1

Guidance for Federal Land Management 

in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Response to Comments 

Executive Order 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, dated May 12, 2009 

(74 FR 23099, May 15, 2009), directed EPA to prepare and publish a guidance for federal land 

management in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by May 12, 2010. A draft of this guidance was 

released for public comment on March 24, 2010 (75 FR 91294, March 24). EPA provided for a 

peer technical review, conducted by the Science and Technical Advisory Board (STAC) for the 

Chesapeake Bay. EPA also worked closely with our federal agency partners and provided for 

two federal reviews. The final guidance (http://www.epa.gov/nps/chesbay502) incorporates 

revisions resulting from public comments, consideration by the federal agencies, and peer review 

comments. Here, EPA provides responses to the Public (including federal agencies) and to the 

STAC comments. 

Response to Public Comments........................................................................................................ 2 

Chapter 2. Agriculture ................................................................................................................ 2 

Phosphorus.............................................................................................................................. 4 

HELs ....................................................................................................................................... 8 

References............................................................................................................................... 8 

Chapter 3. Urban and Suburban.................................................................................................. 9 

Turf ....................................................................................................................................... 19 

References............................................................................................................................. 34 

Chapter 4. Forestry.................................................................................................................... 35 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management .................................................................................... 36 

Chapter 6. Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems....................................................... 36 

References............................................................................................................................. 46 

Chapter 7: Hydromodification .................................................................................................. 46 

Response to Peer Reviewers’ Comments ..................................................................................... 47 

Chapter 2. Agriculture .............................................................................................................. 47 

Soil Amendments.................................................................................................................. 48 

Chapter 3. Urban and Suburban................................................................................................ 48 

Turf ....................................................................................................................................... 51 

References............................................................................................................................. 54 

Chapter 4. Forestry.................................................................................................................... 54 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management .................................................................................... 56 

Conflation of riparian effects in urban and agricultural settings .......................................... 56 

Pollutant Removal Estimates ................................................................................................ 56 

The 70% goal ........................................................................................................................ 57 

References............................................................................................................................. 58 

Chapter 6. Decentralized Wastewater Treatment ..................................................................... 58 

References............................................................................................................................. 65 

Chapter 7. Hydromodification .................................................................................................. 65 
2

Response to Public Comments 

Chapter 2. Agriculture 

Comment: This guidance imposes federal mandates on state and local governments to regulate 

industry, agriculture and other businesses, and goes beyond the Agency’s authority under the 

CWA by making specific recommendations concerning on-farm decisions and practices. 

Response: This is a technical guidance document that in no way creates any regulatory 

requirements for Federal agencies, State and local agencies, or individuals in the private sector. 

Rather, it presents strictly technical guidance regarding a host of state-of-the-art information on 

the tools and actions that can be strategically taken to reduce nutrient and sediment loadings to 

the Bay. This is available to federal, state, and local agencies, as well as NGOs, so that they 

may identify the practices and actions that can be implemented using their respective programs. 

Comment: EPA guidance should do more than compile recommended tools and practices; it 

should create performance expectations not only for federal land management activities, but for 

federal agency and staff engagement with state, local, and private land owners and managers. 

Voluntary, unenforced suggestions have not produced water quality improvements in the past, 

and the time for mandated rules is now if improvements in water quality are to be achieved over 

the next decade or two. EPA needs to work closely with USDA to restrict the use of commercial 

fertilizers and manures on farms and homes or face continuing failures in a nutrient-overloaded 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Response: This is a technical guidance document that in no way creates any regulatory or 

programmatic requirements for Federal agencies, State and local agencies, or individuals in the 

private sector. 

Comment: This guidance should include a detailed discussion of the non-traditional markets and 

alternative uses for manure currently available and under development. 

Response: While EPA recognizes the need to create new markets and alternative manure uses, 

this chapter does not cover the emerging technologies and financial mechanisms that are 

currently being developed to address these needs. EPA and other partners, however, are working 

to develop new markets and alternative manure uses. There are many private sector technological 

advances being made. Also, the opportunities for creating banks and new markets are being 

thoroughly fleshed-out at the federal, state and local levels. 

Comment: EPA has not conducted an analysis of the economic impacts the guidance document 

will have on either categories of agricultural production or profitability of individual farms in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Response: EPA was required by Section 502 of the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order to develop 

"guidance for Federal land management in the Chesapeake Bay watershed describing proven, 

cost-effective tools and practices that reduce water pollution, including practices that are 

available for use by Federal agencies." This guidance complies with that requirement. The E.O. 

does not require EPA to conduct an economic impact analysis for this guidance, and EPA has not 

done so. Indeed, since the recommended practices are not legally binding, it is not expected to 
3

cause adverse economic impacts. However, EPA has included information on the costs of many 

of the practices discussed in the guidance. Producers and others can use this information to help 

make informed decisions regarding practice selection. 

It has been documented that it is possible to reduce some costs by using nutrient management 

planning and conservation tillage. However, whether these practices have a net gain or loss is 

site specific, and we recognize many producers will need financial assistance and in this 

guidance we mention many programs available to help producers move in this direction. 

Comment: This guidance suffers from a lack of collaboration and coordination with 

stakeholders and other interested parties. 

Response: Over the course of the last 12 months, EPA has hosted numerous stakeholder 

listening sessions to hear input and suggestions on the response to the Executive Order. The 

Implementation Measures presented in this technical guidance were identified based upon 

technical information, as well as input at these stakeholder listening sessions. EPA has worked 

closely with the Federal agencies, which are the only entities directly affected by the guidance. 

EPA has also engaged in a peer review process involving 21 independent peer reviewers. 

Furthermore, EPA provided 30 days for the public to comment on draft guidance. 

Comment: EPA should establish an additional review period (six mo.) for a formal and broad 

technical review of this draft guidance document by USDA, State Departments of Agriculture, 

State Dept’s of Environmental Protection and other interested parties, and during that time, 

USDA and Land Grant Universities be tasked with evaluating the cost effectiveness and 

economic impacts, as well as the environmental effectiveness of the practices recommended. 

There then should be an additional public comment period. 

Response: EPA has worked with our Federal partners to assure that the document meets their 

needs in implementing land management practices in accordance with Section 501 and 502. 

EPA also received peer review from many experts in the subject areas covered in the guidance. 

EPA expects to, as it has done in the past, continue to consider new information as it becomes 

available and to reevaluate the guidance as appropriate. 

Comment: The effectiveness values presented in the guidance are not being utilized in the 

process to develop the Chesapeake Bay Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL). 

Response: Because this guidance presents the state-of-the-art, the practices and related 

efficiencies identified in the guidance are not necessarily currently reflected in the Chesapeake 

Bay model or the Scenario Builder. The Bay program has identified a process for efficiencies to 

be adopted in the model, and the description of this can be accessed at 

<http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/Nutrient-Sediment_Control_Review_Protocol.pdf>. 

Comment: The guidance document makes a critical assumption that the major cause of the 

nutrient problems in the Bay is mismanagement on farms. While improving nutrient 

management on farms is very important to solving the problem, this is not the only or even the 

major cause of the nutrient problems in the Bay. Over arching issue that is driving the problem 

we see on individual farms is the structure of animal agriculture in the watershed and the 

resulting nutrient excesses at the farm and watershed level. Changing on-farm management 
4

without addressing the nutrient imbalance issue in an economically sustainable way cannot 

succeed. This document does, for the first time in this process, recognize the imbalance issue, but 

fails to address it other than very superficially and continues almost a total emphasis on on-farm 

management alone as the solution. 

Response: EPA recognizes the work of the Mid-Atlantic Water Program, who has prepared the 

background information on the nutrient imbalances in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. While we 

understand the limitations of this information, we recognize the significance this work has on 

providing the agricultural community the needed information so that we can move towards 

sustainable production in the bay watershed. 

Phosphorus 

The comments received raised a number of questions about P saturation percentage (Psat). 

Before addressing each comment specifically, EPA used the following guiding principles to 

develop this section of the guidance: 

• This technical guidance is divided into three sections, source control, in-field control, and 

edge-of-field controls. While the section describing the Psat Implementation Measure is 

source control (determining where crops should be planted), the hydrologic component of 

planning as well as other soil and erosion control and site management parameters are 

described throughout the document. The Psat Implementation Measure does not stand alone, 

rather it is to be integrated into the agricultural production plan, soil conservation plan, and 

nutrient management plan along with other needed Implementation Measures for the site. 

• EPA understands that there is a desire among some members of the agricultural academic 

and policy communities to investigate possible modifications that can improve the current 

host of existing State P Indices, including the possibility of being able to instances when P 

should not be applied at all. As indicated in the responses to comments discussed below, 

EPA believes that the P index at this time is significantly flawed and that its use in many 

cases is likely to result in significant over-applications of P to cropland and result in P-laden 

runoff to the Chesapeake Bay. It may be that at some point in the future, current significant 

shortcomings in the P indices will be overcome and that they would become adequate tools 

to be used to protect the Chesapeake Bay. In such cases, EPA would be pleased to modify 

this Implementation Measure. However, at present, EPA believes that it would be 

inappropriate to base its recommendations for protection of the Chesapeake Bay on the P 

index approach. 

• Directions to access current P Index information are provided in Appendix 2 of Chapter 2. 

Comment: The draft guidance document does not provide an adequate definition of Psat. 

Response: The guidance has been revised to include this definition: “P saturation percentage 

is a tool that can estimate the degree to which P sorbing sites are saturated with P”. There is also 

an example provided presenting other pathways for movement of P into solution. 

Comment: To properly use Psat as a parameter for looking at the availability of soluble P in soil 

to runoff, soil sampling depth is critical and must be clearly defined. 
5

Response: EPA agrees that the depth of sampling is a relevant factor in properly using Psat. The 

implementation measure has been revised to include discussion of this point. 

Comment: While Psat has been shown to be a useful parameter to quantify the availability of 

soluble soil P to runoff or leachate water, it does not account for site hydrology, which has been 

shown to be overwhelmingly responsible for P loss in runoff and leachate. 

The P Index provides a holistic assessment of site variables affecting P loss (hydrologic, 

management and chemical). 

A large body of research, much of it from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, supports the 

conclusion that management of P on the basis of a soil P variable alone is inadequate. 

Psat is a soil chemical variable that does not account for transport potential which is covered by 

the P Index. Consequently, management using Psat alone provides a narrow consideration of 

factors affecting P loss and will produce unintended consequences as land managers seek to 

optimize land applications of manures and fertilizers using Psat. 

Response: The Psat Implementation Measure does not stand alone, rather it is to be integrated 

into the agricultural production plan, soil conservation plan, and nutrient management plan along 

with other needed Implementation Measures for the site. Psat is a valuable tool as an 

environmental indicator of soil P availability to runoff (Kleinman and Sharpley 2002; 

Beauchemin and Simard 1999).

Maguire et al. (2007) noted that there are limitations to the P-Index, particularly when manure is 

the source of nutrients, because of the high P-content in manure; they also noted that “for longterm sustainability, applications of P must approach a balance with crop removal.” This E.O. 

directs EPA to develop technical guidance describing the next generation of tools and practices 

that will protect and restore the bay. We have developed the P implementation measure based on 

the idea that agriculture can be a sustainable land use in the bay watershed if the practices 

employed on the land are implemented at the points of source control, in-field, and edge of field 

in order to avoid, control and trap nutrients and sediment. 

The presentation of tools and practices in this guidance is divided into these three areas that are 

necessary in agricultural production to control and minimize the movement of nutrients and 

sediments. No implementation measure in this guidance should be isolated and considered alone, 

as a host of measures implemented will be required to bring agriculture to long term 

sustainability as well as restoring the bay. While the P-Index collectively accounts for site 

hydrology and transport potential, it leaves out the accumulation of P in the soil, which Psat 

incorporates into the analysis. By considering all appropriate information for these three areas, 

the producer will be able to successfully and holistically incorporate a host of implementation 

measures from this guidance into the production plan, soil conservation plan and nutrient 

management plan, thereby taking appropriate steps towards sustainability. 

Specifically, there are implementations measures in this guidance that reflect the actions that can 

be taken to incorporate site hydrology, nutrient management, and transport potential into the 

plans: 

• Site hydrology: A-3, A-4, A-10, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15 

• Nutrient management: A-1, A-2, A-5, A-6, A-9, and A-10 

• Transport potential: A-7, A-10, A-11, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-19, A-20 
6

Comment: A recent study by Buda et al. (2010) showed that soils with high runoff potential, but 

low soil P content (and low Psat), yielded more than 8 times more P in runoff than did soils that 

were high in P (and high in Psat), but had low runoff potential. 

Research in Pennsylvania, Maryland and New York has shown that transport (hydrologic) 

potential of a site readily overwhelms source variables (such as soil Psat). Therefore, 

management by a source variable alone (e.g., soil Psat) will result in greater application of P to 

soils that have low soil P, but high transport potential. 

Response: The Psat Implementation Measure does not stand “alone”, rather it is to be integrated 

into the agricultural production plan, soil conservation plan, and nutrient management plan along 

with other needed Implementation Measures for the site. Factors relating to the runoff and 

transport of P are addressed, for example through soil conservation measures contained in our 

guidance that call for in-field controls and edge-of-field controls. In addition, where higher 

runoff potential exists, full implementation of the HEL implementation measure will decrease 

the likelihood of this occurrence, since soils with high runoff potential will be retired from 

intensive production or will be managed to meet T (through the soil conservation plan) and meet 

the requirements of the nutrient management plan. 

Comment: Psat does not account for recently applied P sources. It has been shown repeatedly 

that fresh manure and fertilizer applications will dominate P loss regardless of soil test P or Psat 

over the short term. Thus, manure application on a site with potential for transport is likely to 

result in large losses of P regardless of whether the Psat is above or below 20%. While the P 

Index accounts for recently applied sources of P, soil Psat does not. 

Response: The Psat Implementation Measure does not stand alone, rather it is to be integrated 

into the agricultural production plan, soil conservation plan, and nutrient management plan along 

with other needed Implementation Measures for the site. Specifically the full implementation of

the in-field control cropland implementation measures will account for the transport issues of 

recently applied P sources. 

The soil amendment implementation measure has been revised for clarity and now states: “Use 

soil amendments such as alum, gypsum, or water treatment residuals to increase P adsorption 

capacity of soils, reduce desorption of water-soluble P, and decrease P concentration in runoff”. 

Comment: The thresholds observed in laboratory extraction comparisons (e.g., the change 

points identified in Butler and Coale, 2005) are not reproducible in the field and are more a 

function of the chemistry of the extractants than they are actual processes determining P loss in 

the field. 

A scientifically-defensible basis is required for selecting Psat as a single variable guiding P 

management and for establishing 20% as a Psat threshold above which P cannot be applied to 

soils. 

Response: Based on the information presented in this guidance, there is a foundation for the 

implementation measure. EPA recognizes the importance of continuing to refine the body of 

literature available. The guidance notes the need for continued refinement at the physiographic 

level as well as the soil level. 
7

There is a host of information compiled in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania that presents 

Psat as analyzed across counties (Kovzlove et al. 2010). Additional information has shown that 

while soils can retain significant amounts of P, soils release of P to water once the saturation is 

above 20% (Beauchemin and Simard 1999; Khiari et al. 2000; Kleinman and Sharpley 2002; 

Beck et al. 2004, and Butler and Coale 2005). 

Comment: Use of Psat within the P Index could improve the soil test P variable currently found 

within the P Index, particularly for fields where P leaching is the primary concern (e.g., the 

Delmarva Peninsula, but that only accounts for 6% of the land area of the Bay Watershed). 

However, surface runoff studies conducted as part of the National P Research Project in New 

York and Pennsylvania showed that soil test P (Mehlich 3 P) provides excellent estimation of 

dissolved P concentration in runoff and this measure is readily available from current testing 

programs (whereas Psat is not). 

Response: EPA recognizes that Psat is an important feature that could improve the usability of 

the P index in long term nutrient management planning, particularly where P leaching is the 

primary environmental concern. EPA does not recommend any one methodology for 

determining Psat. We understand that the methods used to determine Psat are depended upon the 

chemical features of the extracts and do not provide conversion factors between the methods 

mentioned. EPA understands that the method of P analysis should always be clearly described in 

any presentation of Psat or soil test P. Also, while Psat and soil P are correlated, by determining 

the P application based on P-Sat, EPA’s recommendation will still allow application beyond 

realistic yield goals in areas where Psat is lower than 20 percent; soil P is a more conservative 

estimate for P applications. 

Comment: The use of Psat to guide P management represents a major setback to current nutrient 

management programs that rely upon the P Index. 

Use of Psat within the P Index could improve the soil test P variable currently found within the P 

Index, particularly for fields where P leaching is the primary concern. 

If the intent of the current guidance is to make current P management guidelines more restrictive, 

adjustments can be made to the P Index to achieve this goal. 

Response: This E.O. directs EPA to develop technical guidance describing the next generation 

of tools and practices that will protect and restore the bay. We have developed the P 

implementation measure based on the idea that agriculture can be a sustainable land use in the 

bay watershed if the practices employed on the land avoid, control and trap nutrients and 

sediment. 

EPA understands that there is a desire in the agricultural academic and policy communities to 

investigate possible modifications that can improve the current host of existing State P Indices 

and include descriptions noting the instances when P should not be applied at all. It may be that 

at some point in the future, if the P Indices are modified to reduce their tendency to result in 

recommended applications that are in excess of crop needs and become better suited towards 

addressing Psat impacts on water quality, EPA would be pleased to modify this Implementation 

Measure. 
8

Comment: It is unclear how the NUE concept and included NUE practices are to be included in 

the development of a nutrient management plan or integrated into the nutrient management 

planning process.

Response: A host of NUE tools can assist nutrient management planners in developing the N 

application rate on the basis of in-field variability. By using tools to increase crop NUE, N loss is 

minimized through reductions in leaching, surface flow, ammonia volatilization, nitrification and 

denitrification, and soil erosion by calibrating the N input to the yield potential and crop needs. 

Comment: It is unclear whether the “environmental risk assessment” tool is targeted at nitrogen 

loss potential, P loss potential or both. It is critical that there is recognition that the P Index is an 

implemented P loss assessment tool in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Response: This tool under development is targeted at nitrogen loss potential. 

HELs 

Comment: HELs should continue to be farmed and recommendations should focus on adequate 

treatment of productive working lands, not the retirement of productive working lands. 

Response: Emerging and alternative markets can be used in conjunction with this 

recommendation to make this viable for the producer. 

We have modified this implementation measure. First, this no longer applies to pasture. Also, 

instead of “retire” as the only recommended option, we have modified the language to state that 

either the land should be retired or a soil conservation plan should be developed and 

implemented to reduce sheet and rill erosion to the Soil Loss Tolerance Level (T) alongside the 

implementation of a nutrient management plan. 

References 

Beauchemin, S. and R.R. Simard. 1999. Soil Phosphorus Saturation Degree: Review of Some 

Indices and their Suitability for P Management in Québec, Canada. Canada Journal of Soil 

Science 634: 615-625. 

Beck, M.A., L.W. Zelazny, W.L. Daniels and G.L. Mullins. 2004. Using the Mehlich -1 Extract 

to Estimate Soil P Saturation for Environmental Risk Assessment. Soil Science Society of 

American Journal 68:1762-1771. 

Butler, J.S. and F. J. Coale. 2005. Phosphorus Leaching in Manure-Amended Atlantic Coastal 

Plain Soils. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:370–381. 

Maguire RO, Ketterings QM, Lemunyon JL, Leytem AB, Mullins G, Osmond DL, Weld JL. 

2007. Phosphorous Indices to Predict Risk for Phosphorous Losses. SER-17 Position Paper. 

<http://www.sera17.ext.vt.edu/index.htm> 

Khiari, L., L. E. Parent, A. Pellerin, A. R. A. Alimi, C. Tremblay, R. R. Simard, and J. Fortin. 

2000. An Agri-Environmental Phosphorus Saturation Index for Acid Coarse-Textured Soils. 

Journal of Environmental Quality 29:1561-156 

Kleinman, P.J., and A. Sharpley. 2002. Estimating Soil Phosphorus Sorption Saturation from 

Mehlich 3 Data. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 33(11&12), 1825-1839. 
9

Kovzelove, C*., T. Simpson, and R. Korcak. 2010 Quantification and 

Implications of Surplus Phosphorus and Manure in Major Animal Production 

Regions of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Water Stewardship, Inc., Annapolis, MD. 

* On detail from U.S. EPA 

<http://www.corporatewaterstewardship.org/downloads/P_PAPER_FINAL_2-9-10.pdf>. 

Chapter 3. Urban and Suburban 

Comment: The document focuses on municipal concepts, such as codes and ordinances, 

financial incentives, and SWPPPs that may not apply to many federal facilities, rather than on 

the mechanisms that federal facilities use such as policies, specifications, planning documents, 

and operating procedures. 

Response: In response to this comment, we have added, and led each text section, with those 

tools applicable to federal facilities (policies, contract specifications, etc.), followed by how 

municipalities would have parallel codes and ordinances. More references were provided to 

primary federal facility planning guides, including GSA P-100 (U.S. General Services 

Administration 2005), but not many other specific ones since agencies have their own. 

Discussions on items not as applicable to federal facilities were put into context, such as the 

discussion on “lot density”. For “financial incentives”, that discussion was also put into context 

(it was noted that for municipalities, a variety of financial incentives exist used for this purpose).

Incentives recommended for federal facilities were awards and recognition programs and 

requirements in contract specifications for property leased by the facility. For smart growth, the 

text was revised to include how it can be applicable to federal facility planning, for examples, 

facilities should locate along existing transportation corridors and where there is existing water 

and sewer infrastructure in place, where feasible and appropriate. We did include other 

information that may be relevant to others who may choose to use this document such as 

municipalities. 

Comment: Who makes the determination of the applicable site-specific water quality standard? 

Response: Where a permit is being issued, the determination is made by the appropriate 

discharge permitting authority (either the State or EPA) ultimately is responsible to make the 

determination. 

Comment: Are we referring to 95th percentile volume? We should only manage the volume that 

will not be infiltrated. 

Response: No changes to the 438 guidance were made or intended. It should mean the 95th

percentile storm depth. Yes, only the volume that will not be infiltrated would be otherwise 

managed. 

Comment: Not all federal facilities are required to have Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans 

(SWPPPs), so a comparison with good housekeeping programs might be better. 

Response: We have clarified what types of federal facilities with industrial activities might be 

subject to SWPPPs (from fedcenter.gov) as follows: 
10

Specifically, a facility must obtain permit coverage for industrial activities if the activity falls 

under: 

• One of the 11 categories of Industrial Storm Water Activities, including construction, that 

result in storm water discharge to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), or 

directly to waters of the United States, or 

• one of the 30 Industrial Sectors listed for the Multi-Sector General Permit. 

These activities are defined by either the facilities certain Standard Industrialization 

Classification, or a general description of the facilities industrial activities. 

Federal Facilities that often require storm water permit coverage include: 

• General Services Administration (Federal Government construction) 

• Naval Facilities Command (transportation vehicles) 

• Army Corps of Engineers (DoD construction) 

• Bureau of Reclamation (transportation vehicles), and 

• Other facilities that perform industrial activities, have vehicle fleets and frequently 

undergo building construction 

Comment: MS4 requirements (including good housekeeping, etc.) apply for some federal 

facilities, and could be expanded to cover commercial facilities. 

Response: To clarify, a sentence from an existing EPA fact sheet was added that gives historical 

information on when the Phase II program was expanded to include some federal facilities. It 

also provides a link to the EPA background factsheet on “MS4 and Federal and State Lands” 

applicability (USEPA 2005). 

Comment: Replace “Tributary strategy” reference with “Watershed Implementation Plan”. 

Response: We have done so. Also, a link to the EPA site describing WIPs in the Chesapeake 

Bay was added. 

Comment: For turf management definition, need to define “high input prescription 

management”. 

Response: We have deleted the term “prescription” and defined “high input”, using public 

comments as a basis for this definition. 

Comment: For turf management, what is the value of “life cycle management”. 

Response: The implementation measure regarding "life cycle management has been deleted. 

Comment: The impact of management of turf on federal lands will not be nearly as significant 

to restoring the Bay as management of turf on non-federal lands. 

Response: The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on Federal land management 

practices, with the goal of providing Federal leadership in the implementation of best practices 
11

throughout the Bay watershed. It is understood that across the Bay watershed in general, nonfederal pollutant loadings are more significant and will need to be controlled as part of the effort 

to achieve clean water in the bay. 

Comment: While information on homeowners and lawn care companies is relevant to nutrient 

and pesticide loading to the Bay from turf, the information is not as pertinent to federal lands. 

Response: See the response to the response to the previous comment. In addition, a number of 

federal agencies in the Bay watershed practice nutrient and pesticide management on properties 

that they manage. We did include other information that may be relevant to others who may 

choose to use this document such as municipalities 

Comment: Perhaps the document should recommend that federal facilities consider modifying 

their operations procedures or contract specs to reduce the use of P fertilizer in turf. 

Response: This recommendation was added. 

Comment: Incentive programs are good info for municipal governments but are not really 

pertinent for federal agencies who can effect change by changing their operating procedures or 

contract specifications. If the incentives section stays in this document, suggest a separate 

sections stating how federal facilities can evaluate conversion of landscape. 

Response: A change was made noting that these types of incentives are applicable to 

municipalities. The information on the incentive types was left in the document to provide 

comprehensive information. 

Comment: Too short review time. 

Response: The tight deadline established in the Executive Order necessitated a 30-day comment 

period 

Comment: EPA is extending its authority in addressing non-federal programs and lands. 

Response: This is guidance and as such does not impose requirements. 

Comment. Guidance is too long and coverage too broad, tends to dilute focus on bay priorities. 

Response: Length of document was necessary to address the full set of land management topics 

that are impacting the Bay. The topics for federal land mangers are similar in many cases to 

municipal land management, and the municipal area has more relevant cases and examples to 

cite than federal facilities at this time. We did cite federal land information and data wherever 

available. 

Comment: Commenter requested support of WLAs for POTWs to encourage smart growth. 

Response: Addressing WLAs is outside the scope of this document and is being addressed in 

other aspects of EPA’s programs and activities to restore the Chesapeake Bay. 
12

Comment: The guidance should provide a framework for federal governments and 

municipalities to coordinate. A regional approach for stormwater management would allow for 

consistency. 

Response: These issues are outside of the scope of this technical guidance document. However, 

EPA is addressing Federal/local coordination issues in other aspects of the Chesapeake Bay 

program. 

Comment: Guidance should be provided on the recommended guidelines for stormwater 

discharge when the 95th percentile rain event cannot be contained and used on site, for example if 

there are site constraints or back-to-back storms. 

Response: The EISA requirements Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 and 

the subsequent EPA guidance (USEPA 2009) call for replication of predevelopment hydrology 

with respect to runoff volume, flow, duration and temperature. Discharges associated with large 

storm events, back-to-back storm events, or from site conditions that preclude the use of LID 

techniques (potential exceptions are listed in the document and in the EPA EISA guidance) 

should attempt to replicate that discharge rate and duration as much as possible. Designs should 

incorporate a safety factor where appropriate to protect against some back-to-back storms. State 

and local stormwater management regulations, both inside and outside the Bay area, also provide 

restrictions on the allowable discharge rate to protect against channel erosion and downstream 

flooding in the event of large storms. 

Comment: Certain proprietary products can enhance soil functions and should be mentioned in 

the guidance. 

Response: EPA does not promote proprietary products in our guidance documents. 

Comment: The science does not support EPA’s suggestion that banning the use of refined tarbased sealants at federal facilities or in any other location would have any discernable effect on 

the concentrations of PAHs in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Response: EPA does not address this issue in this document. 

Comment: The document should go further to create performance expectations for federal land 

managers and federal staff engaged with state, local, and private managers, such as providing 

direction in issuance of NPDES permits. The document should set substantive steps for land 

managers, agency programs, and permit writers. The recommendations should be expanded to 

non-federal lands through the federal permitting authorities. The implications of the Rapanos 

decision should be discussed. 

Response: This document does not address the regulatory NPDES permit program under 

Section 402 of the CWA, nor does it address the wetlands program under Section 404 of the 

CWA. These are outside the scope of the document. 

Comment: EPA should revisit and improve the list of practices. 
13

Response: EPA agrees that there are numerous additional practices and variations on practices. 

The references listed include detailed descriptions of multiple variations and details on each 

practice. In the interest of creating a manageable document EPA elected to reference existing 

material in lieu of repeating material already comprehensively addressed in other regional 

guidance manuals. 

Comment: Not enough emphasis is placed on retrofits. There should be more discussion on 

barriers to programs successful programs, permits, and establishment of recommendations to 

ensure that impervious reductions are implemented through NPDES permits and other federal 

programs. 

Response: Retrofits and barriers are both addressed in the guidance document with references to 

existing guidance applicable to both federal facilities and municipalities. Permits and permitting 

program recommendations are outside the scope of this document. 

Comment: The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) predevelopment hydrology 

requirements are guidance, not a requirement. 

Response: This is an incorrect statement. They are required for Federal agencies, who are the 

primary audience for this Federal land management guidance. EISA 2007 Section 438 states: 

“The sponsor of any development or redevelopment project involving a Federal facility with a 

footprint that exceeds 5,000 square feet shall use site planning, design, construction, and 

maintenance strategies for the property to maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically 

feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to the temperature, rate, 

volume, and duration of flow.” 

Comment: The terms ‘maximum extent technically feasible’ and ‘extent feasible’ are both used. 

Response: The term “maximum extent technically feasible” is used in EISA Section 438. The 

document has been revised to include consistent use of that term. 

Comment: The report should reflect lessons learned from the area jurisdictions in the 

implementation of LID. 

Response: Each of the lessons learned cited by the commenter are addressed in the final 

document . 

Comment: LID is not consistently less expensive than traditional stormwater controls. 

Response: The document states that costs may be more or less, depending on many factors. 

However, more and more developers and communities are finding that using LID can save them 

money. 

 

Comment: Some homeowners are opposed to it because it denies them use of their properties.
14

Response: This document focuses on federal lands. However, all drainage controls, traditional or 

LID, require either public lands or drainage easements on private land. This is not unique to LID 

stormwater drainage controls. 

Comment: Many LID controls have standing water, they create concerns about mosquitoes, 

animal pests, and potential danger to children or because they judge standing water to be 

unsightly and undesirable. 

Response: Design manuals call for a drawdown of water in a timeframe to prevent mosquitoes. 

Individual design and construction can and should address this issue. Designs can limit the 

standing water depth to none or to user specifications. 

Comment: Homeowners are opposed to paying for LID maintenance or to maintaining the 

devices themselves for a variety of reasons. 

Response: This document has been written for federal facilities to implement. However, we 

note that traditional practices such as stormwater ponds also require maintenance. The level of 

maintenance should be considered in practice selection. Responsibility for maintenance, whether 

private or public, is decided at the local level. Moreover, it should be noted that many LID 

practices are viewed by many homeowners as amenities. This points out the value of using LID 

practices that are attractive as well as functional. 

Comment: Localities are worried about the burden that will fall on them to track hundreds or 

thousands of LID devices, update LID maintenance plans, hire staff to collect fees, certify that 

maintenance has been done, and correct LID failures. 

Response: This document focuses on federal facilities. However, current traditional stormwater 

management requirements often result in lot-level stormwater management practices, particularly 

for commercial lots, and management practices for small groups of homes, all of which can be 

tracked in information management systems routinely used by municipalities. It is recognized 

that the tracking and maintenance of stormwater management practices represents a significant 

responsibility to local stormwater management authorities. The use of distributed controls will 

increase the number and decrease the size of management practices, but the systems for tracking 

are established in many municipalities. 

Comment: The potential exists for LID requirements to in urban areas to chase out 

redevelopment completely from urban areas, which Maryland has already experienced with the 

introduction of its new stormwater program. 

Response: This document focuses on federal facilities. However, many more economically 

significant factors than stormwater management contribute to the decision to develop or 

redevelop in an area, and stormwater management requirements will likely be present in any area 

of development or redevelopment. It is also noted that implementing improved stormwater 

management in redevelopment projects contributes to a reduction of flash-flooding of urban 

streets and properties. 
15

Comment: Some engineers have expressed concern that using LID in urban settings may 

damage nearby underground building footings and/or underground infrastructure and may cause 

flooding to nearby basements or other structures. 

Response: Infiltration should not be used where damage to structures can result. Other methods 

of LID are available as described in the guidance document. 

Comment: Cautions need to be expressed in any LID guidance concerning the use of infiltration 

devices in the vicinity of drinking water aquifers, high water tables, shallow underground rock 

formations, or areas prone to flooding. 

Response: These cautions are noted in the document. However, it is noted that some areas prone 

to flooding have successfully constructed LID practices in their watersheds and achieved not 

only flash flood reductions but improved water quality and enhanced groundwater 

replenishment. Two such examples are presented in the guidance document, the Capitol 

Regional Watershed District in Minnesota (Capitol Region Watershed District 2010), and the 

Sun Valley Watershed in Los Angeles, California (City of Los Angeles 2004). 

Comment: Local site conditions determine the applicability of LID. 

Response: This is noted in the guidance document. 

Comment: The ICC 700 National Green Building Standard should be recognized in the 

document. 

Response: EPA is supportive of the development of green building standards by many entities, 

including the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). EPA is not recognizing in this 

document all of the green standard certifications that are available; the notation of a standard was 

related to the particular buildings being highlighted. 

Comment: The 2007 EPA document on Potential Cost Savings of LID/Green Infrastructure 

(USEPA 2007): this study is well-known in the building community as being inaccurate and on 

the whole poorly done. NAHB requests that it be deleted from this report and not used by EPA in 

the future to represent the cost savings potential of LID. 

Response: Comment noted. EPA supports the validity of the study. See specific discussion 

below. 

Comment: The study incorrectly reports that only 1 of the 17 case studies had an increased cost 

to implement LID/ESD. A quick read of the study reveals that several of the case studies 

contained multiple sub-projects that were independently evaluated. In several cases, many of 

these sub-projects resulted in increased costs to implement ESD. However, all of these are 

excluded from the report summary on the basis that 'the results do not lend themselves to display 

in the format of the table'. For example, the Central Park Commercial Redesign - undertaken by 

the Friends of the Rappahannock - indicated that 5 out of the 6 pad sites evaluated for this 

planned development cost more to implement using LID/ESD. 
16

Response: The purpose of the omission of studies from Table 2 was to avoid misrepresenting the 

nature of the data that were available for each study. For example, the Central Park retrofits only 

examined cost additions and reductions, not overall project costs for the different stormwater 

management approaches. Other projects with positive cost benefits were omitted from the table 

for similar reasons. For example, the Poplar Street study did not present detailed cost data, and 

the Portland Downspout Disconnection program was evaluated Citywide, not on a site-by-site 

basis. 

Comment: The study actually evaluated 24 projects (several of the case studies contained 

multiple, independently evaluated sites). Sixteen of the twenty-four sites are Greenfield and 

large-lot residential projects that lend themselves to LID/ESD and conservation design 

principles. The remaining 8 projects are community retrofits where the actual costs of 

implementing the LID/ESD measures (green roofs, disconnecting downspouts, retrofitting 

parking lots, etc) was compared against a theoretical and worse-case alternative. For example, 

the costs of Portland's Downspout Disconnection Program were compared to an underground 

pipe to contain a comparable volume. 

Response: Individual projects were included in the report based on the availability of data on 

costs for LID vs. traditional stormwater management. There were several key studies that 

evaluated Greenfield-type projects, and many fewer that examined retrofits. At the time research 

was conducted, there were no high-density studies that had enough data to be included in the 

report. 

In the case of Portland’s Downspout Disconnection Program, the City is actually building 

underground pipes to manage combined sewer overflows, so this is an appropriate comparison. 

They were able to reduce the required storage capacity of the pipes because of downspout 

disconnection and other decentralized retrofit approaches. 

Comment: The case studies failed to account for direct cost additions and lost opportunities as a 

result of the implementation of LID/ESD. For example, the retrofit of a parking lot at City Hall 

in Bellingham, WA using rain gardens is reported to cost 80%, or $22,000, less than a structural, 

underground alternative. This study reports that to implement the rain gardens 3 out of 60 

parking spaces, or 5%, need to be lost. This directly results in a reduction of approximately 1,000 

square feet of space, or allowable density, which has a quantifiable economic value that is not 

accounted for. Depending on the local market, the $22,000 could be absorbed after the first year 

of occupancy at $22/square foot. In this case, clearly the long term cost benefit of the 3 parking 

spaces and associated 1,000 square feet of office outweigh the upfront costs of the structural 

stormwater BMP. 

Response: The commercial value of the lost parking spaces was not applicable to the City of 

Bellingham parking lot retrofits because both pilot projects were implemented at existing public 

properties with office space density that was already established. Furthermore, numerous case 

studies have discussed developments that chose LID designs that enabled the elimination of the 

pond that would have been required in a conventional stormwater design, thereby gaining more 

space that enabled increased development lots to be sold. For example, residential subdivisions 

in Prince George’s County and Frederick County, Maryland, eliminated ponds and thereby 

created space for six additional lots and two additional lots, respectively (EcoNorthwest. 2007). 
17

Comment: Most of the cost savings referenced was due to reductions in road widths. In almost 

all cases, the roads were reduced to widths narrower than allowed by the National Fire Code. 

Response: Significant cost savings were achieved from a variety of project attributes, including 

the size reduction or elimination of stormwater pipes and ponds. With regard to reduced road 

widths, minimum road widths can be evaluated on a local level in partnership with local 

emergency response departments to ensure that vehicles can safely navigate and narrow-width 

streets. This type of site design modification is not expected to be applicable to all settings and 

development types. See also the Center for Watershed Protection’s “Better Site Design” (CWP 

1998) 

Comment: All case studies failed to account for the costs associated with the intensive 

maintenance needs of the small-scale BMPs. Instead, this study incorrectly assumes that 

maintenance costs will be reduced through the application of LID in almost all cases. One case 

study of a Greenfield residential project that looked at the issue of maintenance reported that 

maintenance costs were $600 more per lot than conventional design. 

When considering maintenance implications, ESD/LID needs to be evaluated in two groups. The 

first group, which is generally going to be less expensive to maintain, are the sprawling and large 

lot residential communities that are designed and graded such that the LID/ESD approach 

includes flat slopes that filter and infiltrate water, also known as non-structural practices. In this

group, ESD/LID is inherent in the design due to the significant amount of open space. The 

second group of ESD/LID is the use of micro-scale practices (micro-bioretention, landscape 

infiltration, etc) and alternative surfaces (green roofs, pervious paving materials). These practices 

are highly maintenance intensive. The micro-scale practices rely upon infiltration of runoff 

through the soil media. In order to properly function, the soil media needs to be remediated 

frequently to maintain porosity otherwise they backup, fail to function, and overflow. Alternative 

surfaces also require frequent maintenance (2-3 times/year) to maintain porosity of paving 

materials and ensure adequate plant coverage and soil conditions of green roofs.

Response: Properly designed LID/ESD BMPs can be engineered for minimum maintenance 

(similar to landscaping), particularly if a pretreatment area is incorporated into designs. These 

BMPs are not appropriate for treatment of runoff with high sediment loads. High sediment loads 

should first be addressed through appropriate land-management techniques or traditional 

stormwater pretreatment BMP’s. These factors are site-specific and difficult to generalize on a 

national scale. It is noted that stormwater management facilities, whether LID or conventional, 

require maintenance. The level of maintenance should be considered when selecting practices 

and this is noted in the document. 

Comment: The case studies with the greatest cost savings utilizing LID/ESD are sprawling 

residential single family projects. Builder experience has shown that residential communities in 

Maryland with 3+ acre lots and open section roads designed under the ESD regulations have 

negligible to no infrastructure costs for stormwater management. This is primarily because they 

can be constructed using non-structural approaches since there is a significant amount of land 

available. While this is useful for LID/ESD for this limited application, this pattern of 

development (large lot residential) is inconsistent with the pattern of smart growth envisioned in 

many community master plans. 
18

This study contains no case studies of private or public redevelopment of high-density, mixed 

use projects. Part of the policy debate that occurred in Maryland related to stormwater includes a 

discussion of how ESD incentivizes sprawl and discourages a high-density, mixed use pattern of 

development proximal to multiple transportation opportunities. If anything, this study confirms 

that ESD/LID is cheaper for large lot sprawl and provides no information related to smart growth 

projects. 

Aside from the analysis provided above, missing from the debate is a third category of projects: 

'smart growth/high-density, new development projects'. These are the projects that are planned 

with higher densities, similar to what is often being categorized as 're-development', but located 

on properties with little or no impervious pavement. Many requirements fail to address these 

projects and assume that the redevelopment provisions include all smart growth projects - that's 

not the case. These high-density projects located on low-no impervious properties will be the 

most adversely affected types of projects because they will be held to the higher 'new 

development' standard while having the form of higher-density (little-no area available to 

accommodate ESD) projects.

Response: Individual projects were included in the report based on the availability of data on 

costs for LID vs. traditional stormwater management. There were several key studies that 

evaluated Greenfield-type projects, and many fewer that examined retrofits. At the time research 

was conducted, there were no high-density studies that had enough data to be included in the 

report. 

Since the time the 2007 report was prepared, however, additional information has become 

available. The document cites some examples: 1) Portland Bureau of Environmental Services 

(City of Portland 2008) study of green roofs shows that life-cycle benefits of a green roof 

provide a higher net-present value to the public and to the owner over time – this study is 

primarily applicable to high density, mixed use construction; 2) A Lenexa, Kansas, study that 

evaluated single family residential, multifamily residential, commercial/retail, and 

warehouse/office, and determined that there were cost savings associated with the application of 

LID techniques versus traditional stormwater management techniques, and were therefore able to 

gain local support for implementing LID standards (Beezhold and Baker 2006); 3) Capitol 

Regional Watershed District, encompassing areas of St. Paul, MN, that is highly impervious, 

approximately 42% impervious, found LID retrofits were not only less costly (saving $0.5 

million in capital costs) to install than conventional stormwater management to solve flooding 

problems, they provided the additional benefit of improved water quality for a local recreational 

lake that had been chronically impaired from urban stormwater runoff pollutants (CRWD 2010). 

Comment: The commenter provided several citations on the uptake of pollutants by managed 

turf grasses, reduction in air temperature by turf grasses, and how turf grass systems can improve 

stormwater infiltration. 

Response: The general benefits of air temperature and air pollution reduction, and soil 

infiltration improvement, are not exclusive to managed turf grass but are characteristic of other 

vegetation as well. In order to put this information on turf grasses in context, the similar benefits

of other vegetation (native grasses, shrubs, wetland plants, ground covers, trees, mosses, etc.) 

should concurrently be presented for comparison. The relative benefits of many different types of 

vegetation were not included in this document.
19

Comment: The commenter provided a recommendation to rephrase the term fertilizer ban to 

fertilizer restriction. 

Response: The term was changed. 

Comment: The commenter provided suggestions for litter, leaf collection, outreach and 

education, and street sweeping as pollution prevention practices. 

Response: Most of these practices are already cited in the document. At the commenter’s 

suggestion, implementation of a leaf litter collection program with composing and reuse was 

added as a source control measure. This was added in the table on pollution prevention and 

source control practices. 

Comment: Recognize the need to consider natural daylight/nighttime conditions in planning and 

development in order to protect species that require the natural light cycle in order to propagate. 

Response: A reference to this consideration was added with a supporting citation from the 

federal facilities design guide US General Services Administration (2005) GSA P-100-2005-2.12 

Landscape Lighting, which references www.darkskies.org. 

Turf 

Comment: The guidance should strongly encourage the development of integrated infiltrative 

surfaces and provide solutions for increasing the permeability of existing infrastructure: 

• Practices to increase infiltrative and retentive capacity of turf and landscape areas 

• Practices to develop healthy soils (organic matter, micro & macro fauna) 

• Implementation of best cultural practices for turfgrass and landscape area maintenance 

(recycle clipping, longer grass, drought conditioning, supplemental irrigation) 

• Integrate landscape, trees, and grass areas to increase pervious surfaces and maximize 

infiltration through initial design or redesign and maintenance of existing landscapes 

Response: The guidance was revised to put a stronger emphasis on cultural management 

practices based on the Scotts Miracle Grow Company recommendations. 

Comment: Caution must be exercised when estimating “inputs” and relating input reductions to 

potential load reductions. All inputs are not equal, are not static, and are not reflective of loads 

nor the fact that they many of the inputs mitigate and reduce loads by reducing run-off, 

sedimentation, and increasing infiltration capacity of greenspace. The estimated fertilizer and 

pesticide inputs presented in the draft report are very high. Turfgrass fertilizer use has been 

estimated (based on reported usage data) to be less than 100 million pounds across the entirety of 

all states in the Bay watershed (DE, MD, PA, VA, WV), which is less than the draft report 

estimates for the watershed alone (227 million pounds for the 64,000 sq. mi. watershed). The 

draft estimated volume for 2,4-D is over 25% of nationwide turfgrass use of 11 million pounds 

reported by EPA (EPA, 2005). While input information is directionally informative, care must be 

taken to avoid simple extrapolation to load potentials. For this reason, the Agency may consider 
20

removing this information from the draft report. We hope the Agency finds this input helpful. 

Please utilize us a resource for product content. 

Response: The definitions for terms such as high inputs were modified based on the Scotts 

Miracle Grow Company recommendations. The section on 2,4-D was deleted. The bay wide 

fertilizer estimates were adjusted based on the numbers provided by the Scotts Miracle Grow 

Company and recommendations to modify application assumptions provided by Environmental 

and Turf Services, Inc. 

Comment: As we develop the technical framework for the management of nutrients in our urban 

ecosystems, research shows (D.J. Soldat, 2008, Groffman, 2004) two principals result in the 

greatest reduction of nutrient loading that leads to the eutrophication of our waterways. 

• Decrease Impervious Surfaces: The key element to reducing urban runoff is to decrease 

the percentage of impervious surfaces and one of the best ways is to increase green space. 

• Increase erosion control and water retention on pervious surface: Most nitrogen and 

phosphorus movement from pervious surfaces is in the form of sediment erosion. 

Landscape areas and turfgrass is an essential part of this equation. Healthy, properly maintained 

grass is shown to increase infiltration rates and reduce volume runoff and sediment. Other 

environmental benefits of grass include (J.B. Beard, 2004): 

• Erosion control 

• Dust control 

• Reducing storm water runoff 

• Flood control 

• Enhancing groundwater retention and recharge 

• Entrapment and biodegradation of organic chemicals 

• Reducing the urban heat island effect 

• Reducing noise pollution 

• Carbon sequestration 

While we understand the benefits of healthy turf grass to water quality and the environment, we 

acknowledge that product formulation and consumer education of best cultural practices can 

further improve water quality. This report surveys peer reviewed technical papers on nitrogen, 

phosphorus and sediment runoff from urban turfgrass for input to the Technical Guidance to 

fulfill Section 502 of the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order should cover as it relates to urban 

turfgrass. 

Best management practices include: 

• Mowing High: This allows for greater root length and density, which allows the plant to 

better absorb nutrients and soil moisture. Taller grass also keeps the soil surface cool and 

shaded, prevent rainfall impact on the soil surface, and crowds out weeds. 
21

• Return Clippings or Use a Mulching Mower: Recycling grass clippings returns essential 

nutrients to the soil (ex phosphorus and nitrogen).

• Clippings add organic matter to the soil, improving soil health, vigor, and infiltration 

capacity. 

• Keep Fertilizer and Grass Clippings Off Impervious Surface: Grass clippings, leaves, 

fertilizer, and yard debris left in gutter or streets will be washed into storm sewers and 

surface waters. 

• Fertilize in Spring and Fall: Early and middle spring and the fall is when turfgrass 

absorbs the most nutrients. Never fertilize when the ground is frozen. 

• Use a Proper Spreader: Drop spreaders or rotary spreaders with a side guard help to keep 

fertilizers on the lawn and off impervious surfaces. 

• Mulch Tree Leaves: Mulching leaves into the grass adds organic matter and nutrient to 

build a healthy soil. 

• Avoid Fertilization before Heavy Rainfalls 

Response: The benefits of turf were addressed in the guidance. References provided by Scotts 

Miracle Grow Company were reviewed and cited in the guidance. For example, reference 

articles by Kussow, Petrovic, Easton, Soldat that were provided by the Scotts Miracle Grow 

Company were cited. In addition, a section on turf cultural management practices was inserted 

based on the recommendations under the Scotts Miracle Grow comments pertaining to the 

Education of Best Management Practices. 

Comment: The commenter commented about the assumptions made in the guidance regarding 

the use of 2,4-D and the application practices associated with the herbicide 2,4-D/A. 

Response: These assumptions and the associated discussion regarding 2,4-D/A were deleted 

from the guidance. 

Comment: As the largest crop in the watershed, turfgrass has been unfairly identified as a 

significant polluter of the Bay, its tributaries and ground waters. Dubious data, unscientific 

references, and non-credible sources have been used as basis for the position that turfgrass in the 

watershed is significantly contributing to pollution of the Bay. We strongly disagree with this 

position and the following comments will provide cited evidence to the contrary, refuting the 

citations identifying turfgrass as a significant polluter, as contained in the Executive Order 13508 

Implementation Guidelines. The focus of our comments is in reference to Section 5 (Turf 

Management) of Chapter 3, Controlling Urban Runoff. We agree with many of the positions 

outlines in the guidelines , such as implementation of proper mowing practices, selecting the 

proper turfgrass at establishment and utilizing an efficient irrigation system. Among others, these 

are steps that the turfgrass industry already promotes to address responsible management. In 

reference to the following: we call attention to the fact that no scientific data from peer-reviewed 

studies from reputable journals are used as support. 

• Reducing total turf area through initial design or redesign of existing landscapes will 

improve water quality. 
22

• Reduction of total area maintained under ' high input' (as defined in the guidelines), will 

improve water quality. 

• Converting turf to low or lower maintenance vegetated areas (e.g. naturalized forest, 

meadows, etc.) will significantly improve water quality. 

Response: The Agency did not state in the guidance that turf has been identified “as a significant 

polluter of the Bay, its tributaries and groundwaters.” The Agency noted in the guidance that 

turf management has the potential to negatively impact the Chesapeake Bay watershed; that turf 

does not provide the same ecological services that native forests provide in terms of hydrologic 

function, habitat and overall function; and that specific management practices can be used to 

reduce potential water quality impacts that may result from poor turf management. Turf does not 

have the same hydrologic footprint or function that is provided by a mature hardwood or mixed 

hardwood forest. For example, a study by Kays, 1980 showed that infiltration rates comparing 

pine-mixed hardwood forest had a final constant infiltration rate of 12.42 inches per hour and 

when the forest understory and leaf litter were removed, the resultant lawn had a mean 

infiltration rate of 4.41 inches per hour. Infiltration rates for four other “disturbed” land types 

were tested and they had infiltration rates around two orders of magnitude less than the rates for 

native forest conditions. 

Dierks, 2007, noted that turf does not provide the same degree of infiltration, interception and 

runoff attenuation that is provided by mature forest with its associated layer of duff and 

underground deep root structure. In addition, it should be noted that mature forests shade 

sensitive aquatic systems. Because native landscapes provide a broad suite of ecological benefits 

in addition to the soil stabilization, infiltration and filtration benefits that turf provides, the 

Agency believes that protection of native forest or restoration of native forest or other vegetated 

land cover types is beneficial to water quality and water resources 

 The Agency explicitly acknowledges in the guidance that turf can be used beneficially in many 

applications to reduce runoff from bare, compacted or disturbed soils; that turf can filter 

pollutants and promote infiltration; and that turf can be beneficial in reducing the impacts of 

runoff from impervious surfaces especially in an ultra-urban environment. However, it must be 

noted that managing turf in a manner that minimizes runoff requires great care and expert 

management. For example, many lawn care fertilizer products sold in major lawn and garden 

and hardware stores across the Chesapeake Bay watershed recommend applications four times a 

year that total in the neighborhood of 140 pounds per acre annually of nitrogen. These levels 

approach those used by farmers who grow corn. Thus much high-input turf is receiving annual 

applications that are similar to agricultural fields, and require expert care to minimize runoff or 

infiltration. Many of the applicators of these fertilizers are either homeowners or local 

applicators who in many instances are likely to not manage and time their fertilizer applications 

and their lawns in such an optimal manner as to avoid runoff or infiltration of nitrogen. Even 

larger private and public entities have varying strategies for turf management, some of which 

result in increased pollutant loadings. Some of these management strategies inevitably result in 

increased loadings of nutrients and air pollutants that are eventually deposited into the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Although there is a lack of published research that seeks to directly compare turf to mature 

deciduous forests in terms of water quality and hydrology, there is data on the hydrology of both 

forests and turf management as well as a number of water quality studies that show nutrient 

exports from turf landscapes e.g., . Soldat and Petrovic (2008) noted with respect to turf that 

“runoff and leaching losses vary from inconsequential to severe depending on rate, source and 
23

timing of fertilizer application” and “Soil properties were found to have a larger effect on runoff 

volume than vegetative properties.” These studies were cited and discussed in Section 5.3.3 of 

the guidance. Finally, it should be noted that in general, native forests do not require periodic 

fertilization to maintain stand density and overall forest health and that turf requires ongoing 

management to ensure that it functions as desired. 

Comment: A reference from the Center for Watershed Protection (Schueler, 2000), states that 70 

percent of the turf in the watershed can be found in home lawns. The actual figures are 82.4% in 

New York (USDA-NASS, 2003) and 82.6% in Maryland (SDA-NASS, 2005). Therefore, the 

70% number may not be current. We agree that roughly 50% of home lawn turf is maintained 

using some level of inputs, besides mowing. However, the Agency disagrees that in the majority 

of lawns, the level of inputs applied is significant and worthy of a 'high input' designation. 

Response: The guidance was revised to reflect new data provided by the Chesapeake 

Stormwater Network 2010 estimates and more recent studies by Milesi et al (2005) and Fender 

(2004). Again we note that major fertilizer companies in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

recommend applications of approximately 140 pounds per acre year of nitrogen, which is just 

slightly below typical applications by farmers on cornfields. 

Comment: Surveys by the Scotts Company, (Augustin, 2007) show that consistently from state 

to state, 50% of homeowners do not apply any fertilizer to their lawns, as Schueler stated. Of the 

remaining 50% of homeowners, 75% are do-it -yourselfers (DIY) and 25% hire a lawn service. 

Therefore, of the approximately 14.4 million acres of home lawn turf(70% of3.8 million acres, as 

reported by Schueler), 7.2 million acres receive some fertilizer. Additionally, professional lawn 

care companies make the applications on 25% (1.8 million acres) of the 7.2 million acres. Also 

of the DIY homeowners, 93% apply fertilizer only once or twice a year. Therefore, only 7% of 

DIY homeowners would really be considered 'high input ' by our definition. Additionally, 

surveys by the Scott Miracle Grow Company show that DIY homeowners typically apply only 4 

- 9 grams of nitrogen per square meter annually (this is equivalent to 35 - 80 Ibs. acre). 

Averaging this figure comes to 57.8 Ibs of nitrogen per acre per year, or 1.33 pounds of nitrogen 

per 1000 sq. ft. per year. The Scotts numbers differ from numbers reported by Schueler. Given 

that Schueler does not cite any scientific references of published surveys in his document, we 

strongly question the accuracy and credibility of information in his document. 

We also question the assumption within Table 3-42 stating that turf management 

recommendations suggest that one inch of water be applied during the growing season (to 

maintain green cover), further assuming that this is a common practice for all homeowners in the 

'high input' category. The New York State Turfgrass Survey noted that only 15% of surveyed 

homeowners ever irrigated their lawns. We assert that this figure is consistent for all the states in 

the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Therefore, table should cite an adjusted value 

Response: In response to the comment on the table which contained estimated fertilizer, 

pesticide and irrigation use in the Chesapeake Bay, the table was deleted and the numbers were 

recalculated and inserted into the text based on assumptions and data provided by the Scotts 

Miracle Grow Company regarding high input use of fertilizers. However, we note that major 

fertilizer companies in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed recommend applications of 

approximately 140 pounds per acre year of nitrogen, which is just slightly below typical 

applications by farmers on cornfields. 
24

Comment: Section 5.2.1 Soil Compaction : Soil compaction in urban environments is a real and 

significant problem. The document incorrectly implies that turf is linked to soil compaction in 

lawns. Mismanagement of soil prior to establishing turf is the cause of soil compaction. If the 

soil is mismanaged prior to establishment of any plant, the problems associated with soil 

compaction will persist regardless of the plant species established. Choosing not to plant turf will 

not overcome soil compaction. Improved soil management during home construction and 

landscape installation will reduce soil compaction.

Response: The subsection on soil compaction was deleted from the section on turf related 

impacts and discussed in the context of soil amendments as a cultural turf management practice. 

The commenter was correct in noting that soil compaction does not result from turf cultivation. 

Comment: Section 5.2.2 Fertilizer Applications: Information on page 3-128, Lines 34-36, state 

that homeowners typically apply fertilizer rates exceeding 100 lbs of N per acre per year. The 

study by Morton and Sullivan focused on applications in only two counties on Long Island, NY, 

most likely not typical of homeowners in the watershed. Schueler states that clearly one-third of 

homeowner lawns are managed by lawn care companies (Lines 36-37) . Scotts Company 

surveys, however, dispute the one-third figure, citing and estimate of 25%, which has remained 

consistent for many years (Augustin, 2010). In addition, the document states on the same page, 

Lines 6-8, that results from the National Gardening Survey of2000 indicate that 83.9% of 

households apply fertilizer to their lawns and 63.8% apply pesticides. We contacted the National 

Gardening Association and they could not confirm these figures and stated that these figures 

seem to be high by a factor of two. Therefore, since we do not own a copy of this survey (it must 

be purchased at a significant cost), we cannot confirm these figures. However, these numbers go 

against surveys conducted by the Scotts Company over a period of many years. Another question 

not addressed by the document is: "What happens to fertilizers applied to turf?" Researchers 

from the University of Minnesota and the University of Wisconsin (Bierman, et al, 2009) 

addressed phosphorus runoff from turf maintained as a home lawn. They concluded that 

"maintaining a healthy, dense stand of turf can reduce phosphorus transport by reducing runoff 

depth". Stier and Kussow from the University of Wisconsin compared the runoff from buffer 

strips of prairie species and fine fescues on a golf course. The researchers concluded that: "The 

lack of difference between buffer strips could be surprising to some persons as native plants (i.e. 

prairie) are often thought of somehow being inherently better for the environment in all respects 

than turfgrasses; however, this is simply not the case. Data from the studies show that it is 

impossible to achieve zero phosphorus in runoff or nitrate in leach ate as both of these minerals 

are often naturally abundant and play an important role in healthy ecosystems. In the current 

study, our data did not indicate golf course fairway management to be a significant source of 

either phosphorus or nitrogen." It is interesting that a very large study, funded by the National 

Science Foundation and conducted by the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, was not 

referenced in the document. Dubbed the 'Baltimore Ecosystem Study', this work studies many 

aspects of the water quality in urban and suburban streams in the Baltimore, MD area of the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed . This landmark study, interestingly enough, started with the 

assumption that home lawns were a major source of nitrogen loading in the regions ' streams. 

However, the study ultimately concluded "Home lawns, thought to be major sources of N in 

suburban watersheds, have more complex coupled carbon and N dynamics than previously 

thought, and are likely the site of much N retention" (Cary Institute, 2010). We advocate a 

thorough review of the Baltimore study and other included peer-reviewed scientific references 
25

('References' at the end of this document). There is a large collection of research on nutrient 

transport in turfgrass systems that need to be used in developing the Executive Order 13508 

Implementation Guidelines. 

Response: The table which contained estimates of fertilizer, pesticide and irrigation water use 

was deleted and the fertilizer application rates and estimates revised based on data from the 

Scotts Miracle Grow Company. Studies regarding the benefits and potential impacts of turf 

management fertilization practices and mowing practices were cited in the document. Results 

from the Baltimore Ecosystem Study were also cited in the guidance. Increased emphasis on 

cultural management practices regarding mowing height, fertilizer applications practices and the 

benefits of stand density were provided and relevant studies were cited as appropriate. The 

numbers for total pounds of nitrogen applied in the Chesapeake Bay watershed were also revised 

in Section 5.2.1 in response to industry comments on application rates and cultural application 

practices. (Nonetheless, we note that some prominent Scotts Miracle Grow products as well as 

other companies' sold for routine use by homeowners that contain recommendations for 4 annual 

applications that total well in excess 100 pounds per acre year of nitrogen.) 

Comment: Section 5.2.3 Pesticide Applications: The speculation displayed in the document that 

many homeowners apply large amounts of pesticides, or even apply pesticides at all, is 

inappropriate and incorrect. Lines 20-23 and 27-30 on page 3-129 offer a worst case scenario of 

pesticide use that is totally inaccurate. Broadleaf weed herbicides containing 2,4-D are rarely 

applied to an entire lawn. They are usually applied as spot applications directed to the targeted 

weed. It is incorrect to assume that all I. 71 million acres of 'high input' turf are treated broadly 

with 2,4-D. Again, no peer-review studies are referenced in the document to support included 

claims. The fate of pesticides applied to turf has been investigated by researchers for many 

years. Fate and Management of Turfgrass Chemicals (Clark and Kenna, 2000), reports on the 

research delivered in a symposium sponsored by the American Chemical Society. It provides a 

foundation for understanding pesticide fate in turfgrass systems and the practices necessary to 

minimize potential environmental risk from pesticide applications from turfgrass. The book 

states: " ... it is significant that turfgrass systems appear to have a very large capacity to retain 

and degrade compounds that are applied to them..." (p. 104). This statement fully confirms 

findings by the researchers at the Cary Institute for Ecosystems Studies in the Baltimore 

Ecosystem Study. 

Response: The pesticide related impacts subsection in the draft was deleted in response to 

comments. Discussion, however, about cultural management practices relating to turf 

applications was provided in Section 5.3.4. 

Comment: As stated above, the information given in this section is not supported by peerreviewed studies. On page 3-130, Lines 2-3, the document states turfgrass tends to require more 

water than many commonly used landscape plants. There is no citation to support this statement. 

In addition, the statement on page 3-130 (Lines 7-9) that all ' high input' lawns in the watershed 

would likely be irrigated using the one inch per week rate is pure conjecture and absolutely 

incorrect. Please refer again to the New York state survey where only 15% of homeowners 

irrigate their lawns. Assuming twelve weeks of dry weather per year where 1.0 inch of irrigation 

water would be required seems to be a worst case scenario and unrealistic. The publication Water 

Quality and Quantity Issues for Turfgrasses in Urban Landscapes (Beard and Kenna, 2008) is a 

credible and rigorous reference for turfgrass irrigation and water issues. 
26

Response: Research from Foster (1994) was cited to substantiate the statement that irrigated 

grass can use more water than other landscape types. The table in the draft which contained the 

irrigation estimates and the 1” of water irrigated per week assumption was deleted. The 

publication Water Quality and Quantity Issues for Turfgrasses in Urban Landscapes (Beard and 

Kenna, 2008) was used as a reference for this guidance. 

Comment: This section references groups that lack scientific expertise (SafeLawns.org) and the 

section also fails to address credible counter viewpoints that are supported by science. We urge 

you to consult engineers and researchers for facts on the environmental impacts of lawns. One 

such literature review by Sahu (2009) concluded that turfgrass sequesters more carbon than is 

emitted by mowing. Qian and Follet (2002) found that golf course managed sequestered about 

one ton of carbon per acre per year for the first 25-30 years, which is roughly equivalent to the 

carbon sequestered by an acre of managed land in the Conservation Research Program (CRP). 

Current studies are underway to address carbon emissions and sequestration in turf. The 

Colorado Golf Carbon Project (Golf Preserves, 2010) is a joint project sponsored by the golf 

industry, golf courses in Colorado, Colorado State University, and the USDA Agricultural 

Research Service. The project's goal is to determine the carbon sequestered vs. the carbon used 

by golf courses in Colorado (i.e. the carbon balance). 

The Executive Order 13508 Implementation Guidelines mentions a study by Townsend-Small 

(20IOa) that evaluated carbon sequestration and nitrous oxide emissions from picnic areas and 

athletic fields in California. This article was published by American Geophysical Union and has 

issued a correction (Townsend-Small, 2010b) due to inaccurate calculations that lead to more 

than a ten-fold overestimation of carbon emitted. As part of the correction, the authors now 

conclude that lawns may have actually a positive carbon balance, if managed conservatively. 

However, the author’s assumption of 15 lbs. of nitrogen applied per year on the athletic fields is 

about four times too high from what is the norm in that region, and therefore extremely 

unrealistic. This overestimation of nitrogen levels skews the carbon released via nitrous oxide to 

the point where the athletic fields have a negative carbon balance. 

Response: The discussion on carbon sequestration was deleted in response to comments and the 

lack of research comparing the carbon sequestration of turf to mature deciduous forest. In 

addition, Mosko, 2009 was cited in response to the statistic reported by Safelawns.org. 

Comment: There are instances of incorrect information in this section. One example is on Page 

3-131, Lines 10-11, that states lawn fertilizer should be applied in early spring early in the 

growing season. This statement is incorrect and contradictory to many studies in the scientific 

literature and recommendations made by state turfgrass extension specialists. The document cites 

a number of municipal governments that have passed legislation that restricts phosphorus use yet 

does not include any data on the impact of the legislation in reducing phosphorus in surface 

water. The impact of Ann Arbor, MI phosphorus ordinance cited is based on one year of data and 

the conclusions do not consider other plausible explanations for the reduction in phosphorus in 

water that was observed. 

Response: The document has been edited to reflect industry comments on correct fertilizer 

applications timing. In response to the comment on the paucity of data correlating the impacts of 

phosphorus restrictions on improvements to water quality, the Agency agrees more monitoring is 

indicated. Although the Ann Arbor, Mi ordinance is a fairly recent ordinance, and long-term 
27

data is not yet available, the initial indications from the first year of monitoring are very positive

in terms of the relationship between the restriction and reduced phosphorus loadings to receiving 

waters. 

Comment: The value of soil amendments to improve the physical, chemical and biological 

properties of soil is well documented. The recommendations do not take into consideration the 

expense involved in purchasing and incorporating the suggested amendments. In addition, the 

practical challenge of incorporating a soil amendment to a depth of 8 to 12 inches as suggested 

on page 3-136, Lines 15-16, is not addressed. 

Response: Inexpensive soil amendment practices are available for improving soil conditions. 

The Agency is not recommending amendments to all soils that is currently covered by turf. Site 

conditions will determine whether an amendment is necessary. It is common practice for the turf 

industry to aerate and fertilize turf areas, and the use of organic amendments is a common and 

cost effective practice to do so. The Agency recognizes that not all soils need amendment and 

that cost may prohibit all degraded soils on a facility from being amended. The Agency 

recommends that facilities or municipalities look for opportunities to amend soils based on need, 

i.e., environmental performance, cost, practicality, etc. Finally, recommended soil amendment 

depth will again be dependent on site conditions and other factors and not all sites necessarily 

need this degree of amendment. In cases where turf is being replaced by biorentention systems 

or other stormwater management practices designed to retain or infiltrate runoff, soils it may be 

necessary to amend soils to a depth that provides the requisite storage volume to meet the state or 

local regulatory requirements. 

Comment: It is well established that healthy, biologically-rich soil protects the environment and 

the Chesapeake Bay by helping to retain and efficiently use nutrients such as nitrogen and 

phosphorus, thus keeping the excess content out of the Bay. Chapter 3 Section 5.3 of the 

Executive Order states, “Soil amendments can be used to enhance soil properties, increase the 

infiltrative and retentive capacity of soils. Soils can be amendment by adding sand or other bulk 

materials, organic matter such as compost, inorganic or organic fertilizers. There is some 

evidence that the use of compost teas and the inoculation of soils with microbes and mycorrhizal 

fungi can increase soil health and plant productivity, but additional research is needed.” In truth, 

the beneficial effect of microorganisms on improving nutrient use efficiency has been known for 

many years. The publications cited below offer just a few of the excellent examples of these 

effects. Both trade and academic publications increasingly cite “Integrated Nutrient 

Management” (INM) approaches that incorporate techniques for enhanced efficiency fertilizer 

(EEF) use, as well as microbial inoculants as means to improve nutrient use efficiency. The INM 

concept is supported by many national and international agencies – including the US Department 

of Agriculture, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, and the 

Food Policy Research Institute – in a variety of research programs. Our company AMS – has 

alone conducted over 500 field, university and third party studies over the past 12 years 

demonstrating the benefits of biological approaches for nutrient management; including a 

presentation at the EEF conference (sponsored by the International Fertilizer Industry 

Association) in Miami, Florida in March 2010. The growing academic interest, investment and 

discovery in microbial product contributions to nutrient management are reflected in the papers 

now being published in peer-reviewed journals. A few examples – each of which has been 

published within the last two years – are shown here: 
28

• Enhanced plant nutrient use efficiency with PGPR and AMF in an integrated nutrient 

management system (Adesemoye et al (2008) Can. J. Microbiology. 54:876-886) 

• Fertilizer-dependent efficiency of Pseudomonads for improving growth, yield and nutrient 

use efficiency of wheat. (Shaharoona et al Naveed (2008) Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 

79:147-155.) 

• Effectiveness of organic-/bio-fertilizer supplemented with chemical fertilizers for improving 

soil water retention, aggregate stability, growth and nutrient uptake of maize (Ahmad et al, 

(2008) Jour. Sust. Agric. 31(4):57-77.) 

• Integrated nutrient management for production, economics and soil improvement in winter 

vegetables. (Dass et al, (2008) Inter. J. Veg. Sci. 14(2):104-120.) 

While research continues at an increasing rate, we would nonetheless submit that there is 

sufficient knowledge of these applications and their effects to simply state: “There is evidence 

that the use of compost teas and the inoculation of soils with microbes and mycorrhizal fungi can 

increase soil health and plant productivity.” 

Response: In response to comments, the passage regarding biological approaches to soil 

amendments has been revised. The studies provided by the commenter were conducted on 

agricultural crops and could not be directly applied to research conducted on turf. However, the 

basic assumptions regarding the benefits of biological approaches that were supported by the 

commenter are discussed and the relevant research papers cited. 

Comment: One commenter commented that Pitt (1992) noted that residential lawns produced 

only a fraction of the total runoff of impervious areas and that stormwater monitoring agencies 

have been unable to directly link stream nitrate concentrations to prior lawn fertilization 

applications, that there is strong evidence that most pesticides remain on the lawn until they 

eventually degrade and that recent monitoring efforts are routinely detecting commonly used 

weed killers and insecticides in urban streams. 

Response: The Pitt studies cited are somewhat old and the research has conflicting 

interpretations. Studies by USGS and other entities have demonstrated that urban streams have 

house and lawn care pesticide concentrations that are detectable. Drawing a direct connection 

between lawn fertilization and nitrate concentrations in streams is difficult on a watershed basis 

because of inconsistent application rates and timing as well as other factors that may attenuate or 

influence concentrations in streams. 

Comment: “An identification of areas where soil amendments be used [sic] to enhance soil 

health and the infiltration capacity of the soils” (p. 3-126). The general concept is good, but there 

is minimal scientific/agronomic basis to support the use of many organic amendments such as 

microbial inoculants, compost teas, humic acids, etc., unless the soils are very seriously damaged 

or deficient. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts and the University of Georgia have 

studied these claims and found little to recommend the products. There is a much larger database 

to support the use of sand and compost. 

Response: The section on soil amendments was revised to include studies that relate to this 

issue. EPA agrees that there is insufficient evidence at this time to conclusively prove the 

benefits of these biological approaches on turf health and soil function, but that studies on 
29

agricultural crops indicate that these benefits will probably apply to turf management. The 

agency agrees that compost and other soil amendments such as sand can improve soil function. 

Comment: 5.2.2 Fertilizer Applications: This is a short, but very important section that spans 

the bottom of p.3-128 through the top of p.3-129. “Homeowners typically apply fertilizer at rates 

exceeding 100 lbs of N per acre per year, whereas some commercial lawn care companies are 

known to apply fertilizer at twice those rates (Morton et al. 1988).” This is a misleading 

statement. This is a good paper by Art Gold and his students, but the EPA authors have misused 

it. Morton et al. are referring to a survey of Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk Counties) homes 

that was published in 1978. It is inappropriate to generalize to the other 3,100+ US counties as 

well as to the present time, at least 32 years after the survey was conducted, and then to use this 

in a critical calculation in an authoritative document. 

Response: In response to comments, this study and reference were deleted. 

Comment: “Reported nitrogen fertilization can average over 100 lbs/ac/yr when homeowners 

apply fertilizers to over 200 lbs/ac/yr when they are applied by commercial lawn care 

companies” (Morton et al. 1988). This is another misleading statement, and it falsely quotes the 

authors. The statement in the EPA guidance document is in quotes, and the authors never said 

that, nor would Dr. Gold ever have said that. The original authors were careful to state that their 

statistic on homeowner use refers to a specific survey of a specific part of New York which is not 

in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and the professional application rate was based on a personal 

communication for that specific area. No average was reported, and no extrapolation was made 

to other areas of the country. If averages were available, they would likely demonstrate the 

relatively large number of homeowners that do not ever apply turf fertilizer, nor hire others to do 

so. (The National Gardening Association survey cited immediately below indicates that only 

23% of US households hired a lawn care company and/or a landscape company in 2009.) Has 

EPA considered the fact that many homeowners only fertilize their front lawns? (See also the 

discussion immediately below regarding the percent of US households that apply no fertilizer.) 

Any true average of all US households and/or all households within the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed is likely much less than 50 lb/A, and the average for households where fertilizer is 

applied is likely less than 70 lb/A. Augustin (2009) reported that typical do it yourself 

homeowners apply 36-80 lb N/A nationally, but this does not account for the homeowners that 

apply no fertilizers. We can help the EPA or its contractor obtain more specific information, if 

requested. 

Response: In response to comments references to the Morton (1988) and the National 

Gardening Association survey were deleted for reasons addressed by the commenter. The 

Agency in estimating the potential loadings of fertilizers in the Chesapeake Bay utilized data 

provided by Scotts Miracle Grow to revise the totals. 

Comment: “Results obtained from a National Gardening Association survey indicate that 83.9 

percent of households apply fertilizers to their lawns and 63.8 percent apply pesticides (National 

Gardening Association, 2000).” These numbers are very high and highly suspect. According to 

the National Gardening Association (NGA), the following numbers are more appropriate, based 

on a statistically designed, national survey of 2500 households (B. Butterfield, Director of 

Research, NGA, personal communication, April 21, 2010): Approximately 44% of the nation’s 
30

households applied fertilizers outdoors to gardens and/or lawns in 2009, and this number has 

never approached 83.9%. Note that some unknown fraction of this number applied fertilizer to 

gardens only. This 2009 result is based on the following survey results: there are 116 million US 

households, 72% of which (83 million) did some level of lawn and garden work somewhere 

inside or outside their homes in 2009, and 61% of this 72% of the population - 44% purchased 

fertilizers for use. Similarly, approximately 39% of the nation’s households applied pesticides to 

their outdoor property, not 63.8%. In addition, some unknown fraction of this number would 

have only applied pesticides to cracks and crevices, building exteriors, or ornamental plants. This 

2009 result is based on the following survey results: 54% of the households that did some level 

of work in this area (72% of the total) applied at least one outdoor pesticide at least once - 0.54 X 

0.72 = 0.39, or 39%. These numbers should be corrected in the document, and any assessments 

that rely on these numbers should be reevaluated. 

Response: Due to the absence of published data that is consistent with the personal 

communication with the National Gardening Association, the reference to the National 

Gardening Association survey results was deleted. 

Comment: “Homeowners are instructed to follow the label instructions to determine application 

rates. By examining instructions from two such labels for commercially available herbicides 

(below), one can estimate an annual amount of pesticides applied to lawns in the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed, assuming all highinput turf acreage is subject to pesticide application at 

prescribed rates.” It is not appropriate to state that “one can estimate an annual amount” of 

pesticide loading based on an assumption that all highinput acreage is treated, because that 

would never happen. Such a calculation in an authoritative document such as this, which will 

provide a basis for future TMDL compliance by multiple jurisdictions, is politically 

irresponsible. The pesticide industry can comment on the frequency of households that might 

actually use these products, as well as the application rates. In addition, it is important for the 

EPA to realize that many/most herbicide applications are done on a spottreat basis or to the 

front yard only. Perhaps a dialog that involves EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, pesticide 

registrants, and outside scientists would be appropriate to establish a more realistic exposure 

scenario. This calculation should be deleted or modified. 

Response: In response to comments the calculation was deleted. 

Comment: Rather than protecting the Chesapeake Bay, it is likely that the Executive Order as 

currently written will lead to more harm to the bay as it promotes low input turf grass that will 

degrade the environment as it allows nutrients and sediment to flow into the Chesapeake Bay. 

Conversely, thick healthy turf protects the environment and the Chesapeake Bay by reducing the 

amount of storm water runoff while recharging local aquifers, preventing soil erosion and 

sedimentation and keeping excess nitrogen and phosphorus out of the Bay. 

To provide better protection for the Chesapeake Bay, those living the in watershed should 

fertilize their lawns as part of a regular maintenance regime to protect the Bay. 

Rather than promote the reduction of fertilizer for turf, EPA should focus on outreach, education 

and other efforts to promote the adoption and improvement of products, such as our advanced 

granular technology in order reduce the nutrient and sediment flow into the Chesapeake Bay. As 

part of The Andersons commitment to environmental stewardship, we developing advanced 

granule technology under a cooperative technology development grant with four industry 
31

collaborators and the State of Ohio. A major thrust of this development work is the 

commercialization of “next generation” granules. These granules are based on one of three 

technology thrusts that result in granular products that perform more efficiently. In conclusion, 

The Andersons fully shares EPA’s goal of protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay and for 

that reason we are actively working to quickly refine and incorporate our advanced granule 

technology into as many of our products as possible. We encourage EPA to actively promote 

products, such as our advanced granule technology and other products and equipment that are 

intended curb the runoff of nutrients and sediment into the Chesapeake Bay. True nutrient 

management can only be achieved by advancing standards and performance measures and 

educating all applicators, growers, lawn care applicators, golf course superintendents, and 

homeowners about products specifically formulated to reduce runoff 

Response: The commenter noted that turf has the potential to reduce water pollution by 

decreasing runoff and pollutant discharges. The Agency agrees that turf has a role in protecting 

water quality and that properly managed turf can filter runoff, reduce runoff volume through 

evapotranspiration and infiltration. The Agency also agrees that outreach and education to 

change cultural practices are important and has emphasized these practices in the guidance. The 

Agency supports such efforts through the Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source 

Program. The Agency does not promote specific proprietary products, but does promote the use 

of practices and approaches that can be used to reduce water pollution such as the proper 

management of turf grasses to reduce runoff related impacts. 

Comment: The reductions in turf suggested in Chapter 3 are not based on science. PLANET 

believes that an arbitrary specification limiting turf will lead to the loss of many of the valuable 

ecosystem services provided by healthy, well-maintained landscapes with an appropriate blend 

of turf and other plants. Chapter 3 goes to great length to cherry-pick documents and situations 

around the country to paint a picture that turfgrass establishment and maintenance is a detriment 

to the environment. The fact is the majority of places with turfgrass in the Chesapeake Bay states 

do not fit your scenarios and, based on cost alone, will not ever be changed to other plantings by 

landowners. Humans have used turfgrass to enhance their environment for more than 10 

centuries. Turfgrass has functional, recreational, and aesthetic benefits, and it is one of the most 

cost-effective means of trapping and holding surface water that may contain eroded soil and 

organic chemicals, thereby helping to reduce the amount of siltation and organic chemicals that 

enter sewers, streams, rivers, and lakes. PLANET believes it would be more effective to work 

with the existing landscapes, and to educate landowners and the industry to improve the methods 

of caring for turfgrass to increase its environmental benefits. Turf provides a very dense ground 

cover, and, compared to ground covers without thatch, it has a greater capacity for absorbing and 

holding water. Even in your own publication, Healthy Lawn, Healthy Environment, you mention 

the benefits of turfgrass, which were also included in your funded initiative, “Lawns and the 

Environment.” Scientific research has documented the many benefits of turfgrass to our 

environment. Turfgrass lawns, parks, and open areas: 

• Provide a natural, comfortable, and safe setting for fun and games. 

• Release oxygen and cool the air. 

• Control pollution and reduce soil erosion. 

• Purify and replenish the water supply. 
32

Also to be considered is the economic impact on the service industry of the suggested reduction 

of total turfgrass and its maintenance that are called for in this Executive Order. As an industry, 

turfgrass is considered to well exceed the $25 billion mark. In addition, more than 500,000 

people are estimated to make their livelihood directly from the care and maintenance of 

turfgrass. The sale of lawn care products, which represents nearly one-third of all money spent 

on gardening in the country, is estimated to total more than $4 billion a year. 

Response: The Agency has included discussions on the benefits of turfgrass from both 

environmental and social perspectives in the guidance. The guidance does not contain an 

arbitrary specification nor does it limit the use of turf. The guidance contains recommendations 

for changes in cultural practice that are voluntary and based on sound assessments and 

evaluations. The same commenter also noted that there were potential economic implications to 

the turf industry. Although the Agency was not directed to conduct a cost benefit analysis, the 

Agency was instructed to recommend cost effective practices. The agency believes that the 

practices recommended in the guidance are cost effective based on reduced maintenance costs 

and that changes in management practice will continue to support jobs and products to design 

and maintain landscapes that meet multiple social and environmental goals. 

Comment: Steps to establish and properly maintain turfgrass vary greatly across the United 

States. The manual appears to impose one standard that will apply from the hot, semi-arid 

southwest to the cold, wet Mid-Atlantic and North-Eastern states. For instance, page 3-131 calls 

for lawn fertilizer to be applied in the early spring. Virginia’s Department of Conservation and 

Recreation has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote fall fertilization. 

Response: In response to comments, the recommendations on fertilizer application timing were 

revised. The document is not intended to impose one standard that will apply nationally. The 

Agency recognizes that geography and local conditions will determine what cultivars and 

management programs are suitable for turf regionally. 

Comment: One of the most impressive aspects of this document is the stated emphasis on 

replicating predevelopment hydrology, rather than the traditional pollutant-focused approach to 

watershed management (3-5). The most effective method for achieving reductions in pollutant 

loading is to reduce the volume of stormwater. Yet, on several occasions the document reverts to 

the pollutant-centered approach. There is an important, but subtle interaction between volume 

and source management for turfgrass areas: a properly fertilized stand of turfgrass can improve 

infiltration and reduce runoff volume. This effect is achieved by the increase in plant density 

created by proper nitrogen fertilization (100-150 lbs/acre), which slows the speed of the runoff 

water allowing for more infiltration. This effect is shown by Easton and Petrovic (2004) and 

Bierman et al. (2010), where unfertilized turfgrass had greater losses of P in runoff than properly 

fertilized turfgrass. It is not clear that switching to alternative plantings will result in lower 

phosphorus losses as demonstrated by Steinke et al. (2007), who suggest that the primary source 

of phosphorus in runoff from vegetated areas is the vegetation itself. This conclusion is 

supported my own work in the field (Soldat et al., 2009). Another troubling aspect of the 

document is the underlying assumption that vegetation alone strongly affects environmental 

quality. For instance, on page 3-127, the document suggests that replacing a native area with turf 

will lead to a myriad of negative outcomes. However, it can be convincingly argued that each of 

these outcomes is a factor of the construction practices and urbanization of the land. If a native 

area is replaced by a subdivision and native plants put back in lieu of turfgrass, every single 
33

negative outcome would remain true for the newly planted native vegetation. In short, the focus 

on vegetation is short-sighted, and more attention should be paid to the remediation and 

conservation of soils in urbanizing areas. If urban soils have a bulk density closer to concrete 

than native soils (3-37), it is the fault of the construction practices rather than the vegetation. It is 

a simple act to require chisel plowing of organic matter into the soil profile at the conclusion of a 

construction project. At this point, either native plantings or turfgrass can achieve 

predevelopment hydrological standards. Finally, the UC-Irvine study cited by the document (3-

130) was found to be flawed, the authors overestimated carbon inputs by a factor of 12 (month to 

year conversion). The authors have since published a retraction, and their newly calculated 

results show that turf maintained with 100 lbs/acre of nitrogen can more than offset the carbon 

required to maintain it. The authors’ high maintenance scenario used 750 lbs/acre of nitrogen, an 

incredibly high and practically unrealistic application rate. To improve the credibility of this 

document, I suggest any reference to this flawed study be removed. 

Response: The commenter noted that research supports the use of improve turfgrass stand 

density in terms of reduced pollutant loadings. The studies provided by the commenter are 

reviewed and discussed in the guidance, e.g., Soldat (2009) and Easton and Petrovic (2004) and 

the Agency agrees that properly managed turf can be used to reduce runoff-related problems 

especially in cases where runoff is discharged from impervious surfaces such as pavements or 

from areas with unvegetated or compacted soils. The Agency agrees with the commenter that 

restoration of urban soils should be a priority, and the Agency recommends this practice to 

reduce runoff and improve runoff quality. Finally, the same commenter recommended that the 

UC Irving study on turf and carbon sequestration be deleted and the Agency concurs that the 

study methodology needed adjustments and accordingly deleted it from the final guidance. 

 

Comment: The commenter noted that the Chesapeake Bay watershed receives more than 30-35 

inches of precipitation a year and that irrigation of turf should not be a concern and where it is of 

concern it can be addressed by irrigation sensors. 

Response: The Agency agrees that irrigation sensors are one solution to prevent overwatering. 

However, as the industry has noted, changes in cultural practices and education of turf grass 

owner and maintenance personnel is also important. Over irrigation and over application of 

fertilizers and pesticides are common problems and furthermore many landowners neither desire 

nor have the funds to put in irrigation systems driven by moisture sensors. Changes in 

management approach and grass species are low cost means to reduce inputs. 

Comment: Pg 1-5. Turf management has become a major issue in the watershed, and 

development patterns promise rapid future growth of this land use. Thus, it is good to see turf 

management singled out n the list of new issues. However, the way turf management is described 

in item 3 . (as a crop) could make someone think the emphasis should be on turf farms. Editing 

of this paragraph should clarify that this is primarily an urban land use issue with many 

manifestations (homes, businesses, churches, golf courses, etc.) 

Response: The commenter suggested clarification that the use of the term turf does not only 

apply to sod farms but to lawns. The guidance was edited to incorporate this suggestion. 
34

References 

Beard, J.B. and M.P. Kenna. (Eds.). 2008. Water Quality and Quantity Issues for Turfgrasses in 

Urban Landscapes. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Ames, Iowa. 

Beezhold, M.T., and D.W. Baker. 2006. Rain to Recreation: Making the Case for a Stormwater 

Capital Recovery Fee. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation (WEFTEC), 2006) 

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD). 2010. CRWD Stormwater BMP Performance 

Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis. http://www.capitolregionwd.org

Center for Watershed Protection (CWP).1998. Better Site Design: A Handbook for Changing 

Development Rules in Your Community. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott, MD. 

<http://www.cwp.org/Store/bsd.htm

Chesapeake Stormwater Network. 2009. The Clipping Point: The Grass Crop of the Chesapeake 

Bay Watershed. Baltimore, MD. <http://www.chesapeakestormwater.net/all-thingsstormwater/the-clipping-point-the-grass-crop-of-the-chesapeake-bay-wate.html>. Updated June 

10, 2009. Accessed February 4, 2010. 

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. May 2004. Final Sun Valley Watershed 

Management Plan.. www.sunvalleywatershed.org/ceqa_docs/plan.asp 

City of Portland. 2008. Cost Benefit Evaluation of Ecoroofs 2008. City of Portland Bureau of 

Environmental Services, Portland, OR. 

<http://www.portlandonline.com/BES/index.cfm?a=261053&c=50818>) 

Dierk, S. 2007. Not All Green Space is Created Equal - The Hydrologic Benefits of Native 

Landscapes. Stormwater. <http://www.stormh2o.com/sw_0703_not.html> 

Easton, Z.M. and A. M. Petrovic. 2004. Fertilizer Source Effect on Ground and Surface Water 

Quality in Drainage from Turfgrass. Journal of Environmental Quality. 33:645-655. 

EcoNorthwest. 2007. The Economics of Low-Impact Development: A Literature Review. 

Eugene, OR 

Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (P.L. 110-140, H.R. 6), Section 438 

Foster, R.S. 1994. Landscaping that Saves Energy and Dollars. Globe Pequot Press, Old 

Saybrook, CT. 

Kays, B. L. 1980. Relationship of Forest Destruction and Soil Disturbance to Increased Flooding 

in Suburban North Carolina Piedmont. In: METRIA—Proceedings of the Third Conference of 

the Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance, Rutgers State University, NJ; 118-125. 

<http://www.barrettkays.com/downloads/metria.pdf> 

Milesi, C., C.D. Elvidge, J.B. Dietz, B.J. Tuttle, R.R. Nemani, and S.W. Running. 2005. 

Mapping and Modeling the Biogeochemical Cycling of Turf Grasses in the United States. 

Environmental Management 36(3):426–438. 

Morton, T., A. Gold, and W. Sullivan. 1988. Influence of Overwatering and Fertilization of 

Nitrogen Losses from Home Lawns. Journal of Environmental Quality 17:124–130. 

Mosko, S. 2009. No Such Thing as a Green Lawn. <http://www.boogiegreen.com/>. Updated 

December 10, 2009. Accessed March 9, 2010. 
35

National Gardening Association. 2000. National Gardening Survey. National Gardening 

Association, Burlington, VT. 

Soldat, D., and Petrovic, A. 2008. The Fate and Transport of Phosphorus in Turfgrass 

Ecosystems. Crop Science. 48:2051-2065. Published online November 24, 2008. 

Soldat, D., A. Petrovic, and Q. Ketterings. 2009. Effect of Soil Phosphorus Levels on 

Phosphorus Runoff Concentrations from Turfgrass. Water, Air, Soil Pollution 199(1-4):33–44. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact 

Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. <http://www.epa.gov/nps/lid> 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Technical Guidance on Implementing the 

Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

<http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/lid/section438/pdf/final_sec438_eisa.pdf>) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Stormwater Phase II Final Rule: Federal and 

State-Operated MS4s:Program Implementation, EPA 833-F-00-012. 

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/fact2-10.pdf 

U.S. General Services Administration, Office of the Chief Architect, Facility Standards for the 

Public Building Service, March 2005, www.gsa.govv/P100

Chapter 4. Forestry 

Comment: The tone of the chapter gives the reader the idea that forestry operations are bad for 

water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, when in fact the magnitude of water quality 

impacts attributable to forestry operations is small compared to other sources and the presence of 

forests is one of the best ways to protect the bay’s water quality. There is no argument that it is 

important to use appropriate BMPs during forestry operations to protect water quality, but the 

chapter should cast forests, and forestry operations on those forests, in a more positive light and 

stress the importance of maintaining land in forest cover for water quality protection. After all, as 

the chapter states, the contribution of forestry operations to water quality impairment in the bay 

watershed is very small, so implementing additional water quality protections during and after 

forestry operations would at best lead to infinitesimal improvements in water quality. 

The chapter needs to stress the importance of forests to protecting the bay’s water quality and the 

need to both conserve forests in the bay watershed and increase the acreage of forest cover in the 

watershed. The danger of presenting forest operations in a negative light is that readers could get 

the idea that converting land to another use (development) would be better for water quality than 

leaving it in forest cover. In fact, keeping land in forest cover is better for water quality than any

other land use, even with intensive forestry operations occurring on that forest land. Furthermore, 

by recommending more forestry practices for water quality protection than landowners must 

already comply with, the potential profit from forest land management could be reduced, and the 

additional forest practice requirements could create an incentive for forest landowners in the bay 

watershed to convert that land to another, more profitable use. 

Response: Revisions to the chapter included integrating forest conservation concepts into the 

document better and rewording parts of the introduction that were reviewed as being “negative” 

to emphasize the importance of forested land in the bay watershed and of conserving forest land. 
36

A considerable amount of additional information was added to the guidance that explains and 

emphasizes the linkage between forested watersheds and the water quality benefits derived from 

forested watersheds. The additional information is in the form of references, tables, and text. 

Also, additional information on forest conservation the concept of sustainable forestry was 

included. 

Comment: The guidance goes overboard in justifying the high tech nature of the tools. The 

recommendations call for the use of high tech tools, like LiDAR and Digital Elevation Models 

(DEM) that are less appropriate for timber operations on the scale of those in the East. The 

implications are that field work is obsolete-- too time consuming - that models and remote 

sensing can do the work better than people who know the land. 

Response: Recognizing that the forest land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is primarily 

owned by private individuals with small land holdings and limited budgets, and recognizing that 

this document would be available on the Internet and would most likely read by the private forest 

owner, the chapter was revised in order to distinguish between tools and approaches that would 

be more appropriate for smaller landowners and provides specific information on low-cost tools 

that can be used to meet the unique needs of smaller and non-industrial class of forest 

landowners. 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 

Comment: Chapter 5 on Riparian Area Management is very good. This topic is fundamental to 

restoring the Chesapeake Bay, as protecting and restoring riparian buffers are a necessary 

complement to any pollution control measures. 

Response: EPA appreciates this support. 

Chapter 6. Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems 

Comment: We would like to applaud EPA’s efforts to protect and restore one of our ecological 

national treasures, specifically, ...for reducing nitrogen loadings from onsite systems...

Response: EPA appreciates this support. 

Comment: With regard to the 5 mg/L N reduction credit when using time-dosed, pressure-drip 

dispersal within 1 foot of the ground surface, the New Jersey Pinelands Commission eliminated 

credit for drip as they determined it not being effective. 

Response: EPA contacted the NJ Pinelands Commission which confirmed that this is incorrect. 

The Commission never provided, nor rescinded, credit for the use of shallow drip dispersal of 

effluent for decentralized wastewater treatment systems. Further, Commission staff with 

expertise in decentralized wastewater management voiced support for EPA’s approach when it 

learned of the credit. EPA has modified the language for applying this credit to eliminate the 

specific reference to drip dispersal in response to another comment and to eliminate the credit in 

sandy and loamy sand soils. 
37

Comment: Disagree that “nearly all solids and phosphorus (P) discharged from decentralized 

systems are retained by the soil,” especially in sands. A rewrite was suggested. 

Response: EPA has added a new section on P with significant clarifying language and new 

references, as suggested by reviewer. 

Comment: Change a portion of the statement on page 6-6, line 13, from “5 mg/L” to either “less 

than 5 mg/L” or “3 mg/L”. 

Response: This sentence has been modified to: 

“However, some systems do perform optimally in removing TN [total nitrogen] from the 

effluent—e.g., to concentrations lower than 5 mg/L”

Comment: With regard to page 6-11, line 20, is the cost range really $3,500 - $57,000”? The 

high end of this range appears incorrect. 

Response: EPA thanks the reviewer for catching this typo. The sentence and the related 

following sentence have been changed to: 

Capital costs for add-on denitrification systems range from $3,500 to $7,000 and 

more per EDU, with O&M expenses of less than $100 per year (Washington State 

Department of Health 2005). Note that these are added costs, and do not include 

costs for the septic tank, nitrification process unit, or soil dispersal system—just 

the add-on component. 

Comment: With regard to page 6-12 line 10, the range of $8,000 to $18,000 is low in my 

experience, especially for the higher required nitrogen removal. It is our opinion that the upper 

range is $35,000, which is heavily influenced by site conditions and location design conditions 

(such as deeper sewer depth in colder areas for frost protection and labor/equipment rates). 

Response: EPA has changed this paragraph to the following: 

New cluster systems generally range from $10,000 to $18,000 per EDU in nonurbanized areas of new development, with higher costs for retrofits in urban 

areas, depending on the treatment technology used (USEPA 2010; Tetra Tech 

2007). 

Comment: It is suggested that information on other nitrogen removal components that have 

received MASSTC testing be included in Table 6-2. 

Response: Table 6-2 in the public draft is now Table 6-3, which EPA otherwise left intact. Most 

of the data in that table is from the MASSTC testing center, which analyzes performance from 

many systems. Data from the performance tests are released to the public, or withheld, based on 

contractual agreements between MASSTC and the system owner/vendor. In many cases, data for 

specific systems are not available due to these contractual arrangements. EPA included the 

system performance results applicable to the topic in this chapter, and expanded its descriptions 

of decentralized treatment technologies in section 4 to include new subsections on 

land/vegetative treatment systems and membrane bioreactors. EPA modestly expanded 

descriptions of technologies described in the public draft version. 
38

Comment: Please consider adding the attached reference for Nitrex performance from 

Barnstable County, Massachusetts. 

Response: EPA has added this reference. 

Comment: The N-removal performance levels specified for various risk zones are presented in 

the implementation measures as if they are discharge standards, begging the issue of compliance 

monitoring and enforcement. 

Response: Compliance monitoring and enforcement are important activities for ensuring the 

long-term performance for any wastewater treatment system. States and local communities 

typically have the authority needed for providing this assurance. EPA is not proposing to 

regulate decentralized treatment systems at the federal level, nor is EPA recommending that local 

authorities cede control. As stated in implementation measure D-3, EPA is recommending that 

“treatment system performance...” be sustained “in perpetuity through management contracts 

with trained and certified operators for all advanced N-removal systems, and responsible 

management entity (RME) operation and maintenance (O&M) for all cluster and non-residential 

systems. RMEs include sanitation districts, special districts, and other public or private entities 

with the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to assure long-term system performance.” 

Comment: Cluster systems are preferred by EPA, but local zoning, comprehensive planning, 

and site suitability / design negotiation (review) are major roadblocks to timely implementation. 

Most developers go with by right lots, some with absorption areas individually staked in suitable 

soils by easement. Localities and regulatory agencies need to have reasonable requirements and 

fast track review. 

Response: EPA has found that nitrogen-removing cluster treatment systems cost less on a perhouse basis, perform better, are more efficient to operate and maintain, and are generally better 

able to support treatment services in densely developed areas than individual home systems. For 

these and other reasons, EPA notes in Chapter 6 that integrated wastewater planning is an 

important consideration for providing effective, efficient treatment. There are many examples of 

development served by cluster treatment facilities across the nation. Communities that support 

long-range planning for providing wastewater services typically are able to leverage cost savings 

and performance enhancements. Requiring individual homeowners in densely populated 

residential areas to own, operate, maintain, and manage highly sophisticated electro-mechanical 

nitrogen removal wastewater treatment facilities has not proven to be successful in many locales. 

Comment: I recommend an across-the-board, deem-to-comply BMP approach with a reasonable 

nitrogen reduction goal, such as 50%. 

Response: EPA stands by its risk-based, N-removal performance level approach as both 

achievable and manageable. Affordable market technologies exist that exceed the goal preferred 

by the commenter. Moreover, EPA considered, and rejected, percentage-based nitrogen 

reduction goals. One problem with percentage-based goals includes highly variable levels of N in 

the wastewater influent from system to system, which would result in equally variable levels of 

N in effluent from system to system, resulting in its own management challenges and no 
39

guarantee that N loads to the Chesapeake Bay will be managed to the extent needed to protect 

and restore the Bay. 

Comment: To achieve the proposed discharge standards for an individual onsite system will 

require facility-specific operation. Developing a suitable pool of operators will take some time. 

Response: EPA’s guidance presents the implementation measures needed to ensure successful 

performance. While EPA recognizes that many of the technologies exist presently and have 

already demonstrated the performance levels specified in the implementation measures, EPA 

also acknowledges the commenter’s point regarding the need for more trained personnel to 

implement the measures in this chapter. 

Comment: Performance at verification and research facilities will be difficult to replicate in 

actual field application. 

Response: All of the environmental technology verification studies referenced in this chapter 

involved actual field applications in real-world settings and conditions. For example, the La Pine 

Demonstration Study involved 49 private homeowners in a geologically challenging 

environment—an area with rapidly draining soils over a shallow unconfined aquifer that serves 

as the region’s only source of drinking water where nitrate levels are increasing as a result of 

rapid development and the proliferation of septic systems on small residential parcels. 

Comment: The cost benefit per pound of nitrogen is questionable, particularly when considering 

the atmospheric nitrogen produced by the power plant to power these pumps and blowers. 

Response: This comment focuses on energy sources and policy, and is speculative and outside 

the scope of this guidance. NOx emissions are regulated separately by EPA under the Clean Air 

Act. The region and nation have made strides to reduce NOx through regulatory and 

nonregulatory actions. EPA has included the cost of energy required to operate treatment system 

equipment in the operation and maintenance information provided in this chapter. 

Comment: These standards assume a direct discharge to the waterway and do not take into 

account other soil based pathways of nitrogen attenuation. 

Response: This chapter does not address systems that discharge directly to waterways, which are 

regulated under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. This guidance recognizes the benefit of soil 

attenuation of nitrogen in this chapter. N attenuation through soil pathways is a key basis for the 

risk-based, N-removal performance levels specified in D-1. This is why the specified N standard 

1000 feet or more from surface waters is 2 to 4 times higher than zones closer to surface waters. 

Comment: The document has many references to equal distribution to the soil system but no 

firm requirement. The document needs to state that time-dosed equal distribution is to be 

required on all systems regardless of effluent quality. 

Response: EPA recognizes that time-dosed equal distribution is beneficial, and acknowledges 

that broad and equal distribution of effluent to the soil is important. It should be noted that the 

overall document constitutes guidance, and not regulatory requirements. The purpose of this 
40

chapter is to identify realistic performance levels that decentralized systems need to achieve to 

help restore the Chesapeake Bay. The chapter also highlights existing technologies that are 

known to achieve these standards. EPA does not express a preference regarding which 

technologies and practices are used to achieve these performance levels, but does provide for a 

significant credit (a 5 mg/L performance boost) for implementing time-dosed, pressurized 

effluent dispersal within the first foot of the ground surface. 

Comment: Virtually all research involving the use of pretreated effluent into the soil involves 

controlled application, whether onto columns or in situ, with low pressure distribution or drip 

dispersal. Elimination or the decrease of soil-interfaced clogging coupled with microbial 

reductions results in enhanced performance. Typical conclusions are that increased loading rates 

and reduced separations to limitations are possible. Many states allow one of the two only. 

Response: EPA has based the guidance in this chapter on both laboratory and field research, 

including field testing of actual system types at residential and other facilities. EPA is focusing 

mostly on the treatment system technologies in this guidance, and is providing less credit for soil 

based denitrification, which has not been shown to be significant in most situations (i.e., capable 

of producing effluent in the 5 to 20 mg/L range). EPA is not recommending either increasing 

loading rates or reducing separation distances in this guidance. 

Comment: Gravity dispersal of pretreated effluent to conventional trench type systems is an 

inappropriate practice for several reasons. It is anticipated that pretreated effluent will not form a

biomat at the trench bottom interface, and effluent will readily flow deeper into the soil column. 

The result is deeper microorganism penetration (pass through) into the soil column, particularly 

in the case of compromised effluent quality. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the points made by this comment, which appear to support EPA’s 

approach for limiting conventional systems described in this chapter. In general, a properly 

functioning (and properly sited) conventional septic system will remove significant levels of 

bacteria, but there will always exist the possibility of some bacteria contamination of ground 

water or surface waters, especially where systems are densely sited (e.g., one or more per acre) 

or placed in areas with highly permeable soils. Most of the types of systems described in this 

chapter are capable of meeting the performance levels specified in D-1, especially when the 

other implementation measures are adhered to. 

Comment: Without the protection of the soil by an anaerobic biomat, there will the translocation 

of fines deeper into the soil column that will cause clogging. Additionally, the biological 

“gluing” agents, developed over time, that are an important component of soil structure, are 

washed away, destroying the structure and likely fluidizing the soil with time. 

Response: Biomat type and structure is a function of wastewater constituents and composition, 

soil type and geochemistry, soil oxygen levels, soil biota, climate, and other factors. EPA 

recognizes the importance of the biomat in degrading organic compounds, physically filtering 

fines and colloidal material, attenuating bacteria and other organisms, and generally contributing 

to the wastewater treatment process. Denitrification of nitrified effluent in the biomat varies 

somewhat – depending on oxygen levels, availability of carbon, and bacteria species present – 

but in general is not reliably significant in lower soil horizons. 
41

EPA has included implementation measures D-3 and D-4 to address long term system 

performance. In addition to specifying management contracts and inspection schedules, the 

guidance recommends: 

Requiring reserve areas for installing a replacement soil dispersal system that is 

equal to at least 100 percent of the size of the original effluent dispersal area. 

Treatment systems using effluent time-dosing (i.e., not demand-dosing) to the soil 

can have reserve areas equal to at least 75 percent of the total required drainfield 

area. Systems with pressurized drip effluent dosing or shallow pressurized 

effluent dispersal and those with dual drainfields operated on active/rest cycles 

(i.e., alternating drainfields) can have reserve areas equal to at least 50 percent 

of the original required dispersal area. 

Comment: When the hydraulic conductivity of the soil is exceeded, the pores are full and the 

effluent moves down the [drainfield] trench. This condition is similar to an anaerobic trench 

except that the anaerobic biomat protects the soil column clogging at the soil interface. When 

circumstances are such that pretreated effluent “creeps” down the trench, the entire soil column, 

not just the surface is clogged, and likely anaerobic. Resting will likely not restore the soil. 

Response: EPA’s implementation measures should go far to guard against the creeping soilbased failure described above by encouraging improved technologies and management. EPA 

acknowledges the points made in this comment, but notes that resting a drainfield for a period of 

several months has been shown to aid in restoring soil hydraulic conductivity (by eliminating 

saturation by incoming effluent), breaking up existing biomats through aerobic degradation, and 

generally improving the drainfields capacity to treat effluent. With regard to resting, Fairfax 

County, Virginia, has 20 years of data that show this strategy, when properly implemented, 

greatly increases the life of septic systems that rely on conventional drainfields and protect 

against creeping soils-based failures. EPA agrees that if resting is attempted after a drainfield has 

already experienced the type of failure described in this comment, the soil is not likely to be 

restored. The active rest/dose cycling is a preventative strategy to guard against failures, not a 

restorative strategy. Because of the difficulties in appropriately characterizing soil treatment in 

the drainfield, EPA has focused the implementation measures in this chapter on specific 

treatment technologies that produce an effluent that is low in nitrogen prior to discharge from the 

treatment technologies to the soil. 

Comment: Pump to gravity is not equal distribution. 

Response: As noted above in response to a previous comment about gravity distribution, EPA 

has focused the implementation measures in this chapter on treatment technologies that produce 

an effluent that is low in nitrogen prior to soil dispersal because it results in better and more 

consistent performance with regard to N removal. This approach minimizes reliance on soilbased attenuation of nitrogen species in the effluent. It is expected that removal of most of the 

nitrogen through treatment processes that occur prior to soil discharge will greatly improve 

effluent quality, and result in less nitrogen inputs to the Bay. 

Comment: “Drip dispersal” is very different than “low pressure pipe networks.” The credits 

given to shallow placed drip dispersal are appropriate and supported by research. 
42

Response: EPA appreciates the support expressed for this approach. In fact, there is no mention 

of low pressure pipe networks in this guidance.

Comment: Recent studies have (Buchanan, Hepner, Converse) indicate that with drip dispersal 

there is no statistical difference in constituent concentrations, including nutrients, at one foot of 

separation between pretreated effluent and domestic septic tank effluent. 

Response: EPA has reviewed a significant body of research on soil-based treatment of nutrients, 

and has focused this chapter on treatment technologies that reduce nitrogen concentration in the 

effluent prior to soil dispersal. Studies regarding nitrogen removal in the soil matrix note that 

denitrification and plant uptake are the primary treatment processes, and both vary considerably 

based on soil type, composition, chemistry, biota, overlying vegetation type, climate, and other 

factors. Nitrogen removal is also affected by lateral effluent plume migration, and the 

environment in which it occurs. EPA recognizes in this chapter that soil treatment of nitrified 

effluent is not significant in most cases, but may be enhanced by applying the pretreated effluent 

in a dosed manner high in the soil profile, where carbon content is typically higher and plant 

roots are typically present. The credit recognized by EPA in this chapter for shallow dosed 

effluent dispersal is minimal – 5 mg/L – and is based upon process that occur in the immediate 

vicinity of the dispersal piping and in the downslope soil matrix, through which the effluent 

plume moves over time. 

Comment: Large Capacity Septic Systems that serve 20 or more people per day are 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class 5 Injection Wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA). Also, any septic system accepting waste other than sanitary wastewater is a UIC Class 

5 Injection Well. Section 144.26 of the SDWA describes the inventory requirements of UIC 

Injection Wells. 

Response: The following text was added to section 3.5, System Configuration: 

It should be noted that soil-discharging wastewater systems that have the capacity 

to serve 20 or more people per day are defined by EPA as Class 5 underground 

injection wells, and are therefore subject to permitting and other requirements for 

large capacity septic systems under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Further, 

any decentralized system that accepts waste other than sanitary wastewater (such 

as industrial waste) is an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class 5 Injection 

Well. UIC regulatory information for large capacity septic systems is posted at 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/class5/types_lg_capacity_septic.html.

Comment: We recommend strongly that all nitrogen-reducing systems be third-party field 

verified. Consider changing: 

Effluent standards may be met by either system design or performance. 

to: 

Effluent standards may be met by system design and third-party field verification.

Response: EPA believes that state and local agencies should have the flexibility to determine 

how the N performance levels designated in Implementation Measure D-1 are met. All of the 

Bay states have their own treatment system design review and verification programs they rely on 
43

for evaluating the application of various decentralized wastewater treatment technologies. Once 

the application of these technologies are well established, EPA does not believe that there is a 

significant interest to be served by requiring all future applications of these technologies to be reevaluated. EPA has considered this comment and agrees that the third-party verification (such as 

through environmental technology verification programs) is desirable and has modified the 

sentence in question as follows: 

Effluent standards may be met by either system design or performance, as verified 

by third-party design review or field verification.

Comment: There is abundant research showing that shallow pressurized dispersal, which 

incorporates timed-dosing, is one of the most effective means of utilizing the naturally occurring 

soil biota for enhanced nutrient removal... Consider changing: 

A 5 mg/L N reduction credit is given when using time-dosed, pressure-drip 

dispersal within 1 foot of the ground surface. 

to: 

A 5 mg/L N reduction credit is given when using time-dosed, pressure-drip 

dispersal within 1 foot of the ground surface or when using shallow pressurized 

dispersal within 1 foot of the ground surface. 

Response: EPA agrees with this comment, and in concert with Comment #1, has revised this text 

as follows: 

Except in sandy or loamy sand soils, a 5 mg/L N reduction credit is given when 

using time-dosed, pressurized effluent dispersal within 1 foot of the ground 

surface and more than 1.5 feet above a limiting soil/bedrock condition. 

Further, a suggested reference to support this suggestion was added (Stewart 1988) and cited 

later in the chapter. 

Comment: In further support of shallow pressurized dispersal, consider changing a sentence in 

Implementation Measure D-4 from: 

Systems with pressurized drip effluent dosing and those with dual drainfields 

operated on active/rest cycles (i.e., alternating drainfields) can have reserve 

areas equal to at least 50 percent of the original required dispersal area. 

to: 

Systems with pressurized drip effluent dosing or shallow pressurized effluent 

dispersal and those with dual drainfields operated on active/rest cycles (i.e., 

alternating drainfields) can have reserve areas equal to at least 50 percent of the 

original required dispersal area. 

Response: EPA agrees. This change was made. 

Comment: When talking about the ability of sequencing batch reactors (SBR) to meet the 20 

mg/L total nitrogen (TN) threshold, is this referencing effluent quality leaving the system or post 

soil interface? If this is a reference of the systems ability to meet 20 mg/L TN leaving the 
44

treatment unit, I would suggest reviewing the Maryland results from their BAT nitrogenreducing field verification program, as it has demonstrated that technologies using these 

treatment processes have not been capable of meeting the 20 mg/L TN effluent quality. In fact, 

the only technology to meet the 20mg/L threshold was the AdvanTex recirculating textile filter. 

If the assertion is that these technologies can meet the 20 mg/L TN when incorporating a 50% 

soil reduction credit then that should be spelled out more clearly. 

Response: The reference is to effluent quality. EPA reviewed a number of studies on various 

system types in developing the implementation measures in this chapter. Like all treatment 

systems, the performance of SBRs can vary somewhat, but their performance in producing an 

effluent in the 20 mg/L range has been verified through independent third party studies. This 

chapter cites MASSTC verification, for example (Washington State Department of Health 2005), 

and the LaPine study (Rich, 2005). The AdvanTex recirculating textile filter has also 

demonstrated treatment performance in the 20 mg/L range, and lower, and is also included 

among the better-performing treatment systems referenced in this chapter. 

Comment: Based on the supporting references presented, revise upwards the performance 

information for removing N using recirculating media filters / multi-pass textile filters in the 

chapter narrative and in Table 6-1. Specifically, for the multi-pass textile filter entry in Table 6-

1, change the TN removal efficiency from 14%-38% to 65%-70% and change the effluent TN 

from 9-83 mg/L to 3-55 mg/L, which represents the performance of Orenco’s AdvanTex AX20 

multi-pass textile filter. 

Response: EPA has revised the performance information for recirculating media filters / multipass textile filters in the chapter narrative and in Table 6-2 to align with this new supporting 

documentation (with specific mention in the table that this performance applies to the AdvanTex 

AX20). A citation to the 2009 NSF International field verification report to Pennsylvania DEP (a 

key supporting reference provided) was added to the table footer and this reference was added to 

the end of this chapter. Note that since a new table was added to this chapter, Table 6-1 from the 

public draft was renumbered to Table 6-2 in the final guidance. 

Comment: Under the “Attached Growth” heading in Table 6-1, the Nitrex unit is represented as 

being able to reduce TN by up to 96%. The Nitrex is an add-on unit that is specifically designed 

to be fed a highly treated and nitrified effluent so that it can provide for additional denitrification 

(reducing nitrate-n to nitrogen gas). Therefore, it must be preceded by a reliable pre-treatment 

unit that can consistently produce effluent quality that is <10 mg/l BOD5/TSS and <5 mg/L 

NH3. The Nitrex data presented in Table 6-1 represents pre-treatment from a packed-bed media 

filter. The Nitrex unit cannot receive raw wastewater like the other technologies listed in the 

table and therefore is not achieving this level of reduction independently. We feel it is important 

to distinctly identify these types of add-on treatment units as such when categorizing 

technologies. It is important to note that there are other proprietary add-on units similar to Nitrex 

that perform equally well, (e.g. integrated water services (IWS)). 

Response: The NITREX system is discussed in the chapter narrative in the section titled “AddOn Anoxic Filters with a Carbon Source.” EPA clarified a sentence on cost for such systems 

from: 

Note that this does not include the septic tank, nitrification step, or soil dispersal 

system—just the add-on component. 
45

 to: 

Note that these are added costs, and do not include costs for the septic tank, 

nitrification process unit, or soil dispersal system—just the add-on component. 

EPA investigated and determined that there are no third party testing or published studies to 

verify the performance of other add-on units similar to NITREX available in the U.S., including 

any from Integrated Water Services. EPA did add the following text to this section: 

Others claim to have similar systems with comparable performance, although to 

date, independent field verification is lacking. 

Comment: We are concerned about the information presented in Table 6-2. This table only 

represents a small subset of technologies and available third party testing programs. Furthermore 

6-2 is promoting technologies that have been proven not to function in the field to levels required 

to protect Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are numerous other testing programs, including 

field-testing, that are not represented in this table and that is a great disservice to the 

manufacturers whom participated in said programs. We would suggest incorporating other third 

party verification(s) of performance to this section. We have attached the final report from 

Maryland Department of Environment, which summarizes the field performance of the 

AdvanTex recirculating media filter on 12 homes for 12 months. We have provided an additional 

data set from the Pennsylvania On-lot Technology Field Verification Program, where 11 

AdvanTex Treatment Systems were tested monthly on individual residences for nearly 3 years; 

NSF was the third party verification agency. We would request that you add a summary of 

AdvanTex performance to table 6-2 based on these third party field data sets. Additionally, field 

data should be used for all systems, when available. This would provide more meaningful 

information to the decision makers on the ground at the state level. Consider for a moment a 

local regulator whom is looking to the EPA for guidance on how to reduce nutrient loads from 

onsite systems. Based on their reading of this table, they would think any number of these 

systems would be appropriate to promote as a reliable TN reducing technology. Some time goes 

by and now these same systems that have been touted by the local agency, based on guidance 

from the EPA, are not meeting effluent limits. This will put the local agency in the difficult 

position of bearing the brunt of public dissatisfaction, as well as being the target for potential 

litigation from manufacturers of technologies that do function in the field and have the data to 

back it up. This is the current situation in Maryland and makes a strong case for field verification 

with an enforcement mechanism that can remove technologies that do not perform in the field. 

Response: Table 6-3 (formerly Table 6-2) presents a summary of six different technologies for 

reducing N. Results for all of these came from actual field testing under real world conditions at 

the Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center (MASSTC) under stringent 

independent testing. In fact, all of the environmental technology verification studies referenced 

in this chapter involved actual field applications in real-world settings and conditions. For 

example, the La Pine Demonstration Study involved 49 private homeowners in a geologically 

challenging environment—an area with rapidly draining soils over a shallow unconfined aquifer 

that serves as the region’s only source of drinking water where nitrate levels are increasing as a 

result of rapid development and the proliferation of septic systems on small residential parcels. 

The narrative and other tables present performance results for other technologies. EPA has added 

a summary of the performance for AdvanTex in Table 6-2 (formerly Table 6-1) and has 

referenced the Pennsylvania On-lot Technology Field Verification Program report produced by 

NSF International in 2009. 
46

References 

NSF International. 2009. Final Evaluation Report, Pennsylvania Onlot Technology Verification 

Program, Orenco Systems, Inc. AdvanTex AX20N. Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Rich, B. 2005. La Pine National Demonstration Project Final Report, 1999 – 2005. 

Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Demonstration Project funded by the US Environmental 

Protection Agency and supported by the Deschutes County (OR) Environmental Health Division, 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the US Geological Survey.

Stewart, L.W., and R.B. Reneau Jr. 1988. Shallowly Placed, Low Pressure Distribution System 

to Treat Domestic Wastewater in Solils with Fluctuating High Water Tables. Journal of 

Environmental Quality 17(3):499-504. 

Tetra Tech. 2007. Cost and Performance of Onsite and Clustered Wastewater Treatment Systems

(unpublished). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Individual and Clustered (Decentralized) 

Wastewater Management Program Elements. Web Supplement. 

<http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/onsite_handbook.pdf>. Updated January 2010. Accessed 

February 24, 2010. 

Washington Department of Health. 2005. Nitrogen Reducing Technologies for Onsite 

Wastewater Treatment Systems. <http://www.psparchives.com/publications/

our_work/hood_canal/hood_canal/n_reducing_technologies.pdf > Prepared for the Puget Sound 

Action Team, by Washington Department of Health, Olympia, WA. Accessed April 27, 2010. 

Chapter 7: Hydromodification 

EPA did not receive comments from the public on Chapter 7. 
47

Response to Peer Reviewers’ Comments 

Chapter 2. Agriculture 

Many of the comments made by the peer reviewers regarding the phosphorus and nitrogen 

Implementation Measures replicate those questions raised by the public. We are not replicating 

those comments below. 

Comment: The Agriculture chapter provides an excellent overview of land management 

practices that can be utilized to reduce the potential of non-point nutrient losses from land to 

water. 

The identified measures appear to represent current consensus as the best approaches for nutrient 

reduction from agriculture in the Chesapeake Bay. 

Response: The Executive Order directs EPA to develop technical guidance describing the next 

generation of tools and practices that will protect and restore the bay. We have developed the 

implementation measures based on the idea that agriculture can be a sustainable land use in the 

bay watershed if the practices employed on the land are implemented at the points of source 

control, in-field, and edge of field in order to avoid, control and trap nutrients and sediment. 

Comment: What is the source of the information? 

Response: Information on the effectiveness of practices included in this chapter is largely taken 

from literature published after the year 2000 to build on the earlier literature that was used in the 

development of the National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Pollution from 

Agriculture (USEPA 2003). For some practices, however, the literature search went back farther 

in time. This includes, for example, drainage water management, a practice not addressed to any 

extent in USEPA’s 2003 guidance. The bulk of literature used in this chapter comes from 

professional journal publications (e.g., Journal of Environmental Quality), but information is 

also derived from government documents and resources (e.g., USDA conservation practice 

standards), books, Cooperative Extension publications, proceedings from professional meetings, 

and on-line publications by professional groups and industry. Most literature was found through 

keyword searches of sources such as the National Agricultural Library Catalog and specific 

professional journals. Literature specific to the Chesapeake Bay watershed states was given top 

priority, but relevant literature from across the United States and from other countries was 

included to provide as complete coverage as possible on each of the topics addressed in this 

chapter. 

Practice cost data taken from the literature and other sources were converted to 2010 dollars 

using the conversion factors provided by the U.S. Inflation Calculator (2010). Exceptions are 

that cost data provided for fiscal year 2010 by states were not changed and aggregate cost data 

expressed over a range of years were not converted to 2010 dollars. Unless specified, the year of 

publication was used as the initial year for conversion of dollars. 
48

Soil Amendments 

Comment: The implementation measures that reference soil amendments should provide 

examples because amendments of this type are not common knowledge within the agriculture 

sector. 

Response: Specific examples and additional material on amendments have been included in the 

implementation measures discussions. 

Chapter 3. Urban and Suburban 

Comment: Several additional references were recommended on the benefits of conservation 

developments, and on costs of implementing low impact development requirements. 

Recommendations were made for document organization and editing. 

Response: These references were reviewed and many were incorporated into the document. 

Organization was improved. 

Comment: Several recommendations were made for clarifications on those elements applicable 

to the Bay, such as urban forestry, that may not apply elsewhere. Other minor clarifications were 

recommended. 

Response: These clarifications were added to the document. 

Comment: While LID and green infrastructure approaches may represent a marked advance 

over previous approaches there may remain some circumstances when conventional approaches 

and techniques to managing stormwater may be appropriate. Do they no longer have any place in 

an expanded menu of stormwater management tools? 

Response: The document does include references to “traditional” stormwater management tools 

for water quality protection. Clarification was added that the fact sheets are for new technologies, 

traditional technology design information is widely available in existing stormwater manuals. In 

addition, EPA notes that, as explained in the introduction to the document, this guidance 

supplements the Management Measures for Urban Areas document that EPA published several 

years ago (EPA 2005a), which goes into great detail on the full range of traditional stormwater 

management practices 

Comment: Enhance with information on the stormwater hydrologic cycle and N and P cycles. 

Response: Additional information was added. However, we note that in general, rather than 

providing a text on background hydrology, the document’s purpose is on the management 

practices. More detailed information on hydrology is provided in many applicable texts 

Comment: Recommend adding more emphasis on treatment trains with some comprehensive 

examples. 
49

Response: EPA agrees. Additional emphasis was added. This is an important design 

consideration. 

Comment: Analyze the special characteristics of The Chesapeake Bay's drainage basin, 

including climate, industries, common pollutants in stormwater (not the national one), current 

common practices of urban stormwater management and their deficiencies, etc. Then the report 

could recommend more specific and effective measure for this estuary. The document has some 

specific information on Chesapeake Bay, but not enough. This is more literature review than 

actual study on particular issues. 

Response: This level of detail is more appropriate for the individual Watershed Implementation 

Plans, that will also include non-federal facilities. This document focuses on the practices that 

can be used throughout the watershed as needed, not specific to a particular watershed or site-bysite basis. 

Comment: The document needs to discuss city renovation and neighborhood development. 

Response: Some additional information was provided on redevelopment programs and projects. 

Comment: There is not a description of existing state and local policies for the region. As a 

starting point, we need to assess what state stormwater policies are in place. 

Response: Each State has its own set of existing stormwater laws, regulations and policies. The 

purpose of this guidance is to present practices that will enable the achievement of water quality 

goals for the Bay. For reasons discussed in the document, EPA believes that the approach set 

forth in Section 438 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act is the most significant 

approach needed to achieve these goals. Moreover, Congress has already required that Federal 

agencies, for whom this document is primarily written, must comply with Section 438. 

Comment: Some elements need to be implemented at a local level and some at a state level, or 

at different scales, but this is rarely made clear. It would be much more helpful to clearly state 

actions that are recommended for each level of government. 

Response: Recommendations for implementation approaches for private lands, municipalities or 

states was outside the scope of the document (to provide guidance on the best practices for 

federal facilities to implement to protect water quality). However, implementation at different 

geographic scales was addressed by showing examples of programs operating at different scales 

(national to site-scale), and by addressing regional planning, watershed planning, smart growth, 

and low-impact development and stormwater treatment. 

Comment: The proposed standard of retaining the 95% rainfall event is not fully developed. Is 

this proposed as a general performance standard? Is it to apply to redevelopment? This would be 

challenging in very high density areas. What exemptions would apply, and on what basis? This 

is not clear. 

Response: Retaining the 95th percentile storm event is not a proposed standard in this document. 

Rather, the guidance follows the requirement of Section 438 of the 2007 Energy Independence 
50

and Security Act that Federal facilities must restore or maintain predevelopment hydrology for 

any new development and redevelopment exceeding 5,000 square feet to the maximum extent 

technically feasible. Discussions of technical feasibility in the implementation of Section 438, 

based on site conditions, for example, are contained in the document. 

Comment: Provide more examples for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Response: Additional case studies were added, both in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and 

nation-wide. 

Comment: Add more information on watershed planning and management. 

Response: Information was added on the key components of watershed planning. Watershed 

planning is noted as a critical step to both cost-effective program implementation and ensuring 

results. References to comprehensive watershed planning resources are provided. 

Comment: The issue of costs is where controversy is likely to come. It requires more 

explanation and a reconciliation of likely conflicts that inevitably arise. It would perhaps be more 

valuable to outline the different aspects of the costs (capital, O&M, etc), and a decision process 

for determining the cost of a practice in relationship to the benefits it provides and to the 

alternatives. Observation of reduction in costs is focused upon capital costs. It does not include 

other independent studies that assert a potential increase in costs (Stephenson and Beamer 2008), 

and neglects mention of O&M and management costs. This may be due to the lack of sufficient 

data on O&M and management costs, (this is mentioned later on in the Chapter), but should be 

disclosed up front to be fair. 

Response: Additional information on evaluating the costs of stormwater management practices 

was provided to help decision-makers determine how to value the benefits and costs of 

stormwater management practices. The reference to Stephenson and Beamer, 2008, was added 

and discussed. The cost information was supplemented with examples of cost assessments other 

than capital costs, including life-cycle costs, net present value, net present value with monetized 

environmental and social benefits, and unit cost evaluations (cost per unit of pollutant removed). 

Comment: Add additional information about the required length of precipitation data based on 

statistical analysis to determine the 95th percentile rainfall event. Include a hydrology reference 

that covers required length of record information. 

Response: A reference was provided (Chang 1977). 

Comment: Definitive recommendations for street widths would be much better than a listing of 

what other communities have done, especially considering that only one is from the region. 

Response: The determination of an appropriate street width is site specific. This document raises 

awareness of the issues and provides the management practices available, and useful resources 

such as implementation examples. 
51

Comment: Make definitive recommendations or provide specific guidance standards, policies 

and practices; mostly these are just a cataloguing of options and examples. 

Response: The requirement for federal facilities (from Section 438 of the 2007 Energy 

Independence and Security Act) is to restore predevelopment hydrology for runoff volume, rate, 

duration and temperature for facilities over 5,000 sf for new development and redevelopment. 

Presentation of recommendations was clarified to highlight each implementation measures. Each 

federal agency has its own policies, standards, and specifications and recommendations are made 

to incorporate these implementation measures into each federal agencies policies, standards, and 

specifications. 

Comment: The section on redevelopment lacks detail, despite its importance in the region. 

Response: Additional information was added on redevelopment. 

Comment: Add a fact sheet on infiltration. 

Response: This was added. 

Turf 

Comment: At page 282, under “turf management,” some mention of golf courses seems 

appropriate. New Jersey, in fact, devised and distributed a golf course best management practices 

manual at one point. 

Response: A section was added to incorporate a discussion and provide an example of a good 

manual on golf course best management practices in response to this comment. 

Comment: This document contains a great deal of very good information. However, in its 

current state, it lacks flow and formatting that reduces readability and usefulness. The document 

needs to be carefully reviewed by the scientific authors to ensure flow and reduce repetition 

(there are some sections that are repeated word for word, not just general ideas). 

Response: The document has been greatly revised and edited to address this and other 

comments regarding organization, grammar, flow, formatting, readability, repetition, tables and 

figures, consistency of text with tables and figures, reference lists and other similar issues. 

Comment: This document also lack consistency in formatting: The references are not 

consistently formatted in the text or reference list. There is an inconsistency with the use of 

tables and figures. Many times information that should be included as a table is put in a “box” as 

a figure. Table and figure captions are lacking information; tables and figures need to have 

detailed captions for stand alone use. There is a large use of bulleted information. Formatting is 

very inconsistent. Recommend BMP descriptions be formatted better for individual use. It is 

likely that sections of this document will be pulled out and used separately, especially section 6. 

Response: The document has been greatly revised and edited to address this and other comments 

regarding organization, grammar, flow, formatting, readability, repetition, tables and figures, 

consistency of text with tables and figures, reference lists and other similar editorial comments. 
52

Comment: This section relies heavily on information for outside the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed, which provides a strong background for turf management in the more arid west. 

However, the document would be greatly improved if additional, more local information was 

added, for example, showing actually water requirements for different grass species (warm 

season vs. cool season; deeper rooted plants; impact of mowing height; etc.) in conjunction with 

typical precipitation patterns. Converting turf to more natural landscapes has the potential to 

have a significant impact on water quality...BUT it is difficult to get people to make the 

conversion. Thus, additional information on smaller changes that can have an impact would be 

beneficial. 

Response: The Agency agrees with this comment and has provided relevant information from 

within the Chesapeake Bay watershed to the extent that it has been available. The commenter 

also suggested that additional information on smaller changes in lieu of conversions to more 

natural landscapes would be useful in the guidance. The Agency agrees with this comment, and 

to the extent that such information is available we have provided (e.g., information in earlier 

sections regarding Bayscaping and rain gardens). 

Comment: Page 296-297 Xeriscaping examples: I know the document is intended to be broad 

based, but to be relevant in the Chesapeake region, a local example (not western) would be 

helpful. 

Response: One commenter suggested that a local example of xeriscaping in the Chesapeake Bay 

be added to the xeriscaping section. The Agency believes that some of the practices are 

transferable to the Chesapeake Bay and that the information provided may be useful to some 

readers so the Agency provided a few examples of programs that promote xeriscaping. An 

example from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland was also inserted. 

Comment: The document has some specific information on Chesapeake Bay, but not enough. 

Response: Chesapeake Bay-specific examples were included to the extent available, and were 

generally presented first. 

Comment: I have a concern on the effectiveness of soil amendment or restoration. This practice 

basically loosens up soil and remixes it with compost. However, it may increase TSS because 

less compacted soil is more prone to soil erosions. It also increases nutrients in surface runoff 

and subsurface flow. Even if it might reduce runoff pollutant due to temporarily reduction in 

volume, the subsurface flow should not be neglected. In addition, in a long term, the organic 

matters will decompose and soil will become naturally compacted. Even the cited references are 

contradictory on this topic. 

Response: This effect may be true if the soil is not stabilized with vegetation. If soil 

amendments or restoration takes place, the long-term health of the soils should be maintained by 

planting and maintaining vegetation that promotes soil retention, infiltration and pollutant 

filtration, i.e. the soil has a stable vegetative cover that is protected from erosion by leave cover,

duff and roots which bind the soil and prevent soil detachment and mobilization. 
53

Comment: Reduce turf management inputs (nutrients, pesticides, irrigation water) (page 282. 

This section needs a brief introduction to goals/background of turf management. Otherwise, a 

reader does not know what the purpose of the listed bullet items is. A better structure is needed.) 

Response: A rewritten introduction providing context and intent were provided. 

Comment: In most cases, sections 3-5 fail to make concrete recommendations or provide 

specific guidance; mostly these are just a cataloguing of options and examples. This constitutes 

a huge missed opportunity. Certainly we have learned something from all of these experiences; 

why not recommend specific standards, policies and practices, at least as a starting point. 

Response: This guidance document does provide concrete recommendations regarding a 

number practices. It does so to the extent that EPA believes that a uniform standard, policy or 

practice can and should be applied across the board. However, in many cases, EPA did not 

believe we had a basis for doing so. Often this is because many site-specific factors need to be 

considered in making an appropriate management decision. 

Comment: Sections 5.3.1 – 5.3.3. These sections present a series of examples with no 

introductory or interpretive text. At a minimum, it would be beneficial to explain why these are 

being presented. 

Response: The section was rewritten. 

Comment: Section 5.3.1. As for other sections of this report, is there a model restriction that 

EPA wants to recommend? 

Response: The use of fertilizer restrictions should be determined based on state or local 

conditions and not universally applied without considering local factors. 

Comment: Section 5.3.3. So what’s the upshot? Does the EPA recommend any local or state 

restrictions? 

Response: See previous comment on local restrictions and models. 

Comment: Section 5.3.10. All the xeriscaping examples are Southwestern, which is where the 

approach is most used. I.e., xeriscaping is used in xeric areas. Probably need to justify why this 

is being recommended for a mesic area, especially as it appears to be counter to some of the 

previous recommendations, which called for planting water-using vegetation that increase 

transpiration rates. 

Response: Additional explanation was added in response to the comment as well as a local 

example. 

Comment: Section 5, generally: This section was mainly a review of various methods and case 

studies. Not all are entirely consistent. What are the recommendations for local government 

policies? 
54

Response: This is a technical document and providing specific recommendations for local 

policies is beyond the scope of this document; local policies should be determined by local 

conditions and capacity to implement specific policies. Generally, in this section, EPA made a 

number of technical recommendations, which provide an analytical framework for considering 

appropriate management options to reduce runoff or infiltration of pollutants. 

References 

Chang, M. 1977. An evaluation of precipitation of gage density in mountainous terrain. Journal 

of the American Water Resources Association 13(1):39–46 (published online June 8, 2007). 

Stephenson, K., and B. Beamer. 2008. Economic Impact Analysis of Revisions to the Virginia 

Stormwater Regulation, Final Report. Prepared for the Virginia Department of Conservation and 

Recreation, Richmond, VA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005a. National Management Measures to Control 

Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC

Chapter 4. Forestry 

Comment: The chapter suffers from trying to address two goals: Management on Federal lands 

and therefore large tracts and large contracted firms for forest management, and forest 

management of the small forest tracts in private ownership typical of the Chesapeake basin. 

Many of the recommended practices and the studies cited are more appropriate for owners of 

large tracts of land (in the thousands of acres) rather than for the typical forest land owner in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed, who might own from 10 to 20 acres. Examples of practices 

appropriate for owners of large forest tracts but not for small forest tract owners include LiDAR 

and DEM, which are tools that require budgets and data beyond the reach of most forest tract 

owners in the Chesapeake basin. The practices that need to be included are those that are 

appropriate for owners of small forest tracts who have limited budgets. 

Response: The primary intended audience of the document is the federal land manager; 

therefore, the information in the chapter was chosen on the basis of it being relevant to that 

audience. Recognizing, however, that the forest land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is 

primarily owned by private individuals with small land holdings and limited budgets, the chapter 

distinguishes between what is appropriate for a federal land and for such a private land owner, 

notes which recommendations are specifically aimed at federal land managers, and makes 

recommendations specifically for private land owners. For instance, additional information 

discusses off-the-shelf public domain tools that are analogous to expensive high-tech approaches 

(LiDAR and DEM) but are either free or very affordable and enable innovative small forest tract 

planning techniques that lead to both cost savings and improved water quality outcomes. 

Comment: The tone of the chapter gives the reader the idea that forestry operations are bad for 

water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, when in fact the magnitude of water quality 

impacts attributable to forestry operations is small compared to other sources and the presence of 

forests is one of the best ways to protect the bay’s water quality. There is no argument that it is 

important to use appropriate BMPs during forestry operations to protect water quality, but the 
55

chapter should cast forests, and forestry operations on those forests, in a more positive light and 

stress the importance of maintaining land in forest cover for water quality protection. After all, as 

the chapter states, the contribution of forestry operations to water quality impairment in the bay 

watershed is very small, so implementing additional water quality protections during and after 

forestry operations would at best lead to infinitesimal improvements in water quality. 

The chapter needs to stress the importance of forests to protecting the bay’s water quality and the 

need to both conserve forests in the bay watershed and increase the acreage of forest cover in the 

watershed. The danger of presenting forest operations in a negative light is that readers could get 

the idea that converting land to another use (development) would be better for water quality than 

leaving it in forest cover. In fact, keeping land in forest cover is better for water quality than any

other land use, even with intensive forestry operations occurring on that forest land. Furthermore, 

by recommending more forestry practices for water quality protection than landowners must 

already comply with, the potential profit from forest land management could be reduced, and the 

additional forest practice requirements could create an incentive for forest landowners in the bay 

watershed to convert that land to another, more profitable use. 

Response: Revisions to the chapter included integrating forest conservation concepts into the 

document better and rewording parts of the introduction that were reviewed as being “negative” 

to emphasize the importance of forested land in the bay watershed and of conserving forest land. 

Additional information on forest conservation the concept of sustainable forestry was included, 

along with discussion of current efforts to increase “forest certification” and the associated costs 

and benefits. 

Comment: Reviewers raised concerns about some specific technical details in the chapter: (1) 

the discussion of soil litter layer depth related to water quality protection and the required width 

of a streamside management area (SMA), (2) the practice of allowing thinning in SMAs and 

whether a wider SMA, which is typically what is recommended, is always preferred, (3) the need 

to divert water from forest roads at regular and frequent intervals to minimize the erosive power 

of runoff, (4) whether adding wood chips to a harvested site to reduce nutrient runoff is 

advantageous, (5) the complications involved in recommending that a variable-width SMA be 

used based on anything other than the slope of the land adjoining a stream. Reviewers 

encouraged EPA to re-examine these discussions. 

Response: These technical discussions were revised per the suggestions provided by the 

reviewers. In addition, a number of the “Implementation Measures” were rewritten to combine 

similar activities and practices were modified to ensure higher accuracy. Where appropriate, 

additional references were added to further strengthen the recommended practices. 

Comment: “....I find this revision along with the original 2005 manual to be an incredible 

resource and it only improves with this refinement.” 

“Overall complete, and the practices which are recommended are sound and based on up to date 

information.” 
56

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 

Comment: EPA’s guidelines are made less effective when the authors spend too much time 

focusing on secondary habitat (aquatic and terrestrial) benefits rather than water quantity and 

quality, which have a more direct impact on the condition of downstream waters (Chesapeake 

Bay). Although often conceptualized as diffuse inputs, non-point source pollution and 

concentrated stormwater flows enter streams at specific locations, and these should be priorities 

for establishing or conserving existing buffers rather than simply increasing forest stream miles. 

It’s time to focus on the key issue. Even if it is a decision of individuals or local managers, EPAs 

message should be clear about the priorities. 

Response: The decision for emphasizing the ecological benefits in early drafts was because 

volumes have been written about the water quality benefits of riparian buffers, while little has 

been written about these secondary benefits, specifically how these secondary benefits work 

hand in hand with the primary benefits of reducing diffuse pollutants. There is some newer 

research that suggests fully functioning stream ecosystems that are dependant on healthy riparian 

areas can further process excess nutrients and sediment. Designing riparian buffers as part of a 

treatment train for pollutant removal ignores these functions. However, the reviewers concern is 

valid, and information was reorganized so that pollutant removal is mentioned first when the 

benefits of riparian areas are discussed. 

Comment: “One emphasis should bring out the potential utility of developing next generation 

decision support tools (GIS and remote sensing based) that can lead to site specific and better 

adaptive management of riparian buffer ecosystems.”

Response: GIS decision support tools have been added to the report, and we added information 

from the references provided. 

Conflation of riparian effects in urban and agricultural settings 

Comment: “The document does not do enough to separate what is known about the benefits of 

buffers in agricultural systems (lots) and urban systems (much less), particularly with regard to 

mediation of alterations to water quantity and quality” 

Comment: “there are some scientific details regarding the role of riparian buffers in urban areas, 

hydrology, and stream hydraulics that could be improved..” 

Response: We agree with these comments, and plan to rework the sections in question to make 

this distinction more clear. In addition, we added more information on floodwater storage and 

increasing streambank strength based on the references provided by the reviewers. 

Pollutant Removal Estimates 

Comment: “When generalizing across regions, percent reduction of edge-of-field inputs is less 

useful for prioritizing strategic riparian conservation or restoration because croplands in different 

regions yield different amounts of excess nutrients. Thus similar fractional reductions have 

different implications for downstream waters.” 

Comment: “Non-uniform delivery (preferential flow) of groundwater the riparian ecosystems 

should also be recognized. As stated earlier nitrate delivery via seeps has been found to be 
57

important and will affect ability of the ecosystem to remove nitrogen. The issue of “bypass” 

flow of groundwater under the soil zone influenced by buffers should be addressed.” 

Comment: “While there are examples where riparian buffers are effective at nutrient removal, 

this effectiveness is highly variable. Peer-reviewed scientific research in the past two decades has 

shown that the flow paths by which precipitation reaches stream channels are highly complex 

(see references by Burt and McDonnell). Thus, residence time within the soil and contact with 

the biologically active regions of the soil (typically top 1 m) are highly variable. Therefore, 

nutrient reductions are also highly variable.” 

Response: We dedicated more space to the discussion of pollutant removal estimates using the 

references provided by the reviewers, but will continue to present pollutant removal 

effectiveness as percent reduction because that is what is most commonly used in the literature. 

Preferential flow is definitely a concern, but there are currently no easy ways to find these. We 

mentioned that preferential flow can greatly affect efficiency, but since we could find no cost 

effective methods to evaluate this phenomenon, we will go no further than to mention it is an 

issue. 

The 70% goal 

Comment: “The goal of increasing streamside forests from 60% to 70% over generalizes the 

problem because in order to function as a filter, buffers need to be located between pollutant 

sources and streams along flow pathways (Weller et al. 1998 Ecol Apps, Baker et al. 2006/2007 

Land Ecol). Interrupting this flow path connectivity is far more important than whether or not 

contiguous forest exists along the channel margin because, unless pollutant transport pathways 

are filtered, increasing riparian forest will have little demonstrable impacts on water quality. 

Thus, some gaps are far more critical than others, and some existing forest has far greater 

conservation value than others. This principle applies to both urban and agricultural systems, 

though the location for performing this filtering likely varies in each system.” 

Comment: “For water quality targets, with the exception of stream temperature, it may be 

misguided to rely strongly on targets of percent coverage of stream length for buffers. 

Considerable spatial variability exists within these ecosystems. A strong argument can be made 

for targeting and site-specific management of riparian buffers. Angier et al. (2008) found that 

groundwater nitrate was primarily delivered to a coastal plain first order stream in Maryland via 

concentrated upwelling zones. This conclusion finds further generalization by a recent study by 

ODriscoll and DeWalle (2010) of a piedmont headwater stream in Pennsylvania. Locating these 

“critical” areas in the landscape seems most promising for reducing nitrate and possibly pesticide 

export to streams. “ 

Response: This is partially addressed by including information on GIS decision support tools 

that are designed to locate areas where forested buffers will have the greatest pollutant removal 

benefit. The 70% goal was chosen by the Chesapeake Bay Program in 2003. Their reasoning is 

that the single most important indicator of watershed health is the amount of forest in that 

watershed. Forests covered 95% of the Chesapeake watershed prior to European settlement and 

now account for 58% of the watershed. Because they are situated along streams and shorelines, 

riparian forest buffers play a particularly critical role in processing nutrients and sediments that 

flow off non-forest land uses before entering streams. Additionally, outcomes of scientific 

research support a 70% target for riparian forest cover to maintain healthy functioning 

watersheds (Goetz et al. 2003; and King et al. 2005). 
58

References 

Goetz, S. J.; Wright, R. K.; Smith, A. J.; Zinecker, E. & Schaubb, E. 2003. IKONOS imagery for 

resource management: Tree cover, impervious surfaces, and riparian buffer analyses in the midAtlantic region. Remote Sensing of Environment, 88:196-208 

King, R. S.; Baker, M. E.; Whigham, D. F.; Weller, D. E.; Jordan, T. E.; Kazyak, P. F. & Hurd, 

M. K. 2005. Spatial Considerations For Linking Watershed Land Cover To Ecological Indicators 

In Streams. Ecological Applications. 15:137-153 

Chapter 6. Decentralized Wastewater Treatment 

Comment: EPA is to be commended for offering guidance to the states to move to some level of 

nitrogen (N) removal in all decentralized wastewater treatment systems. 

Response: EPA appreciates this support. 

Comment: The use of soil discharging cluster systems is appropriately encouraged. 

Response: EPA appreciates this support. 

Comment: Houses using onsite wastewater disposal systems continue to represent a substantial 

amount (20-30%?) of all new construction and are a growing source of N to Chesapeake Bay. 

Remediation of all existing systems is probably not feasible. However, it is essential that all new 

and replacement systems reduce effluent nitrogen to the lowest levels possible.

Response: EPA appreciates this comment. 

Comment: The recommendation that conventional “septic systems” no longer be used for new 

development or replacement of failing systems is not emphasized and highlighted as much as it 

needs to be. It is implied in the first section but not explicitly, and cautiously, stated until Section 

4.1 (bottom of page 511) where it states “they (conventional systems) are no longer appropriate 

for use in new communities or densely developed areas in the Chesapeake Bay watershed”. 

Several Bay states acknowledged the need to stop installing conventional systems on new 

construction in their existing tributary strategies but they remain the dominant system used, 

probably being installed on 90% or more of new construction not served by central sewer. EPA 

needs to be strong and clear in its guidance that the states should take actions to not allow the 

installation of conventional onsite wastewater disposal systems by a defined date.

Response: This guidance does not recommend banning conventional systems throughout the 

watershed. EPA agrees that the chapter states, rather explicitly, that such systems “are no longer 

appropriate for use in new communities or densely developed areas in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed.” EPA still considers conventional systems to be a viable option outside sensitive 

areas (e.g., beyond 1,000 feet from surface waters) and in isolated parcels outside of subdivisions 

(i.e., outside of densely developed areas) where there is sufficient land around such systems to 

increase the treatment opportunities and travel time through the soil horizon. EPA believes the 
59

recommendations, as stated in the implementation measures makes it clear that conventional 

systems should be the exception and not the rule. 

Comment: It is recommended that all new or replacement systems discharge nitrate at 

concentrations of 10mg/L or less... [as] ... it is generally thought that once nitrates reach 

groundwater, the majority will eventually be discharged to surface water, so limiting nitrate 

release from the disposal system is critical. 

Response: The scientific literature supports some attenuation of N over lateral travel distance 

through the soil, based on factors discussed in this chapter. Recommending the 20 mg/L N 

effluent standard for most systems outside the sensitive zones (in the bulk of the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed) provides considerably more treatment options at more justifiable costs, and therefore 

provides for greater flexibility. 

Comment: Systems should not be installed within 200 feet of surface water, rather than going to 

5mg/l at 200ft and stopping installation at 100 ft, as recommended in the guidance. It is 

questionable that the cost of going from 10mg/l to 5 mg/l justifies its use in the 100 ft zone 

proposed or would allow it to be feasible for all new or replacement systems. However, the 

guidance should be updated over time to incorporate enhanced N removal technologies. 

Response: EPA believes that extending the 100-foot setback from surface waters and open 

channel MS4s for decentralized systems to 200 feet would be highly restrictive on local zoning 

and would not significantly increase protection of the Bay, EPA has specified that the first 100 

feet beyond the recommended setback is afforded the highest level of protection using the best 

available technology—which currently produces effluent in the 3-5 mg/L range for N. This 

already-low effluent will undergo further attenuation in the soil before it can reach open water 

and the Bay. EPA agrees that this guidance should be updated over time to incorporate the most 

advanced N removal technologies that are economically feasible. 

Comment: The need for a “responsible management entity” (RME) is suggested for cluster 

systems. The need for appropriate oversight of operation and maintenance for all advanced N 

removing systems cannot be over-emphasized. This is just as critical for individual as for cluster 

systems. It is recommended that operation and maintenance agreements be part of all advanced 

N removal system permits and that annual reporting of O&M and system function by a RME or 

private inspector be required. It is also suggested that an effluent sample be taken and analyzed 

for TKN and nitrate either during each inspection or biennially. The greatest concern with 

implementation of N removing system is whether or not they have proper O&M and continue to 

function as designed over time. While inspections can be performed by the private sector, it may 

be time to reconsider the “rural sanitary management district” concept that was discussed during 

the 1970-80s whereby a sanitary authority be established to manage the inspection, analysis and 

record keeping program needed to assure acceptable O&M of N removing systems if they are 

placed on all new or replacement systems. The district could collect fees from individuals with 

these systems and contract the inspections, sampling and performance evaluations thus assuring 

that they will occur rather than expecting individual homeowners to contract the needed services. 

This would allow location and performance tracking of all N removing systems. 

Response: EPA appreciates this support for its management recommendations for decentralized 

systems as specified in implementation measure D-3. EPA added language that recommends 
60

RMEs not only for all cluster systems, but for non-residential mechanized systems, as well. EPA 

has provided additional clarification that RMEs may be either public or private. Specifically, the 

following text was added to implementation measure D-3: 

RMEs include sanitation districts, special districts, and other public or private 

entities with the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to assure long-term 

system performance. 

In lieu of recommending annual reporting and biannual effluent monitoring for all advanced N 

removal systems, which may be overly burdensome, EPA has clarified one of the 

recommendations specified in implementation measure D-4 as follows: 

Requiring inspections for all systems on a schedule according to wastewater type, 

system size, complexity, location, and relative environmental risk. At a minimum, 

qualified inspectors inspect all systems at least once every 5 years and inspect 

existing systems within sensitive areas at least once every 3 years. Inspect 

advanced treatment systems, cluster systems, and those serving commercial, 

institutional, or industrial facilities at least semiannually and manage such 

systems under an operation and maintenance agreement or by an RME. 

Inspections are consistent with EPA management guidelines for individual and 

cluster systems. A service professional or other trained personnel conducts 

routine monitoring of all systems, and periodic effluent sampling for cluster and 

non-residential systems, on the basis of system type, operating history, 

manufacturer’s recommendations, and other relevant factors. 

Comment: While it may be desirable to have GPS locations on all onsite systems, it is 

questionable if it is a wise use of limited funds when such funds could be used to establish and 

staff rural sanitary management districts. 

Response: EPA stands by its recommendation that basic inventory information – including 

system location – should be collected. Implementation measure D-4 recommends developing 

“GIS-based inventories” of all decentralized systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. EPA 

believes knowing where these systems are located is key information needed to manage these 

systems and support wastewater planning and watershed protection activities. EPA does not 

mention the use of GPS technology to derive this information and has no preference regarding 

how this information is collected. Parcel-level data in GIS format is commonly available through 

local real estate tax assessment databases, which also usually includes whether each parcel is 

served by central sewer or decentralized systems. Since this information is likely to exist already, 

EPA believes the local authorities with decentralized system management responsibilities should 

have access to it as well. 

Comment: Figures and tables are included in the text but they are never cross-referenced in the 

accompanying text. All tables and figures included should be cross-referenced and discussed in 

the accompanying text, however briefly. 

Response: EPA has addressed this comment in the final version by the addition of reference text 

throughout the chapter—most notably near the beginning of section 4, which has been expanded. 
61

Comment: In Section 4 many technologies are mentioned but the technologies are described in 

the table and figures only. This means the reader knows the performance of each system but no 

information on the configuration of the technology is discussed. For example NITREX has by far 

the best performance described in all of Chapter 6, but we have no information on what the 

NITREX process is. There is no discussion of the NITREX process in the text even though it is 

the only technology shown that results in an effluent lower than 10 mg/L as N (2.2 mg/L as N). I 

would think that every technology resulting in less than 20 mg/L as N (the top 4 technologies in 

Figure 2) merits description in this text. Alternately the authors could categorize the 

technologies... for example is there a certain type of technology that results in most of the high 

efficiency processes (e.g. 3 of the top 4 are tertiary denitrification systems with carbon addition)? 

Why are some technologies so much more efficient than others? The current version has no such 

discussion. [Specific suggestions on how to reorganize the chapter to provide this detail were 

offered] 

Response: EPA has expanded the chapter narrative to ensure a reasonably consistent level of 

information for every technology summarized in the tables and figures. EPA acknowledges that 

this chapter does not contain significant detail on the technologies discussed in this chapter and 

believes that such detail is beyond the scope of this document. EPA has provided references for 

all technologies to allow readers who desire more detail to obtain it. EPA added a new Table 6-1 

to accompany Figure 6-2. The new table presents the system components and type classifications 

for all the technologies included in Figure 6-2. 

Comment: Somewhere in the text it needs to be pointed out that not all carbon sources are equal 

in terms of O&M requirements. For example, adding methanol implies that data is gathered 

frequently enough, and with rapid enough turn-around, that methanol will not be overdosed or 

underdosed—both of which would result in deterioration of the effluent quality (one in terms of 

effluent BOD, the other in terms of effluent nitrogen). Sawdust and newspapers, in contrast, will 

only need to be replaced when effluent nitrogen breaks through (i.e. the denitrification capacity 

of the sawdust or newspaper has been exhausted, i.e. the readily biodegradable components of 

the carbon source have been completely oxidized). Possibly a sub-section on different carbon 

sources should be included. 

Response: EPA added the following text to section 3.2: 

Carbon sources are not equal in terms of O&M requirements. For example, 

methanol is very sensitive to under- or over-dosing, and thus requires special 

attention to ensure that the system is monitored enough to control dosing for 

optimal N-removal and BOD control. By contrast, sawdust and newspapers need 

to be replaced only when effluent nitrogen breaks through (i.e. the denitrification 

capacity of the sawdust or newspaper has been exhausted). 

O&M costs are provided for various specific carbon-dependent N-removal technologies. 

Comment: The authors should mention zero valent iron as a possible PRB for removal of nitrate, 

although it results in ammonia rather than nitrogen gas and its costs are very different. Ammonia 

sorption/partitioning to either soil or other materials is an essential aspect of making such 

systems workable. The authors may wish to state it is not cost-effective if they are aware of 

recent literature that reaches this conclusion but there needs to be some mention of it 

nevertheless. Two references were provided. 
62

Response: EPA added the following text regarding zero valent iron for use in permeable reactive 

barriers (PRBs), along with both references that were provided: 

Zero valent iron, now used for some industrial wastewater treatment applications, 

has been studied as a nutrient removal media in PRBs and other system 

components. Obstacles with this technology include reduction of nitrate to 

ammonia rather than nitrogen gas and relatively high costs (Cheng 1997). New 

variations of this technology hold promise for removing some of these obstacles 

(Lee 2007). 

Comment: With regard to PRBs that rely on degradable carbon sources, the authors need to 

clarify why limestone or some other calcium salt/alkalinity is required. Denitrification produces 

alkalinity and is not nearly as sensitive to pH changes as, for example, nitrification is. What is 

the reason for adding alkalinity (which should result in an alkaline pH in combination with the 

denitrification)? 

Response: A calcium supply, such as lime, is needed in carbon-based PRBs as a pH adjustment, 

not just a source of alkalinity. If nitrification takes out all of the alkalinity as a result of the 

greater than 7:1 demand for each unit of ammonia that is nitrified, the pH will drop to very low 

values. The added calcium carbonate in the PRB buffers the pH into a more acceptable range for 

the denitrifiers, whose actions will restore about 50% of the original alkalinity when completed. 

When sulphur-based autotrophic denitrification is involved, the limestone is actually needed to 

sustain the denitrification reaction. 

However, this is a level of operational detail that exceeds EPA’s overall intent for this guidance. 

The sentence referenced above was replaced by the following text: 

The most effective [PRBs] for removing nitrate from plumes are filled with a 

carbon-based media mix that controls for changes in pH. 

Comment: Do the costs given for composting toilets include the parallel greywater treatment 

system? The costs of both need to be included so that a total cost and total O&M can be 

calculated. 

Response: The cost of providing a parallel greywater system is extremely variable and providing 

this information is beyond the scope of this guidance. However, EPA modified the following text 

to clarify this point: 

A greywater treatment system will be needed if the facility generates sink, 

laundry, or other greywater. 

 to: 

A greywater treatment system is needed if the facility generates sink, laundry, or 

other greywater, therefore adding to the cost. 

Comment: What does the acronym LID stand for? 

Response: LID stands for Low Impact Development. EPA removed the reference to LID, as it 

was not needed in this chapter of the guidance. LID is discussed at length in Chapter 3 of this 

guidance. 
63

Comment: The chapter makes no mention of the membrane bioreactor (MBR). Detail and Web 

links are provided. 

Response: Based on the information provided, EPA added the following text on MBRs within 

section 4.3: 

Nitrogen removal in larger cluster applications of suspended growth systems (i.e., 

> 200 homes) may be enhanced by the incorporation of a membrane bioreactor 

process unit (MBR), which screens wastewater through very small pore-size 

filters. MBRs are more common to centralized treatment facilities, due to 

operating costs and economy of scale issues. However, individual home-sized and 

small cluster units are beginning to be developed for the U.S. market (e.g., 

BioBarrier, ZeeWeed; WERF, 2006).The high quality effluent provides 

opportunities for treated water reuse. Cost and performance data for individual 

and small cluster applications of MBRs are not widely available and are likely to 

vary greatly. Energy costs, particularly to operate the pumping components, 

significant, especially in smaller system applications (USEPA 2007). 

EPA added supporting references to the end of the chapter. 

Comment: The chapter fails to mention natural vegetative wastewater treatment systems. Detail 

and Web links are provided. 

Response: Based on the information provided, EPA added a new subsection titled 

“Land/Vegetative Treatment Systems” in renumbered section 4.2 with the following text: 

Land treatment systems, such as spray irrigation systems, are permitted in some 

places, but have not been widely used due to their large land area requirements 

(EPA 2000). In general, these vegetative treatment systems have been poor 

performers with regard to N removal. However, in recent years, significant 

advances have been made. The Living Machine, a proprietary decentralized 

wastewater treatment system has been used successfully for large capacity 

applications, such as schools. While this system delivers advanced N removal, it 

relies on multiple treatment processes including anaerobic and aerobic reactors, 

a clarifier, and an “ecological fluidizer bed” (USEPA 2002), which drive up the 

cost. Eco-machines are similar in concept to The Living Machine, and are also 

capable of advanced N removal. Costs for both of these technologies make sense 

for only fairly large capacity applications. They are not practical for individual 

residential systems, but may be useful for cluster and large system applications. 

Comment: The report focuses exclusively on nutrient REMOVAL technologies and makes no 

mention of technologies to RECOVER nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater. Typically, in 

an effort to meet effluent compliance, the wastewater treatment industry expends tremendous 

resources to get rid of the ammonia present in wastewater and drive it towards N2 gas. In this 

approach, large amounts of energy are expended for aeration to enable nitrification, and large 

quantities of chemicals such as methanol are used to facilitate denitrification. The approach also 

contributes to the generation of greenhouse gases through both energy expenditure as well as the 

release of CO2 (nitrification) and nitrous oxide (nitrification and denitrification) from these 
64

treatment steps. Meanwhile, in order to meet the huge fertilizer demand from the agricultural 

industry, society expends more energy to convert N2 gas to ammonia (via the Haber Bosch 

process) and causes environmental damage and NPS runoff through phosphate mining. Both 

ammonia and phosphate are already present in wastewater. A truly sustainable approach is to 

shift our emphasis towards the recovery of these nutrients from wastewater so that they can be 

used as fertilizers, rather than focusing only on nutrient removal strategies. A combination of 

both recovery and removal should be considered and promoted through the regulatory 

framework towards the ultimate goal of simultaneous environmental protection and resource 

conservation. 

The following paper is a good reference on the paradigm shift that is occurring on looking at 

wastewater as a resource: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es9010515

As both a regulatory agency and a trendsetter, the EPA should be at the forefront of promoting 

sustainable practices such as wastewater resources RECOVERY. 

Towards the shift towards nutrient recovery, EPA should encourage the development and 

implementation of source control technologies. Waterless urinals, often used as water-saving 

measures, present an opportunity for nutrient recovery. Urine-separating toilet technology is 

another strategy for source control of nitrogen to reduce the burden on subsequent wastewater 

treatment facilities, whether decentralized or centralized. The following article describes the 

success of this technology in Europe: 

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es9028765

Response: EPA acknowledges the points made by this comment about the importance of nutrient 

recovery and source control. While a full treatment of the topic of nutrient removal and source 

control technologies associated with wastewater is beyond the intent of this document, in 

response to this comment, EPA has added a new section (4.9) on effluent reuse with the 

following text: 

Reuse of treated wastewater system effluent can significantly reduce nitrogen 

discharge to the environment. Many of the technologies suggested for advanced 

decentralized wastewater treatment in the Chesapeake Bay watershed can, with 

adaptations, be used to produce reclaimed water for beneficial reuses, including 

aquifer recharge, landscape irrigation, toilet flushing, fire protection, cooling and 

other non-potable indoor and outdoor purposes (US EPA 2004). When reclaimed 

water is used for irrigation, reuse can offset potable water demand by augmenting 

supply while sequestering nutrients in vegetative matter and offsetting fertilizer 

use (WERF 2010). Reclaimed water technologies generally include recirculating 

filtration systems and membrane bioreactors, amended with disinfection systems 

(most commonly, chlorination and/or ultraviolet disinfection), online monitoring 

systems, onsite storage, and sometimes specific chemical feed systems for 

conditioning treated effluent to meet water quality demands for specific reuses 

(e.g., pH adjustment for cooling water). Non-reactive dye injection is sometimes 

required by building codes for reclaimed water to be used indoors. Costs for 

decentralized reclaimed water systems are highly context-specific and dependent 

on the intended reuse application, system size, and local or state regulatory 

requirements (WERF 2010), but can be assumed to add 50 percent to the costs of 

a more traditional decentralized system. 
65

References 

Cheng et al. Reduction of nitrate to ammonia by zero-valent iron. Chemosphere. Volume 35, 

Issue 11, December 1997, Pages 2689-2695. 

Lee, S., K., S. Rhee and J. Park. 2007. Development of a New Zero-Valent Iron Zeolite Material 

to Reduce Nitrate without Ammonium Release, Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 133, 

No. 1, pp. 6-12. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Technology 

Fact Sheet 12—Land Treatment Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-625-R00-008 Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002b. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet: The Living 

Machine. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-832-F-02-025 Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Guidelines for Water Reuse. US Environmental 

Protection Agency. EPA-625-R-04-108. August 2004. 

http://www.epa.gov/ord/NRMRL/pubs/625r04108/625r04108.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Wastewater Management Fact Sheet—Membrane 

Bioreactors. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

<http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/etfs_membrane-bioreactors.pdf>., Accessed April 29, 2010. 

WERF. 2010. Distributed Water Infrastructure in Sustainable Communities: A Guide for 

Decision-makers. WERF DEC3R06. March 2010. www.werf.org/distributedwater

Chapter 7. Hydromodification 

Comment: Reviewers felt that the chapter was poorly written, poorly organized, and incomplete 

and that it should be made more apparent that the chapter is an addendum to the existing 2007 

EPA guidance document. In addition, there was a comment that the discussion of two of the 

practices was not “balanced” in terms of size. 

Response: The chapter underwent a thorough review and modification of both text and format in 

order to provide a more thorough, readable, and understandable document. Numerous sections 

were expanded upon, with additional references provided by the STAC. The dam removal and 

natural channel design sections of the chapter have been re-written to be more concise and 

“balanced” and improved upon using reference sources recommended by reviewers. All 

recommended practices have been moved to a separate section of the document and a table has 

been developed to help guide the reader in identifying whether the practice is existing, updated 

or “next generation, as well as their location in the document.” As suggested by one reviewer, a 

“check box” has been developed in order to show applicability of practices amongst the various 

Implementation Measures. Additional sources of information, including Chesapeake Bay region 

studies, were added. Finally, text was added in order to explicitly state that this chapter and the 

2007 guidance are intended to be used in tandem. 

Comment: One reviewer commented that the “Implementation Measures” are confusing. 

Response: Additional information has been added to more fully characterize each 

Implementation Measure. 
66

Comment: One reviewer felt that the practices discussed include many hard structures that may 

exacerbate erosion and reduce nitrogen removal capacity and that a preference should be shown 

toward the use of approaches that maintain the interaction between surface water and the bank, 

riparian, and shore sediments. 

Response: The document was modified in order to recognize the advantages of employing bioengineered solutions; it now explicitly states that bio-engineered practices should receive explicit 

preference over traditional hard engineering approaches where appropriate.

Comment: One reviewer felt that the document suffered from not having a clear section on 

restoration prioritization that focuses on watershed levels and not individual sites.

Response: The context for employing restoration practices has been improved and a discussion 

of prioritization has been added. We explain that restoration projects and practices should not be 

viewed in isolation, but that they should be chosen with a view toward which projects best 

achieve watershed goals and be based upon a watershed assessment.

Comment: “The EPA has identified the best available, proven, cost-effective practices at this 

time.” 

“The data presented in the report regarding the costs/benefits of practices are sound and based on 

widely accepted scientific literature. The data are up-to-date and the relevant literature is 

appropriately cited.” 

“In all, the report does a fine job of evaluating hydromodification practices and their 

applicability to reducing sediment and nutrient loading to the Chesapeake Bay.”