3/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 125 

## 5 Turf Management 1 1 Section 5 of this chapter provides guidance on reco mmended turfgrass management practices, 2 applicable to federal agencies, states, local gover nments, conservation districts, watershed 3 groups, developers, farmers and all citizens in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The following list 4 provides an overview of recommended practices that are explored more fully throughout this 5 section. 6 Implementation Measures:
Onsite Activities

• Reduce turf management inputs (nutrients, pesticide s, irrigation water)

• Reduce total turf area cultivated through initial d esign or redesign of existing landscapes

• Reduce total area maintained under high input presc ription management programs

• Convert nonessential turf to low or lower maintenan ce vegetated areas such as naturalized forest, meadow, native plantings, xeris capes or turf cultivars that require little or no inputs

• Increase infiltrative and retentive capacity of mai ntained turf

• Reduce sediment loadings from turf areas
Planning and Assessments

• Examine municipal codes and ordinances or other fac ility, corporate or agency policy directives and guidance for opportunities to 1. Adopt or revise policy or guidance to reduce total turf area, nonessential turf area and high input turf areas through requirements and/ or incentive programs 2. Employ management practices that have a decreased p otential impact on water
resources

• Conduct a municipal or facility wide assessment of turf area within the jurisdiction or facility property. This assessment should include 1. A map of the jurisdiction or facility and include t he identification of all turf areas 2. An inventory or calculation of the total turf area in acres or hectares using GIS techniques or other methods 3. An evaluation to determine essential and nonessential turf areas 4. Identification and delineation of all high and low input turf areas 5. An evaluation of all turf management activities and inputs preferably by turf category or significant turf area within the jurisd iction or facility 6. Assessments of turf health and infiltrative capacit y and opportunities to increase soil health to promote the infiltrative capacity of turf areas3/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 126 • Develop a management plan that contains

• An analysis of options to reduce or eliminate nonessential turf or convert essential turf to low input turf

• Stated goals and objectives regarding the reduction of turf related inputs (water, fertilizers, pesticides, fossil fuels) on a municip al or facility wide basis

• An analysis of options to reduce potable water use through the use of hardy cultivars or the use of recycled water or harvested runoff

• An identification of areas where soil amendments be used to enhance soil health and the infiltration capacity of the soils

• Areas of turf that could be used to manage runoff

• Areas of turf that could be replaced by lower maint enance cultivars or other grasses such as switch grass

• A training program for landscaping personnel

• An implementation schedule

• Develop and implement ongoing public education and outreach programs on turf reduction and Bay-friendly lawn and turf management. Programs should target b ehavior change and promote the adoption of water resource f riendly practices by increasing awareness, promoting appropriate behaviors and acti ons, providing training and incentives. Impact and effectiveness evaluation sho uld be incorporated into these outreach and education programs.

• Conduct a life-cycle cost benefit analysis to reduc e inputs and maintenance burden of managed turf areas
1


### 5.1 5.1 Turf Management Implementation Measure s 2

• Reduce total turf area cultivated through initial design or redesign of existing landscapes 3

• Convert nonessential turf to low maintenance vegeta ted areas such as naturalized forest , 4 meadow , xeriscaped areas or native plant ing 5

• Reduce turf management input s (irrigation water, nutrients, pesticides) 6

• Increase infilt rative capacity of maintained turf 7

• Reduce total area maintained under high input presc ription management programs 8

• Examine municipal codes and ordinances and/or other facility, corporate or agency policy 9 directives and guidance for opportunities to 10 1. adopt or revise policy or guidance to reduce total turf area , nonessential turf area 11 and high input turf area s through requirements and/or incentive programs 12 2. employ management practices that have a decreased p otential impact on water 13
resources 14

• C onduct a municipal or facility wide assessment of turf area within the jurisdiction or 15 facility property

. This assessment should include 163/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 127

1. a map of the jurisdiction or facility and include t he identification of all turf areas 1 2. an inventory or calculation of the total turf area in square acres or hectares using 2 GIS techniques or other methods 3 3. an evaluation to determine essential and nonessential turf areas 4 4. identification and delineation of all high and low input turf areas 5 5. an evaluation of all turf management activities and inpu ts preferably by turf 6 category or significant turf area within the jurisdiction or facility 7 6. a ssessments of turf health and infiltrative capacity and opportunities to increase 8 soil health to promote the infiltrati ve capacity of turf areas 9

• Develop a managem ent plan that contains 10

– an analysis of options to reduce or eliminate nonessential turf or conver t essential 11 turf to low input turf 12

– stated goals and objectives regarding the reduction of turf related inputs (water, 13 fertilizers, pesticides, fossil fuels) on a municipal or facility wide basis 14

– an analysis of options to reduce potable water use through the use of har dy cultivars 15 or the use of recycled water or harvested runoff 16

– an identification of areas where soil amendments be used to enhance soil health and 17 the infiltration capacity of the soils 18

– areas of turf that could be used to manage runoff 19

– areas of turf that could be replaced by lower maint enance cultivars or other grasses 20 such as switch grass 21

– a training program for landscaping personnel 22

– an implementatio n schedule 23

• Develop and implement ongoing public education and outreach programs on turf 24 reduction and Bay

- friendly lawn and turf management

. Programs should target behavior 25 change and promote the adoption of water

- resource

- friendly practices by increasing 26 awareness, promoting appropriate behaviors and acti ons, providing training and 27 i ncentives

. Impact and effectiveness evaluation should be incor porated into these 28 outreach and education programs. 29

• Conduct a life cycle cost

- benefit analysis to reduce inputs an d maintenance burden of 30 managed turf ar e as 313/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 128 

### 5.2 Background

: Turf Impacts 1 In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, turf constitutes 3 .8 million acres or 9.5 percent of the total 2 land area. Turf in terms of total cultivated area i s now the number one crop grown in the 3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Chesapeake Stormwater Net work 2009). 4
The increase in turf is also a national issue accor ding to Robbins and Birkenholt (2001) who 5 examined turf in terms of land use/cover changes an d the “expansion of high-input, 6 monocultural, lawn landscapes,” which “bring with t hem inputs of insecticides, herbicides and 7 fertilizers...expanded use of lawn maintenance tools” such as mowers and “changes in soil 8 profile, stormwater runoff, water consumption, micr o-fauna diversity, energy use, air quality and 9 habitat impacts.” Fender (2004) reported that natio nally, “There are an estimated 50 million 10 acres of maintained turfgrass in the United States on home lawns, golf courses, sports fields, 11 parks, playgrounds, cemeteries, and highway rights- of-way.” 12
Turf that is when properly located, selected, and maintained can prov ide water quality benefits 13 especially when used to reduce the effects of imper vious surface cover ( Beard and Green 1994; 14 Carrow et al. 2008). citations needed regarding infiltrative and filtration benefits of turf)

. The 15 conversion of native landscape to turf, however, in evitably results in ecosystem level changes 16 regardless of how the turf is managed. For example, the following effects typically result from 17 converting the conversion of native forest or native vegetation to turf: reducti ons in 18 evapotranspiration, increases in runoff volumes, ve locities and duration of flows, increases in 19 runoff temperature, soil compaction and decreased i nfiltration, changes in soil health and biota, 20 loss of species diversity and habitat and increased loadings of pollutants such as nutrients, 21 pesticides , and in some cases sediment. 22 Turf type and management practices also influence t he behavior of turf in terms of changes in 23 runoff hydrology and pollutant loadings. According to Schueler (2000a), approximately one24 third of turf cover can be considered high input , i.e., water, fertilizers , and pesticides are applied 25 as part of its regular maintenance regime. Private lawns account for 70 percent of the total turf 26 area, and of that proportion, half of that this area is actively managed with chemical inputs. The 27 other half of total turf area can be considered low input , which is typically mowed but does not 28 receive regular chemical inputs. Public turf, inclu ding parks, golf courses, schools, churches, 29 cemeteries, median strips, utility corridors, and o ffice parks, accounts for the remaining 30 30 percent of total turf area, with approximately one- third estimated to be high input. Additional 31 detail is provided in the following section on turf

- related impacts. 32
Reductions in both the total area of turf in the Ch esapeake Bay watershed and the total area of 33 turf maintained using high input management practic es has the potential to significantly reduce 34 detrimental effects on water quality. Table 3-42 sh ows how different levels of turf reduction can 35 affect irrigation water, fertilizer, and pesticide use according to the amount of turf replaced with 36 low-input vegetation with no supplemental irrigatio n, fertilization, or pesticide applications. The 37 numbers in Table 3-42 are estimates of reductions i n inputs, e.g., the amount of nitrogen (N) 38 applied to turf across the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the reduced application levels that 39 would be achieved by reducing the application rate per acre by a certain percentage. EPA has not 40 yet conducted the modeling necessary to estimate (a s EPA has done with respect to some other 413/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 129 source categories such as agriculture) the amount o f N nitrogen applied to turf that actually 1 reaches the Chesapeake Bay through runoff or ground water. 2
Table 3-42. Potential reductions in annual inputs o f irrigation water, fertilizers, and pesticides 3 through turf reduction 4 Annual inputs Turf reduction Water

(billion gallons) Fertilizer (million lbs N) Pesticide (million lbs 2,4-D) 0% 556.0 227.5 3.0 10% 500.4 204.8 2.7 20% 444.8 182.0 2.4 30% 389.2 159.3 2.1 40% 333.6 136.5 1.8 50% 278.0 113.8 1.5 Assumptions: Total turf area for the Chesapeake Bay is 3.8 milli on acres. One-third of the total turf area in the Chesapeake Bay is cultivated using high-input practices. Irrigation water total is based on 1 inch per week during growing season. Fertilizer total is based on average application ra te for high-input areas. Pesticide total is based on applying the manufactur er application rate recommendations for high-input areas. 5 Table 3

- 42 assum p tions 6

• Total turf area for the Chesapeake Bay is 3.8 million acres

. 7

• One

- third of the total turf area in the Chesapeake Bay is cultivated using high

- input 8 practices

. 9

• Irrigation water total is based on 1 inch per week during growing season

. 10

• Fertilizer total is based on average application ra te for high

- input areas

. 11

• Pesticide total is based on applying the manufacturer application rate recommendations 12 for high

- input areas

. 13



### 5. 2 3 Turf-Related Impacts 14 The following section contains descriptions of the main water resource related effects that result 15 from the cultivation and maintenance of turf. 16



### 5. 2 3 .1 Soil Compaction 17 Urban soils have been shown to be more compacted th an undisturbed soils (Schueler 2000b), 18 generally as a result of construction activities, h eavy equipment use, and intentional compaction. 19 Foot and vehicular traffic can also compact soils. As measured by bulk density (defined as the 20 mass of dry soil divided by its volume, expressed i n units of grams per cubic centimeter 21 (gms/cc), undisturbed soils average 1.1 to 1.4 gms/ cc, whereas urban lawns range from 1.5 to 223/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 130 1. 9 9 gms/cc and athletic fields and fill soil typically range from 1.8 to 2.0 gms/cc. The bulk 1 density of these disturbed soils can approach those that of concrete (2.2 gms/cc). 2 An inverse relationship exists between soil bulk de nsity and soil porosity, which indicates that 3 compacted urban soils do not infiltrate stormwater as readily as undisturbed soils. The 4 hydrologic consequence is higher runoff coefficient s, from 0.2 up to 0.5 (paved areas have runoff 5 coefficients ranging from 0.5 to 0.99). Soil compac tion also has implications for plant growth 6 and can restrict root growth, oxygen diffusion, nut rient retention, soil fauna, and inhibit 7 beneficial fungi and other soil biota (Ocean County Soil Conservation District 2001)

. 8 A study in North Central Florida revealed that cons truction activities reduced lawn infiltration 9 rates from 70 percent to 99 percent in comparison t o untouched natural forest and pasture. “The 10 compacted pervious area effectively approaches the infiltration behavior of an impervious 11 surface,” which increases stormwater runoff and the need for large stormwater conveyance 12 networks (Gregory et al. 2006) 13 In examining 15 home lawns in central Pennsylvania, Hamilton and Waddington (1999) find 14 excavation procedures and lawn establishment to be the most influential practices affecting lawn 15 infiltration rates. Homes with minimal soil compact ion had the highest infiltration rates. Reduced 16 compaction was achieved by bringing in top soil pos t home construction and through core 17 cultivation (aeration of the soil). The lawn with t he highest infiltration rate (10cm/hr) was not 18 excavated during construction, allowing “the macrop ore system to stay intact, preventing 19 aggregate destruction during usual soil moving and handling, and preventing soil stratification 20 when the soil was put back at the excavated sites.” “The stripping of top soil, traffic on exposed 21 subsoil, the addition of debris to the soil, and st ratification of soil upon replacement may affect 22 infiltration more than anything else.” 23 A second approach is to mechanically treat and amen d already disturbed soils with compost or 24 other organic material to reduce bulk density and restore porosity and infiltrative capacity

. The 25 use of compost can greatly enhance the physical str ucture of soil. In fine

- textured (clay, clay 26 loam) soils, addin g compost will reduce bulk density, improve friabili ty (workability) and 27 porosity, and in crease its gas and water permeability, thus reducin g erosion. When used in 28 sufficient quantities, the addition of compost has both an immediate and long

- term positive 29 impact on soil structure. It resists compaction in fine textured soils and increases wate r holding 30 capacity and improves soil aggregation in coarse

- textured (sandy) soils

. McDonald (2004) 31 specifies 2 to 4 inches of compost tilled into the upper 8 to 12 inches of soil, depending on soil 32 type, before planting. Balousek (2003) showed a mar ked dec rease in surface runoff volume (36 33 to 53 percent) when compacted soils were chisel

- plowed and deep

- tilled, and when soils were 34 also amended with compost, runoff was reduced by 74 to 91 percent

. Additionally, compost is 35 also good source of nitrogen, phospho rous, and potassium, and contains micronutrients es sential 36 for plant growth. Therefore, the addition of compos t can also have a positive effect on the use of 37 fertilizer and pH adjustment (lime/sulfur addition) and aid in the reduction of soil compaction

. 38



### 5. 2 3 .2 Irrigation 39 A typical recommendation for lawn

- watering during dry periods is one inch per week. To use the 40 numbers reported above for the Chesapeake Bay, 1.7 million acres of turf are considered high

- 413/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 131 input and would likely be irrigated at the one inch per week rate. Under th o se recommendations , 1 46.33 billion gallons of water would be applied per week, or, assuming 12 weeks of dry weather 2 per year, nearly 556 billion gallons of water annua lly

. Almost all this water would be potable 3 water except water su pplied at facilities such as golf courses and corporate campu ses where 4 surface water retention ponds are used for irrigation water supplie s. 5



### 5.3.3 Fertilizer Applications 6 Homeowners typically apply fertilizer at rates exce eding 100 lbs of N nitrogen per acre per year, 7 whereas some commercial lawn care companies are kno wn to apply fertilizer at twice those rates 8 (Morton et al. 1988). Schueler (2000a) estimates th at two-thirds of lawns are managed by 9 homeowners and one-third are managed by lawn care c ompanies (see Table 3-43). Using those 10 statistics and the turf estimates noted above, 227. 5 million pounds of N nitrogen are applied to 11 turf areas each year. 12
Table 3-43. Lawns managed by homeowners versus othe r lawn services 13 Comparative chemical application rates in pounds/ac re/year in Maryland

Chemical Cropland a Golf fairway Greens Home lawn (do it yourself Home lawn

(lawn service) Nitrogen 184 150 213 44–261 194–258 Phosphorus 80 88 44 15 no data Pesticides 5.8 37.3 45.1 7.5 no data

14 Source: http://www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Center_Docs/PWP /ELC_PWP129.pdf

. 15 Note : a. Corn/soybean rotation. 16
Table 4

- 43. Lawns managed by homeowners versus lawn service s 17 “Reported nitrogen fertilization can average over 1 00 lbs/ac/yr when homeowners apply 18 fertilizers to over 200 lbs/ac/yr when they are app lied by commercial lawn care companies” 19 (Morton et al. 1988). Results obtained from a National Gardening Associa tion survey indicate 20 that 83.9 percent of households apply fertilizers t o their lawns and 63.8 percent apply pesticides 21 (National Gardening Association, 2000). 223/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 132 

### 5. 2. 3 .4 Pesticide Applications 1 Pesticide use varies widely, but herbicides are most commonly applied by for home and garden 2 appliers ( applications at approximately 70 percent ) , followed by insecticides and miticides, 3 fungicides, and other pesticides

. (Fishel 2007). The herbicide 2,4-D is the most wid ely used 4 active ingredient. Homeowners are most commonly instructed to follow the label instructions to 5 determine application rates. By examining instructi ons from two such labels for commercially 6 available herbicides (below), one can estimate an a nnual amount of pesticides applied to lawns in 7 the Chesapeake Bay watershed, assuming all high-inp ut turf acreage is subject to pesticide 8 application at prescribed rates. 9

• Ortho® Weed B Gon® contains the following active in gredients: 6.42 percent 2,4-D, 10 2.13 percent Quinclorac, 0.60 percent Dicamba). The label recommends a maximum of 11 two applications per year. The prescribed applicati on rate yields 1.94 lb 2,4-D/acre, 0.78 12 lb Quinclorac/acre, 0.18 lb Dicamba/acre. If this product were applied to the estimated 13 1.71 million acres of high-input turf in the Chesap eake Bay watershed, the total annual 14 application of the three herbicide constituents wou ld be 3.31 million pounds of 2,4-D, 15 1.33 million pounds of Quinclorac, and 307,000 poun ds of Dicamba. 16

• Gordon’s® Trimec® Lawn Weed Killer contains the fol lowing active ingredients: 6.30 17 percent 2,4-D, 1.51 percent Mecoprop (MCPP), and 0. 70 percent Dicamba. The label 18 recommends a maximum of two applications per year. The prescribed application rate 19 yields 1.6 lb 2,4-D/acre, 0.40 lb MCPP/acre, 0.18 l b Dicamba/acre. If this product were 20 applied to the estimated 1.71 million acres of high -input turf in the Chesapeake Bay 21 watershed, the total annual application of the thre e herbicide constituents would be 2.73 22 million pounds of 2,4-D, 682,000 pounds of MCPP, an d 307,000 pounds of Dicamba

. 23 The label instructions on herbicide products prescr ibe the application rates and the optimal 24 timing and weather conditions to minimize overspray and environmental effects. Actual 25 consumer habits, however, could vary, which affect runoff concentrations and the timing of 26 discharges. Other products contain both herbicides and fertili zers and are grouped in the weed 27 and feed

category. 28



### 5. 2. 4 Irrigation 29 Turfgrass tends to require more water than many com monly used landscape plants, and 30 homeowners have a tendency to overwater turfgrass. Consequently, turfgrass-dominated 31 landscapes commonly use more water than landscapes consisting of a mix of groundcovers, 32 shrubs, and trees. Grass generally consumes eight u nits of water compared to the same area of 33 trees (five units), and shrubs and ground covers (f our units) (Foster 1994). 34 A typical recommendation for lawn-watering during d ry periods is one inch per week. To use the 35 numbers reported above for the Chesapeake Bay, 1.7 million acres of turf are considered high 36 input and would likely be irrigated at the one inch per week rate. Under those recommendations, 37 46.33 billion gallons of water would be applied per week, or, assuming 12 weeks of dry weather 38 per year, nearly 556 billion gallons of water annua lly. Almost all that water would be potable 39 water except water supplied at facilities such as g olf courses and corporate campuses where 40 surface water retention ponds are used for irrigati on water supplies. 413/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 133 

### 5.2.7 Energy and Air Quality 1 Lawns that are mowed have energy costs and air qual ity impacts, depending on the type of 2 mower used. According to Paul Tukey, founder of Saf eLawns.org, a Maine-based nonprofit 3 dedicated to minimizing the environmental effect oflawn care, gas-powered mowing, weed4 whacking and edging a modest-sized lawn (625 square feet) for one month would use 5 approximately 6 kilowatt hours or 0.2 gallons of ga s (Mosko 2009). 6 Gas-powered lawn tools are also significant sources of smog and carbon monoxide. According to 7 Clean Air Lawn Care’s Clean Lawn Calculator (http:/ /www.cleanairlawncare.com/calculator/), 8 assuming conditions consistent with Maryland or Vir ginia with 36 mows per year for 1.7 million 9 acres of high-input turf in the Chesapeake Bay wate rshed, gas-powered lawn equipment 10 produces 3,891,470,584 annual pounds of air polluti on. That number can be reduced to 11 2,233,912,919 by using electric lawn equipment (pow ered by conventional energy) because 12 electric mowers emit 3,300 times less hydrocarbons, 5,000 times less carbon monoxide, and one13 fifth as much smog-forming N oxides as gas lawn mow ers. Self-powered push mowers do not 14 generate any air pollution, and they have the added benefit of mulching and depositing grass 15 clippings on the lawn. 16 A recent study of four parks in Irvine, California, evaluated carbon storage and nitrous oxide 17 emissions from two types of turf: ornamental lawns (picnic areas) that are largely undisturbed, 18 and athletic fields (soccer and baseball) that are often trampled and replanted and aerated 19 frequently (American Geophysical Union 2010). Soil samples indicated carbon storage and air 20 samples over the turf measured nitrous oxide emissi ons. Carbon dioxide emissions associated 21 with lawn maintenance from fuel consumption, irriga tion and fertilizer production were also 22 considered. Nitrous oxide emissions from the lawns were comparable to those found in 23 agricultural farms, and nitrous oxide emissions fro m fertilization offset just 10 percent to 30 24 percent of carbon sequestration. Fossil fuel consum ption for managing ornamental lawns was 25 calculated to release approximately four times more carbon dioxide than the plots can take up. 26 Athletic fields were worse because soil disruption by tilling and resodding caused the areas to 27 trap less carbon than ornamental grass but required similar maintenance. 28



### 5.3 Turf Management Strategies, Practices, Resources an d Examples 29 

### 5.3.1 Fertilizer Management 30 The best way to prevent pollution from overfertiliz ing lawns is to use soil tests to determine the 31 actual nutrient needs of the lawn. Soil tests range from simple to complex and can provide a 32 range of information, from qualitative levels of N, phosphorus (P), and potassium and soil pH to 33 precise levels of macro- and micronutrients. Typica l home kits provide results that will indicate 34 the proper ratio of N, P, and potassium and the rat e at which fertilizer should be applied based on 35 the limiting nutrient. Spreaders used to apply the fertilizer should be carefully calibrated to 36 ensure even application at prescribed rates. 37 The timing of fertilizer application is also import ant. Typically lawn fertilizer should be applied 38 in early spring early in the growing season. Weathe r is also a consideration because fertilizer 393/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 134 should not be applied during or before wind or rain storms to prevent pollution of air and surface 1 runoff. 2 Some communities have implemented policies to restr ict fertilizer application or prohibit 3 phosphorus-containing fertilizers in watersheds tha t are sensitive to P enrichment. The following 4 are examples of such types of policies. 5

• Chesapeake Bay Program Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): On September 22, 6 2006, the Chesapeake Executive Council, Headwater S tate Jurisdictions, and members of 7 the lawn care product manufacturing industry signed an MOU that will achieve a 50 8 percent reduction in the pounds of P in do-it-yours elf lawn care products by 2009 (as 9 compared to a 2006 base year). This MOU further com mits the signatories to reduce N 10 nutrient losses by recommending possible changes in product content, form, or 11 application method, as well as develop outreach mat erials to educate the general public 12 on the use of fertilizers. 13


### Annapolis, Maryland, recently became the first muni cipality in the 14 

### Chesapeake Bay watershed to adopt an ordinance bann ing the use 15 

### of fertilizer that contains P. Since January 1, 200 9, residents have 16 

### been required to use only phosphorus-free fertilize r, except in 17 

### gardens, on newly established turf, and in cases wh ere a soil test 18 

### shows a P deficiency. For more information, see 5.4.1 Turf 19 

### Asses s ments 20 Municipalities and facility owners should conduct a n assessment of turf areas to identify 21 essential v ersu s nonessential turf and opportunities to reduce turf and decrease the inputs for turf 22 areas that are retained

. Examples of essential turf areas include turf for t ransit paths, security, 23 historic preservation or dedicated recreational purposes such as picnic areas and ball fields

. 24 Nonessential turf areas potentially include those areas cultivated in turf only for aesthetic 25 purposes only

. Many of th o se areas can be converted t o less input

- intensive ground covers, 26 shrubs, or trees (e.g., grass consumes eight units of water, trees consume five units, and shrubs 27 and other ground covers consume four units (Schueler 2000a))

. 28
To reduce both the environmental effe cts of turf and management costs, c ommunities and land 29 managers across the country to varying degrees are identifying areas that are mow zones, low

30 mow zones and no

- mow zone s in an effort to reduce maintenance and provide increased 31 ecological value from landscaped areas

. Converting turfed areas back to naturalized areas i s also 32 a strategy to eliminate the need to irrigate, ferti lize , and apply pesticides except in cases where 33 disease or invasive species are problematic

. 34
For areas that will remain as turf, further evaluation can identify areas that wi ll be actively 35 managed (high

- input) versus those that will be mowed and not treated with fertilizers and 36 pesticides

. Facilities, campuses and other managers of large tracts of land should develop 37 landscape management plans, maps and operation and maintenance plans to prope rly manage 38 each designated cate gory of vegetative cover including high

- input and low

- input turf areas

. 39 Facility managers also may want to limit the creation or retention of h igh

- input areas to the most 40 visible and u s ed landscaped areas (e.g., areas adjacent to building entrances , transit paths or areas 413/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 135 where high quality turf is deemed essential)

. In contrast, lawns along the side and back of 1 buildings or at the edges of parking lots m ight not require such intensive management and can be 2 designated as low

- input and low

- mow areas. Examples of turf conversion or reduction strategie s 3 are provided below. 4
University of Ne vada Los Vegas Turf Conversion 5

• Since 1995 the University of Nevada Los Vegas has r educed turf on campus by 6 1,056,126 square feet, with an estimated water savi ngs of more than 9 million gallons and 7 more than $20,000 annually. Its efforts include computer

- co ntrolled watering of campus 8 turf in compliance with water authority guidelines, enabling automatic shutdown with the 9 use of flow sensors, decoders, and automatic irriga tion adjustment through an 10 evapotranspiration database, which is linked to the universit y’s weather station for 11 automatic irrigation adjustment because of changes in weather. All landscaping around 12 new buildings is now xeriscape d , and more than 50,000 square feet of turf has been 13 replaced with desert landscaping at the Shadow Lane Campus

. A l andscape design is in 14 progress to reduce the heat

- island effect of parking lots through tree planting in a project 15 being planned in partnership with the U.S. Division of Forestry. 16 www.annapolis.gov/upload/images/government/council/ Adopted/o1008.pdfhttp://barrick 17 museum.unlv.edu/xeric/turf.html

. 18
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protecti on (NJDEP) is mandating that 19 more than 100 New Jersey municipalities adopt local ordinances prohibiting the use of 20 fertilizers containing P except under special circu mstances (see ordinance details at 21 Henderson, Nevada, Turf Reduction Program 22 Henderson Parks and Recreatio n Department has a turf reduction program that invo lves 23 removing nonfunctional turf from targeted areas in the parks system and replacing it with more 24 efficient xeriscape d areas . Since 2003, more than 85 turf conversion projects have been 25 completed, removi ng more than 1.2 million square feet of turf, mostl y from medians, parking 26 lots, and areas where turf is primarily decorative. This turf removal has translated into an annual 27 savings of more than 68 million gallons of water. T he program was funded through a variety of 28 grants and rebates rather than tax dollars. 29 www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/DOCS/TMDL/Fertiliz er Application Model 30 Ordinance.pdfhttp://www.city ofhenderson.com/parks/parks/turf

- conversion.php ). The state is 31 also working to reduce fertilizer application state wide. In April 2008 NJDEP signed an MOU 32 with two major fertilizer producers to address P us e in lawn fertilizers to reduce the amount of P 33 in their lawn fertilizer products, distribute these products in garden centers statewide and work 34 with NJDEP to develop strategies to educate the pub lic about proper selection and use of lawn 35 fertilizer. For more information, see Recent Partnership Limits Phosphorus in New Jersey 36 Fertilizer , on page 12 of Nonpoint Source News-Notes issue 86, at

. 373/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 136 University of Waterloo Campus Landscape Study 1

• A study was undertaken at the University of Waterlo o in Ontario, Canada, to develop a 2 methodology for assessing al l campus areas to identify candidates for turf conv ersion 3 (Hassan 2000)

. The study included an evaluation of stakeholder pre ferences, including 4 turf users (students and faculty) and university st aff who maintain turf areas

. A set of 5 criteria were establish ed for evaluating existing turf areas based on curr ent conditions, 6 visibility and aesthetics, and feasibility and suit ability for alternate plantings

. 7 www.epa.gov/NewsNotes/pdf/86issue.pdfhttp://www .adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgree 8 n/projects/library/grass.pdf

. 9
Township of Jefferson, New Jersey: Within the towns hip, no person, firm, corporation, or 10 franchise is to apply liquid or granular fertilizer containing P. No lawn fertilizer of any 11 kind is to be applied on frozen ground or within 10 feet of a body of water, including 12 wetlands. Resource 13

• Hassan, S. 2000

. Campus Landscape Study: The Conversion of Turf Area s to Alternate 14 Forms of Ground Cover

. http://www.jeffersontownship.net/Cit-e15 Access/news/index.cfm?NID=3762&TID=4&jump2=0http:// www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/info 16 wast/watgree n/projects/library/grass.pdf 17

• Montville Township, New Jersey: Adopted July 2008, applying fertilizer is prohibited 18 during a runoff-producing rainfall or before a runo ff-producing rainfall is predicted to 19 occur. Fertilizer application is also prohibited wh en soils are saturated and fertilizer can 20 move off-site. Application is further prohibited on impervious surfaces, within 25 feet of 21 a waterbody, and more than 15 days before the start or at any time after the March 15 to 22 October 31 growing season. Phosphorus-containing fe rtilizer is strictly prohibited 23 anywhere outdoors at any time except where demonstr ated to be necessary for the 24 specific soils and target vegetation, as noted by R utgers Cooperative Research and 25 Extension’s annual fertilizer recommendation. 26 http://www.montvillenj.org/index.php?option=com_con tent&task=view&id=487 27

• Suffolk County, New York, Fertilizer Prohibition: A new law prohibits lawn fertilizer 28 applications from November 1 to April 1 to prevent N runoff from frozen ground. The 29 law, which also requires retailers to post signs ne ar fertilizer displays advising customers 30 of the date restrictions, took effect in January 20 09. Violators, whether landscapers or 313/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 137 homeowners, risk fines of $1,000. Licensed landscap ers are required to participate in a 4- 1 hour, county-sponsored session administered by the Cornell Cooperative Extension to 2 renew their licenses. For more information, see 3 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/nyregion/long4 island/15fertilizerli.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 5

• Highland Park, Illinois, Phosphorus-Based Fertilize r Ordinance: The Ordinance prohibits 6 the application of fertilizer containing P to any a rea within city limits unless the user 7 meets one of the three allowable circumstances cont ained in the ordinance. For example, 8 the fertilizer containing P can be used in areas wh ere the ambient P content is below the 9 median P area for typical soils or the fertilizer i s used under a tree canopy. The ordinance 10 further prevents the retail sale of fertilizer cont aining P within city limits. For more 11 information, see http://www.cityhpil.com/pdf/Phosph orus12 BasedFertilizerOrdinance.DOC 13

• Wisconsin Phosphorus Ban: In April 2009, Wisconsin Governor Doyle signed the Clean 14 Lakes bill (2009 Wisconsin Act 9). The bill establi shed a statewide law prohibiting the 15 display, sale and use of lawn fertilizer containing P, with certain reasonable exceptions 16 (e.g., when establishing grass or when a soil test shows that P is needed). The law takes 17 effect in April 2010, which gives retailers time to prepare. Although retailers will not be 18 permitted to display turf fertilizer that is labele d as containing P, they may post a sign 19 advising customers that turf fertilizer containing P is available upon request for qualified 20 uses. The prohibition does not apply to the followi ng: the use of manure that is 21 mechanically dried, ground, or pelletized, or to a finished sewage sludge product; the use 22 of fertilizer that contains P to establish grass du ring the first growing season; the 23 application of fertilizer where soils are deficient in P; and agricultural land. Violators 24 may be required to forfeit not more than $50 for a first violation and not less than $200 25 nor more than $500 for a second or subsequent viola tion. For more information, see 26 http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB-3.pdf. 27

• Dane County Wisconsin: As of January 2005, no perso n in Dane County could apply 28 lawn fertilizer labeled as containing anything more than 0 percent P. Restrictions on lawn 29 fertilizer application also include applying any ty pe of fertilizer on frozen or impervious 30 surfaces. http://www.danewaters.com/management/phos phorus.aspx 31

• Minnesota Fertilizer, Soil Amendment, and Plant Ame ndment Law: Minnesota enacted a 32 statewide law in 2005 prohibiting the use of P lawn fertilizer unless new turf or lawn is 33 being established, a soil test shows a need for P, or P is being applied to a golf course or 34 sod growing area by trained staff. When such situat ions do not exist, state law requires 35 phosphorus-free lawn fertilizer to be used. For mor e information about the law, see 36 http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/waterprotecti on/phoslaw.aspx. 37

• Buffalo, Minnesota: Effective in 2000, lawn fertili zers were not to be applied on frozen 38 ground, specified as being between November 15 and April 15. And at no time can any 39 person, firm, corporation, or franchise apply liqui d or granular fertilizer within the city 40 limits that contains phosphates. Fertilizer applica tion is prohibited on impervious surfaces 41 and on surfaces within drainage ditches or waterway s or within 10 feet of a water 42 resource. http://www.ci.buffalo.mn.us/Admin/CityCod e/1056.htm 433/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 138 • Sanibel City, Florida: With respect to turf and lan dscape plants, fertilizers cannot contain 1 more than 2 percent P or more than 20 percent N, wi th 70 percent of the N required to be 2 slow release. Applications are maxed out at one pou nd of N per 1,000 square feet, for a 3 total of 4 pounds of N per 1,000 square feet in any one year. Fertilizer can be applied up 4 to six times in one year to a single area. Further, no fertilizer is to be applied on 5 impervious surfaces or within 25 feet of a body of water. Retail businesses were required 6 to post notices about the new regulation near the f ertilizer to inform customers. 7 http://www.sanibelh2omatters.com/documents/CITY%20A PPROVES%20ENVIRONM 8 ENTALLY%20FRIENDLY%20REGULATIONS%20FOR%20FERTILIZER %20USE% 9 20ON%20ISLAND.pdf 10

• Bellingham, Washington, Municipal Code: The city’s municipal code contains 11 restrictions pertaining to commercial phosphorus-ba sed fertilizer. The municipal code 12 prohibits the application of commercial fertilizer to residential lawns or public properties 13 within the Bellingham city limits area of the Lake Whatcom watershed, either liquid or 14 granular, that is labeled as containing more than 0 percent P or other compounds 15 containing P, such as phosphate, except when applie d to newly established turf or lawn 16 areas in the first growing season. In addition, the municipal code prohibits applying 17 fertilizer to frozen ground and impervious surfaces and imposes requirements for cleanup 18 of fertilizer that is applied, spilled, or deposite d on impervious surfaces. Bellingham’s 19 Municipal Code is at 20 http://www.cob.org/web/bmcode.nsf/srch/B5D4E84B824F 05EB882561D600601973?Op 21 enDocument. 22

• Whatcom County, Washington: As of April 2005 for La ke Whatcom and June 2007 for 23 Lake Samish, using commercial fertilizers containin g P on residential lawns or on public 24 agency properties in the Lake Whatcom watershed is prohibited. Further, no commercial 25 fertilizer of any kind is allowed to be applied on frozen or impervious surfaces. 26 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/whatcom/Whatco16/Whatco1632. html 27 A few fertilizer bans have been in place for long e nough to measure results. The following are 28 two studies of the effectiveness of fertilizer ban policies in the Midwest. 29

• Reduced River Phosphorus Following Implementation o f a Lawn Fertilizer Ordinance 30 (Ann Arbor, Michigan): As part of its efforts to co mply with a state-imposed P TMDL to 31 reduce 50 percent of P discharges to the Huron Rive r, the city of Ann Arbor enacted an 32 ordinance that went into effect in 2007 to limit P application to lawns. The estimated 33 effect of full compliance was a 22 percent reductio n in P entering the river. The study 34 indicates that after the first year of data collect ion and analysis, statistically significant 35 reductions were documented for total P and, to a le sser degree, for dissolved P for every 36 month from May to September. The research team stat es, “with a considerable degree of 37 confidence that P concentrations were lower in 2008 at experimental sites compared with 38 the reference period (2003 to 2005) and that the re ductions were coincident with a city 39 ordinance restricting use of lawn fertilizers conta ining phosphorus.” However, the study 40 does not conclude that those reductions were caused by enacting the ordinance, but shows 41 that a correlation exists between reductions in P a nd the ordinance (Lehman et al. 2009). 42 http://www.umich.edu/~hrstudy/Reports/LRM_08-40_web. pdf. 433/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 139 • Effectiveness of Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn Fertiliz er Law: The Minnesota Phosphorus 1 Lawn Fertilizer Law directed the Minnesota Commissi oner of Agriculture to report in 2 2007 on the effectiveness of P lawn fertilizer rest rictions. The report indicates that 3 various forms of P-free fertilizers were being sold in stores across the state. For example, 4 the state polled 87 stores and found that in 97 per cent of those stores, phosphorus-free 5 lawn fertilizer was being retailed. In addition, th e report found that the law has reduced 6 the amount of fertilizer containing P that was bein g used. The report showed a reduction 7 of 141 tons of fertilizer used or 48 percent of use between 2003 and 2006. The law has 8 not increased consumer cost for fertilizer and has generally gained consumer support. 9 10 Additionally, since the law’s inception, manufactur ers have been able to adapt to the law 11 and produce new phosphorus-free fertilizer products . Therefore, the change has also 12 expanded the manufacturer’s market for phosphorus-f ree lawn fertilizer in other areas 13 concerned with water quality, including the Chesape ake Bay region, Florida, Michigan, 14 Wisconsin, and other states. The report, however, d ocuments only consumer use and 15 manufacturer development and retail and does not lo ok at the effects on water quality or 16 turf management. It recommends further research to expand on those areas. For more 17 information, see the Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn Fert ilizer Law: 18 http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/waterprotecti on/phoslaw.aspx. and the Minnesota 19 Effectiveness Report of Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer Law: 20 http://www.mda.state.mn.us/en/sitecore/content/Glob al/MDADocs/protecting/waterprote 21 ction/07phoslawreport.aspx. 22


### 5.3.2 Pesticide Management 23

. Accessed February 17, 2010

. 24



### 5.4.2 Low Input Turf and Lawns 25 Barth (2000) found provide s recommendations on how to achieve a low

- input lawn s , u sing the 26 following eight steps : 27 1. Lawn conversion: Convert lawn areas into groundcove r, trees, shrubs, or meadow 28 plantings. For a low

- input approach, replace the grass underneath mature tree s with 29 groundcover. For an even lower input approach, exam ine the lawn for potential 30 conversion areas and plant ground covers, trees, shrubs, or perennials in all areas w here 31 grass is hard to grow. For the lowest input approach, use turf only where it is t he best 32 plant to fulfill a particular function, such as pro viding a sports area. 33 2. Soil building: Provide a strong foundation for the lawn. For a low

- input lawn, get a 34 soil test to determine the soil’s pH an d fertility. Fertilizer and lime may not be need ed

. 35 For a lower input lawn, test for soil compaction. C an you sink a screwdriver into the 36 ground without pounding , or is the soil compacted? If the soil is compacted , aerate it with 37 a hand corer or mechanical aerator. For the lowest input lawn, examine the so il’s 38 texture

— neither extremely sandy soils nor extremely heavy c lay soils make for good 39 lawns. Next count earthworms

— if none can be found in a square foot of soil, ther e i s a 40 problem. A healthy soil commun ity has more than 10 earthworms per square foot. With 413/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 140 th at basic understanding of soil acidity, fertility, co mpaction, texture, and earthworms, 1 one can build soil that supports dense, healthy tur f that can infiltrate runoff. 2 3. Grass selection: Choose the typ e of grass that will be easiest to grow. For a low

- input 3 lawn, select hardy grass species adapted to the reg ion’s climate , such as those 4 recommended by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (2007) in Healthy Lawns, Healthy 5 Waters (insert text box with listing of a ppropriate species for Ches. Bay) . For a lower 6 input lawn, select named grass varieties to meet yo ur specific needs. For the lowest input 7 lawn, try the new low

- input , slow

- growing or dwarf grass mixes. 8 4. Mowing and thatch management: Mow to the right heig ht at the right time and 9 recycle clippings. For a low

- input lawn, leave clippings on the lawn to provide nutrients 10 and moisture. For a lower input lawn, set mowing he ight as high as possible. For the 11 lowest input lawn, adjust mowing height and frequen cy durin g the growing season and 12 monitor thatch levels. 13 5. Minimal fertilization: Give the lawn what it needs but do n o t overfeed. For a low

14 input lawn, recycle clippings and (in the right sea son) apply commercial fertilizer at half 15 the recommended rate; avoid weed a nd feed formulations and do n o t fertilize if rain is 16 imminent. For a lower input lawn, fertilize as abov e but use encapsulated nitrogen or an 17 organic product instead

— and fertilize only if soil tests show it i s needed. For the lowest 18 input lawn, substitute home generated compost for commercial organic or en capsulated 19 products

. Address the use of non

- phosphorus fertilizers and the use of compost as a soil 20 amendment and fertilizer. 21 1. Weed control and tolerance: Establish a realistic t olerance level for weeds and use 22 least toxic control methods to maintain it. For a low-input lawn, use least toxic weed 23 control methods such as cultivation, solarization, flaming, mowing, or herbicidal soap. 24 For a lower input lawn, grow strong healthy grass a nd it will crowd out weeds. For the 25 lowest input lawn, broaden your definition of lawn to include weeds that perform 26 desirable functions. 27 2. Integrated pest management: Establish a realistic t olerance level for pests and use 28 least toxic control methods to maintain it. For a low-input lawn, use least toxic control 29 methods such as removing or trapping pests, introdu cing biological control agents, or 30 apply least toxic chemical controls such as insecti cidal soaps. For a lower input lawn, 31 grow strong, healthy grass that can resist attack. For the lowest input lawn, use cultural 32 controls to prevent infestation, protect natural pr edators, and add beneficial soil microbes. 33
34 As of January 1, 2010, products containing a combin ation of fertilizer and herbicide (commonly 35 known as weed and feed) are no longer available for sale or use in the Canadian province of 36 Alberta. That ban on the use of weed and feed ferti lizers is because of potential health and 37 environmental impacts. Because weed and feed is app lied to an entire lawn, regardless of the size 38 of the weed infestation, it results in an over-appl ication of the herbicide 2, 4-D. Herbicide-only 39 products will still be available for spot applicati on, because they result in less surplus chemical 40 draining from the lawn, running into storm sewers a nd entering waterways (Environment Alberta 41 2010). 423/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 141 

### 5.3.3 Mowing 1 Lawn mowing practices can affect the amount of fert ilizer, pesticide, and Sensible irrigation 2 inputs needed. Mowing to a height of at least three inches shades out weeds, slows moisture loss, 3 protects grass vigor, and encourages deeper root gr owth. When grass is mowed too low, the soil 4 is exposed to light, which can stimulate weed seed germination (Barth 2000). 5 Mowing frequency is also an important factor. A gen eral rule is to ensure that no more than one6 third of the grass leaf be cut at one time to preve nt plant damage. Actual mowing frequency will 7 depend on the rate at which the grass is growing, w hich varies throughout the year (Barth 2000). 8 Recycling grass clippings by mulching them with a m ulching mower and leaving them on the 9 lawn provides nutrients, helps to build soils, and preserves landfill space. According to surveys, 10 nearly 60 percent of Chesapeake Bay residents pract ice this form of grass recycling. Using a 11 composting mower can help meet at least a one-fourt h of the nutrient needs of a yard and saves 12 time required to bag the clippings (Town of Culpepe r 2009). A study by the University of 13 Connecticut Agricultural Station, as reported by Ba rth (2000), found that most of the N from 14 recycled clippings was incorporated into new grass growth within a week. The same study 15 showed that 80 percent of the N had returned to the lawn after 3 years. 16


### 5.3.4 Soil Amendments 17 Soil amendments can be used to enhance soil propert ies, increase the infiltrative and retentive 18 capacity of soils. Soils can be amended by adding s and or other bulk materials, organic matter 19 such as compost, inorganic or organic fertilizers. There is some evidence that the use of compost 20 teas and the inoculation of soils with soil microbe s and mycorrhizal fungi can increase soil health 21 and plant productivity, but additional research is needed. 22 By mechanically treating, aerating, and amending di sturbed soils, the physical structure of the 23 soil can be improved, bulk density can be reduced, and the porosity and infiltrative capacity of 24 the soils enhanced. In fine-textured (clay, clay lo am) soils, the addition of compost/organic 25 materials will reduce bulk density, improve friabil ity (workability) and porosity, and increase its 26 gas and : Practice water permeability, thus reducing erosion. When used in sufficient quantities, 27 adding compost/organic materials will provide both immediate and long-term positive effects on 28 soil structure so that fine-textured soils will res ist compaction and increase their water holding 29 capacity. Soil aggregation in coarse-textured (sand y) soils will be improved. 30 McDonald (2004) specifies 2 to 4 inches of compost tilled into the upper 8 to 12 inches of soil, 31 depending on soil type, before planting. Balousek ( 2003) showed a marked decrease in surface 32 runoff volume (36 to 53 percent) when compacted soi ls were chisel-plowed and deep-tilled, and 33 when soils were also amended with compost, runoff w as reduced by 74 percent to 91 percent. 34 Additionally, compost is good source of N, P, and p otassium and contains micronutrients 35 essential for plant growth. Therefore, adding compo st can also have a positive effect on the use 36 of fertilizer and pH adjustment (lime/sulfur additi on) and help reduce soil compaction. The 37 benefits of compost are described in more detail in the Composting Council fact sheet, Using 38 Compost in Stormwater Management , at www.compostingcouncil.org. 39 The city of Redmond, Washington, has developed Guidelines for Landscaping with Compost 40 Amended Soils (City of Redmond Public Works 1998). In addition t o the guidelines, the 413/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 142 document also contains data on the comparative cost s of the use of soil amendments versus the 1 use of other soil preparation methods and describes the benefits in terms of payback and 2 increased infiltration rates and reduced runoff. Th e city also quantified the reduced costs for 3 detention facilities accrued through the use of com post amended soils due to the increase in 4 moisture holding capacity of the amended soils. Acc ording to Hielema (1996), “the amended 5 plots generated 53 percent to 74 percent of the run off volume produced by unamended plots 6 under saturated conditions.” Thus, under such condi tions, stormwater detention facilities could 7 be reduced in size because of the holding capacity of the amended soils. 8 McCoy (2006) noted that soil amendments and soil tr eatments can be used to reduce compaction 9 and increase infiltration. For example, additions o f sand and gravel in the design of multiple 10 layer soil profiles can reduce soil compaction and have the potential to decrease runoff and retain 11 water for subsequent evapotranspiration. 12


### 5.3.5 Water Management 13 Landscape irrigation wastes up to 1.5 billion gallo ns of water every day across the country (EPA 14 WaterSense). As reported by Mosko (2009), the Metro politan Water District of Southern 15 California determined that up to 70 percent of resi dential water use in Southern California is for 16 outdoor irrigation, particularly lawns. Although th e number of lawns in California is unknown, 17 84 percent of respondents in a 2000 statewide Air R esources Board survey described having a 18 lawn area, and the San Diego Union recently reporte d an estimate that residential lawns cover 19 300,000 acres and annually soak up 1.5 million acre -feet of water. 20 According to Mosko (2009), the most popular grasses in Southern California are fescues, which 21 generally require one inch of water per week during dry months and mowing about every other 22 week. Assuming modest-sized lawn areas of 25 feet b y 25 feet in both front and in back yards, 23 the lawns could consume, in a single month, in exce ss of 3,000 gallons of water plus the 34 24 kilowatt hours of electricity required deliver the water to Southern California homes. 25 Among other things, irrigation water waste is a pro duct of inefficient system design, leaks, 26 improper nozzle use, broken nozzles, improper syste m pressure and improper watering 27 schedules. Excess water use can result in adverse e nvironmental impacts, including over-drafting 28 groundwater resources, reduced stream flows, water quality degradation, and disruptions to the 29 ecosystems that depend on the water supplies (Vicke rs 2001). 30 Landscapes with automatic irrigation systems use mo re water than landscapes that water by 31 hand. In-ground sprinkler systems, automatic timers for irrigation, and drip irrigation systems 32 use 35 percent, 47 percent, and 16 percent more wat er than residences without these systems, 33 respectively (Mayer and DeOreo 1998). Although, han d-watering or using drought-tolerant 34 vegetation is most efficient, when irrigation syste ms are desired, reduced water consumption can 35 result from using efficient equipment; proper desig n, installation, and maintenance of systems; 36 and performing irrigation system audits regularly. 37
Efficient Irrigation Controllers 38 Weather-based irrigation controllers can produce wa ter savings when replacing standard clock 39 timer controllers. Weather-based controllers schedu le irrigation according to landscape needs 403/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 143 and local weather conditions. The technology elimin ates the need for manual adjustments to the 1 irrigation schedule. In a Las Vegas, Nevada-based s tudy, researchers found that 2 evapotranspiration-based controllers saved 20 perce nt more water than non-evapotranspiration3 based controllers (Devitt et al. 2008). In an Irvin g, California, study, researchers found the use of 4 weather-based evapotranspiration controllers result ed in average water conservation savings of 5 41 gallons/day. Highest water savings were seen in the summer and fall when irrigation system 6 use is highest. Researchers also found an average r unoff reduction of 50 percent for those sites 7 that employed use of weather-based irrigation contr ollers (IRWD 2004). 8 EPA’s WaterSense program has released a draft speci fication for weather-based irrigation 9 controllers and will label water-efficient controll ers that meet its specification. Weather-based 10 irrigation controllers that earn the label must dem onstrate that they meet the watering needs of a 11 typical landscape while not overwatering. For more information on the WaterSense label for 12 irrigation controllers, see http://www.epa.gov/wate rsense/products/controltech.html 13
Efficient Irrigation Practices 14 To distribute water evenly to an irrigated landscap e, an irrigation system must be designed and 15 installed with water efficiency in mind. Poorly des igned irrigation systems result in water loss by 16 overwatering certain landscape areas causing runoff while under-watering other areas. 17 Landscape caretakers that use an irrigation system should ensure that the system is operating 18 efficiently by understanding the distribution unifo rmity (DU) of the irrigation system. DU is a 19 measure of the evenness of water applied to a lands cape. An optimally performing irrigation 20 system will have a DU of 80 percent for rotary spri nklers and 75 percent for spray sprinklers 21 (The Irrigation Association 2007). 22 To test the DU of an irrigation system, a catch-can test is performed. A catch-can test involves 23 several steps: (1) note location of sprinkler heads ; (2) place identically sized containers near each 24 sprinkler head and between heads; (3) run the sprin kler system until a minimum of 25 mm of 25 water is collected in a container; (4) record volum e of water collected from each container; (5) 26 calculate the distribution uniformity: 27 DU

= Average catch can volume in lower 25% of catch c ans 28 Average catch can volume overall 29 If the DU of a system is below 50 percent, consider hiring an irrigation professional to adjust the 30 system to obtain better performance and water savin gs. For more information distribution 31 uniformity and the catch can test, see 32 http://www.ci.windsor.ca.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=5 22. 33 EPA’s WaterSense program partners with irrigation p rofessionals trained in water-efficient 34 design, installation and maintenance, and auditing irrigation systems. An irrigation system 35 auditor will perform a catch can test on a property and provide customers with suggestions for 36 improving irrigation system efficiency. Although, a s mentioned, watering by hand is the most 37 efficient means to irrigate a landscape, if an irri gation system is desired, use professionals trained 38 to reduce water consumption. For a list of WaterSen se irrigation professionals, see 39 http://www.epa.gov/watersense/meet_our_partners.htm l. 403/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 144 Deficit irrigation, which is the practice of irriga ting below the maximum water demand of the 1 turfgrass to decrease soil moisture content and wat er use can also be used to reduce water 2 consumption and irrigation. Shearman (2006) reporte d that water savings of 21 and 40 percent 3 were feasible in a test plot in Nebraska when Kentu cky bluegrass received deficit irrigation of 60 4 and 80 percent of potential evapotranspiration whil e maintaining an acceptable turfgrass quality. 5


### 5.3.6 Grass Species Selection 6 Some grass species perform better than others under low-input management. In a 5-year field 7 trial in Rhode Island, hard fescue, tall fescue, co lonial bentgrass, red fescue, and koeleria (prairie 8 junegrass) were able to maintain 100 percent turf c over on poor soil with no irrigation or 9 pesticides after establishment and only 1 to 2 poun ds of N per 1,000 square feet per year applied 10 as organic, granular fertilizer. Kentucky bluegrass and perennial ryegrass were not able to 11 maintain cover under those conditions (Brown, R., p ersonal communication 2010). 12 Another study in Rhode Island concluded that active ly growing turfgrass used an average of 25 13 mm (1 inch) of water per week in July through Septe mber. Average rainfall for the same 12- 14 week period is roughly 300 mm (12 inches). The wate r-holding ability of good soil and an ability 15 to go dormant if needed allows the grasses survive despite interannual variations in rainfall 16 patterns and timing. In fact, choosing grasses that can survive a dormancy period, and allowing 17 the plants to go dormant during prolonged dry perio ds is a key strategy for reducing water use 18 (Carrow et al. 2008). 19 According to Beard and Green (1994), “the proper st rategy based on good science is the use of 20 appropriate low-water-use turfgrasses, trees, and s hrubs for moderate-to-low irrigated landscapes 21 and similarly to select appropriate dehydration-avo idant and drought-resistant turfgrasses, trees, 22 and shrubs for nonirrigated landscape areas.” It is also important when choosing grasses for low23 input management to use improved varieties. The imp roved varieties have denser growth and 24 better disease resistance than common types (Brown, R., personal communication, 2010). 25 Devitt and Morris (2006) note that the need to cons ider the effects of landscape species selection 26 including turf on water conservation and use, i.e., “Plant selection should be given serious 27 consideration in the development of low water-using landscapes.” The authors also recommend 28 that, 29 [E]mphasis should be placed on the following facto rs: 30
1. Price water based on its true societal value as a scarce resource 31 2. Decrease irrigated landscape areas. 32 3. Track irrigations and adjust for changes in the seasonal demand of water. 33 Irrigating based on seasonal demand will almost alw ays use less water than 34 irrigating based on guesswork. 35 4. Adjust landscape expectations down whenever pos sible and be more flexible 36 in plant selection (especially with those plants kn ow to be high water users). 37 Low growth rates by decreasing fertilization and ir rigations to achieve 38 judicious size control. 393/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 145 If turfgrass is planted as ornamental vegetation in a landscape, choose native, drought tolerant, or 1 low-water-use turfgrass species that require less w ater and maintenance. Consult lists of native 2 species of vegetation to identify species appropria te for a site. The Lady Bird Johnson 3 Wildflower Center provides native plant lists for t he United States: http://www.wildflower.org/. 4 Local cooperative extension units can also provide information on planting regionally 5 appropriate species. 6 For functional turf areas, traditional turf species might be desired. Traditional turfgrass is 7 distinguished as warm season or cool season turfgra sses. Warm season turfgrasses, such as 8 Bermuda grasses, zoysia grasses, buffalo grass, lit tle bluestem, and Pennsylvania sedge, are 9 usually more drought tolerant and should be used in warmer climates. Some cool season 10 turfgrasses, such as fine fescues, are drought tole rant but are more appropriate for cold-weather 11 climates. Other cool season turfgrasses, such as Ke ntucky bluegrass, require high amounts of 12 water (35 inches per year just for survival) and ar e inappropriate for many areas in the country 13 (Vickers 2001). 14 One option when selecting grass species is to incre ase diversity by creating a mixed species lawn 15 that incorporates clovers or legumes into the turf mixture. A uniform distribution of such plants 16 can be achieved by evenly blending it with grass se ed. Benefits include increased drought17 tolerance, lower N needs, increased pest resistance , and decreased weed infestations (Bellows 18 2010). 19 A combination of native grasses can provide a highl y resistant, low-maintenance yard or turf. For 20 example, a combination of little bluestem ( Schizachyrium scoparium ), common or Pennsylvania 21 sedge ( Carex pensylvanica ), and tufted hairgrass ( Deschampsia flexuosa ) is well adapted to the 22 Northeastern coastal areas (Bellows 2010). 23
No mow lawn mixes are composed of slow-growing turf grass es like hard fescue and creeping 24 red fescues, which require little maintenance becau se they have deep roots and are resistant to 25 drought. Sedges and rushes can also be used as a lo w-maintenance ground cover suitable for 26 moist climates (Bellows 2010). 27

Resources 28 The National Turfgrass Evaluation Program develops and coordinates uniform evaluation trials 29 of turfgrass varieties and promising selections in the United States and Canada. The results can 30 be used to determine the broad picture of the adapt ation of a cultivar. Results can also be used to 31 determine if a cultivar is well adapted to a local area or level of turf maintenance. 32 http://www.ntep.org/contents2.shtml 33 The National Sustainable Agriculture Information Se rvice (referred to as ATTRA) offers a 34 Sustainable Turf Care Guide for lawn care professionals, golf course superinte ndents, or anyone 35 with a lawn. The emphasis of the guide is on soil m anagement and cultural practices that 36 enhance turf growth and reduce pests and diseases b y reducing turf stress. It also includes 37 information about mixed species and wildflower lawn s as low maintenance alternatives to pure 38 grass lawns. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/turfca re.html 393/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 146 

### 5.3.7 Turf Assessments 1 Municipalities and facility owners should conduct a n assessment of turf areas to identify 2 essential versus nonessential turf and opportunitie s to reduce turf and decrease the inputs for turf 3 areas that are retained. Examples of essential turf areas include turf for transit paths, security, 4 historic preservation or dedicated recreational pur poses such as picnic areas and ball fields. 5 Nonessential turf areas potentially include those a reas cultivated in turf for aesthetic purposes 6 only. Many of those areas can be converted to less input-intensive ground covers, shrubs, or trees 7 (e.g., grass consumes eight units of water, trees c onsume five units, and shrubs and other ground 8 covers consume four units (Schueler 2000a)). 9 Carrow et al. (2008) provided an outline of the pla nning process and components of golf course 10 BMPs for water use efficiency/conservation that inc ludes a framework for managing golf courses 11 and other landscapes to reduce water use. This asse ssment process, described below in modified 12 form, could be used to plan, assess and implement p rograms to promote water use efficiency and 13 conservation at most large, landscaped facilities o r jurisdictions (adapted from Carrow et al. 14 2008): 15 A. Initial planning and site assessment 16 1. Identification of water conservation measures a nd costs 17 2. Purpose and scope of the site assessment 18 3. Site assessment and information collection 19

a. Current water use profile 20 b. Irrigation/water system distribution audit 21

c. Site assessment information, e.g., alternative wate r sources, golf course design 22 modifications and soil and climate conditions 23 B. Identify, evaluate and select water conservation strategies : and options and use the 24 following 10 Core Water Conservation Strategies: 25 1. Use nonpotable water sources for irrigation—alt ernative water sources; water 26 harvesting/reuse 27 2. Efficient irrigation system design and monitori ng devices for implementing water 28 conservation, e.g., remote sensing and real-time co ntrol devices 29 3. Efficient irrigation system scheduling/operatio n 30 4. Developing and selecting turfgrasses and other landscape plants with respect to water 31 uptake and use requirements in terms of quantity an d quality 32 5. Landscape design for water conservation 33 6. Altering practices to enhance water-use efficie ncy, e.g., soil amendments, cultivation, 34 mowing, fertilization 35 7. Indoor water conservation measures in buildings , air conditioning units, pools, and 36 other facilities associated with a landscape site 37 8. Educating management and staff in water conserv ation management practices and 38 approaches 39 9. Developing formal conservation and contingency plans 403/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 147 10. Monitor and revise plans 1 C. Assess benefits and costs of water conservation measures on stakeholders 2 1. Benefits—direct and indirect 3 2. Costs 4

a. Facility costs for past and planned implementation of water conservation 5 strategies and practices 6 b. Labor needs/costs 7

c. Costs associated with changes in management practic e, e.g., water and soil 8 treatments, posting of signs, training 9
To reduce both the environmental effects of turf an d management costs, communities and land 10 managers across the country to varying degrees are identifying areas that are mow zones, low11 mow zones and no-mow zones in an effort to reduce m aintenance and provide increased 12 ecological value from landscaped areas. Converting turf areas back to naturalized areas is also a 13 strategy to eliminate the need to irrigate, fertili ze, and apply pesticides except in cases where 14 disease or invasive species are problematic. 15 For areas that will remain as turf, further evaluat ion can identify areas that will be actively 16 managed (high-input) versus those that will be mowe d and not treated with fertilizers and 17 pesticides. Facilities, campuses and other managers of large tracts of land should develop 18 landscape management plans, maps and operation and maintenance plans to properly manage 19 each designated category of vegetative cover includ ing high-input and low-input turf areas. 20 Facility managers also might want to limit the crea tion or retention of high-input areas to the 21 most visible and used landscaped areas (e.g., areas adjacent to building entrances, transit paths or 22 areas where high quality turf is deemed essential). In contrast, lawns along the side and back of 23 buildings or at the edges of parking lots might not require such intensive management and can be 24 designated as low-input and low-mow areas. Examples of turf conversion or reduction strategies 25 are provided below. 26

• The U.S. National Arboretum in Washington, D.C., ha s undertaken measures to reduce 27 high-maintenance turf areas (U.S. Department of Agr iculture, Agricultural Research 28 Service, no date). The Arboretum occupies 446 acres of green space, about half of which 29 is taken up by intensely managed gardens, collectio ns, and research plots. Arboretum 30 managers have drastically reduced the area devoted to turf and have changed the way the 31 turf is managed. Large open spaces that were former ly devoted to turf are now managed 32 as meadows and account for about 70 acres, and area s that are frequently mowed have 33 been reduced to just 31 acres. Instead of mowing tu rf areas weekly, as is standard 34 practice, they mow in response to height thresholds , so that the turf is mowed only 13 35 times on average during the growing season instead of 30 times (less if drought slows turf 36 growth). The mowing height threshold is 5 inches, w hich is much higher than is 37 commonly used on corporate campuses or on residenti al turf. They do not generally 38 irrigate or fertilizer turf, do not use pesticides or herbicides, and leave clippings on the 39 turf areas. 40 8. • Since 1995 the University of Nevada Los Vegas has r educed turf on campus by 41 1,056,126 square feet, with an estimated water savi ngs of more than 9 million gallons and 423/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 148 more than $20,000 annually. Its efforts include com puter-controlled watering of campus 1 turf in compliance with water authority guidelines, enabling automatic shutdown with the 2 use of flow sensors, decoders, and automatic irriga tion adjustment through an 3 evapotranspiration database, which is linked to the university’s weather station for 4 automatic irrigation adjustment because of changes in weather. All

- conserving 5 landscaping around ne w buildings is now xeriscape d , and more than 50,000 square feet 6 of turf has been replaced with desert landscaping a t the Shadow Lane Campus

. A 7 landscape design is in progress to reduce the heat

- island effect of parking lots through 8 tree planting in a proje ct being planned in partnership with the U.S. Divis ion of Forestry. 9 http://barrickmuseum.unlv.edu/xeric/turf.html techniques. For a low-input lawn, water 10 infrequently, in the early morning, but soak the la wn well. For a lower input lawn, water 11 only when the lawn definitely needs it and calibrat e sprinklers. For the lowest input lawn, 12 accept that the grass might not be green year round

. 13

• Henderson, Nevada, Parks and Recreation Department has a turf reduction program that 14 involves removing nonfunctional turf from targeted areas in the parks system and 15 replacing it with more efficient xeriscaped areas. Since 2003 more than 85 turf 16 conversion projects have been completed, removing m ore than 1.2 million square feet of 17 turf, mostly from medians, parking lots, and areas where turf is primarily decorative. The 18 turf removal has translated into an annual savings of more than 68 million gallons of 19 water. The program was funded through a variety of grants and rebates rather than tax 20 dollars. http://www.cityofhenderson.com/parks/parks /turf-conversion.php 21

• A study was undertaken at the University of Waterlo o in Ontario, Canada, to develop a 22 methodology for assessing all campus areas to ident ify candidates for turf conversion 23 (Hassan 2000). The study included an evaluation of stakeholder preferences, including 24 turf users (students and faculty) and university st aff who maintain turf areas. A set of 25 criteria were established for evaluating existing t urf areas based on current conditions, 26 visibility and aesthetics, and feasibility and suit ability for alternate plantings. 27 http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/proje cts/library/grass.pdf. 28

Resource 29 Hassan, S. 2000. Campus Landscape Study: The Conver sion of Turf Areas to Alternate Forms of 30 Ground Cover. <http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast /watgreen/projects/library/ 31 grass.pdf>. Accessed February 17, 2010. 323/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 149 

### 5. 4. 3 .8 Turf Restrictions 1
Limiting the amount of landscaped area for turfgras s and high water use plantings can 2 reduce landscape irrigation demand. A number of mun icipalities limit turf areas. For 3 example, the Marin Municipal Water District in Cali fornia limits use of turfgrass and high 4 water use plants to 35 percent of the total landsca ped area (Marin Municipal Water 5 District Ordinance 326, In Vickers 2001). Clark County, Nevada , Turf Limits 6 Clark County, Nevada, has set limits on turf areas for new properties according to based on 7 drought conditions. Under non-drought conditions, t he following limits apply: 8

• Single-family homes: 50 percent of a front yard can be grass, not including driveway or 9 parking areas

. 10

• Multifamily (apartments, condos) and nonresidential developments: 30 percent of an area 11 set aside for landscaping can be grass, excluding p arking lots and driveways

. 12

• Golf courses: Limited to a maximum of 90 acres for 18 holes and 10 acres for driving 13 ranges

. 14 For nonresidential landscapes, installing installation of new turf is prohibited during drought 15 conditions, with some exceptions for public spaces that have functional turf. For single-family 16 and multifamily developments, installing new turf i s prohibited in common areas of residential 17 neighborhoods during a Drought Watch, and during a more severe Drought Alert, new turf is 18 prohibited in residential front yards and cannot ex ceed 50 percent of the gross area of the side or 19 rear yard or 100 square feet, whichever is greater. A maximum of 5,000 square feet of turf is 20 permitted. The details of the Clark County Drought Restrictions are at 21 http://library.municode.com/HTML/16214/level2/T30pt 2_30.64.html #T30pt2_30.64_30.64.070

. 22



### 5. 3.9 4. 4 Incentives for Landscape Conversion 23 Some communities use incentives to urge property ow ners to convert their lawns to less 24 maintenance-intensive landscaping. The following ar e examples of lawn conversion incentive 25 programs. 26
Southern Nevada Water Authority Water Smart Landsca pes Rebate 27 The Southern Nevada Water Authority ’s (SNWA) Water Smart Landscapes rebate helps 28 property owners convert water

- thirsty grass to xeriscape . SNWA will rebate customers $1.50 per 29 square foot of grass removed and replaced with dese rt landscaping up to the first 5,000 square 30 feet converted per p roperty, per year. Beyond the first 5,000 feet, SNW A will provide a rebate of 31 $1 per square foot. The maximum award for any property in a fiscal year is $300,000. 32 http://www.snwa.com/html/cons_wsl.html 33

Town of Cary, North Carolina , Turf Buy Back Program 34

• Cary, North Carolina, has initiated a one-time, $500 per property payment to 35 homeowners who convert at least 1,000 square feet o f historically irrigated turf to natural 36 area or warm-season grass. Homeowners must demonstr ate past irrigation, submit a 373/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 150 description of their conversion project, and provid e receipts documenting the project. 1 Customers are allowed a waiver of alternate-day wat ering restrictions to encourage 2 establishment of new plantings, and thereafter are required to reduce their water budgets 3 by 25 percent. A post-conversion site review is con ducted to confirm successful 4 establishment of the replacement landscape. During spring and summer months, the town 5 anticipates a savings of about 675 gallons per mont h for each 1,000 square feet converted 6 to natural landscape, and approximately 567 gallons saved per month for each 1,000 7 square feet of warm season grass conversion (Town o f Cary 2009). 8 http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Public_Works_ and_Utilities/Conservation/ 9 Water_Conservation/Incentive_Programs/Turf_Buy_Back _Program/ 10 Turf_Buy_Back_Program_Fact_Sheet.htm 11

• The Southern Nevada Water Authority’s (SNWA’s) Wate r Smart Landscapes rebate 12 helps property owners convert water-thirsty grass t o xeriscape. SNWA will rebate 13 customers $1.50 per square foot of grass removed an d replaced with desert landscaping 14 up to the first 5,000 square feet converted per pro perty, per year. Beyond the first 5,000 15 feet, SNWA will provide a rebate of $1 per square f oot. The maximum award for any 16 property in a fiscal year is $300,000. http://www.s nwa.com/html/cons_wsl.html 17

Resources 18 EPA’s WaterSense program has a specification for wa ter-efficient, single-family new homes that 19 includes landscape criteria. The specification requ ires use of a water budget tool to help calculate 20 a regionally appropriate allotment of turfgrass for a residence or a turfgrass reduction to 40 21 percent of the landscaped area. Although the tool i s designed for use by builders designing new 22 homes, consumers can use it in existing landscapes to help understand whether their use of 23 turfgrass and other high water using plants is appr opriate for their region. To learn more about 24 the water budget tool, see http://www.epa.gov/water sense/nhspecs/homes_final.html 25 The Sustainable Sites Initiative provides guidance on sustainable landscaping. One of the criteria 26 for which it has developed guidance is site design for water conservation. To participate in the 27 program, landscapes are required to reduce potable water use for irrigation by 50 percent from a 28 baseline. Reductions can be accomplished through us ing regionally appropriate plantings, 29 irrigation efficiency (drip irrigation), using capt ured rainwater, and using recycled graywater to 30 name a few. To track landscape water savings, Susta inable Sites Initiative uses a water budget 31 tool adapted from EPA’s WaterSense program that has additional criteria, requiring a greater 32 reduction in outdoor water use. For more informatio n, see http://www.sustainablesites.org/. 33

Resources for Landscape Conversion 34 Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2007. Healthy Lawns, Healthy Waters: A Guide to Effective Lawn 35 Care for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

. http://www.cbf.org/Document.Doc?id=59

. 36 Accessed February 9, 2010. 37
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation 38 Landscaping: Chesapeake Bay Watershed

. 39 http://www.nps.gov/plants/pubs/Chesapeake/toc.htm . Accessed February 9, 2010. 403/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 151 

### 5. 3.10 4. 5 Environmentally Friendly Landscape Requirements 1 Plant selection and planning have a significant eff ect on the amount of maintenance and inputs 2 needed to maintain attractive landscaping. Landscap ing that is considered environmentally 3 friendly requires few inputs and focuses on the use of native landscaping, the use of drought4 tolerant or locally adapted plants, and other featu res such as rainwater harvesting, infiltration 5 areas, and street trees. Several regional programs promote such landscaping principles, including 6 the BayScapes program for the Chesapeake Bay region and Bay-Friendly Landscaping in the San 7 Francisco Bay area. The following are examples of c ommunities that have adopted 8 environmentally friendly landscaping requirements f or certain types of development projects. 9

• The Oro Loma Sanitary District in the San Francisco Bay area of California has adopted 10 an ordinance requiring the integration of green bui lding and Bay-Friendly landscaping 11 strategies in district and public-private partnersh ips buildings and landscapes. Projects are 12 required to meet the most recent minimum Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines and Bay13 Friendly Landscape Scorecard points (http://www.sto pwaste.org/docs/bay14 friendly_landscape_guidelines_-_all_chapters.pdf). 15 www.oroloma.org/asset/regulation/ordinance%2043.pdf 16

• Miami-Dade County, Florida, has established landsca ping requirements for right-of-way 17 landscapes that promote xeriscape and Florida-Friendly principles by setting minimum 18 standards for irrigation and selection of plant mat erial and mulch. The ordinance requires 19 the use of drought-tolerant species and grouping of plants by water requirements, and it 20 sets limits on irrigation systems. It also aims to promote trees for a variety of 21 environmental benefits and to reduce exotic pest pl ants. 22 http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matte r=091097&file=true&yearFolder 23 =Y2009 24

Resources 25

Resources for Environmentally Friendly Landscapes 26 StopWaste.org. 2008. Bay-Friendly Landscape Guideli nes: Sustainable Practices for the 27 Landscape Professional. http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/bay28 friendly_landscape_guidelines_-_all_chapters.pdf . Accessed February 9, 2010. 29 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Fiel d Office. 2009. BayScapes

. 30 http://www.fws.gov/ChesapeakeBay/bayscapes.htm . Last updated November 3 . Updated 31 November 3 , 2009. Accessed February 9, 2010. 32
Municipal Examples 33 The Oro Loma Sanitary District in the San Fr ancisco Bay area of California has adopted an 34 ordinance requiring the integration of green buildi ng and Bay

- Friendly landscaping strategies in 35 d istrict and public

- private partnerships buildings and landscapes

. Projects are required to meet 36 the most recent minimum Bay

- Friendly Landscape Guidelines and Bay

- Friendly Landscape 37 Scorecard points (http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/bay

- friendly_landscape_guidelines_

- 38 _all_chapters.pdf). www.oroloma. org/asset/regulation/ordinance%2043.pdf 393/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 152 Miami

- Dade County, Florida, has established landscaping r equirements for right

- of

- way 1 landscapes that promote xeriscape and Florida

- Friendly principles by setting minimum standards 2 for irrigation and selection of pl ant material and mulch. The ordinance requires the use of 3 drought

- tolerant species and grouping of plants by water re quirements, and it sets limits on 4 irrigation systems

. It also aims to promote trees for a variety of envi ronmental benefits and to 5 reduce e xotic pest plants. 6 http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matte r=091097&file=true&yearFolder=Y2009 7



### 5. 3.11 4. 6 Xeriscaping Requirements 8 Xeriscaping is a type of landscaping that conserves water through by planting of native, water9 efficient plants rather than water-intensive ones a nd using techniques that minimize the need for 10 irrigation. Xeriscaping has water quality benefits in addition to water conservation benefits 11 because it helps to prevent dry-weather runoff from over-irrigation. 12 Typically xeriscaping programs are voluntary and fo cus on education and outreach, although 13 some communities have implemented xeriscaping requi rements as part of their landscaping 14 codes , and others have developed incentive programs. The following are examples of both 15 regulatory and incentive approaches to xeriscaping. 16
Municipal Examples 17

• Rancho Cucamonga, California, has a xeriscape requi rement for developments requiring 18 landscaping plans (with some exemptions, including single-family homes and public 19 spaces). Developments with model homes are required to use xeriscaping on half of the 20 models, including low water use plants, water-savin g irrigation systems, and signage 21 indicating to buyers the water-saving landscape des ign features. 22 http://search.municode.com/html/16570/level2/T19_C1 9.16.html 23

• Mesa, Arizona, offers a Grass-to-Xeriscape rebate t o encourage single-family 24 homeowners to replace their lawns with xeriscapes. When a customer removes 500 25 square feet or more of established grass and replac es it with a xeriscape, the Mesa 26 provides a $500 rebate. http://www.mesaaz.gov/conservation/grass-to-xerisca pe27 rebate.aspx 28

• Gallup, New Mexico, has a Xeriscape Rebate Applicat ion Program in which customers 29 are eligible to receive a rebate on their water bil l for each square foot of irrigated turf 30 grass, removed and replaced with an approved xerisc ape landscape (the city provides a 31 Xeriscape Plant List). Twenty-five percent of the q ualifying total square footage of 32 irrigated turf grass removed must be replaced with qualifying xeriscape plants, subject to 33 inspection and approval. http://www.ci.gallup.nm.us/GJU/Gallup34 Xeriscape%20Rebate%20Application.pdf 35

• In 2006 California passed the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act to require local 36 municipalities to adopt landscape water conservatio n ordinances by 2010. To assist 37 municipalities with compliance, the state issued a Model Water Efficient Landscape 38 Ordinance and accompanying technical resources, inc luding a compendium of existing 39 local ordinances addressing water-efficient landsca ping. The model ordinance and 403/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 153 technical assistance information are at 1 http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscap eordinance/

. 23/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 154 

### 5.4 References 1 

### American Geophysical Union. 2010. Urban 'green' spaces may contribute to 2 

### global warming . < 5. 4. 7 F ertilizer P rohibitions 3 Suffolk County, New York, Fertilizer Prohibition : A new law prohibits lawn fertilize r 4 applications from Nov ember 1 to April 1 to prevent nitrogen runoff from froze n ground. 5 The law, which also requires retailers to post sign s near fertilizer displays advising 6 customers of the date restrictions, took effect in January 2009 . Violators, whet her 7 landscapers or homeowners, risk fines of $1,000. Li censed landscapers are required to 8 participate in a 4

- hour, county

- sponsored session administered by the Cornell Coope rative 9 Extension to renew their licenses

. For more information, see 10 http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2010/2010

- 11 02.shtmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/ 15/nyregion/long

12 island/15fertilizerli.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 >. Updated January 19, 2010. Accessed 13 March 9, 2010. 14 Aronson, L.J., A.J. Gold, R.J. Hull, and J.L. Cisar . 1987. Evapotranspiration of cool-season 15 turfgrasses in the humid Northeast. Agron. J. 79 :901-905. 16

17 Bellingham , Washington, M unicipal Code: The c ity’s municipal code contains restrictions 18 pertaining to commercial phosphorus

- based fertilizer

. The municipal code prohibits the 19 application of commercial fertilizer to residential lawns or public pr operties within the 20 Bellingham city limits area of the Lake Whatcom Wat ershed, either liquid or granular, that is 21 labeled as containing more than 0 percent phosphorus or other compounds containing 22 phosphorus, such as phosphate, except when applied to newly established turf or lawn areas in 23 the first growing season

. In addition, the municipal code also prohibits the application of 24 fertilizer to frozen ground and impervious surfaces and imposes requirements for the clean

- up of 25 fertilizer that is applied, spil led or deposited on impervious surfaces

. Bellingham’s Municipal 26 Code is at 27 http://www.cob.org/web/bmcode.nsf/srch/B5D4E84B824F 05EB882561D600601973?OpenDocu 28
men t 29 Highland Park, Illinois , Phosphorus

- Based Fertilizer Ordinance : The Ordinance prohibits the 30 application of fertilizer containing phosphorus to any area within c ity limits unless the user meets 31 one of the three allowable circumstances contained in the or dinance

. For example, the fertilizer 32 containing phosphorus can be used in areas where th e ambient phosphorus content is below the 33 median phosphorus area for typical soils or the fer tilizer is used under a tree canopy

. The 34 ordinance further prevents the ret ail sale of fertilizer containing phosphorus within c ity limits

. 35 For more information, see http://www.cityhpil.com/pdf/Phosphorus

36 BasedFertilizerOrdinance.DOC 37 Wisconsin Phosp horus Ban: In April 2009, Wisconsin Governor Doyle signed the Clean Lakes 38 bill (2009 Wisconsin Act 9). The bill established a statewide law prohibiting the display, sale and 39 use of lawn fertilizer containing phosphorus, with certain reasonable exceptions ( e.g., when 403/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 155 establishing grass or when a soil test shows that p hosphorus is needed). The law takes effect in 1 April 2010, which gives retailers time to prepare. Although retailers will not be permitted to 2 display turf fertilizer that is labeled as containi ng phosphorus, they may post a sign advising 3 customers that turf fertilizer containing phosphoru s is available upon request for qualified uses. 4 The prohibition does not apply to the following: th e use of manure that is mechanically dried, 5 ground, or pelletiz ed, or to a finished sewage sludge product; the use of fertilizer that contains 6 phosphorus to establish grass during the first grow ing season; the application of fertilizer where 7 soils are deficient in phosphorus; and agricultural land

. Violators may be re quired to forfeit not 8 more than $50 for a first violation and not less th an $200 nor more than $500 for a second or 9 subsequent violation. For more information, see http://www.legis.state.wi.us/20 09/data/AB

10 3.pdf

. 11
Minnesota Fertilizer, Soil Amendment, and Plant Amendment Law : Minnesota enacted a 12 statewide law in 2005 prohibiting the use of phosph orus lawn fertilizer unless new turf or lawn is 13 being established, a soil test shows a need for pho sph orus, or phosphorus is being applied to a 14 golf course or sod growing area by trained staff

. When these situations do not exist, state law 15 requires phosphorus

- free lawn fertilizer is to be used

. For more information about the law, see 16 http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/waterprotecti on/phoslaw.aspx 17
From Nonpoint Source News

- Notes : 18 Annapolis, Maryland recently became the first munic ipality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to 19 ado pt an ordinance banning the use of fertilizer that contains phosphorus. Since January 1, 2009, 20 residents have been required to use only phosphorus

- free fertilizer, except in gardens, on newly 21 established turf and in cases where a soil test shows a phosphor us deficiency. For more 22 information, see www.annapolis.gov/upload/images/government/council/ Adopted/o1008.pdf

. 23 The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protecti on ( NJDEP) is mandating that more than 24 100 New Jersey municipalities adopt local ordinance s prohibiting the use of fertilizers containing 25 phosphorus except under special circumstances (see ordinance details at 26 www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/DOCS/TMDL/Fertiliz er Application Model Ordinance.pdf ). 27 The state is also working to reduce fertilizer appl ication statewide. In April 2008 NJDEP signed 28 a Memo randum of Understanding (MOU) with two major fertilizer produ cers to address 29 phosphorus use in lawn fertilizers to reduce the am ount of phosphorus in their lawn fertilizer 30 products, distribute these products in garden cente rs statewide and work with NJDEP to develop 31 strategies to educate the public about proper selec tion and use of lawn fertilizer. For more 32 information, see Recent Partnership Limits Phosphorus in New Jersey Fertilizer , on page 12 of 33 Nonpoint Source News

- Notes issue 86, at www.epa.gov/NewsNotes/pdf/86issue.pdf

. 34 Chesapeake Bay Program MOU: On September 22, 2006, the Chesapeake Executive Cou ncil, 35 Headwater State Jurisdictions and members of the la wn care product manufacturing industry 36 signed a n MOU that will achieve a 50 percent reduction in the pounds of phosphorus in do

- it

37 yourself lawn care products by 2009 (as compared to a 2006 b ase year). This MOU further 38 commits the signatories to reduce nitrogen nutrient losses by recommending possible chang es in 39 product content, form, or application method, as we ll as develop outreach materials to educate 40 the general public on the use of fertilizers

. 413/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 156 

### 5.4. 8 Local Efforts to Regulate Home
- based Fertilizer Application 1 Whatcom County, Washington : As of April 200 5 for Lake Whatcom and June 2007 for Lake 2 Samish, the use of commercial fertilizers containin g phosphorus on residential lawns or on 3 public agency properties in the Lake Whatcom waters hed is prohibited

. Further, no commercial 4 fertilizer of any kind is allo wed to be applied on frozen or impervious surfaces. 5 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/whatcom/Whatco16/Whatco1632. html 6 Dane County Wisconsin : As of January 2005, no person in Dane County could appl y lawn 7 fertilizer labeled as containing anything more than 0 percent phosphorus

. Restrictions on lawn 8 fertilizer application also include applying any ty pe of fertilizer on f rozen or impervious 9 surfaces

. http://www.co.dane.wi.us/pdfdocs/ordinances/ord080. pdf 10 Buffalo, Minnesota : Effective in 2000, lawn fertilizers were not to be applied on frozen ground, 11 specified as being between November 15 and April 15

. And at no time can any person, fir m, 12 corporation, or franchise apply liquid or granular fertilizer within the c ity limits that contains 13 phosphates

. Fertilizer application is prohibited on impervious surfaces as well as on surfaces 14 within drainage ditches or waterways or withi n 10 feet of a water resource. 15 http://www.ci.buffalo.mn.us/Admin/CityCode/1056.htm 16 Township of Jefferson, New Jersey : Within the t ownship, no person, firm, corporation, or 17 franchise is to apply liquid or granular fertilizer containing phosphorus

. No lawn fertilizer of any 18 kind is to be applied on frozen ground or within 10 feet of a body of water, including wetlands

. 19 http://www.jeffersontownship.net/Cit

- e

- Access/news/index.cfm?NID=3762&TID=4&jump2=0 20 Montville Township, New Jersey : Adopted July 2008, the application of fertilizer is prohibited 21 during a runoff

- producing rainfall, or before a runoff

- producing rain fall is predicted to occur

. 22 Fertilizer application is also prohibited when soil s are saturated and fertilizer can move off

- site

. 23 Application is further prohibited on impervious sur faces, within 25 feet of a waterbody, and 24 more than 15 days before the start or at any time after the March 15 to October 31 gr owing 25
season

. Phosphorus

- containing fertilizer is strictly prohibited anywhe re outdoors at any time 26 except where demonstrated to be necessary for the s pecific soils and target vegetation, as noted 27 by Rutge rs Cooperative Research and Extension’s an nual fertilizer recommendation. 28 http://www.montvillenj.org/index.php?option=com_con tent&task=view&id=487 29 Sanibel City, Florida : With respect to turf and landscape plants, fertiliz ers cannot contain more 30 than 2 percent phosphorus or more than 20 percent nitrogen, with 70 percent of the nitrogen 31 required to be slow release

. Applications are maxed out at one pound of nitrogen per 1 , 0 00 32 square feet, for a total of 4 pounds of nitrogen per 1 , 000 square feet in any one year

. Fertilizer 33 can be applied up to six times in one year to a sin gle area

. Further, no fertilizer is to be applied 34 on impervious surfaces or within 25 feet of a body of water

. Retail businesses were required to 35 post notices about the new regulation near the f ertilizer to inform customers. 36 http://www.sanibelh2omatters.com/documents/CITY%20A PPROVES%20ENVIRONMENTAL 37 LY%20FRIENDLY%20REGULATIONS%20FOR%20FERTILIZER%20US E%20ON%20ISL 38 AND.pdf 393/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 157 

### 5.4. 9 Effectiveness of Fertilizer Bans 1 Effectiveness of Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn F ertilizer Law : The Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn 2 Fertilizer Law directed the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture to report in 2007 on the 3 effectiveness of phosphorus lawn fertilizer restric tions. The report indicate s that various forms of 4 phosphorus

- free fe rtilizers were being sold in stores across the stat e

. For example, the state 5 polled 87 stores and found that in 97 percent of th ose stores , phosphorus

- free lawn fertilizer was 6 being retailed

. In addition, the report found that the law has redu ced the amoun t of fertilizer 7 containing phosphorus that was being used

. The report showed a reduction of 141 tons of 8 fertilizer used or 48 percent of use between 2003 and 2006

. The law has not increased consumer 9 cost for fertilizer and has generally gained consum er sup port

. 10 Additionally, since the law ’ s inception, manufacturers have been able to adapt to the law and 11 produce new phosphorus

- free fertilizer products

. Therefore, this change has also expanded the 12 manufacturer’s market for phosphorus

- free lawn fertilizer in o ther areas concerned with water 13 quality, including the Chesapeake Bay region, Flori da, Michigan, Wisconsin, and other states

. 14 The report, however, document s only consumer use and manufacturer development and retai l 15 and d oes not look at the effe cts on water quality or turf management

. It recommends f urther 16 research to expand on th o se areas

. For more information , see the Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn 17 Fertilizer Law : http://www.mda.sta te.mn.us/protecting/waterprotection/phoslaw.aspx

. 18
and the Minnesota Effectiveness Report of Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer Law : 19 http://w ww.mda.state.mn.us/en/sitecore/content/Global/MDADo cs/protecting/waterprotection/07 20 phoslawreport.aspx 21 Reduced River Phosphorus Following Implementation o f a Lawn Fertilizer Ordinance (Ann 22 Arbor, Michigan ) : As part of its efforts to comply with a state

- imp osed phosphorus TMDL to 23 reduce 50 percent of phosphorus discharges to the H uron River, the city of Ann Arbor enacted an 24 ordinance that went into effect in 2007 to limit ph osphorus application to lawns. The estimated 25 effect of full compliance was a 22 perce nt reduction in phosphorus entering the river

. The study 26 indicate s that after the first year of data collection and a nalysis , statistically significant reductions 27 were documented for total phosphorus and, to a lesser degree, for DP for every month from May 28 to September

. The research team state s , “with a considerable degree of confidence that 29 phosphorus concentrations were lower in 2008 at exp erimental sites compared with the reference 30 period (2003 to 2005) and that the reductions were coincident with a c ity ordinance restricting 31 use of lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus.” How ever, the study does not conclude that th o se 32 reductions were caused by enacting the ordinance, b ut show s that a correlation exists between 33 reductions in phosphorus and the ordinance

. http://www.umich.edu/~hrstudy/Reports/LRM_08

- 34 40_web.pdf

. 35



### 5.4.1 0 Soil amendments, composting and microbial and fungal innoculation 36 Soil amendments can be used to enhance soil propert ies, increase the infiltrative and retentive 37 capacity of soils. Soils can be amended through the addition of sand or other bulk materials, 38 organic matter such a s compost, inorganic or organic fertilizers and i noculation of soil microbes 39 and mycorrhizal fungi

. By m echanically treat ing and amend ing disturbed soils the physical 40 structure of the soil can be improved, bulk density can be reduced , and the porosity and 41 infiltrative capacity of the soils enhanced

. In fine

- textured (clay, clay loam) soils, the addition of 423/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 158 compost /organic materials will reduce bulk density, improve friability (work ability) and 1 porosity, and increase its gas and water permeabili ty, thus reducing erosion. When used in 2 sufficient quantities, the addition of compost /organic materials will pro vide both immediate and 3 long

- term positive effe ct s on soil structure so that fine

- textured soils will resist compaction and 4 increase their water holding capacity

. Soil aggregation in coarse

- textured (sandy) soils will be 5 improved. McDonald (2004) specifies 2 to 4 inches of compost tilled into the upper 8 t o 12 6 inches of soil, depending on soil type, before plan ting. Balousek (2003) showed a marked 7 decrease in surface runoff volume (36 to 53 percent ) when compacted soils were chisel

- plowed 8 and deep

- tilled, a nd when soils were also amended with compost, runof f was reduced by 74 to 91 9 percent

. Additionally, compost is good source of nitrogen, p hosphorous, and potassium and 10 contains micronutrients essential for plant growth. Therefore, the addition of compost ca n also 11 have a positive effect on the use of fertilizer and pH adjustment (lime/sulfur addition) and aid in 12 the reduction of soil compaction

. 13 Innoculation of soils with compost teas or other cocktails of soil microbes and mycorrhizal fungi 14 can be used to en hance soils and improve soil function in terms of w ater quality

. 15



### 5. 5 References 16 Balousek, J.D. 2003. Quantifying Decreases in Stormwater Runoff from Dee p Tilling, Chisel 17 Plowing, and Compost-Amendment . Dane County Land Conservation Department, Dane 18 County, IL. 19 < http://www.countyofdane.com/lwrd/landconservation/p apers/quantifyingdecreasesinswru 20 noff.pdf

>. Accessed February 9, 2010. 21 Barth, C.A. 2000. Toward a low-input lawn. Article 130 in The Practice of Watershed 22 Protection . Ed. by T. Schueler and H. Holland. Center for Wat ershed Protection, Ellicott 23 City, MD. 24 Beard, J.B., and R.L. Green. 1994. The Role of Turf grasses in Environmental Protection and 25 Their Benefits to Humans. Journal of Environmental Quality 23 (3):452–460. 26 Bell, G., and J. Moss. 2006. Mowing Practices Reduce Runoff From Turf

. 27 <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bk-2008-0997.c h008>. Accessed February, 25, 2010. 28 Bellows, B. 2010. Sustainable Turf Care, Horticulture Systems Guide

. 29 <http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/turfcare.html>. Ac cessed March 8, 2010. 30 California DWR (Department of Water Resources). 201 0. Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 31 California Department of Water Resources, Sacrament o, CA. 32 <http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landsca peordinance/>. Accessed February 33 24, 2010. 34 Carrow, R.N., R.R. Duncan, and M.T. Huck. 2008. Turfgrass and Landscape Irrigation Water 35 Quality: Assessment and Management . CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 363/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 159 Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2007. Healthy Lawns, Healthy Waters: A Guide to Effective Lawn 1 Care for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

. Annapolis, MD. 2 < http://www.cbf.org/Document.Doc?id=59 >. Accessed February 9, 2010. 3 Chesapeake Stormwater Network. 2009. The Clipping Point: The Grass Crop of the Chesapeak e 4 Bay Watershed

. Baltimore, MD. < http://www.chesapeakestormwater.net/all-things5 stormwater/the-clipping-point-the-grass-crop-of-the -chesapeake-bay-wate.html > >. , 6 Updated June 10, 2009. Accessed February 4, 2010. 7 City of Annapolis. 2008. Ordinance No. O-10-08 Amen ded. City Council of the City of 8 Annapolis, MD. 9 <http://www.annapolis.gov/upload/images/government/ council/Adopted/o1008.pdf>. 10 Accessed February 24, 2010. 11 City of Bellingham. 1995. Water and Sewers . Bellingham, WA. 12 <http://www.cob.org/web/bmcode.nsf/srch/B5D4E84B824 F05EB882561D600601973?Op 13 enDocument>. Accessed February 24, 2010. 14 City of Buffalo. 2000. Lawn Fertilizer Application Control . Buffalo, MN. 15 <http://www.ci.buffalo.mn.us/Admin/CityCode/1056.ht m>. Accessed February 24, 2010. 16 City of Gallup. 2008. Xeriscape Rebate Application Program. Gallup Joint Utilities, Gallup, NM. 17 <http://www.ci.gallup.nm.us/GJU/Gallup-Xeriscape%20 Rebate%20Application.pdf>. 18 Accessed February 24, 2010. 19 City of Henderson. 2010. Turf Conversion. Henderson, NV

. 20 <http://www.cityofhenderson.com/parks/parks/turf-co nversion.php>. Accessed February 21 24, 2010. 22 City of Highland Park. 2010. Regarding the Use of Fertilizers Containing Phospho rus . Highland 23 Park, IL. <http://www.cityhpil.com/pdf/Phosphorus-B asedFertilizerOrdinance.DOC>. 24 Accessed February 24, 2010. 25 City of Mesa, Arizona. 2009. Grass-to-Xeriscape Lan dscape Rebate. 26 <http://www.mesaaz.gov/conservation/grass-to-xerisc ape-rebate.aspx>. Accessed February 27 24, 2010. 28 City of Redmond, Washington. 1998. Guidelines for L andscaping with Compost-Amended Soils. 29 <http://www.redmond.gov/insidecityhall/publicworks/ environment/pdfs/compostamendeds 30 oils.pdf>. Accessed February 25, 2010 31
Center for Watershed Protection. No date. The Pecul iarities of Perviousness. Watershed 32 Protection Techniques 2(1):233–238. 33 <http://www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Center_Docs/PW P/ELC_PWP129.pdf> Accessed 34 February 24, 2010. 35 Clark County, Nevada. 2007. 30.64 - Site Landscape and Screening Standards. 36 <http://library.municode.com/HTML/16214/level2/T30p t2_30.64.html>. Accessed March 37 10, 2010. 383/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 160 Culpeper, Virginia. 2009. The busy person's guide t o lawn care. Culpeper Minutes 36: 33. 1 <http://web.culpepercounty.gov/LinkClick.aspx?filet icket=zH6HHktoCsE%3d&tabid=256 2 &mid=1199>. Accessed March 10, 2010. 3 Dane County, Wisconsin. No date. Phosphorus Control in Dane County. 4 <http://www.danewaters.com/management/phosphorus.as px>. Accessed March 10, 2010. 5 Devitt, D.A., K. Carstensen, and R.L. Morris. 2008. Residential water savings associated with 6 satellite-based ET irrigation controllers. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 7 134(1):74–82 8
Environment Alberta. Alberta Bans Fertilizer-Herbicide Combination Produ cts

. 9 <http://www.environment.alberta.ca/3613.html>. Acce ssed March 11, 2010. 10

11 Fishel, F.M. 2007. Pesticide Use Trends in the U. S .: Pesticides for Home. University of Florida 12 IFAS Extension. Gainesville, FL. < http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PI/PI17700.pdf >. 13 Updated Last updated January 2007. Accessed February 9, 2010. 14 Foster, R.S. 1994. Landscaping that Saves Energy and Dollars. Globe Pequot Press, Old 15 Saybrook, CT. 16 Gregory, J.H., M.D. Dukes, P.H. Jones, and, G.L. Mi ller. 2006. Effect of urban soil compaction 17 on infiltration rates. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 61(3):117–125 18 Hassan, S. 2000. Campus Landscape Study: The Conversion of Turf Area s to Alternate Forms of 19 Ground Cover

. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 20 < http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/proje cts/library/grass.pdf >. Accessed 21 February 17, 2010. 22 Hamilton, G.W., and D.V. Waddington. 1999. Infiltra tion rates on residential lawns in central 23 Pennsylvania. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(3):564–568. 24 Hielema, E. 2006. Hydrologic Simulation of the Klah anie Catchment, King County, Washington, 25 With and Without a Landscape Consisting of Soil Ame nded with Compost, Master Thesis. 26 University of Washington, College of Engineering, S eattle, WA. 27 Irrigation Association. 2007. Landscape Irrigation Auditor. <http://www.irrigation.org>. 28 Accessed March 10, 2010. 29 IRWD (Irvine Ranch Water District). 2004. The resid ential runoff reduction study. 30 <http://www.irwd.com/Conservation/R3-Study-Revised1 1-5-04.pdf>. Accessed March 4, 31 2010. 32 Jefferson Township. 2006. Application of Phosphorus Fertilizer Prohibited. Morris County, NJ. 33 <http://www.jeffersontownship.net/Cit-e34 Access/news/index.cfm?NID=3762&TID=4&jump2=0>. Acce ssed February 24, 2010. 353/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 161 Lehman, J.T., D.W. Bell, and K.E. McDonald. 2009. R educed river phosphorus following 1 implementation of a lawn fertilizer ordinance. Lake and Reservoir Management. 2 25(3):307–312. <http://www.umich.edu/~hrstudy/Report s/LRM_08-40_web.pdf>. 3 Accessed February 24, 2010. 4 Marin Municipal Water District Ordinance 326: An or dinance revising water conservation 5 requirements, Section 11.60.030. August 28, 1991. I n A. Vickers. 2001. Handbook of 6 water use and conservation . WaterPlow Press, Amherst, MA. 7 Marjorie Barrick Museum. 2010. Turf Conversion. Uni versity of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, 8 NV. <http://barrickmuseum.unlv.edu/xeric/turf.html> . Accessed February 24, 2010. 9 Mayer, Peter W. and William B. DeOreo. 1998. Reside ntial End Uses of Water. Aquacraft, Inc., 10 Water Engineering and Management, and American Wate r Works Association. 11 McDonald, D.K. 2004. Soils for Salmon: Integrating Stormwater, Water Sup ply, and Solid Waste 12 Issues in New Development and Existing Landscapes

. Center for Watershed Protection, 13 Ellicott City, MD. Presented at the Water Restoration Institute, Septe mber 16, 2004. 14 Miami-Dade County, Florida. 2009. Legislative Item File Number: 091097. 15 <http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matt er=091097&file=true&yearFolder= 16 Y2009>. Accessed February 24, 2010. 17 Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2010. Phosphor us Lawn Fertilizer Law. St. Paul, MN. 18 <http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/waterprotect ion/phoslaw.aspx>. Accessed 19 February 24, 2010. 20 Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2007. Report to the Minnesota Legislature: Effectiveness 21 of the Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer Law. St. Paul, MN. 22 <http://www.mda.state.mn.us/en/sitecore/content/Glo bal/MDADocs/protecting/waterprotec 23 tion/07phoslawreport.aspx>. Accessed February 24, 2 010. 24 Morton, T., A. Gold, and W. Sullivan. 1988. Influen ce of overwatering and fertilization of 25 nitrogen losses from home lawns. Journal of Environmental Quality 17 : 124-130. 26 Mosko, S. 2009. No Such Thing as a Green Lawn . <http://www.boogiegreen.com/>. Updated 27 December 10, 2009. Accessed March 9, 2010. 28 National Gardening Association. 2000. National Gardening Survey . National Gardening 29 Association , Burlington, VT. 30 New Jersey Legislature. Fertilizer Application Mode l Ordinance. 31 <http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/DOCS/TMDL/ Fertilizer Application Model 32 Ordinance.pdf>. Accessed February 24, 2010. 33 Ocean County Soil Conservation District, Schnabel E ngineering Associates, Inc., U.S. 34 Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conserv ation Service. 2001. Impact of Soil 35 Disturbance During Construction on Bulk Density and Infiltration in Ocean County, New 36 Jersey . <http://www.ocscd.org/soil.pdf>. Accessed Februar y 25, 2010. 373/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 162 Oro Loma Sanitary Board. 2007. An Ordinance of the Sanitary Board of the Oro Loma Sanitary 1 District Adopting Civic Green Building and Bay-Frie ndly Landscaping Requirements. Oro 2 Loma Sanitary District, Alameda County, CA. 3 <http://www.oroloma.org/asset/regulation/ordinance% 2043.pdf>. Accessed February 24, 4 2010. 5 Rancho Cucamonga, California. No date. Xeriscape Re quirements. 6 <http://search.municode.com/html/16570/level2/T19_C 19.16.html>. Accessed February 7 24, 2010. 8 Rather, John. March 12, 2009. With Fertilizer Laws, Suffolk Is Aiming for Cleaner Water. New 9 York Times. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/nyregion/long10 island/15fertilizerli.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1>. Acce ssed February 24, 2010. 11 Robbins, P., and T. Birkenholts. 2001. Turfgrass Revolution: measuring the expansion of th e 12 American lawn

. 13 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR L&_udi=B6VB0-48CFPV2- 14 1&_user=14684&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fm t=high&_orig=search&_ 15 sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1222892157&_ rerunOrigin=google&_acct= 16 C000001678&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=14684&m d5=f950503857137fac36eb 17 67c03a9a103e>. Accessed February 25, 2010. 18 Sanibel City Council. 2007. City Approves Environme ntally Friendly Regulations for Fertilizer 19 Use on Island. Sanibel City, FL. 20 <http://www.sanibelh2omatters.com/documents/CITY%20 APPROVES%20ENVIRONME 21 NTALLY%20FRIENDLY%20REGULATIONS%20FOR%20FERTILIZER% 20USE%20 22 ON%20ISLAND.pdf>. Accessed February 24, 2010. 23 Schueler, T. 2000a. The peculiarities of perviousne ss. Article 129 in The Practice of Watershed 24 Protection . Ed. by T. Schueler and H. Holland, Center for Wat ershed Protection, Ellicott 25 City, MD. 26 Schueler, T. 2000b. The compaction of urban soils. Article 36 in The Practice of Watershed 27 Protection . Ed. by T. Schueler and H. Holland, Center for Wat ershed Protection, Ellicott 28 City, MD. 29 Shearman, R. 2006 Turfgrass Cultural Practices for Water Conservation. In Beard, J.B., and M.P. 30 Kenna. 2008. Water Quality and Quantity Issues for Turfgrasses i n Urban Landscapes

. 31 Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Am es, IA. 32 SNWA (Southern Nevada Water Authority). 2010. Water Smart Landscapes Rebate. Southern 33 Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas, NV. <http://www. snwa.com/html/cons_wsl.html>. 34 Accessed February 24, 2010. 35 StopWaste.org. 2008. Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: Sustainable Prac tices for the 36 Landscape Professional . <http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/bay37 friendly_landscape_guidelines_-_all_chapters.pdf>. Accessed February 9, 2010. 383/15/20 2

- 22

- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 163 Town of Cary, North Carolina. 2009. Cary Offering Incentives for Grass-To-Turf Switch

. 1 < http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/4605 >. Accessed February 17, 2010. 2 Township of Montville. 2010. New Fertilizer Regulat ions. Morris County, NJ. 3 <http://www.montvillenj.org/index.php?option=com_co ntent&task=view&id=487>. 4 Accessed February 24, 2010. 5 U.S. Composting Council. 2008. Using Compost in Stormwater Management

. 6 <http://www.compostingcouncil.org>. Accessed Februa ry, 25, 2010. 7 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Resear ch Service. No date. National 8 Arboretum Definitions 9
Essential Turf

Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Resear ch Service, 10 Washington, DC. 11 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Nonpoint Source News-Notes . U.S. 12 Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 13 <http://www.epa.gov/NewsNotes/pdf/86issue.pdf>. Acc essed February 24, 2010. 14
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation 15 Landscaping: Chesapeake Bay Watershed

. 16 <http://www.nps.gov/plants/pubs/Chesapeake/toc.htm> . Accessed February 9, 2010. 17 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Fiel d Office. 2009. BayScapes

. 18 <http://www.fws.gov/ChesapeakeBay/bayscapes.htm>. U pdated November 3, 2009. 19 Accessed February 9, 2010. 20 Vickers, A. 2001. Handbook of water use and conservation . WaterPlow Press, Amherst, MA. 21 Whatcom County. 2009. Establishing Regulations for Fertilizer Application on Residential 22 Lawns and Public Properties within the Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish Watersheds

. 23 Whatcom County, WA. 24 <http://www.mrsc.org/mc/whatcom/Whatco16/Whatco1632 .html>. Accessed February 24, 25 2010. 26

• Wisconsin State Legislature. 2009. Assembly Bill 3. Madison, WI. 27 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB-3.pdf>. Accessed February 24, 28 2010. Nonessential Turf 29

• Hi

- input Turf 30 Low

- input Turf 31