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.

-------