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 Tam 

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) 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007-P-00031

Office of Inspector General September 10, 2007

At a Glance 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

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. 

Why We Did This Review 

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.gov/oig/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, communitylevel 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 

 Report No. 2007-P-00031

Wade T. Najjum 

Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

September 10, 2007 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Development Growth Outpacing Progress in Watershed Efforts 

to Restore the Chesapeake Bay 

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 najjum.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 Contents 

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 Available 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 

Figure 1-1. Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

(Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Office) 

and 1-3, respectively. 

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) 

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 
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. 

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 Figure 1-4. Modeled distribution of density (onsite wastewater disposal). Sources of of nitrogen loading rates from developed 

land sources in the Chesapeake Bay sediment include disturbance of land during 

Watershed. construction and erosion of stream banks 

(Source: U.S. Geological Survey Sparrow Model) and sediments already accumulated in 

streams. 

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 Phosphorus Loads - 2005 

Forest 2% 

Urban Runoff 17% to Non-Tidal Water 1% 12% 

Sediment Loads - 2005 

Agriculture 

45% 

Agriculture 

40% 

Forest 

15% 

Wastewater 

22% 

Atmospheric Deposition 

to Non-Tidal Water 1% Urban Runoff 

Mixed Open 

13% 

Mixed Open 7% 

Septic 5% 

Atmospheric Deposition 

Wastewater 

20% 

Agriculture 

62% 

Forest 

20% 

Urban Runoff 

10% 

Mixed Open 

8% 

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 airdelivered 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 Table 1-1. 2010 Loading Caps for 

2010 loading caps for developed and 

Loading 

(in millions) 

Developed and Developing Lands 

developing lands established by the 

partners. The reductions needed to Nitrogen (lbs/yr) 44.27 reach these goals are relatively minor Phosphorus (lbs/yr) 3.77

compared to those expected from Sediment (tons/yr) 0.64 

agriculture sources and wastewater Source: Estimates from Chesapeake Bay 

treatment facilities. Loads from 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. 

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 

Corrective action was taken to 

restore a stream previously 

impacted by excessive runoff 

from developed land, Cecil 

County, Maryland. (OIG Photo) 

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 

Needed Based 

on 2000 

Loadings 

Reductions 

Needed 

Based on 2005 

Loadings 

Increase in 

Reductions 

Needed 

Percentage 

of 

Increase 

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

Nitrogen (lbs/yr) 16.40 17.48 1.08 7% 

Phosphorus (lbs/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. 

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. 

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 

A “green to do to contribute to Bay restoration. ,” 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 preventionoriented, 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 

addition, 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 

A bioretention stormwater management that if EPA and its Bay partners were to 

system designed to treat rooftop and strengthen the MS4 permits to include greater parking lot runoff, Cecil County, Maryland nutrient and sediment reductions, the (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 
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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

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. 

16 
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. 

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 

17 
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. 

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 lowinterest loans from the Federal- and Statefinanced 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 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

Amount 

2-1 

2-2 

20 

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. 

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. 

O 

O 

EPA Region 3 

Regional Administrator 

EPA Region 3 

Regional Administrator 

2-3 20 Charge 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. 

O EPA Region 3 

Regional Administrator 

O = 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 

1 
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 
Focus on Retrofits Focus on New Development 

Albemarle County, VA Cecil County, MD 

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 Table A-1: Communities Visited

together accounted for about 

19 percent of the total watershed 

population (see Table A-1). They Baltimore, MD Lancaster County, PA 

included 4 (2nd, 5th, 6th, and 8th) Charlottesville, VA Montgomery County, MD 

of the top 10 most populous District of Columbia Spotsylvania County, VA communities. Communities were Richmond, VA chosen based on their estimated 

contribution to the loads from 

Source: EPA OIG review 

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. 

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-1a). 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-1b). 

a) 

b) 

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. However, 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. 

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 

SUBJECT: 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” 

FROM: Donald S. Welsh /s/ 

Regional Administrator 

TO: 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. 

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