the planned expansion of the nearby Aberdeen Proving
Grounds. This projected growth could result in the wastewater treatment facilities
reaching their nutrient allocation caps. If the treatment facilities cannot expand,
county officials may abandon their efforts to concentrate development in
designated growth corridors. This action may result in development at lower
densities on septic systems, greater loss of forest and agriculture lands, and
increased nitrogen loads to the Bay. Environmental and planning staff in
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, identified a similar challenge. When the
nutrient and sediment allocations to meet Bay restoration are re-evaluated by EPA
and its Bay partners in 2008, effects on
local growth management should be one
of the factors considered.
Expanding educational opportunities.
EPA and its Bay partners need to expand
educational outreach efforts for
environmental and planning staff and
municipal officials. EPA and its Bay
partners have initiated a new support
effort, the Chesapeake-oriented "NEMO"
project (see box). However, as a pilot, it
will not be able to assist a large number of
communities. In addition, the Local
Government Advisory Committee to the
Chesapeake Executive Council has
16
Noteworthy Achievement
Educating Local Officials
NEMO (Nonpoint Education for
Municipal Officials) is a national
network of education programs
teaching local land use decision
makers about the relationship
between land use and natural
resources protection. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Park
Service, and EPA are partnering to
expand this network to include
Chesapeake Bay watershed
communities. However, efforts are
limited to date.

-------
initiated a program in which local governments are matched with other local
governments that have applicable environmental protection experience. EPA and
its partners should prepare and implement a strategy for wider application of these
programs. Targeting specific geographic areas may better serve communities
with the greatest needs and achieve the greatest environmental results.
EPA provides educational opportunities, such as the online watershed academy
courses and the stormwater workshop, Stepping up Your Local Stormwater
Management Program, held across the nation. In addition, EPA recently
published and electronically distributed guidance material on stormwater practices
and water-resource aspects of smart growth. EPA and its Bay partners could
further promote to their local partners these nationally-provided education
opportunities and guidance materials.
In addition to formal training, EPA and its
jurisdiction partners may need to provide
community-specific guidance. For example,
technical analyses should consider cumulative
downstream effects of numerous individual
site management decisions that extend beyond
the local municipal boundaries. Further, the
technological and economical effectiveness of
new technology may not be available. In the
absence of this information, local jurisdictions
may be reluctant to attempt to apply or
endorse newer practices. The more
comfortable the communities are with ESD
practices, the more likely they are to approve
such projects (see box).
Even when information is available, applying techniques may require special
knowledge. Site-specific considerations - such as topography, soil conditions,
and vegetative cover - need to be incorporated into estimates of the effectiveness
of practices proposed at a particular site. Smaller communities that do not often
engage in these analyses may find they need individualized support from EPA or
States so that community officials can make more-informed development
decisions.
Limited Funding Available for Costly Practices
In 2004, CBPO estimated that nearly two-thirds (or $18 billion) of the $28 billion
for implementing all aspects of the tributary strategies will be needed for reducing
loads from developed and developing lands. This is approximately $3,000 per
household in the watershed. Funds have not yet been identified for the vast share
of the anticipated need. Further, about two-thirds of the estimated $18 billion are
Noteworthy Achievement
Developer's Scorecard
Developers interviewed said they
would use ESD development
practices more widely if they
were assured their project plans
would be approved more readily.
To gain approval, developers in
Spotsylvania County, Virginia, will
be able to use a scorecard to rate
their proposed development and
ensure that they have enough
management practices that are
protective of the watershed, such
as ESD, to gain approval.
17

-------
for practices not currently required by regulations, and thus would not be a top
priority for funding.
Some municipalities established stormwater utility fees to provide a dedicated
funding stream for capital improvements and annual maintenance costs (see box).
However, these fees are not found in all
communities, and stormwater costs may
compete for general revenue funds against
other worthy local needs, such as
education and public safety.
Some communities use bonds or loans to
finance major capital expenditures, such as
stormwater retrofit and stream restoration
projects. Communities can secure low-
interest loans from the Federal- and State-
financed Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, but funding is limited. In 2006, the
three signatory States provided about $300
million for projects across the States, not
only those associated with Bay restoration.
These funds supported a variety of clean
water projects (wastewater treatment
facility upgrades, nonpoint source controls, and estuary projects). Since 1990, the
Bay States disbursed from their State Revolving Funds approximately $3 billion,
or 18 percent of the estimated costs to reduce loads from developed and
developing lands. Given these parameters, the State Revolving Fund cannot
provide the magnitude of financing needed to implement the full range of actions
laid out in the tributary strategies to reduce these loads.
EPA's nonpoint source grant to each State, otherwise know as a "319 grant" (after
the section of the Clean Water Act authorizing the program), is a possible source
of funds. These grants cannot be used by communities to meet stormwater permit
requirements, but are available for projects that exceed regulatory requirements.
The three signatory States and the District of Columbia were awarded a total of
$141 million over the last 6 years (2000-2005) in 319 funding. However, some of
the funding was awarded for projects outside the Bay watershed. In addition,
only 16 percent of the funding was for developed land projects. Maryland and the
District of Columbia exceeded, and Virginia and Pennsylvania were significantly
below, the national average of 10 percent spent on developed land projects.
Bay watershed communities also have several other Federal funding sources
specifically available to them. However, these programs provide a relatively
small amount of money for reducing loads from developed and developing lands.
CBPO awards about $8 million annually in implementation grants to the Bay
jurisdictions. However, our review of the implementation grants showed few
Noteworthy Achievement
Stormwater Management Fees
A Montgomery County, Maryland,
Water Quality Charge added to
county tax bills has funded
maintenance of the stormwater
management systems within the
county since 2002. In Fiscal Year
2006, $4.5 million was collected.
A recent 30-percent increase in the
charge will provide dedicated
revenue for stormwater
management capital-improvement
projects, and for the first time will
provide grants to homeowners to
implement ESD projects, such as
rain gardens.
18

-------
funded activities in 2005 had a developed land focus. Two Chesapeake Bay
grants programs are also available to fund local demonstration projects. In 2006,
2 out of 10 targeted watershed grants (approximately $1.35 million) had a
developed land element. Also, 12 of 68 small watershed grants (approximately
$458,000) included a developed land element, according to CBPO.
EPA and its Bay partners could also use
recognition and incentive programs to
increase the level of projects undertaken
by communities. This is particularly true
for projects that exceed current permit
requirements. However, EPA's Office of
Water has not awarded a Clean Water
Act Recognition Award for stormwater
management excellence in 2 of the last
5 years. A Chesapeake Bay watershed
community was last recognized in 1998.
A new awards program, recognizing
innovative techniques to control
stormwater, was piloted in Virginia in
2006 (see box). More recently, the
program was expanded to include the
entire region. Incentives, such as modest tax credits and streamlined permit
processes, could prompt landowners and developers to voluntarily adopt ESD
practices. Developers generally point to the need for incentives, particularly
where local codes do not require action.
Conclusions
Development growth within the Chesapeake Bay watershed is outpacing progress
in efforts to reduce nutrient and sediment loads from developed lands.
Developing a strong partnership with local communities is the key to curbing
these loads. Local communities determine how development will occur; they are
also being relied upon to implement costly practices that often exceed regulatory
requirements to restore the Bay. EPA and its State partners have focused their
efforts primarily on the most cost-effective practices of upgrading wastewater
plants and implementing agricultural practices, leaving communities without clear
expectations of their role in reducing nutrients and sediment loads or how best to
do so. A cost-effective start to reversing the trend of increasing loads is for
communities to adopt more ESD practices. CBPO will need to take a greater
leadership role by developing a strategy to work with its partners to set a direction
for development consistent with the Chesapeake restoration goals. EPA and its
State partners have an array of regulatory, incentive, and voluntary program tools
they can use. While actions taken in response to the following recommendations
will not resolve the wide range of Bay water quality problems, CBPO needs to
take the first step in coordinating an effective approach.
Noteworthy Achievement
Recognition Award Promotes
Innovative Practices
Virginia and EPA's CBPO and
Region 3 signed a May 2005
Memorandum of Understanding that
included establishing a recognition
program. In April 2006, five
municipalities, universities, and
organizations were recognized for
their use of innovative techniques to
control stormwater runoff. In
January 2007, EPA Region 3 and
the Low Impact Development Center
announced a similar recognition
program for all States in the region.
19

-------
Recommendations
We recommend that the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator charge:
2-1 The CBPO Director to prepare and implement a strategy that demonstrates
leadership in reversing the trend of increasing nutrient and sediment loads from
developed and developing lands. Such a strategy should include steps to:
•	develop a set of ESD practices that result in no-net increase in nutrient and
sediment loads and flows in new developments and may be applicable to
existing development and redevelopment;
•	work with State and local partners, developers, Federal agencies, and other
stakeholders to implement these practices through regulatory, voluntary,
and incentive approaches;
•	educate municipal officials on these practices and other aspects of ESD;
•	target technical assistance to local governments interested in pursuing
tools and strategies for reducing runoff from development;
•	identify progressive local governments and leaders in the housing and
commercial development fields and create forums for sharing information;
•	report on progress through the existing annual reporting structure; and
•	evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy.
2-2 The CBPO Director to work with the Chesapeake Bay partners to set realistic,
community-level goals for reducing nutrient and sediment loads from developed
and developing lands.
2-3 The Water Protection Division Director to establish, with the delegated States, a
documented permitting approach that achieves greater nutrient and sediment
reductions in MS4 permits across the watershed by:
•	incorporating measurable outcomes in line with waste load allocations,
when established for local waters and the Chesapeake Bay, through the
TMDL regulatory program;
•	including retrofitting of developed areas where these actions would benefit
local waters as well as the Bay; and
•	disallowing increases in loads and flows from new development unless
offsets or trades are obtained.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency concurred with the recommendations in this report. See Appendix D
for its response. These recommendations will remain open until the Agency has
completed the agreed actions.
20

-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Agreed To
Amount
2-1 20 Charge the CBPO Director to prepare and
implement a strategy that demonstrates leadership
in reversing the trend of increasing nutrient and
sediment loads from developed and developing
lands. Such a strategy should include steps to:
•	develop a set of ESD practices that result in
no-net increase in nutrient and sediment
loads and flows in new developments and
may be applicable to existing development
and redevelopment;
•	work with State and local partners,
developers, Federal agencies, and other
stakeholders to implement these practices
through regulatory, voluntary, and incentive
approaches;
•	educate municipal officials on these practices
and other aspects of ESD;
•	target technical assistance to local
governments interested in pursuing tools and
strategies for reducing runoff from
development;
•	identify progressive local governments and
leaders in the housing and commercial
development fields and create forums for
sharing information;
•	report on progress through existing annual
reporting structure; and
•	evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy.
EPA Region 3
Regional Administrator
0	EPA Region 3
Regional Administrator
0	EPA Region 3
Regional Administrator
and sediment reductions in MS4 permits across the
watershed by:
•	incorporating measurable outcomes in line
with waste load allocations, when established
for local waters and the Chesapeake Bay,
through the TMDL regulatory program;
•	including retrofitting of developed areas
where these actions would benefit local
waters as well as the Bay; and
•	disallowing increases in loads and flows from
new development unless offsets or trades are
obtained.
2-2 20 Charge the CBPO Director to work with the
Chesapeake Bay partners to set realistic,
community-level goals for reducing nutrient and
sediment loads from developed and developing
lands.
2-3 20 Charge the Water Protection Division Director to
establish, with the delegated States, a documented
permitting approach that achieves greater nutrient
1 0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
21

-------
Appendix A
Details on Scope and Methodology
Primary documents consulted included:
•	Chesapeake Bay Commission Annual Report
•	Chesapeake Bay Foundation review
•	Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel Report
•	Chesapeake 2000 Agreement
•	EPA and jurisdiction regulation and guidance documents on stormwater
•	EPA smart growth reports
•	Tributary strategies
•	Maryland's implementation strategy
•	Local community stormwater and planning documents
Interviews included:
EPA Headquarters
•	Office of Water
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Municipal Permits Branch
•	Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
Smart Growth Office
EPA Region 3
•	Water Protection Division
Director and Associate Directors
Stormwater and nonpoint source program managers
TMDL coordinator
Geographical Information System team leader
EPA CBPO
•	Director* Deputy Director, and Associate Directors
•	Program managers for land and nonpoint source data
•	Coordinators for various committees and workgroups
Developers
Experts in stormwater and land management
Nonprofit advocacy and watershed organizations
Jurisdiction staff
•	Stormwater coordinators
•	Tributary strategy coordinators
* The CBPO Director retired and a new Director was appointed in April 2007;
we interviewed both Directors.
We limited our inquiry to the four signatory jurisdictions: Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania,
and the District of Columbia. More than 90 percent of the loads from developed and developing
lands in the Bay watershed come from these four jurisdictions.
22

-------
CBPO groups urban runoff, mixed open, and septic systems together when reporting on progress
in reducing loads from developed and developing lands. However, not all lands grouped in
mixed open are developed lands. Septic systems are discussed in this report only in relation to
new development and the possible effects of limiting discharge from wastewater treatment
facilities. Most of this report focuses on runoff from developed and developing lands and the
stormwater management practices used to control that runoff.
We visited nine communities that
together accounted for about
19 percent of the total watershed
population (see Table A-1). They
included 4 (2nd, 5th, 6th, and 8th)
of the top 10 most populous
communities. Communities were
chosen based on their estimated
contribution to the loads from
developed lands, projected 2030
population, recent development rates, and geographic location. We limited our visits to nine in
accordance with Office of Management and Budget's rules for compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
With the assistance of experts, we developed a set of practices for minimizing the impacts of
development on the watershed (see Appendix B). EPA CBPO and Headquarters staff reviewed
this set of practices; they generally concurred with the set and provided input that was
incorporated into the final version. We used the set in our four visits focusing on new
development to assess community interest in adopting practices that minimize impacts of
development on the watershed. The group of experts included:
•	Chet Arnold, Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials, Connecticut
•	Vladimir Novotny, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts
•	Tom Schueler, Center for Watershed Protection, Maryland
•	Neil Weinstein, Low Impact Development Center, Maryland
Management Controls
To assess management controls, we obtained an understanding of the controls EPA has available
to assist the Bay partners in achieving their goals for reducing loads from developed and
developing lands. Bay partners are relying on control of stormwater quality and quantity,
promotion of ESD, upgrade of septic systems, education of the public, and decrease of sources to
meet these goals. Federal regulations do not control small scale, domestic septic systems or land
use decisions, leaving the Federal stormwater program as EPA's primary means of assisting the
Bay partners. We reviewed applicable regulations and guidance related to EPA's stormwater
management program. However, because widespread adoption of ESD practices will be
important in sustaining the goals of reduced loads from developed lands, we did conduct some
work in this area and found that EPA recently provided guidance.
Table A-1: Communities Visited
Focus on Retrofits
Focus on New Development
Albemarle County, VA
Cecil County, MD
Baltimore, MD
Lancaster County, PA
Charlottesville, VA
Montgomery County, MD
District of Columbia
Spotsylvania County, VA
Richmond, VA

Source: EPA OIG review
23

-------
EPA reported in its 2005 Performance and Accountability Report that current pollutant loads
continue to exceed the level needed to meet water quality standards. EPA financial data is
subject to annual audit by the OIG. Chapter 2 identifies findings and recommendations where
EPA and its partners can improve their management of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Limitations
The data in several figures and tables in this report are results from EPA's Chesapeake Bay
watershed model (v. 4.3). The model relies on data collected from and generated by other
sources, such as data on implementation of best management practices required by stormwater
permits. We did not assess the accuracy of the inputs to and results from the model or assess the
appropriateness of EPA's use of the model.
Prior Reviews
•	GAO, Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water
Quality, GAO-02-12, October 2001
GAO recommended that the EPA Administrator review key rules and program activities
"to see if they conflict with states' and localities' growth management efforts." In EPA's
2002 response, EPA agreed with the recommendations and committed to developing a
draft prototype process by June 2002. In response to an OIG request for followup
information, an EPA official in the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation reported
in March 2006 that a formal process had not been put into place, noting the office
"handles reviews of key rules and programs as they become aware of them."
•	GAO, Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better Assess,
Report, and Manage Restoration Progress, GAO-06-96, November 2005
GAO recommended that the EPA Administrator instruct the CBPO "to (1) complete its
efforts to develop and implement an integrated assessment approach; (2) revise its
reporting approach to improve the effectiveness and credibility of its reports; and
(3) develop a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy that takes into account
available resources."
•	EPA OIG, EPA Grants Supported Restoring the Chesapeake Bay, 2006-P-00032,
September 2006
EPA OIG noted EPA awarded grants that contributed toward meeting Clean Water Act
and Chesapeake 2000 Agreement goals, and did not make recommendations.
•	EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture OIGs, Saving the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Requires Better Coordination of Environmental and Agriculture Resources,
EPA OIG 2007-P-00004/USDA OIG 50601-10-Hq, November 2006
The OIGs reported that Bay partners have committed the agricultural community to
making the largest nutrient reductions, but numerous practices abound and are generally
performed on a voluntary basis. The OIGs recommended that EPA improve its
coordination and collaboration with its Bay partners and the agricultural community.
24

-------
• EPA OIG, EPA Relying on Existing Clean Air Act Regulations to Reduce Atmospheric
Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay and its Watershed, 2007-P-00009, February 28, 2007
EPA OIG reported that Federal Clean Air Act regulations designed to decrease nitrous
oxide emissions are reducing the amount of nitrogen that reaches the Bay. The OIG
recommended that the CBPO develop actions and strategies needed to address nitrogen
deposition from animal feeding operations.
25

-------
Appendix B
Community Practices to Minimize Impacts of
Development on a Watershed
This set of community practices for minimizing the impacts of development on the watershed
was drafted by the OIG with the assistance of a team of experts. It is provided here for use by
the CBPO as it develops a set of ESD practices that result in no-net increase in nutrient and
sediment loads and flows in new development, and may be applicable to existing development
and redevelopment.
Planning and Coordination
•	Community establishes, promotes, and ensures implementation of goals to protect, preserve,
and restore environmental resources, including streams and rivers and natural lands, and
incorporates these goals into comprehensive plans, open-space plans, and watershed plans.
•	Environmental resources, including water resources, are inventoried and their value to the
community is determined.
•	Land use, community development, and environmental strategies complement each other
and achieve community's environmental goals. These strategies include land preservation;
planning for commercial, residential, and transportation growth; stream restoration;
stormwater management; air-quality goals; drinking-water-source protection; community
standards of quality of life; and TMDL development and implementation.
Stormwater Management
•	Community stormwater management strategy includes EPA's Phase II six minimum
measures, regardless of regulatory requirements based on urban area classification:
public education and outreach;
public involvement and participation;
illicit discharge detection and elimination;
construction site runoff control;
post-construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment; and
pollution prevention and good housekeeping for municipal operations.
•	Stormwater is managed systematically across the community: metrics are established, the
system is maintained, the effectiveness of the system and its components is evaluated, and
results of evaluation are used to continually improve the system of management practices.
•	Stormwater management, a key component in watershed preservation, is considered early
and throughout the development design process, including commercial, residential, and
transportation projects.
Land Development
• Land use regulations and ordinances are changed to guide the location, density, and design
of development to protect priority water and other environmental resources.
26

-------
•	The community appropriately directs development to existing growth centers, transportation
hubs, and underutilized properties, such as brownfields, greyfields, and vacant properties.
•	The community employs a wide range of land use strategies based on local factors, which
include a range of building densities and preserve critical ecological areas.
•	Impervious area is limited by design and runoff from area is managed to the extent possible
to preserve predevelopment hydrology and to remove pollutants.
•	The community leads by example and incorporates better site design and green building
techniques into municipal construction projects.
•	Land disturbance activities, such as clearing and grading and cut-and-fill, are limited during
development to reduce erosion, sediment loss, and soil compaction.
Natural Resources
•	Areas that provide important water quality benefits or are particularly susceptible to erosion
and sediment loss are protected through conservation easements, public land ownership, or
other conservation practices.
•	Tree canopy is restored, promoted, and maintained in urban and suburban areas.
•	Natural drainage features and vegetation are preserved and maintained to the extent
possible. Infiltration is promoted where soils are appropriate; where soils will not allow
infiltration, other means of restoring or maintaining natural hydrologic functions of the
watershed are promoted.
•	Streams within the community are restored to their full ecological function, including restoring
their natural denitrification potential.
Source Reduction
•	On-site wastewater treatment systems are permitted, developed, and maintained that
adequately protect surface water and ground water quality, using nitrifying/denitrifying
systems where appropriate and feasible.
•	Sources of nitrogen are reduced through education of land owners and resource managers
on use of commercial fertilizers and through implementation of fertilizer reduction strategies
on public lands.
•	Municipal services are provided to make personal stewardship of environmental resources
more convenient for residents. These services may include rain barrel construction
programs, pet waste bags supplied at all parks, and education programs on lawn care
management.
Regional Coordination and Cooperation
• Coordination and cooperation with neighboring communities are established and maintained
so that watersheds crossing political boundaries are adequately protected.
27

-------
Appendix C
Details on Load Reduction Progress
In March 2006, EPA and its Bay partners were not able to report on progress in reducing loads
from developed and developing lands in the report Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and Restoration
Assessment, Part Two: Restoration Efforts (Figure C-la). The reason given was that current
tracking of efforts was not uniform throughout the Bay watershed. EPA and its Bay partners
have worked to correct these reporting problems. CBPO in April 2007 published the 2006
Restoration Report showing negative progress in reducing loads from developed and developing
lands (Figure C-lb).
a)
Summary: 2005 Bay Restoration Efforts
Priority Areas
Reducing Pollution
1QO%of Goal-
Curent fl-l /
Restoration —-J
JTDl
Percent of Goal Achieved
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 SO 90

.


Wastewater
Nttragefi



-




Ntaen 1


Agriculture
PWqw.i
1



OuKllUt
rJ


UrbaiWSuburban Lands
Not Qumttftod thto year



Air Pollution
Hoi Quantified thit year



b)
Summary: 2006 Bay Restoration Efforts
Priority Areas
-100 -90 - 80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20-10 0
J	I	I	1	I	i	I	I	I	I	L_
Percent of Goal Achieved
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%
—I	1	I	I I	1	I	I	I	L
Reducing Pollution
44% ,60%, 57%
of Goals —
Achieved

Restoring Habitats
Agriculture Nitrogen
Agriculture Phosphorus
Agriculture Sediment
Wastewater Nitrogen
Wastewater Phosphorus
Air Nitrogen
Urban / Suburban Nitrogen
Urban / Suburban Phosphorus
Urban / Suburban Sediment
Figure C-1. Chesapeake Bay Program report of restoration progress:
a) 2005 (published in March 2006) and b) 2006 (published in April 2007)
(Source: CBPO)
In Chapter 2 of this report, we note that little progress has been made in reaching goals to reduce
nutrient and sediment loads from developed lands. Flowever, more importantly, population
growth with its accompanying land development is increasing the loads. These increases
28

-------
threaten the attainment of the reduction goals and also make sustaining the restoration of the Bay
highly unlikely.
Loads from developed and developing lands are increasing as population increases and new
development continues across the watershed, as evident in Figure C-2. On each graph, colored
areas extend down from the axis at "0 Percent of Goal Achieved." These areas show the
magnitude of the net, normalized increase in the loads from developed and developing lands -
the increase in each load due to new development minus the decrease in load from the
implementation of management practices, normalized by the reduction goal (relative to the 1985
loading rates). The magnitudes of the net increases are great relative to the reduction goals -
57 to 90 percent. However, the goals to reduce loads from developed and developing lands are
small relative to those in the agriculture and wastewater facility sectors. The net increases shown
in the Figure C-2 graphs represent fairly small increases in actual loading rates, only a fraction of
a percent of the overall loading rates from all sectors. Even though these increases are currently
small, any unplanned increase should be cause for concern and should not be neglected if EPA
and its Bay partners hope to sustain restoration in the future.
Urban/Suburban Pollution Controls
-90%
of Nitrogen
Goal Achieved
-67%
of Phosphorus
Goal Achieved
-57 %
of Sediment
Goal Achieved
Accounting Begins
Percent of
Goal Achieved

100%

50

0 —

"1

-50 -

-100
1985

100%

50

0
-50
I	
-100
1985

100%
50

0

-50
L
-100
1985
Controlling Nitrogen
	 GOAL 	
1990	1995	2000
Controlling Phosphorus
2005
2010
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Controlling Sediment
	 GOAL 	
1990	1995	2000	2005	2010
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods.
Figure C-2. Estimated backwards progress in achieving reduction of loads from developed and
developing lands relative to the 1985 baseline
(Source: CBPO)
29

-------
Appendix D
Agency Response to Draft Report
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029
August 20, 2007
EPA's Response to OIG Draft Assignment No. 2006-000303 dated July 3, 2007
entitled, "Runoff from Developing Land Needs to be Reduced to Restore
Chesapeake Bay Watershed"
Donald S. Welsh /<>/
Regional Administrator
Dan Engelberg, Director for Program Evaluations, Water Issues
Office of the Inspector General
We concur with the attached revised recommendations.
If you or your staff has any questions related to our response to the draft report and the
revised recommendations, please contact Jeff Lape at 410-267-5709 or Carin Bisland at
410-267-5732.
cc. Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Jon Capacasa, Director, Region 3 Water Protection Division
Jeff Lape, Director, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Richard Batiuk, Associate Director for Science, Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Carin Bisland, Associate Director for Communications and Administration, Chesapeake
Bay Program Office
Lorraine Fleury, Audit Coordinator, Region 3
Michael Mason, Office of Water
NOTE: Attached recommendations, referenced in the above memo, are the same as those that
appear on page 20.
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
30

-------
Appendix E
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Regional Administrator, Region 3
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Director, Water Protection Division, Region 3
Office of General Counsel
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Audit Followup Coordinator, Region 3
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Water
Acting Inspector General
31

-------