3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 125 

1 5 Turf Management 

1

2 Section 5 of this chapter provides guidance on recommended turfgrass management practices, 

3 applicable to federal agencies, states, local governments, conservation districts, watershed 

4 groups, developers, farmers and all citizens in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The following list 

5 provides an overview of recommended practices that are explored more fully throughout this 

6 section. 

Implementation Measures:

Onsite Activities

• Reduce turf management inputs (nutrients, pesticides, irrigation water)

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

• Reduce total area maintained under high input prescription management programs

• Convert nonessential turf to low or lower maintenance vegetated areas such as 

naturalized forest, meadow, native plantings, xeriscapes or turf cultivars that require little 

or no inputs

• Increase infiltrative and retentive capacity of maintained turf

• Reduce sediment loadings from turf areas

Planning and Assessments

• Examine municipal codes and ordinances or other facility, 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 potential 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 the 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 jurisdiction or facility

6. Assessments of turf health and infiltrative capacity and opportunities to increase 

soil health to promote the infiltrative capacity of turf areas
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 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 municipal 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 maintenance 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 behavior 

change and promote the adoption of water resource friendly practices by increasing 

awareness, promoting appropriate behaviors and actions, providing training and 

incentives. Impact and effectiveness evaluation should be incorporated into these 

outreach and education programs.

• Conduct a life-cycle cost benefit analysis to reduce inputs and maintenance burden of 

managed turf areas

1 

2 5.1 5.1 Turf Management Implementation Measures

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

4 • Convert nonessential turf to low maintenance vegetated areas such as naturalized forest,

5 meadow, xeriscaped areas or native planting

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

7 • Increase infiltrative capacity of maintained turf

8 • Reduce total area maintained under high input prescription management programs

9 • Examine municipal codes and ordinances and/or other facility, corporate or agency policy 

10 directives and guidance for opportunities to

11 1. adopt or revise policy or guidance to reduce total turf area, nonessential turf area 

12 and high input turf areas through requirements and/or incentive programs

13 2. employ management practices that have a decreased potential impact on water 

14 resources

15 • Conduct a municipal or facility wide assessment of turf area within the jurisdiction or 

16 facility property. This assessment should include
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 127 

1 1. a map of the jurisdiction or facility and include the identification of all turf areas

2 2. an inventory or calculation of the total turf area in square acres or hectares using 

3 GIS techniques or other methods

4 3. an evaluation to determine essential and nonessential turf areas

5 4. identification and delineation of all high and low input turf areas

6 5. an evaluation of all turf management activities and inputs preferably by turf 

7 category or significant turf area within the jurisdiction or facility

8 6. assessments of turf health and infiltrative capacity and opportunities to increase 

9 soil health to promote the infiltrative capacity of turf areas

10 • Develop a management plan that contains

11 – an analysis of options to reduce or eliminate nonessential turf or convert essential 

12 turf to low input turf

13 – stated goals and objectives regarding the reduction of turf related inputs (water, 

14 fertilizers, pesticides, fossil fuels) on a municipal or facility wide basis

15 – an analysis of options to reduce potable water use through the use of hardy cultivars 

16 or the use of recycled water or harvested runoff

17 – an identification of areas where soil amendments be used to enhance soil health and 

18 the infiltration capacity of the soils

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

20 – areas of turf that could be replaced by lower maintenance cultivars or other grasses 

21 such as switch grass

22 – a training program for landscaping personnel

23 – an implementation schedule

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

25 reduction and Bay-friendly lawn and turf management. Programs should target behavior 

26 change and promote the adoption of water-resource-friendly practices by increasing 

27 awareness, promoting appropriate behaviors and actions, providing training and 

28 incentives. Impact and effectiveness evaluation should be incorporated into these 

29 outreach and education programs.

30 • Conduct a life cycle cost-benefit analysis to reduce inputs and maintenance burden of 

31 managed turf areas
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 128 

1 5.2 Background: Turf Impacts

2 In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, turf constitutes 3.8 million acres or 9.5 percent of the total 

3 land area. Turf in terms of total cultivated area is now the number one crop grown in the 

4 Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Chesapeake Stormwater Network 2009). 

5 The increase in turf is also a national issue according to Robbins and Birkenholt (2001) who 

6 examined turf in terms of land use/cover changes and the “expansion of high-input, 

7 monocultural, lawn landscapes,” which “bring with them inputs of insecticides, herbicides and 

8 fertilizers...expanded use of lawn maintenance tools” such as mowers and “changes in soil 

9 profile, stormwater runoff, water consumption, micro-fauna diversity, energy use, air quality and 

10 habitat impacts.” Fender (2004) reported that nationally, “There are an estimated 50 million 

11 acres of maintained turfgrass in the United States on home lawns, golf courses, sports fields, 

12 parks, playgrounds, cemeteries, and highway rights-of-way.”

13 Turf that is when properly located, selected, and maintained can provide water quality benefits 

14 especially when used to reduce the effects of impervious surface cover (Beard and Green 1994; 

15 Carrow et al. 2008).citations needed regarding infiltrative and filtration benefits of turf). The 

16 conversion of native landscape to turf, however, inevitably results in ecosystem level changes 

17 regardless of how the turf is managed. For example, the following effects typically result from 

18 converting the conversion of native forest or native vegetation to turf: reductions in 

19 evapotranspiration, increases in runoff volumes, velocities and duration of flows, increases in 

20 runoff temperature, soil compaction and decreased infiltration, changes in soil health and biota, 

21 loss of species diversity and habitat and increased loadings of pollutants such as nutrients, 

22 pesticides, and in some cases sediment. 

23 Turf type and management practices also influence the behavior of turf in terms of changes in 

24 runoff hydrology and pollutant loadings. According to Schueler (2000a), approximately one25 third of turf cover can be considered high input, i.e., water, fertilizers, and pesticides are applied 

26 as part of its regular maintenance regime. Private lawns account for 70 percent of the total turf 

27 area, and of that proportion, half of thatthis area is actively managed with chemical inputs. The

28 other half of total turf area can be considered low input, which is typically mowed but does not 

29 receive regular chemical inputs. Public turf, including parks, golf courses, schools, churches, 

30 cemeteries, median strips, utility corridors, and office parks, accounts for the remaining 30 

31 percent of total turf area, with approximately one-third estimated to be high input. Additional 

32 detail is provided in the following section on turf- related impacts. 

33 Reductions in both the total area of turf in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the total area of 

34 turf maintained using high input management practices has the potential to significantly reduce 

35 detrimental effects on water quality. Table 3-42 shows how different levels of turf reduction can 

36 affect irrigation water, fertilizer, and pesticide use according to the amount of turf replaced with 

37 low-input vegetation with no supplemental irrigation, fertilization, or pesticide applications. The 

38 numbers in Table 3-42 are estimates of reductions in inputs, e.g., the amount of nitrogen (N)

39 applied to turf across the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the reduced application levels that 

40 would be achieved by reducing the application rate per acre by a certain percentage. EPA has not 

41 yet conducted the modeling necessary to estimate (as EPA has done with respect to some other 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 129 

1 source categories such as agriculture) the amount of Nnitrogen applied to turf that actually 

2 reaches the Chesapeake Bay through runoff or groundwater. 

3 Table 3-42. Potential reductions in annual inputs of irrigation water, fertilizers, and pesticides 

4 through turf reduction 

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 million 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 rate for high-input areas.

Pesticide total is based on applying the manufacturer application rate recommendations for high-input areas.

5 

6 Table 3-42 assumptions

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

8 • One-third of the total turf area in the Chesapeake Bay is cultivated using high-input 

9 practices.

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

11 • Fertilizer total is based on average application rate for high-input areas.

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

13 for high-input areas.

14 5.23 Turf-Related Impacts 

15 The following section contains descriptions of the main water resource related effects that result 

16 from the cultivation and maintenance of turf. 

17 5.23.1 Soil Compaction 

18 Urban soils have been shown to be more compacted than undisturbed soils (Schueler 2000b), 

19 generally as a result of construction activities, heavy equipment use, and intentional compaction. 

20 Foot and vehicular traffic can also compact soils. As measured by bulk density (defined as the 

21 mass of dry soil divided by its volume, expressed in units of grams per cubic centimeter 

22 (gms/cc), undisturbed soils average 1.1 to 1.4 gms/cc, whereas urban lawns range from 1.5 to 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 130 

1 1.9 9 gms/cc and athletic fields and fill soil typically range from 1.8 to 2.0 gms/cc. The bulk 

2 density of these disturbed soils can approach those that of concrete (2.2 gms/cc). 

3 An inverse relationship exists between soil bulk density and soil porosity, which indicates that 

4 compacted urban soils do not infiltrate stormwater as readily as undisturbed soils. The 

5 hydrologic consequence is higher runoff coefficients, from 0.2 up to 0.5 (paved areas have runoff 

6 coefficients ranging from 0.5 to 0.99). Soil compaction also has implications for plant growth 

7 and can restrict root growth, oxygen diffusion, nutrient retention, soil fauna, and inhibit 

8 beneficial fungi and other soil biota (Ocean County Soil Conservation District 2001). 

9 A study in North Central Florida revealed that construction activities reduced lawn infiltration 

10 rates from 70 percent to 99 percent in comparison to untouched natural forest and pasture. “The 

11 compacted pervious area effectively approaches the infiltration behavior of an impervious 

12 surface,” which increases stormwater runoff and the need for large stormwater conveyance 

13 networks (Gregory et al. 2006)

14 In examining 15 home lawns in central Pennsylvania, Hamilton and Waddington (1999) find 

15 excavation procedures and lawn establishment to be the most influential practices affecting lawn 

16 infiltration rates. Homes with minimal soil compaction had the highest infiltration rates. Reduced 

17 compaction was achieved by bringing in top soil post home construction and through core 

18 cultivation (aeration of the soil). The lawn with the highest infiltration rate (10cm/hr) was not 

19 excavated during construction, allowing “the macropore system to stay intact, preventing 

20 aggregate destruction during usual soil moving and handling, and preventing soil stratification 

21 when the soil was put back at the excavated sites.” “The stripping of top soil, traffic on exposed 

22 subsoil, the addition of debris to the soil, and stratification of soil upon replacement may affect 

23 infiltration more than anything else.”

24 A second approach is to mechanically treat and amend already disturbed soils with compost or 

25 other organic material to reduce bulk density and restore porosity and infiltrative capacity. The 

26 use of compost can greatly enhance the physical structure of soil. In fine-textured (clay, clay 

27 loam) soils, adding compost will reduce bulk density, improve friability (workability) and 

28 porosity, and increase its gas and water permeability, thus reducing erosion. When used in 

29 sufficient quantities, the addition of compost has both an immediate and long-term positive 

30 impact on soil structure. It resists compaction in fine textured soils and increases water holding 

31 capacity and improves soil aggregation in coarse-textured (sandy) soils. McDonald (2004) 

32 specifies 2 to 4 inches of compost tilled into the upper 8 to 12 inches of soil, depending on soil 

33 type, before planting. Balousek (2003) showed a marked decrease in surface runoff volume (36 

34 to 53 percent) when compacted soils were chisel-plowed and deep-tilled, and when soils were 

35 also amended with compost, runoff was reduced by 74 to 91 percent. Additionally, compost is 

36 also good source of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium, and contains micronutrients essential 

37 for plant growth. Therefore, the addition of compost can also have a positive effect on the use of 

38 fertilizer and pH adjustment (lime/sulfur addition) and aid in the reduction of soil compaction.

39 5.23.2 Irrigation

40 A typical recommendation for lawn-watering during dry periods is one inch per week. To use the 

41 numbers reported above for the Chesapeake Bay, 1.7 million acres of turf are considered high-
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 131 

1 input and would likely be irrigated at the one inch per week rate. Under those recommendations,

2 46.33 billion gallons of water would be applied per week, or, assuming 12 weeks of dry weather 

3 per year, nearly 556 billion gallons of water annually. Almost all this water would be potable 

4 water except water supplied at facilities such as golf courses and corporate campuses where 

5 surface water retention ponds are used for irrigation water supplies.

6 5.3.3 Fertilizer Applications 

7 Homeowners typically apply fertilizer at rates exceeding 100 lbs of Nnitrogen per acre per year, 

8 whereas some commercial lawn care companies are known to apply fertilizer at twice those rates 

9 (Morton et al. 1988). Schueler (2000a) estimates that two-thirds of lawns are managed by 

10 homeowners and one-third are managed by lawn care companies (see Table 3-43). Using those 

11 statistics and the turf estimates noted above, 227.5 million pounds of Nnitrogen are applied to 

12 turf areas each year. 

13 Table 3-43. Lawns managed by homeowners versus other lawn services

Comparative chemical application rates in pounds/acre/year in Maryland

Chemical Croplanda 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 

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

16 Note : a. Corn/soybean rotation.

17 Table 4-43. Lawns managed by homeowners versus lawn services

18 “Reported nitrogen fertilization can average over 100 lbs/ac/yr when homeowners apply 

19 fertilizers to over 200 lbs/ac/yr when they are applied by commercial lawn care companies” 

20 (Morton et al. 1988). Results obtained from a National Gardening Association survey indicate 

21 that 83.9 percent of households apply fertilizers to their lawns and 63.8 percent apply pesticides 

22 (National Gardening Association, 2000).
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 132 

1 5.2.3.4 Pesticide Applications 

2 Pesticide use varies widely, but herbicides are most commonly applied by for home and garden 

3 appliers (applications at approximately 70 percent), followed by insecticides and miticides, 

4 fungicides, and other pesticides. (Fishel 2007). The herbicide 2,4-D is the most widely used 

5 active ingredient. Homeowners are most commonly instructed to follow the label instructions to 

6 determine application rates. By examining instructions from two such labels for commercially 

7 available herbicides (below), one can estimate an annual amount of pesticides applied to lawns in 

8 the Chesapeake Bay watershed, assuming all high-input turf acreage is subject to pesticide 

9 application at prescribed rates. 

10 • Ortho® Weed B Gon® contains the following active ingredients: 6.42 percent 2,4-D, 

11 2.13 percent Quinclorac, 0.60 percent Dicamba). The label recommends a maximum of 

12 two applications per year. The prescribed application rate yields 1.94 lb 2,4-D/acre, 0.78 

13 lb Quinclorac/acre, 0.18 lb Dicamba/acre. If this product were applied to the estimated 

14 1.71 million acres of high-input turf in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the total annual 

15 application of the three herbicide constituents would be 3.31 million pounds of 2,4-D, 

16 1.33 million pounds of Quinclorac, and 307,000 pounds of Dicamba. 

17 • Gordon’s® Trimec® Lawn Weed Killer contains the following active ingredients: 6.30 

18 percent 2,4-D, 1.51 percent Mecoprop (MCPP), and 0.70 percent Dicamba. The label 

19 recommends a maximum of two applications per year. The prescribed application rate 

20 yields 1.6 lb 2,4-D/acre, 0.40 lb MCPP/acre, 0.18 lb Dicamba/acre. If this product were 

21 applied to the estimated 1.71 million acres of high-input turf in the Chesapeake Bay 

22 watershed, the total annual application of the three herbicide constituents would be 2.73 

23 million pounds of 2,4-D, 682,000 pounds of MCPP, and 307,000 pounds of Dicamba. 

24 The label instructions on herbicide products prescribe the application rates and the optimal 

25 timing and weather conditions to minimize overspray and environmental effects. Actual 

26 consumer habits, however, could vary, which affect runoff concentrations and the timing of 

27 discharges. Other products contain both herbicides and fertilizers and are grouped in the weed 

28 and feed category.

29 5.2.4 Irrigation

30 Turfgrass tends to require more water than many commonly used landscape plants, and

31 homeowners have a tendency to overwater turfgrass. Consequently, turfgrass-dominated

32 landscapes commonly use more water than landscapes consisting of a mix of groundcovers, 

33 shrubs, and trees. Grass generally consumes eight units of water compared to the same area of 

34 trees (five units), and shrubs and ground covers (four units) (Foster 1994).

35 A typical recommendation for lawn-watering during dry periods is one inch per week. To use the 

36 numbers reported above for the Chesapeake Bay, 1.7 million acres of turf are considered high

37 input and would likely be irrigated at the one inch per week rate. Under those recommendations, 

38 46.33 billion gallons of water would be applied per week, or, assuming 12 weeks of dry weather 

39 per year, nearly 556 billion gallons of water annually. Almost all that water would be potable 

40 water except water supplied at facilities such as golf courses and corporate campuses where 

41 surface water retention ponds are used for irrigation water supplies.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 133 

1 5.2.7 Energy and Air Quality

2 Lawns that are mowed have energy costs and air quality impacts, depending on the type of 

3 mower used. According to Paul Tukey, founder of SafeLawns.org, a Maine-based nonprofit 

4 dedicated to minimizing the environmental effect of lawn care, gas-powered mowing, weed5 whacking and edging a modest-sized lawn (625 square feet) for one month would use 

6 approximately 6 kilowatt hours or 0.2 gallons of gas (Mosko 2009).

7 Gas-powered lawn tools are also significant sources of smog and carbon monoxide. According to 

8 Clean Air Lawn Care’s Clean Lawn Calculator (http://www.cleanairlawncare.com/calculator/), 

9 assuming conditions consistent with Maryland or Virginia with 36 mows per year for 1.7 million 

10 acres of high-input turf in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, gas-powered lawn equipment 

11 produces 3,891,470,584 annual pounds of air pollution. That number can be reduced to 

12 2,233,912,919 by using electric lawn equipment (powered by conventional energy) because 

13 electric mowers emit 3,300 times less hydrocarbons, 5,000 times less carbon monoxide, and one14 fifth as much smog-forming N oxides as gas lawn mowers. Self-powered push mowers do not 

15 generate any air pollution, and they have the added benefit of mulching and depositing grass 

16 clippings on the lawn.

17 A recent study of four parks in Irvine, California, evaluated carbon storage and nitrous oxide 

18 emissions from two types of turf: ornamental lawns (picnic areas) that are largely undisturbed, 

19 and athletic fields (soccer and baseball) that are often trampled and replanted and aerated 

20 frequently (American Geophysical Union 2010). Soil samples indicated carbon storage and air 

21 samples over the turf measured nitrous oxide emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions associated 

22 with lawn maintenance from fuel consumption, irrigation and fertilizer production were also 

23 considered. Nitrous oxide emissions from the lawns were comparable to those found in 

24 agricultural farms, and nitrous oxide emissions from fertilization offset just 10 percent to 30 

25 percent of carbon sequestration. Fossil fuel consumption for managing ornamental lawns was 

26 calculated to release approximately four times more carbon dioxide than the plots can take up. 

27 Athletic fields were worse because soil disruption by tilling and resodding caused the areas to 

28 trap less carbon than ornamental grass but required similar maintenance.

29 5.3 Turf Management Strategies, Practices, Resources and Examples 

30 5.3.1 Fertilizer Management

31 The best way to prevent pollution from overfertilizing lawns is to use soil tests to determine the 

32 actual nutrient needs of the lawn. Soil tests range from simple to complex and can provide a 

33 range of information, from qualitative levels of N, phosphorus (P), and potassium and soil pH to 

34 precise levels of macro- and micronutrients. Typical home kits provide results that will indicate 

35 the proper ratio of N, P, and potassium and the rate at which fertilizer should be applied based on 

36 the limiting nutrient. Spreaders used to apply the fertilizer should be carefully calibrated to 

37 ensure even application at prescribed rates.

38 The timing of fertilizer application is also important. Typically lawn fertilizer should be applied 

39 in early spring early in the growing season. Weather is also a consideration because fertilizer 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 134 

1 should not be applied during or before wind or rainstorms to prevent pollution of air and surface 

2 runoff.

3 Some communities have implemented policies to restrict fertilizer application or prohibit 

4 phosphorus-containing fertilizers in watersheds that are sensitive to P enrichment. The following 

5 are examples of such types of policies.

6 • Chesapeake Bay Program Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): On September 22, 

7 2006, the Chesapeake Executive Council, Headwater State Jurisdictions, and members of 

8 the lawn care product manufacturing industry signed an MOU that will achieve a 50 

9 percent reduction in the pounds of P in do-it-yourself lawn care products by 2009 (as 

10 compared to a 2006 base year). This MOU further commits the signatories to reduce N

11 nutrient losses by recommending possible changes in product content, form, or 

12 application method, as well as develop outreach materials to educate the general public 

13 on the use of fertilizers.

14 Annapolis, Maryland, recently became the first municipality in the

15 Chesapeake Bay watershed to adopt an ordinance banning the use 

16 of fertilizer that contains P. Since January 1, 2009, residents have 

17 been required to use only phosphorus-free fertilizer, except in 

18 gardens, on newly established turf, and in cases where a soil test 

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

20 Assessments

21 Municipalities and facility owners should conduct an assessment of turf areas to identify 

22 essential versus nonessential turf and opportunities to reduce turf and decrease the inputs for turf 

23 areas that are retained. Examples of essential turf areas include turf for transit paths, security, 

24 historic preservation or dedicated recreational purposes such as picnic areas and ball fields. 

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

26 purposes only. Many of those areas can be converted to less input-intensive ground covers, 

27 shrubs, or trees (e.g., grass consumes eight units of water, trees consume five units, and shrubs 

28 and other ground covers consume four units (Schueler 2000a)).

29 To reduce both the environmental effects of turf and management costs, communities and land 

30 managers across the country to varying degrees are identifying areas that are mow zones, low31 mow zones and no-mow zones in an effort to reduce maintenance and provide increased 

32 ecological value from landscaped areas. Converting turfed areas back to naturalized areas is also 

33 a strategy to eliminate the need to irrigate, fertilize, and apply pesticides except in cases where

34 disease or invasive species are problematic.

35 For areas that will remain as turf, further evaluation can identify areas that will be actively 

36 managed (high-input) versus those that will be mowed and not treated with fertilizers and 

37 pesticides. Facilities, campuses and other managers of large tracts of land should develop 

38 landscape management plans, maps and operation and maintenance plans to properly manage 

39 each designated category of vegetative cover including high-input and low-input turf areas. 

40 Facility managers also may want to limit the creation or retention of high-input areas to the most 

41 visible and used landscaped areas (e.g., areas adjacent to building entrances, transit paths or areas 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 135 

1 where high quality turf is deemed essential). In contrast, lawns along the side and back of 

2 buildings or at the edges of parking lots might not require such intensive management and can be 

3 designated as low-input and low-mow areas. Examples of turf conversion or reduction strategies 

4 are provided below.

5 University of Nevada Los Vegas Turf Conversion

6 • Since 1995 the University of Nevada Los Vegas has reduced turf on campus by 

7 1,056,126 square feet, with an estimated water savings of more than 9 million gallons and 

8 more than $20,000 annually. Its efforts include computer-controlled watering of campus 

9 turf in compliance with water authority guidelines, enabling automatic shutdown with the 

10 use of flow sensors, decoders, and automatic irrigation adjustment through an 

11 evapotranspiration database, which is linked to the university’s weather station for 

12 automatic irrigation adjustment because of changes in weather. All landscaping around 

13 new buildings is now xeriscaped, and more than 50,000 square feet of turf has been

14 replaced with desert landscaping at the Shadow Lane Campus. A landscape design is in 

15 progress to reduce the heat-island effect of parking lots through tree planting in a project 

16 being planned in partnership with the U.S. Division of Forestry. 

17 www.annapolis.gov/upload/images/government/council/Adopted/o1008.pdfhttp://barrick

18 museum.unlv.edu/xeric/turf.html. 

19 The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is mandating that 

20 more than 100 New Jersey municipalities adopt local ordinances prohibiting the use of 

21 fertilizers containing P except under special circumstances (see ordinance details at 

22 Henderson, Nevada, Turf Reduction Program

23 Henderson Parks and Recreation Department has a turf reduction program that involves 

24 removing nonfunctional turf from targeted areas in the parks system and replacing it with more 

25 efficient xeriscaped areas. Since 2003, more than 85 turf conversion projects have been 

26 completed, removing more than 1.2 million square feet of turf, mostly from medians, parking 

27 lots, and areas where turf is primarily decorative. This turf removal has translated into an annual 

28 savings of more than 68 million gallons of water. The program was funded through a variety of 

29 grants and rebates rather than tax dollars. 

30 www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/DOCS/TMDL/Fertilizer Application Model 

31 Ordinance.pdfhttp://www.cityofhenderson.com/parks/parks/turf-conversion.php). The state is 

32 also working to reduce fertilizer application statewide. In April 2008 NJDEP signed an MOU 

33 with two major fertilizer producers to address P use in lawn fertilizers to reduce the amount of P

34 in their lawn fertilizer products, distribute these products in garden centers statewide and work 

35 with NJDEP to develop strategies to educate the public about proper selection and use of lawn 

36 fertilizer. For more information, see Recent Partnership Limits Phosphorus in New Jersey 

37 Fertilizer, on page 12 of Nonpoint Source News-Notes issue 86, at .
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 136 

1 University of Waterloo Campus Landscape Study

2 • A study was undertaken at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, to develop a 

3 methodology for assessing all campus areas to identify candidates for turf conversion 

4 (Hassan 2000). The study included an evaluation of stakeholder preferences, including 

5 turf users (students and faculty) and university staff who maintain turf areas. A set of 

6 criteria were established for evaluating existing turf areas based on current conditions, 

7 visibility and aesthetics, and feasibility and suitability for alternate plantings. 

8 www.epa.gov/NewsNotes/pdf/86issue.pdfhttp://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgree

9 n/projects/library/grass.pdf. 

10 Township of Jefferson, New Jersey: Within the township, no person, firm, corporation, or 

11 franchise is to apply liquid or granular fertilizer containing P. No lawn fertilizer of any 

12 kind is to be applied on frozen ground or within 10 feet of a body of water, including 

13 wetlands. Resource

14 • Hassan, S. 2000. Campus Landscape Study: The Conversion of Turf Areas to Alternate 

15 Forms of Ground Cover. http://www.jeffersontownship.net/Cit-e16 Access/news/index.cfm?NID=3762&TID=4&jump2=0http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/info

17 wast/watgreen/projects/library/grass.pdf

18 • Montville Township, New Jersey: Adopted July 2008, applying fertilizer is prohibited 

19 during a runoff-producing rainfall or before a runoff-producing rainfall is predicted to 

20 occur. Fertilizer application is also prohibited when soils are saturated and fertilizer can 

21 move off-site. Application is further prohibited on impervious surfaces, within 25 feet of 

22 a waterbody, and more than 15 days before the start or at any time after the March 15 to 

23 October 31 growing season. Phosphorus-containing fertilizer is strictly prohibited 

24 anywhere outdoors at any time except where demonstrated to be necessary for the 

25 specific soils and target vegetation, as noted by Rutgers Cooperative Research and 

26 Extension’s annual fertilizer recommendation.

27 http://www.montvillenj.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=487

28 • Suffolk County, New York, Fertilizer Prohibition: A new law prohibits lawn fertilizer 

29 applications from November 1 to April 1 to prevent N runoff from frozen ground. The 

30 law, which also requires retailers to post signs near fertilizer displays advising customers 

31 of the date restrictions, took effect in January 2009. Violators, whether landscapers or
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 137 

1 homeowners, risk fines of $1,000. Licensed landscapers are required to participate in a 4-

2 hour, county-sponsored session administered by the Cornell Cooperative Extension to 

3 renew their licenses. For more information, see 

4 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/nyregion/long5 island/15fertilizerli.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

6 • Highland Park, Illinois, Phosphorus-Based Fertilizer Ordinance: The Ordinance prohibits 

7 the application of fertilizer containing P to any area within city limits unless the user 

8 meets one of the three allowable circumstances contained in the ordinance. For example, 

9 the fertilizer containing P can be used in areas where the ambient P content is below the 

10 median P area for typical soils or the fertilizer is used under a tree canopy. The ordinance 

11 further prevents the retail sale of fertilizer containing P within city limits. For more 

12 information, see http://www.cityhpil.com/pdf/Phosphorus13 BasedFertilizerOrdinance.DOC

14 • Wisconsin Phosphorus Ban: In April 2009, Wisconsin Governor Doyle signed the Clean 

15 Lakes bill (2009 Wisconsin Act 9). The bill established a statewide law prohibiting the 

16 display, sale and use of lawn fertilizer containing P, with certain reasonable exceptions 

17 (e.g., when establishing grass or when a soil test shows that P is needed). The law takes 

18 effect in April 2010, which gives retailers time to prepare. Although retailers will not be 

19 permitted to display turf fertilizer that is labeled as containing P, they may post a sign 

20 advising customers that turf fertilizer containing P is available upon request for qualified 

21 uses. The prohibition does not apply to the following: the use of manure that is 

22 mechanically dried, ground, or pelletized, or to a finished sewage sludge product; the use 

23 of fertilizer that contains P to establish grass during the first growing season; the 

24 application of fertilizer where soils are deficient in P; and agricultural land. Violators 

25 may be required to forfeit not more than $50 for a first violation and not less than $200 

26 nor more than $500 for a second or subsequent violation. For more information, see

27 http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB-3.pdf.

28 • Dane County Wisconsin: As of January 2005, no person in Dane County could apply 

29 lawn fertilizer labeled as containing anything more than 0 percent P. Restrictions on lawn 

30 fertilizer application also include applying any type of fertilizer on frozen or impervious 

31 surfaces. http://www.danewaters.com/management/phosphorus.aspx

32 • Minnesota Fertilizer, Soil Amendment, and Plant Amendment Law: Minnesota enacted a 

33 statewide law in 2005 prohibiting the use of P lawn fertilizer unless new turf or lawn is 

34 being established, a soil test shows a need for P, or P is being applied to a golf course or 

35 sod growing area by trained staff. When such situations do not exist, state law requires 

36 phosphorus-free lawn fertilizer to be used. For more information about the law, see 

37 http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/waterprotection/phoslaw.aspx.

38 • Buffalo, Minnesota: Effective in 2000, lawn fertilizers were not to be applied on frozen 

39 ground, specified as being between November 15 and April 15. And at no time can any 

40 person, firm, corporation, or franchise apply liquid or granular fertilizer within the city 

41 limits that contains phosphates. Fertilizer application is prohibited on impervious surfaces 

42 and on surfaces within drainage ditches or waterways or within 10 feet of a water 

43 resource. http://www.ci.buffalo.mn.us/Admin/CityCode/1056.htm
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 138 

1 • Sanibel City, Florida: With respect to turf and landscape plants, fertilizers cannot contain 

2 more than 2 percent P or more than 20 percent N, with 70 percent of the N required to be 

3 slow release. Applications are maxed out at one pound of N per 1,000 square feet, for a 

4 total of 4 pounds of N per 1,000 square feet in any one year. Fertilizer can be applied up 

5 to six times in one year to a single area. Further, no fertilizer is to be applied on 

6 impervious surfaces or within 25 feet of a body of water. Retail businesses were required 

7 to post notices about the new regulation near the fertilizer to inform customers. 

8 http://www.sanibelh2omatters.com/documents/CITY%20APPROVES%20ENVIRONM

9 ENTALLY%20FRIENDLY%20REGULATIONS%20FOR%20FERTILIZER%20USE%

10 20ON%20ISLAND.pdf

11 • Bellingham, Washington, Municipal Code: The city’s municipal code contains 

12 restrictions pertaining to commercial phosphorus-based fertilizer. The municipal code 

13 prohibits the application of commercial fertilizer to residential lawns or public properties 

14 within the Bellingham city limits area of the Lake Whatcom watershed, either liquid or 

15 granular, that is labeled as containing more than 0 percent P or other compounds 

16 containing P, such as phosphate, except when applied to newly established turf or lawn 

17 areas in the first growing season. In addition, the municipal code prohibits applying

18 fertilizer to frozen ground and impervious surfaces and imposes requirements for cleanup 

19 of fertilizer that is applied, spilled, or deposited on impervious surfaces. Bellingham’s 

20 Municipal Code is at 

21 http://www.cob.org/web/bmcode.nsf/srch/B5D4E84B824F05EB882561D600601973?Op

22 enDocument.

23 • Whatcom County, Washington: As of April 2005 for Lake Whatcom and June 2007 for 

24 Lake Samish, using commercial fertilizers containing P on residential lawns or on public 

25 agency properties in the Lake Whatcom watershed is prohibited. Further, no commercial 

26 fertilizer of any kind is allowed to be applied on frozen or impervious surfaces.

27 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/whatcom/Whatco16/Whatco1632.html

28 A few fertilizer bans have been in place for long enough to measure results. The following are 

29 two studies of the effectiveness of fertilizer ban policies in the Midwest.

30 • Reduced River Phosphorus Following Implementation of a Lawn Fertilizer Ordinance 

31 (Ann Arbor, Michigan): As part of its efforts to comply with a state-imposed P TMDL to 

32 reduce 50 percent of P discharges to the Huron River, the city of Ann Arbor enacted an 

33 ordinance that went into effect in 2007 to limit P application to lawns. The estimated 

34 effect of full compliance was a 22 percent reduction in P entering the river. The study 

35 indicates that after the first year of data collection and analysis, statistically significant 

36 reductions were documented for total P and, to a lesser degree, for dissolved P for every 

37 month from May to September. The research team states, “with a considerable degree of 

38 confidence that P concentrations were lower in 2008 at experimental sites compared with 

39 the reference period (2003 to 2005) and that the reductions were coincident with a city 

40 ordinance restricting use of lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus.” However, the study 

41 does not conclude that those reductions were caused by enacting the ordinance, but shows 

42 that a correlation exists between reductions in P and the ordinance (Lehman et al. 2009). 

43 http://www.umich.edu/~hrstudy/Reports/LRM_08-40_web.pdf.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 139 

1 • Effectiveness of Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer Law: The Minnesota Phosphorus 

2 Lawn Fertilizer Law directed the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture to report in 

3 2007 on the effectiveness of P lawn fertilizer restrictions. The report indicates that 

4 various forms of P-free fertilizers were being sold in stores across the state. For example, 

5 the state polled 87 stores and found that in 97 percent of those stores, phosphorus-free 

6 lawn fertilizer was being retailed. In addition, the report found that the law has reduced 

7 the amount of fertilizer containing P that was being used. The report showed a reduction 

8 of 141 tons of fertilizer used or 48 percent of use between 2003 and 2006. The law has 

9 not increased consumer cost for fertilizer and has generally gained consumer support. 

10 

11 Additionally, since the law’s inception, manufacturers have been able to adapt to the law 

12 and produce new phosphorus-free fertilizer products. Therefore, the change has also 

13 expanded the manufacturer’s market for phosphorus-free lawn fertilizer in other areas 

14 concerned with water quality, including the Chesapeake Bay region, Florida, Michigan, 

15 Wisconsin, and other states. The report, however, documents only consumer use and 

16 manufacturer development and retail and does not look at the effects on water quality or 

17 turf management. It recommends further research to expand on those areas. For more 

18 information, see the Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer Law: 

19 http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/waterprotection/phoslaw.aspx. and the Minnesota 

20 Effectiveness Report of Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer Law: 

21 http://www.mda.state.mn.us/en/sitecore/content/Global/MDADocs/protecting/waterprote

22 ction/07phoslawreport.aspx.

23 5.3.2 Pesticide Management

24 . Accessed February 17, 2010.

25 5.4.2 Low Input Turf and Lawns

26 Barth (2000) foundprovides recommendations on how to achieve a low-input lawns, using the 

27 following eight steps: 

28 1. Lawn conversion: Convert lawn areas into groundcover, trees, shrubs, or meadow 

29 plantings. For a low-input approach, replace the grass underneath mature trees with 

30 groundcover. For an even lower input approach, examine the lawn for potential 

31 conversion areas and plant ground covers, trees, shrubs, or perennials in all areas where 

32 grass is hard to grow. For the lowest input approach, use turf only where it is the best 

33 plant to fulfill a particular function, such as providing a sports area.

34 2. Soil building: Provide a strong foundation for the lawn. For a low-input lawn, get a 

35 soil test to determine the soil’s pH and fertility. Fertilizer and lime may not be needed. 

36 For a lower input lawn, test for soil compaction. Can you sink a screwdriver into the 

37 ground without pounding, or is the soil compacted? If the soil is compacted, aerate it with 

38 a hand corer or mechanical aerator. For the lowest input lawn, examine the soil’s 

39 texture—neither extremely sandy soils nor extremely heavy clay soils make for good 

40 lawns. Next count earthworms—if none can be found in a square foot of soil, there is a 

41 problem. A healthy soil community has more than 10 earthworms per square foot. With 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 140 

1 that basic understanding of soil acidity, fertility, compaction, texture, and earthworms, 

2 one can build soil that supports dense, healthy turf that can infiltrate runoff.

3 3. Grass selection: Choose the type of grass that will be easiest to grow. For a low-input 

4 lawn, select hardy grass species adapted to the region’s climate, such as those 

5 recommended by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (2007) in Healthy Lawns, Healthy 

6 Waters (insert text box with listing of appropriate species for Ches. Bay). For a lower 

7 input lawn, select named grass varieties to meet your specific needs. For the lowest input 

8 lawn, try the new low-input, slow-growing or dwarf grass mixes.

9 4. Mowing and thatch management: Mow to the right height at the right time and 

10 recycle clippings. For a low-input lawn, leave clippings on the lawn to provide nutrients 

11 and moisture. For a lower input lawn, set mowing height as high as possible. For the 

12 lowest input lawn, adjust mowing height and frequency during the growing season and 

13 monitor thatch levels.

14 5. Minimal fertilization: Give the lawn what it needs but do not overfeed. For a low15 input lawn, recycle clippings and (in the right season) apply commercial fertilizer at half 

16 the recommended rate; avoid weed and feed formulations and do not fertilize if rain is 

17 imminent. For a lower input lawn, fertilize as above but use encapsulated nitrogen or an 

18 organic product instead—and fertilize only if soil tests show it is needed. For the lowest 

19 input lawn, substitute home generated compost for commercial organic or encapsulated 

20 products. Address the use of non-phosphorus fertilizers and the use of compost as a soil 

21 amendment and fertilizer.

22 1. Weed control and tolerance: Establish a realistic tolerance level for weeds and use 

23 least toxic control methods to maintain it. For a low-input lawn, use least toxic weed 

24 control methods such as cultivation, solarization, flaming, mowing, or herbicidal soap. 

25 For a lower input lawn, grow strong healthy grass and it will crowd out weeds. For the 

26 lowest input lawn, broaden your definition of lawn to include weeds that perform 

27 desirable functions. 

28 2. Integrated pest management: Establish a realistic tolerance level for pests and use 

29 least toxic control methods to maintain it. For a low-input lawn, use least toxic control 

30 methods such as removing or trapping pests, introducing biological control agents, or 

31 apply least toxic chemical controls such as insecticidal soaps. For a lower input lawn, 

32 grow strong, healthy grass that can resist attack. For the lowest input lawn, use cultural 

33 controls to prevent infestation, protect natural predators, and add beneficial soil microbes. 

34 

35 As of January 1, 2010, products containing a combination of fertilizer and herbicide (commonly 

36 known as weed and feed) are no longer available for sale or use in the Canadian province of 

37 Alberta. That ban on the use of weed and feed fertilizers is because of potential health and 

38 environmental impacts. Because weed and feed is applied to an entire lawn, regardless of the size

39 of the weed infestation, it results in an over-application of the herbicide 2, 4-D. Herbicide-only 

40 products will still be available for spot application, because they result in less surplus chemical 

41 draining from the lawn, running into storm sewers and entering waterways (Environment Alberta 

42 2010).
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 141 

1 5.3.3 Mowing

2 Lawn mowing practices can affect the amount of fertilizer, pesticide, andSensible irrigation

3 inputs needed. Mowing to a height of at least three inches shades out weeds, slows moisture loss, 

4 protects grass vigor, and encourages deeper root growth. When grass is mowed too low, the soil 

5 is exposed to light, which can stimulate weed seed germination (Barth 2000).

6 Mowing frequency is also an important factor. A general rule is to ensure that no more than one7 third of the grass leaf be cut at one time to prevent plant damage. Actual mowing frequency will 

8 depend on the rate at which the grass is growing, which varies throughout the year (Barth 2000).

9 Recycling grass clippings by mulching them with a mulching mower and leaving them on the 

10 lawn provides nutrients, helps to build soils, and preserves landfill space. According to surveys, 

11 nearly 60 percent of Chesapeake Bay residents practice this form of grass recycling. Using a 

12 composting mower can help meet at least a one-fourth of the nutrient needs of a yard and saves 

13 time required to bag the clippings (Town of Culpeper 2009). A study by the University of 

14 Connecticut Agricultural Station, as reported by Barth (2000), found that most of the N from 

15 recycled clippings was incorporated into new grass growth within a week. The same study 

16 showed that 80 percent of the N had returned to the lawn after 3 years.

17 5.3.4 Soil Amendments

18 Soil amendments can be used to enhance soil properties, increase the infiltrative and retentive 

19 capacity of soils. Soils can be amended by adding sand or other bulk materials, organic matter 

20 such as compost, inorganic or organic fertilizers. There is some evidence that the use of compost 

21 teas and the inoculation of soils with soil microbes and mycorrhizal fungi can increase soil health 

22 and plant productivity, but additional research is needed.

23 By mechanically treating, aerating, and amending disturbed soils, the physical structure of the 

24 soil can be improved, bulk density can be reduced, and the porosity and infiltrative capacity of 

25 the soils enhanced. In fine-textured (clay, clay loam) soils, the addition of compost/organic 

26 materials will reduce bulk density, improve friability (workability) and porosity, and increase its 

27 gas and: Practice water permeability, thus reducing erosion. When used in sufficient quantities, 

28 adding compost/organic materials will provide both immediate and long-term positive effects on 

29 soil structure so that fine-textured soils will resist compaction and increase their water holding 

30 capacity. Soil aggregation in coarse-textured (sandy) soils will be improved.

31 McDonald (2004) specifies 2 to 4 inches of compost tilled into the upper 8 to 12 inches of soil, 

32 depending on soil type, before planting. Balousek (2003) showed a marked decrease in surface 

33 runoff volume (36 to 53 percent) when compacted soils were chisel-plowed and deep-tilled, and 

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

35 Additionally, compost is good source of N, P, and potassium and contains micronutrients 

36 essential for plant growth. Therefore, adding compost can also have a positive effect on the use 

37 of fertilizer and pH adjustment (lime/sulfur addition) and help reduce soil compaction. The 

38 benefits of compost are described in more detail in the Composting Council fact sheet, Using 

39 Compost in Stormwater Management, at www.compostingcouncil.org.

40 The city of Redmond, Washington, has developed Guidelines for Landscaping with Compost 

41 Amended Soils (City of Redmond Public Works 1998). In addition to the guidelines, the 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 142 

1 document also contains data on the comparative costs of the use of soil amendments versus the 

2 use of other soil preparation methods and describes the benefits in terms of payback and 

3 increased infiltration rates and reduced runoff. The city also quantified the reduced costs for 

4 detention facilities accrued through the use of compost amended soils due to the increase in 

5 moisture holding capacity of the amended soils. According to Hielema (1996), “the amended 

6 plots generated 53 percent to 74 percent of the runoff volume produced by unamended plots 

7 under saturated conditions.” Thus, under such conditions, stormwater detention facilities could 

8 be reduced in size because of the holding capacity of the amended soils.

9 McCoy (2006) noted that soil amendments and soil treatments can be used to reduce compaction 

10 and increase infiltration. For example, additions of sand and gravel in the design of multiple 

11 layer soil profiles can reduce soil compaction and have the potential to decrease runoff and retain 

12 water for subsequent evapotranspiration.

13 5.3.5 Water Management

14 Landscape irrigation wastes up to 1.5 billion gallons of water every day across the country (EPA 

15 WaterSense). As reported by Mosko (2009), the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

16 California determined that up to 70 percent of residential water use in Southern California is for 

17 outdoor irrigation, particularly lawns. Although the number of lawns in California is unknown, 

18 84 percent of respondents in a 2000 statewide Air Resources Board survey described having a 

19 lawn area, and the San Diego Union recently reported an estimate that residential lawns cover 

20 300,000 acres and annually soak up 1.5 million acre-feet of water.

21 According to Mosko (2009), the most popular grasses in Southern California are fescues, which 

22 generally require one inch of water per week during dry months and mowing about every other 

23 week. Assuming modest-sized lawn areas of 25 feet by 25 feet in both front and in back yards, 

24 the lawns could consume, in a single month, in excess of 3,000 gallons of water plus the 34 

25 kilowatt hours of electricity required deliver the water to Southern California homes.

26 Among other things, irrigation water waste is a product of inefficient system design, leaks, 

27 improper nozzle use, broken nozzles, improper system pressure and improper watering 

28 schedules. Excess water use can result in adverse environmental impacts, including over-drafting 

29 groundwater resources, reduced stream flows, water quality degradation, and disruptions to the 

30 ecosystems that depend on the water supplies (Vickers 2001).

31 Landscapes with automatic irrigation systems use more water than landscapes that water by 

32 hand. In-ground sprinkler systems, automatic timers for irrigation, and drip irrigation systems 

33 use 35 percent, 47 percent, and 16 percent more water than residences without these systems,

34 respectively (Mayer and DeOreo 1998). Although, hand-watering or using drought-tolerant 

35 vegetation is most efficient, when irrigation systems are desired, reduced water consumption can 

36 result from using efficient equipment; proper design, installation, and maintenance of systems;

37 and performing irrigation system audits regularly.

38 Efficient Irrigation Controllers

39 Weather-based irrigation controllers can produce water savings when replacing standard clock 

40 timer controllers. Weather-based controllers schedule irrigation according to landscape needs 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 143 

1 and local weather conditions. The technology eliminates the need for manual adjustments to the 

2 irrigation schedule. In a Las Vegas, Nevada-based study, researchers found that 

3 evapotranspiration-based controllers saved 20 percent more water than non-evapotranspiration4 based controllers (Devitt et al. 2008). In an Irving, California, study, researchers found the use of 

5 weather-based evapotranspiration controllers resulted in average water conservation savings of 

6 41 gallons/day. Highest water savings were seen in the summer and fall when irrigation system 

7 use is highest. Researchers also found an average runoff reduction of 50 percent for those sites 

8 that employed use of weather-based irrigation controllers (IRWD 2004).

9 EPA’s WaterSense program has released a draft specification for weather-based irrigation 

10 controllers and will label water-efficient controllers that meet its specification. Weather-based 

11 irrigation controllers that earn the label must demonstrate that they meet the watering needs of a 

12 typical landscape while not overwatering. For more information on the WaterSense label for 

13 irrigation controllers, see http://www.epa.gov/watersense/products/controltech.html

14 Efficient Irrigation Practices

15 To distribute water evenly to an irrigated landscape, an irrigation system must be designed and 

16 installed with water efficiency in mind. Poorly designed irrigation systems result in water loss by 

17 overwatering certain landscape areas causing runoff while under-watering other areas. 

18 Landscape caretakers that use an irrigation system should ensure that the system is operating 

19 efficiently by understanding the distribution uniformity (DU) of the irrigation system. DU is a 

20 measure of the evenness of water applied to a landscape. An optimally performing irrigation 

21 system will have a DU of 80 percent for rotary sprinklers and 75 percent for spray sprinklers 

22 (The Irrigation Association 2007).

23 To test the DU of an irrigation system, a catch-can test is performed. A catch-can test involves 

24 several steps: (1) note location of sprinkler heads; (2) place identically sized containers near each 

25 sprinkler head and between heads; (3) run the sprinkler system until a minimum of 25 mm of 

26 water is collected in a container; (4) record volume of water collected from each container; (5) 

27 calculate the distribution uniformity:

28 DU = Average catch can volume in lower 25% of catch cans

29 Average catch can volume overall

30 If the DU of a system is below 50 percent, consider hiring an irrigation professional to adjust the 

31 system to obtain better performance and water savings. For more information distribution 

32 uniformity and the catch can test, see 

33 http://www.ci.windsor.ca.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=522.

34 EPA’s WaterSense program partners with irrigation professionals trained in water-efficient 

35 design, installation and maintenance, and auditing irrigation systems. An irrigation system 

36 auditor will perform a catch can test on a property and provide customers with suggestions for 

37 improving irrigation system efficiency. Although, as mentioned, watering by hand is the most 

38 efficient means to irrigate a landscape, if an irrigation system is desired, use professionals trained

39 to reduce water consumption. For a list of WaterSense irrigation professionals, see

40 http://www.epa.gov/watersense/meet_our_partners.html.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 144 

1 Deficit irrigation, which is the practice of irrigating below the maximum water demand of the 

2 turfgrass to decrease soil moisture content and water use can also be used to reduce water 

3 consumption and irrigation. Shearman (2006) reported that water savings of 21 and 40 percent

4 were feasible in a test plot in Nebraska when Kentucky bluegrass received deficit irrigation of 60 

5 and 80 percent of potential evapotranspiration while maintaining an acceptable turfgrass quality.

6 5.3.6 Grass Species Selection

7 Some grass species perform better than others under low-input management. In a 5-year field 

8 trial in Rhode Island, hard fescue, tall fescue, colonial bentgrass, red fescue, and koeleria (prairie

9 junegrass) were able to maintain 100 percent turf cover on poor soil with no irrigation or 

10 pesticides after establishment and only 1 to 2 pounds of N per 1,000 square feet per year applied 

11 as organic, granular fertilizer. Kentucky bluegrass and perennial ryegrass were not able to 

12 maintain cover under those conditions (Brown, R., personal communication 2010).

13 Another study in Rhode Island concluded that actively growing turfgrass used an average of 25 

14 mm (1 inch) of water per week in July through September. Average rainfall for the same 12-

15 week period is roughly 300 mm (12 inches). The water-holding ability of good soil and an ability 

16 to go dormant if needed allows the grasses survive despite interannual variations in rainfall 

17 patterns and timing. In fact, choosing grasses that can survive a dormancy period, and allowing 

18 the plants to go dormant during prolonged dry periods is a key strategy for reducing water use 

19 (Carrow et al. 2008).

20 According to Beard and Green (1994), “the proper strategy based on good science is the use of 

21 appropriate low-water-use turfgrasses, trees, and shrubs for moderate-to-low irrigated landscapes 

22 and similarly to select appropriate dehydration-avoidant and drought-resistant turfgrasses, trees, 

23 and shrubs for nonirrigated landscape areas.” It is also important when choosing grasses for low24 input management to use improved varieties. The improved varieties have denser growth and 

25 better disease resistance than common types (Brown, R., personal communication, 2010).

26 Devitt and Morris (2006) note that the need to consider the effects of landscape species selection 

27 including turf on water conservation and use, i.e., “Plant selection should be given serious 

28 consideration in the development of low water-using landscapes.” The authors also recommend 

29 that,

30 [E]mphasis should be placed on the following factors:

31 1. Price water based on its true societal value as a scarce resource

32 2. Decrease irrigated landscape areas.

33 3. Track irrigations and adjust for changes in the seasonal demand of water. 

34 Irrigating based on seasonal demand will almost always use less water than 

35 irrigating based on guesswork.

36 4. Adjust landscape expectations down whenever possible and be more flexible 

37 in plant selection (especially with those plants know to be high water users). 

38 Low growth rates by decreasing fertilization and irrigations to achieve 

39 judicious size control.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 145 

1 If turfgrass is planted as ornamental vegetation in a landscape, choose native, drought tolerant, or 

2 low-water-use turfgrass species that require less water and maintenance. Consult lists of native 

3 species of vegetation to identify species appropriate for a site. The Lady Bird Johnson 

4 Wildflower Center provides native plant lists for the United States: http://www.wildflower.org/. 

5 Local cooperative extension units can also provide information on planting regionally 

6 appropriate species.

7 For functional turf areas, traditional turf species might be desired. Traditional turfgrass is 

8 distinguished as warm season or cool season turfgrasses. Warm season turfgrasses, such as 

9 Bermuda grasses, zoysia grasses, buffalo grass, little bluestem, and Pennsylvania sedge, are 

10 usually more drought tolerant and should be used in warmer climates. Some cool season 

11 turfgrasses, such as fine fescues, are drought tolerant but are more appropriate for cold-weather 

12 climates. Other cool season turfgrasses, such as Kentucky bluegrass, require high amounts of 

13 water (35 inches per year just for survival) and are inappropriate for many areas in the country 

14 (Vickers 2001).

15 One option when selecting grass species is to increase diversity by creating a mixed species lawn 

16 that incorporates clovers or legumes into the turf mixture. A uniform distribution of such plants 

17 can be achieved by evenly blending it with grass seed. Benefits include increased drought18 tolerance, lower N needs, increased pest resistance, and decreased weed infestations (Bellows 

19 2010).

20 A combination of native grasses can provide a highly resistant, low-maintenance yard or turf. For 

21 example, a combination of little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), common or Pennsylvania 

22 sedge (Carex pensylvanica), and tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia flexuosa) is well adapted to the 

23 Northeastern coastal areas (Bellows 2010).

24 No mow lawn mixes are composed of slow-growing turf grasses like hard fescue and creeping 

25 red fescues, which require little maintenance because they have deep roots and are resistant to 

26 drought. Sedges and rushes can also be used as a low-maintenance ground cover suitable for 

27 moist climates (Bellows 2010).

28 Resources

29 The National Turfgrass Evaluation Program develops and coordinates uniform evaluation trials 

30 of turfgrass varieties and promising selections in the United States and Canada. The results can 

31 be used to determine the broad picture of the adaptation of a cultivar. Results can also be used to 

32 determine if a cultivar is well adapted to a local area or level of turf maintenance. 

33 http://www.ntep.org/contents2.shtml

34 The National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (referred to as ATTRA) offers a 

35 Sustainable Turf Care Guide for lawn care professionals, golf course superintendents, or anyone 

36 with a lawn. The emphasis of the guide is on soil management and cultural practices that 

37 enhance turf growth and reduce pests and diseases by reducing turf stress. It also includes 

38 information about mixed species and wildflower lawns as low maintenance alternatives to pure 

39 grass lawns. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/turfcare.html
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 146 

1 5.3.7 Turf Assessments

2 Municipalities and facility owners should conduct an assessment of turf areas to identify 

3 essential versus nonessential turf and opportunities to reduce turf and decrease the inputs for turf 

4 areas that are retained. Examples of essential turf areas include turf for transit paths, security, 

5 historic preservation or dedicated recreational purposes such as picnic areas and ball fields. 

6 Nonessential turf areas potentially include those areas cultivated in turf for aesthetic purposes

7 only. Many of those areas can be converted to less input-intensive ground covers, shrubs, or trees 

8 (e.g., grass consumes eight units of water, trees consume five units, and shrubs and other ground 

9 covers consume four units (Schueler 2000a)).

10 Carrow et al. (2008) provided an outline of the planning process and components of golf course 

11 BMPs for water use efficiency/conservation that includes a framework for managing golf courses 

12 and other landscapes to reduce water use. This assessment process, described below in modified 

13 form, could be used to plan, assess and implement programs to promote water use efficiency and 

14 conservation at most large, landscaped facilities or jurisdictions (adapted from Carrow et al.

15 2008):

16 A. Initial planning and site assessment

17 1. Identification of water conservation measures and costs

18 2. Purpose and scope of the site assessment

19 3. Site assessment and information collection

20 a. Current water use profile

21 b. Irrigation/water system distribution audit

22 c. Site assessment information, e.g., alternative water sources, golf course design 

23 modifications and soil and climate conditions

24 B. Identify, evaluate and select water conservation strategies: and options and use the 

25 following 10 Core Water Conservation Strategies:

26 1. Use nonpotable water sources for irrigation—alternative water sources; water 

27 harvesting/reuse

28 2. Efficient irrigation system design and monitoring devices for implementing water 

29 conservation, e.g., remote sensing and real-time control devices

30 3. Efficient irrigation system scheduling/operation

31 4. Developing and selecting turfgrasses and other landscape plants with respect to water 

32 uptake and use requirements in terms of quantity and quality

33 5. Landscape design for water conservation

34 6. Altering practices to enhance water-use efficiency, e.g., soil amendments, cultivation, 

35 mowing, fertilization

36 7. Indoor water conservation measures in buildings, air conditioning units, pools, and 

37 other facilities associated with a landscape site

38 8. Educating management and staff in water conservation management practices and 

39 approaches

40 9. Developing formal conservation and contingency plans
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 147 

1 10. Monitor and revise plans

2 C. Assess benefits and costs of water conservation measures on stakeholders

3 1. Benefits—direct and indirect

4 2. Costs

5 a. Facility costs for past and planned implementation of water conservation 

6 strategies and practices

7 b. Labor needs/costs

8 c. Costs associated with changes in management practice, e.g., water and soil 

9 treatments, posting of signs, training

10 To reduce both the environmental effects of turf and management costs, communities and land 

11 managers across the country to varying degrees are identifying areas that are mow zones, low12 mow zones and no-mow zones in an effort to reduce maintenance and provide increased 

13 ecological value from landscaped areas. Converting turf areas back to naturalized areas is also a 

14 strategy to eliminate the need to irrigate, fertilize, and apply pesticides except in cases where 

15 disease or invasive species are problematic.

16 For areas that will remain as turf, further evaluation can identify areas that will be actively 

17 managed (high-input) versus those that will be mowed and not treated with fertilizers and 

18 pesticides. Facilities, campuses and other managers of large tracts of land should develop 

19 landscape management plans, maps and operation and maintenance plans to properly manage 

20 each designated category of vegetative cover including high-input and low-input turf areas. 

21 Facility managers also might want to limit the creation or retention of high-input areas to the 

22 most visible and used landscaped areas (e.g., areas adjacent to building entrances, transit paths or 

23 areas where high quality turf is deemed essential). In contrast, lawns along the side and back of 

24 buildings or at the edges of parking lots might not require such intensive management and can be 

25 designated as low-input and low-mow areas. Examples of turf conversion or reduction strategies 

26 are provided below.

27 • The U.S. National Arboretum in Washington, D.C., has undertaken measures to reduce 

28 high-maintenance turf areas (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

29 Service, no date). The Arboretum occupies 446 acres of green space, about half of which 

30 is taken up by intensely managed gardens, collections, and research plots. Arboretum 

31 managers have drastically reduced the area devoted to turf and have changed the way the 

32 turf is managed. Large open spaces that were formerly devoted to turf are now managed 

33 as meadows and account for about 70 acres, and areas that are frequently mowed have 

34 been reduced to just 31 acres. Instead of mowing turf areas weekly, as is standard 

35 practice, they mow in response to height thresholds, so that the turf is mowed only 13 

36 times on average during the growing season instead of 30 times (less if drought slows turf 

37 growth). The mowing height threshold is 5 inches, which is much higher than is 

38 commonly used on corporate campuses or on residential turf. They do not generally 

39 irrigate or fertilizer turf, do not use pesticides or herbicides, and leave clippings on the 

40 turf areas.

41 8.• Since 1995 the University of Nevada Los Vegas has reduced turf on campus by 

42 1,056,126 square feet, with an estimated water savings of more than 9 million gallons and 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 148 

1 more than $20,000 annually. Its efforts include computer-controlled watering of campus 

2 turf in compliance with water authority guidelines, enabling automatic shutdown with the 

3 use of flow sensors, decoders, and automatic irrigation adjustment through an 

4 evapotranspiration database, which is linked to the university’s weather station for 

5 automatic irrigation adjustment because of changes in weather. All-conserving

6 landscaping around new buildings is now xeriscaped, and more than 50,000 square feet 

7 of turf has been replaced with desert landscaping at the Shadow Lane Campus. A 

8 landscape design is in progress to reduce the heat-island effect of parking lots through 

9 tree planting in a project being planned in partnership with the U.S. Division of Forestry. 

10 http://barrickmuseum.unlv.edu/xeric/turf.htmltechniques. For a low-input lawn, water 

11 infrequently, in the early morning, but soak the lawn well. For a lower input lawn, water 

12 only when the lawn definitely needs it and calibrate sprinklers. For the lowest input lawn, 

13 accept that the grass might not be green year round.

14 • Henderson, Nevada, Parks and Recreation Department has a turf reduction program that 

15 involves removing nonfunctional turf from targeted areas in the parks system and 

16 replacing it with more efficient xeriscaped areas. Since 2003 more than 85 turf 

17 conversion projects have been completed, removing more than 1.2 million square feet of 

18 turf, mostly from medians, parking lots, and areas where turf is primarily decorative. The

19 turf removal has translated into an annual savings of more than 68 million gallons of 

20 water. The program was funded through a variety of grants and rebates rather than tax 

21 dollars. http://www.cityofhenderson.com/parks/parks/turf-conversion.php 

22 • A study was undertaken at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, to develop a 

23 methodology for assessing all campus areas to identify candidates for turf conversion 

24 (Hassan 2000). The study included an evaluation of stakeholder preferences, including 

25 turf users (students and faculty) and university staff who maintain turf areas. A set of 

26 criteria were established for evaluating existing turf areas based on current conditions, 

27 visibility and aesthetics, and feasibility and suitability for alternate plantings. 

28 http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/projects/library/grass.pdf.

29 Resource

30 Hassan, S. 2000. Campus Landscape Study: The Conversion of Turf Areas to Alternate Forms of 

31 Ground Cover. <http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/projects/library/ 

32 grass.pdf>. Accessed February 17, 2010.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 149 

1 5.4.3.8 Turf Restrictions 

2 Limiting the amount of landscaped area for turfgrass and high water use plantings can 

3 reduce landscape irrigation demand. A number of municipalities limit turf areas. For 

4 example, the Marin Municipal Water District in California limits use of turfgrass and high 

5 water use plants to 35 percent of the total landscaped area (Marin Municipal Water 

6 District Ordinance 326, In Vickers 2001). Clark County, Nevada, Turf Limits

7 Clark County, Nevada, has set limits on turf areas for new properties according tobased on

8 drought conditions. Under non-drought conditions, the following limits apply: 

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

10 parking areas.

11 • Multifamily (apartments, condos) and nonresidential developments: 30 percent of an area 

12 set aside for landscaping can be grass, excluding parking lots and driveways.

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

14 ranges.

15 For nonresidential landscapes, installing installation of new turf is prohibited during drought 

16 conditions, with some exceptions for public spaces that have functional turf. For single-family 

17 and multifamily developments, installing new turf is prohibited in common areas of residential 

18 neighborhoods during a Drought Watch, and during a more severe Drought Alert, new turf is 

19 prohibited in residential front yards and cannot exceed 50 percent of the gross area of the side or 

20 rear yard or 100 square feet, whichever is greater. A maximum of 5,000 square feet of turf is 

21 permitted. The details of the Clark County Drought Restrictions are at 

22 http://library.municode.com/HTML/16214/level2/T30pt2_30.64.html#T30pt2_30.64_30.64.070. 

23 5.3.94.4 Incentives for Landscape Conversion 

24 Some communities use incentives to urge property owners to convert their lawns to less 

25 maintenance-intensive landscaping. The following are examples of lawn conversion incentive 

26 programs.

27 Southern Nevada Water Authority Water Smart Landscapes Rebate

28 The Southern Nevada Water Authority’s (SNWA) Water Smart Landscapes rebate helps 

29 property owners convert water-thirsty grass to xeriscape. SNWA will rebate customers $1.50 per 

30 square foot of grass removed and replaced with desert landscaping up to the first 5,000 square 

31 feet converted per property, per year. Beyond the first 5,000 feet, SNWA will provide a rebate of 

32 $1 per square foot. The maximum award for any property in a fiscal year is $300,000. 

33 http://www.snwa.com/html/cons_wsl.html

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

35 • Cary, North Carolina, has initiated a one-time, $500 per property payment to

36 homeowners who convert at least 1,000 square feet of historically irrigated turf to natural 

37 area or warm-season grass. Homeowners must demonstrate past irrigation, submit a 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 150 

1 description of their conversion project, and provide receipts documenting the project. 

2 Customers are allowed a waiver of alternate-day watering restrictions to encourage 

3 establishment of new plantings, and thereafter are required to reduce their water budgets 

4 by 25 percent. A post-conversion site review is conducted to confirm successful 

5 establishment of the replacement landscape. During spring and summer months, the town 

6 anticipates a savings of about 675 gallons per month for each 1,000 square feet converted 

7 to natural landscape, and approximately 567 gallons saved per month for each 1,000 

8 square feet of warm season grass conversion (Town of Cary 2009). 

9 http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Public_Works_and_Utilities/Conservation/

10 Water_Conservation/Incentive_Programs/Turf_Buy_Back_Program/

11 Turf_Buy_Back_Program_Fact_Sheet.htm

12 • The Southern Nevada Water Authority’s (SNWA’s) Water Smart Landscapes rebate 

13 helps property owners convert water-thirsty grass to xeriscape. SNWA will rebate 

14 customers $1.50 per square foot of grass removed and replaced with desert landscaping 

15 up to the first 5,000 square feet converted per property, per year. Beyond the first 5,000 

16 feet, SNWA will provide a rebate of $1 per square foot. The maximum award for any 

17 property in a fiscal year is $300,000. http://www.snwa.com/html/cons_wsl.html

18 Resources

19 EPA’s WaterSense program has a specification for water-efficient, single-family new homes that 

20 includes landscape criteria. The specification requires use of a water budget tool to help calculate

21 a regionally appropriate allotment of turfgrass for a residence or a turfgrass reduction to 40

22 percent of the landscaped area. Although the tool is designed for use by builders designing new 

23 homes, consumers can use it in existing landscapes to help understand whether their use of 

24 turfgrass and other high water using plants is appropriate for their region. To learn more about 

25 the water budget tool, see http://www.epa.gov/watersense/nhspecs/homes_final.html

26 The Sustainable Sites Initiative provides guidance on sustainable landscaping. One of the criteria 

27 for which it has developed guidance is site design for water conservation. To participate in the 

28 program, landscapes are required to reduce potable water use for irrigation by 50 percent from a 

29 baseline. Reductions can be accomplished through using regionally appropriate plantings, 

30 irrigation efficiency (drip irrigation), using captured rainwater, and using recycled graywater to 

31 name a few. To track landscape water savings, Sustainable Sites Initiative uses a water budget 

32 tool adapted from EPA’s WaterSense program that has additional criteria, requiring a greater 

33 reduction in outdoor water use. For more information, see http://www.sustainablesites.org/.

34 Resources for Landscape Conversion

35 Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2007. Healthy Lawns, Healthy Waters: A Guide to Effective Lawn 

36 Care for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. http://www.cbf.org/Document.Doc?id=59. 

37 Accessed February 9, 2010. 

38 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation

39 Landscaping: Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 

40 http://www.nps.gov/plants/pubs/Chesapeake/toc.htm. Accessed February 9, 2010. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 151 

1 5.3.104.5 Environmentally Friendly Landscape Requirements 

2 Plant selection and planning have a significant effect on the amount of maintenance and inputs 

3 needed to maintain attractive landscaping. Landscaping that is considered environmentally 

4 friendly requires few inputs and focuses on the use of native landscaping, the use of drought5 tolerant or locally adapted plants, and other features such as rainwater harvesting, infiltration 

6 areas, and street trees. Several regional programs promote such landscaping principles, including 

7 the BayScapes program for the Chesapeake Bay region and Bay-Friendly Landscaping in the San 

8 Francisco Bay area. The following are examples of communities that have adopted 

9 environmentally friendly landscaping requirements for certain types of development projects. 

10 • The Oro Loma Sanitary District in the San Francisco Bay area of California has adopted 

11 an ordinance requiring the integration of green building and Bay-Friendly landscaping 

12 strategies in district and public-private partnerships buildings and landscapes. Projects are 

13 required to meet the most recent minimum Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines and Bay14 Friendly Landscape Scorecard points (http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/bay15 friendly_landscape_guidelines_-_all_chapters.pdf). 

16 www.oroloma.org/asset/regulation/ordinance%2043.pdf

17 • Miami-Dade County, Florida, has established landscaping requirements for right-of-way 

18 landscapes that promote xeriscape and Florida-Friendly principles by setting minimum 

19 standards for irrigation and selection of plant material and mulch. The ordinance requires 

20 the use of drought-tolerant species and grouping of plants by water requirements, and it 

21 sets limits on irrigation systems. It also aims to promote trees for a variety of 

22 environmental benefits and to reduce exotic pest plants. 

23 http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matter=091097&file=true&yearFolder

24 =Y2009

25 Resources

26 Resources for Environmentally Friendly Landscapes

27 StopWaste.org. 2008. Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: Sustainable Practices for the 

28 Landscape Professional. http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/bay29 friendly_landscape_guidelines_-_all_chapters.pdf. Accessed February 9, 2010. 

30 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. 2009. BayScapes. 

31 http://www.fws.gov/ChesapeakeBay/bayscapes.htm. Last updated November 3. Updated 

32 November 3, 2009. Accessed February 9, 2010. 

33 Municipal Examples

34 The Oro Loma Sanitary District in the San Francisco Bay area of California has adopted an 

35 ordinance requiring the integration of green building and Bay-Friendly landscaping strategies in 

36 district and public-private partnerships buildings and landscapes. Projects are required to meet 

37 the most recent minimum Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines and Bay-Friendly Landscape 

38 Scorecard points (http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/bay-friendly_landscape_guidelines_-

39 _all_chapters.pdf). www.oroloma.org/asset/regulation/ordinance%2043.pdf
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 152 

1 Miami-Dade County, Florida, has established landscaping requirements for right-of-way 

2 landscapes that promote xeriscape and Florida-Friendly principles by setting minimum standards 

3 for irrigation and selection of plant material and mulch. The ordinance requires the use of 

4 drought-tolerant species and grouping of plants by water requirements, and it sets limits on 

5 irrigation systems. It also aims to promote trees for a variety of environmental benefits and to 

6 reduce exotic pest plants. 

7 http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matter=091097&file=true&yearFolder=Y2009

8 5.3.114.6 Xeriscaping Requirements 

9 Xeriscaping is a type of landscaping that conserves water throughby planting of native, water10 efficient plants rather than water-intensive ones and using techniques that minimize the need for 

11 irrigation. Xeriscaping has water quality benefits in addition to water conservation benefits 

12 because it helps to prevent dry-weather runoff from over-irrigation. 

13 Typically xeriscaping programs are voluntary and focus on education and outreach, although 

14 some communities have implemented xeriscaping requirements as part of their landscaping 

15 codes, and others have developed incentive programs. The following are examples of both 

16 regulatory and incentive approaches to xeriscaping.

17 Municipal Examples

18 • Rancho Cucamonga, California, has a xeriscape requirement for developments requiring 

19 landscaping plans (with some exemptions, including single-family homes and public 

20 spaces). Developments with model homes are required to use xeriscaping on half of the 

21 models, including low water use plants, water-saving irrigation systems, and signage 

22 indicating to buyers the water-saving landscape design features. 

23 http://search.municode.com/html/16570/level2/T19_C19.16.html

24 • Mesa, Arizona, offers a Grass-to-Xeriscape rebate to encourage single-family 

25 homeowners to replace their lawns with xeriscapes. When a customer removes 500 

26 square feet or more of established grass and replaces it with a xeriscape, the Mesa 

27 provides a $500 rebate. http://www.mesaaz.gov/conservation/grass-to-xeriscape28 rebate.aspx

29 • Gallup, New Mexico, has a Xeriscape Rebate Application Program in which customers 

30 are eligible to receive a rebate on their water bill for each square foot of irrigated turf 

31 grass, removed and replaced with an approved xeriscape landscape (the city provides a 

32 Xeriscape Plant List). Twenty-five percent of the qualifying total square footage of 

33 irrigated turf grass removed must be replaced with qualifying xeriscape plants, subject to 

34 inspection and approval. http://www.ci.gallup.nm.us/GJU/Gallup35 Xeriscape%20Rebate%20Application.pdf

36 • In 2006 California passed the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act to require local 

37 municipalities to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances by 2010. To assist 

38 municipalities with compliance, the state issued a Model Water Efficient Landscape 

39 Ordinance and accompanying technical resources, including a compendium of existing 

40 local ordinances addressing water-efficient landscaping. The model ordinance and 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 153 

1 technical assistance information are at 

2 http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 154 

1 5.4 References

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

3 global warming. <5.4.7Fertilizer Prohibitions

4 Suffolk County, New York, Fertilizer Prohibition: A new law prohibits lawn fertilizer 

5 applications from November 1 to April 1 to prevent nitrogen runoff from frozen ground. 

6 The law, which also requires retailers to post signs near fertilizer displays advising 

7 customers of the date restrictions, took effect in January 2009. Violators, whether 

8 landscapers or homeowners, risk fines of $1,000. Licensed landscapers are required to 

9 participate in a 4-hour, county-sponsored session administered by the Cornell Cooperative 

10 Extension to renew their licenses. For more information, see

11 http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2010/2010-

12 02.shtmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/nyregion/long13 island/15fertilizerli.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1>. Updated January 19, 2010. Accessed 

14 March 9, 2010.

15 Aronson, L.J., A.J. Gold, R.J. Hull, and J.L. Cisar. 1987. Evapotranspiration of cool-season 

16 turfgrasses in the humid Northeast. Agron. J. 79:901-905.

17 

18 Bellingham, Washington, Municipal Code: The city’s municipal code contains restrictions 

19 pertaining to commercial phosphorus-based fertilizer. The municipal code prohibits the 

20 application of commercial fertilizer to residential lawns or public properties within the 

21 Bellingham city limits area of the Lake Whatcom Watershed, either liquid or granular, that is 

22 labeled as containing more than 0 percent phosphorus or other compounds containing 

23 phosphorus, such as phosphate, except when applied to newly established turf or lawn areas in 

24 the first growing season. In addition, the municipal code also prohibits the application of 

25 fertilizer to frozen ground and impervious surfaces and imposes requirements for the clean-up of 

26 fertilizer that is applied, spilled or deposited on impervious surfaces. Bellingham’s Municipal 

27 Code is at 

28 http://www.cob.org/web/bmcode.nsf/srch/B5D4E84B824F05EB882561D600601973?OpenDocu

29 ment

30 Highland Park, Illinois, Phosphorus-Based Fertilizer Ordinance: The Ordinance prohibits the 

31 application of fertilizer containing phosphorus to any area within city limits unless the user meets 

32 one of the three allowable circumstances contained in the ordinance. For example, the fertilizer 

33 containing phosphorus can be used in areas where the ambient phosphorus content is below the 

34 median phosphorus area for typical soils or the fertilizer is used under a tree canopy. The 

35 ordinance further prevents the retail sale of fertilizer containing phosphorus within city limits. 

36 For more information, see http://www.cityhpil.com/pdf/Phosphorus37 BasedFertilizerOrdinance.DOC

38 Wisconsin Phosphorus Ban: In April 2009, Wisconsin Governor Doyle signed the Clean Lakes 

39 bill (2009 Wisconsin Act 9). The bill established a statewide law prohibiting the display, sale and 

40 use of lawn fertilizer containing phosphorus, with certain reasonable exceptions (e.g., when 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 155 

1 establishing grass or when a soil test shows that phosphorus is needed). The law takes effect in 

2 April 2010, which gives retailers time to prepare. Although retailers will not be permitted to 

3 display turf fertilizer that is labeled as containing phosphorus, they may post a sign advising 

4 customers that turf fertilizer containing phosphorus is available upon request for qualified uses. 

5 The prohibition does not apply to the following: the use of manure that is mechanically dried, 

6 ground, or pelletized, or to a finished sewage sludge product; the use of fertilizer that contains 

7 phosphorus to establish grass during the first growing season; the application of fertilizer where 

8 soils are deficient in phosphorus; and agricultural land. Violators may be required to forfeit not 

9 more than $50 for a first violation and not less than $200 nor more than $500 for a second or 

10 subsequent violation. For more information, see http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB11 3.pdf.

12 Minnesota Fertilizer, Soil Amendment, and Plant Amendment Law: Minnesota enacted a 

13 statewide law in 2005 prohibiting the use of phosphorus lawn fertilizer unless new turf or lawn is 

14 being established, a soil test shows a need for phosphorus, or phosphorus is being applied to a 

15 golf course or sod growing area by trained staff. When these situations do not exist, state law 

16 requires phosphorus-free lawn fertilizer is to be used. For more information about the law, see 

17 http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/waterprotection/phoslaw.aspx

18 From Nonpoint Source News-Notes:

19 Annapolis, Maryland recently became the first municipality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to 

20 adopt an ordinance banning the use of fertilizer that contains phosphorus. Since January 1, 2009,

21 residents have been required to use only phosphorus-free fertilizer, except in gardens, on newly 

22 established turf and in cases where a soil test shows a phosphorus deficiency. For more

23 information, see www.annapolis.gov/upload/images/government/council/Adopted/o1008.pdf.

24 The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is mandating that more than 

25 100 New Jersey municipalities adopt local ordinances prohibiting the use of fertilizers containing 

26 phosphorus except under special circumstances (see ordinance details at 

27 www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/DOCS/TMDL/Fertilizer Application Model Ordinance.pdf). 

28 The state is also working to reduce fertilizer application statewide. In April 2008 NJDEP signed 

29 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with two major fertilizer producers to address 

30 phosphorus use in lawn fertilizers to reduce the amount of phosphorus in their lawn fertilizer 

31 products, distribute these products in garden centers statewide and work with NJDEP to develop

32 strategies to educate the public about proper selection and use of lawn fertilizer. For more 

33 information, see Recent Partnership Limits Phosphorus in New Jersey Fertilizer, on page 12 of 

34 Nonpoint Source News-Notes issue 86, at www.epa.gov/NewsNotes/pdf/86issue.pdf.

35 Chesapeake Bay Program MOU: On September 22, 2006, the Chesapeake Executive Council, 

36 Headwater State Jurisdictions and members of the lawn care product manufacturing industry 

37 signed an MOU that will achieve a 50 percent reduction in the pounds of phosphorus in do-it38 yourself lawn care products by 2009 (as compared to a 2006 base year). This MOU further 

39 commits the signatories to reduce nitrogen nutrient losses by recommending possible changes in 

40 product content, form, or application method, as well as develop outreach materials to educate 

41 the general public on the use of fertilizers.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 156 

1 5.4.8 Local Efforts to Regulate Home-based Fertilizer Application

2 Whatcom County, Washington: As of April 2005 for Lake Whatcom and June 2007 for Lake 

3 Samish, the use of commercial fertilizers containing phosphorus on residential lawns or on 

4 public agency properties in the Lake Whatcom watershed is prohibited. Further, no commercial 

5 fertilizer of any kind is allowed to be applied on frozen or impervious surfaces.

6 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/whatcom/Whatco16/Whatco1632.html

7 Dane County Wisconsin: As of January 2005, no person in Dane County could apply lawn 

8 fertilizer labeled as containing anything more than 0 percent phosphorus. Restrictions on lawn 

9 fertilizer application also include applying any type of fertilizer on frozen or impervious 

10 surfaces. http://www.co.dane.wi.us/pdfdocs/ordinances/ord080.pdf

11 Buffalo, Minnesota: Effective in 2000, lawn fertilizers were not to be applied on frozen ground, 

12 specified as being between November 15 and April 15. And at no time can any person, firm, 

13 corporation, or franchise apply liquid or granular fertilizer within the city limits that contains 

14 phosphates. Fertilizer application is prohibited on impervious surfaces as well as on surfaces 

15 within drainage ditches or waterways or within 10 feet of a water resource. 

16 http://www.ci.buffalo.mn.us/Admin/CityCode/1056.htm

17 Township of Jefferson, New Jersey: Within the township, no person, firm, corporation, or 

18 franchise is to apply liquid or granular fertilizer containing phosphorus. No lawn fertilizer of any 

19 kind is to be applied on frozen ground or within 10 feet of a body of water, including wetlands. 

20 http://www.jeffersontownship.net/Cit-e-Access/news/index.cfm?NID=3762&TID=4&jump2=0

21 Montville Township, New Jersey: Adopted July 2008, the application of fertilizer is prohibited 

22 during a runoff-producing rainfall, or before a runoff-producing rainfall is predicted to occur. 

23 Fertilizer application is also prohibited when soils are saturated and fertilizer can move off-site. 

24 Application is further prohibited on impervious surfaces, within 25 feet of a waterbody, and 

25 more than 15 days before the start or at any time after the March 15 to October 31 growing 

26 season. Phosphorus-containing fertilizer is strictly prohibited anywhere outdoors at any time 

27 except where demonstrated to be necessary for the specific soils and target vegetation, as noted 

28 by Rutgers Cooperative Research and Extension’s annual fertilizer recommendation. 

29 http://www.montvillenj.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=487

30 Sanibel City, Florida: With respect to turf and landscape plants, fertilizers cannot contain more 

31 than 2 percent phosphorus or more than 20 percent nitrogen, with 70 percent of the nitrogen 

32 required to be slow release. Applications are maxed out at one pound of nitrogen per 1,000 

33 square feet, for a total of 4 pounds of nitrogen per 1,000 square feet in any one year. Fertilizer 

34 can be applied up to six times in one year to a single area. Further, no fertilizer is to be applied 

35 on impervious surfaces or within 25 feet of a body of water. Retail businesses were required to 

36 post notices about the new regulation near the fertilizer to inform customers. 

37 http://www.sanibelh2omatters.com/documents/CITY%20APPROVES%20ENVIRONMENTAL

38 LY%20FRIENDLY%20REGULATIONS%20FOR%20FERTILIZER%20USE%20ON%20ISL

39 AND.pdf
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 157 

1 5.4.9 Effectiveness of Fertilizer Bans

2 Effectiveness of Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer Law: The Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn 

3 Fertilizer Law directed the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture to report in 2007 on the 

4 effectiveness of phosphorus lawn fertilizer restrictions. The report indicates that various forms of 

5 phosphorus-free fertilizers were being sold in stores across the state. For example, the state 

6 polled 87 stores and found that in 97 percent of those stores, phosphorus-free lawn fertilizer was 

7 being retailed. In addition, the report found that the law has reduced the amount of fertilizer 

8 containing phosphorus that was being used. The report showed a reduction of 141 tons of 

9 fertilizer used or 48 percent of use between 2003 and 2006. The law has not increased consumer 

10 cost for fertilizer and has generally gained consumer support.

11 Additionally, since the law’s inception, manufacturers have been able to adapt to the law and 

12 produce new phosphorus-free fertilizer products. Therefore, this change has also expanded the 

13 manufacturer’s market for phosphorus-free lawn fertilizer in other areas concerned with water 

14 quality, including the Chesapeake Bay region, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and other states. 

15 The report, however, documents only consumer use and manufacturer development and retail 

16 and does not look at the effects on water quality or turf management. It recommends further 

17 research to expand on those areas. For more information, see the Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn 

18 Fertilizer Law: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/waterprotection/phoslaw.aspx.

19 and the Minnesota Effectiveness Report of Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer Law: 

20 http://www.mda.state.mn.us/en/sitecore/content/Global/MDADocs/protecting/waterprotection/07

21 phoslawreport.aspx

22 Reduced River Phosphorus Following Implementation of a Lawn Fertilizer Ordinance (Ann 

23 Arbor, Michigan): As part of its efforts to comply with a state-imposed phosphorus TMDL to 

24 reduce 50 percent of phosphorus discharges to the Huron River, the city of Ann Arbor enacted an 

25 ordinance that went into effect in 2007 to limit phosphorus application to lawns. The estimated 

26 effect of full compliance was a 22 percent reduction in phosphorus entering the river. The study 

27 indicates that after the first year of data collection and analysis, statistically significant reductions 

28 were documented for total phosphorus and, to a lesser degree, for DP for every month from May

29 to September. The research team states, “with a considerable degree of confidence that 

30 phosphorus concentrations were lower in 2008 at experimental sites compared with the reference 

31 period (2003 to 2005) and that the reductions were coincident with a city ordinance restricting 

32 use of lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus.” However, the study does not conclude that those 

33 reductions were caused by enacting the ordinance, but shows that a correlation exists between 

34 reductions in phosphorus and the ordinance. http://www.umich.edu/~hrstudy/Reports/LRM_08-

35 40_web.pdf.

36 5.4.10 Soil amendments, composting and microbial and fungal innoculation

37 Soil amendments can be used to enhance soil properties, increase the infiltrative and retentive 

38 capacity of soils. Soils can be amended through the addition of sand or other bulk materials, 

39 organic matter such as compost, inorganic or organic fertilizers and inoculation of soil microbes 

40 and mycorrhizal fungi. By mechanically treating and amending disturbed soils the physical 

41 structure of the soil can be improved, bulk density can be reduced, and the porosity and 

42 infiltrative capacity of the soils enhanced. In fine-textured (clay, clay loam) soils, the addition of 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 158 

1 compost/organic materials will reduce bulk density, improve friability (workability) and 

2 porosity, and increase its gas and water permeability, thus reducing erosion. When used in 

3 sufficient quantities, the addition of compost/organic materials will provide both immediate and 

4 long-term positive effects on soil structure so that fine-textured soils will resist compaction and 

5 increase their water holding capacity. Soil aggregation in coarse-textured (sandy) soils will be 

6 improved. McDonald (2004) specifies 2 to 4 inches of compost tilled into the upper 8 to 12 

7 inches of soil, depending on soil type, before planting. Balousek (2003) showed a marked 

8 decrease in surface runoff volume (36 to 53 percent) when compacted soils were chisel-plowed 

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

10 percent. Additionally, compost is good source of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium and 

11 contains micronutrients essential for plant growth. Therefore, the addition of compost can also 

12 have a positive effect on the use of fertilizer and pH adjustment (lime/sulfur addition) and aid in 

13 the reduction of soil compaction.

14 Innoculation of soils with compost teas or other cocktails of soil microbes and mycorrhizal fungi 

15 can be used to enhance soils and improve soil function in terms of water quality.

16 5.5 References

17 Balousek, J.D. 2003. Quantifying Decreases in Stormwater Runoff from Deep Tilling, Chisel 

18 Plowing, and Compost-Amendment. Dane County Land Conservation Department, Dane 

19 County, IL. 

20 <http://www.countyofdane.com/lwrd/landconservation/papers/quantifyingdecreasesinswru

21 noff.pdf>. Accessed February 9, 2010. 

22 Barth, C.A. 2000. Toward a low-input lawn. Article 130 in The Practice of Watershed 

23 Protection. Ed. by T. Schueler and H. Holland. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott 

24 City, MD. 

25 Beard, J.B., and R.L. Green. 1994. The Role of Turfgrasses in Environmental Protection and 

26 Their Benefits to Humans. Journal of Environmental Quality 23(3):452–460.

27 Bell, G., and J. Moss. 2006. Mowing Practices Reduce Runoff From Turf. 

28 <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bk-2008-0997.ch008>. Accessed February, 25, 2010.

29 Bellows, B. 2010. Sustainable Turf Care, Horticulture Systems Guide. 

30 <http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/turfcare.html>. Accessed March 8, 2010.

31 California DWR (Department of Water Resources). 2010. Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 

32 California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. 

33 <http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/>. Accessed February 

34 24, 2010.

35 Carrow, R.N., R.R. Duncan, and M.T. Huck. 2008. Turfgrass and Landscape Irrigation Water 

36 Quality: Assessment and Management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 159 

1 Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2007. Healthy Lawns, Healthy Waters: A Guide to Effective Lawn 

2 Care for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Annapolis, MD. 

3 <http://www.cbf.org/Document.Doc?id=59>. Accessed February 9, 2010. 

4 Chesapeake Stormwater Network. 2009. The Clipping Point: The Grass Crop of the Chesapeake 

5 Bay Watershed. Baltimore, MD. <http://www.chesapeakestormwater.net/all-things6 stormwater/the-clipping-point-the-grass-crop-of-the-chesapeake-bay-wate.html>>.,

7 Updated June 10, 2009. Accessed February 4, 2010. 

8 City of Annapolis. 2008. Ordinance No. O-10-08 Amended. City Council of the City of 

9 Annapolis, MD. 

10 <http://www.annapolis.gov/upload/images/government/council/Adopted/o1008.pdf>. 

11 Accessed February 24, 2010.

12 City of Bellingham. 1995. Water and Sewers. Bellingham, WA. 

13 <http://www.cob.org/web/bmcode.nsf/srch/B5D4E84B824F05EB882561D600601973?Op

14 enDocument>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

15 City of Buffalo. 2000. Lawn Fertilizer Application Control. Buffalo, MN. 

16 <http://www.ci.buffalo.mn.us/Admin/CityCode/1056.htm>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

17 City of Gallup. 2008. Xeriscape Rebate Application Program. Gallup Joint Utilities, Gallup, NM. 

18 <http://www.ci.gallup.nm.us/GJU/Gallup-Xeriscape%20Rebate%20Application.pdf>. 

19 Accessed February 24, 2010.

20 City of Henderson. 2010. Turf Conversion. Henderson, NV. 

21 <http://www.cityofhenderson.com/parks/parks/turf-conversion.php>. Accessed February 

22 24, 2010.

23 City of Highland Park. 2010. Regarding the Use of Fertilizers Containing Phosphorus. Highland 

24 Park, IL. <http://www.cityhpil.com/pdf/Phosphorus-BasedFertilizerOrdinance.DOC>. 

25 Accessed February 24, 2010.

26 City of Mesa, Arizona. 2009. Grass-to-Xeriscape Landscape Rebate. 

27 <http://www.mesaaz.gov/conservation/grass-to-xeriscape-rebate.aspx>. Accessed February 

28 24, 2010.

29 City of Redmond, Washington. 1998. Guidelines for Landscaping with Compost-Amended Soils. 

30 <http://www.redmond.gov/insidecityhall/publicworks/environment/pdfs/compostamendeds

31 oils.pdf>. Accessed February 25, 2010

32 Center for Watershed Protection. No date. The Peculiarities of Perviousness. Watershed 

33 Protection Techniques 2(1):233–238. 

34 <http://www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Center_Docs/PWP/ELC_PWP129.pdf> Accessed 

35 February 24, 2010.

36 Clark County, Nevada. 2007. 30.64 - Site Landscape and Screening Standards. 

37 <http://library.municode.com/HTML/16214/level2/T30pt2_30.64.html>. Accessed March 

38 10, 2010.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 160 

1 Culpeper, Virginia. 2009. The busy person's guide to lawn care. Culpeper Minutes 36: 33. 

2 <http://web.culpepercounty.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zH6HHktoCsE%3d&tabid=256

3 &mid=1199>. Accessed March 10, 2010.

4 Dane County, Wisconsin. No date. Phosphorus Control in Dane County. 

5 <http://www.danewaters.com/management/phosphorus.aspx>. Accessed March 10, 2010.

6 Devitt, D.A., K. Carstensen, and R.L. Morris. 2008. Residential water savings associated with 

7 satellite-based ET irrigation controllers. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering

8 134(1):74–82

9 Environment Alberta. Alberta Bans Fertilizer-Herbicide Combination Products. 

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

11 

12 Fishel, F.M. 2007. Pesticide Use Trends in the U. S.: Pesticides for Home. University of Florida 

13 IFAS Extension. Gainesville, FL. <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PI/PI17700.pdf>. 

14 UpdatedLast updated January 2007. Accessed February 9, 2010. 

15 Foster, R.S. 1994. Landscaping that Saves Energy and Dollars. Globe Pequot Press, Old 

16 Saybrook, CT.

17 Gregory, J.H., M.D. Dukes, P.H. Jones, and, G.L. Miller. 2006. Effect of urban soil compaction 

18 on infiltration rates. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 61(3):117–125

19 Hassan, S. 2000. Campus Landscape Study: The Conversion of Turf Areas to Alternate Forms of 

20 Ground Cover. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

21 <http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/projects/library/grass.pdf>. Accessed 

22 February 17, 2010. 

23 Hamilton, G.W., and D.V. Waddington. 1999. Infiltration rates on residential lawns in central 

24 Pennsylvania. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(3):564–568.

25 Hielema, E. 2006. Hydrologic Simulation of the Klahanie Catchment, King County, Washington, 

26 With and Without a Landscape Consisting of Soil Amended with Compost, Master Thesis.

27 University of Washington, College of Engineering, Seattle, WA.

28 Irrigation Association. 2007. Landscape Irrigation Auditor. <http://www.irrigation.org>.

29 Accessed March 10, 2010.

30 IRWD (Irvine Ranch Water District). 2004. The residential runoff reduction study.

31 <http://www.irwd.com/Conservation/R3-Study-Revised11-5-04.pdf>. Accessed March 4, 

32 2010.

33 Jefferson Township. 2006. Application of Phosphorus Fertilizer Prohibited. Morris County, NJ. 

34 <http://www.jeffersontownship.net/Cit-e35 Access/news/index.cfm?NID=3762&TID=4&jump2=0>. Accessed February 24, 2010.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 161 

1 Lehman, J.T., D.W. Bell, and K.E. McDonald. 2009. Reduced river phosphorus following 

2 implementation of a lawn fertilizer ordinance. Lake and Reservoir Management.

3 25(3):307–312. <http://www.umich.edu/~hrstudy/Reports/LRM_08-40_web.pdf>. 

4 Accessed February 24, 2010.

5 Marin Municipal Water District Ordinance 326: An ordinance revising water conservation 

6 requirements, Section 11.60.030. August 28, 1991. In A. Vickers. 2001. Handbook of 

7 water use and conservation. WaterPlow Press, Amherst, MA.

8 Marjorie Barrick Museum. 2010. Turf Conversion. University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, 

9 NV. <http://barrickmuseum.unlv.edu/xeric/turf.html>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

10 Mayer, Peter W. and William B. DeOreo. 1998. Residential End Uses of Water. Aquacraft, Inc.,

11 Water Engineering and Management, and American Water Works Association.

12 McDonald, D.K. 2004. Soils for Salmon: Integrating Stormwater, Water Supply, and Solid Waste 

13 Issues in New Development and Existing Landscapes. Center for Watershed Protection, 

14 Ellicott City, MD. Presented at the Water Restoration Institute, September 16, 2004. 

15 Miami-Dade County, Florida. 2009. Legislative Item File Number: 091097. 

16 <http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matter=091097&file=true&yearFolder=

17 Y2009>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

18 Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2010. Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer Law. St. Paul, MN. 

19 <http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/waterprotection/phoslaw.aspx>. Accessed 

20 February 24, 2010.

21 Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2007. Report to the Minnesota Legislature: Effectiveness 

22 of the Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer Law. St. Paul, MN. 

23 <http://www.mda.state.mn.us/en/sitecore/content/Global/MDADocs/protecting/waterprotec

24 tion/07phoslawreport.aspx>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

25 Morton, T., A. Gold, and W. Sullivan. 1988. Influence of overwatering and fertilization of 

26 nitrogen losses from home lawns. Journal of Environmental Quality 17: 124-130.

27 Mosko, S. 2009. No Such Thing as a Green Lawn. <http://www.boogiegreen.com/>. Updated 

28 December 10, 2009. Accessed March 9, 2010.

29 National Gardening Association. 2000. National Gardening Survey. National Gardening 

30 Association , Burlington, VT.

31 New Jersey Legislature. Fertilizer Application Model Ordinance. 

32 <http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/DOCS/TMDL/Fertilizer Application Model 

33 Ordinance.pdf>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

34 Ocean County Soil Conservation District, Schnabel Engineering Associates, Inc., U.S. 

35 Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Impact of Soil 

36 Disturbance During Construction on Bulk Density and Infiltration in Ocean County, New 

37 Jersey. <http://www.ocscd.org/soil.pdf>. Accessed February 25, 2010.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 162 

1 Oro Loma Sanitary Board. 2007. An Ordinance of the Sanitary Board of the Oro Loma Sanitary 

2 District Adopting Civic Green Building and Bay-Friendly Landscaping Requirements. Oro 

3 Loma Sanitary District, Alameda County, CA. 

4 <http://www.oroloma.org/asset/regulation/ordinance%2043.pdf>. Accessed February 24, 

5 2010.

6 Rancho Cucamonga, California. No date. Xeriscape Requirements. 

7 <http://search.municode.com/html/16570/level2/T19_C19.16.html>. Accessed February 

8 24, 2010.

9 Rather, John. March 12, 2009. With Fertilizer Laws, Suffolk Is Aiming for Cleaner Water. New 

10 York Times. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/nyregion/long11 island/15fertilizerli.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

12 Robbins, P., and T. Birkenholts. 2001. Turfgrass Revolution: measuring the expansion of the 

13 American lawn. 

14 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB0-48CFPV2-

15 1&_user=14684&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_

16 sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1222892157&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=

17 C000001678&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=14684&md5=f950503857137fac36eb

18 67c03a9a103e>. Accessed February 25, 2010.

19 Sanibel City Council. 2007. City Approves Environmentally Friendly Regulations for Fertilizer 

20 Use on Island. Sanibel City, FL. 

21 <http://www.sanibelh2omatters.com/documents/CITY%20APPROVES%20ENVIRONME

22 NTALLY%20FRIENDLY%20REGULATIONS%20FOR%20FERTILIZER%20USE%20

23 ON%20ISLAND.pdf>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

24 Schueler, T. 2000a. The peculiarities of perviousness. Article 129 in The Practice of Watershed 

25 Protection. Ed. by T. Schueler and H. Holland, Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott 

26 City, MD. 

27 Schueler, T. 2000b. The compaction of urban soils. Article 36 in The Practice of Watershed 

28 Protection. Ed. by T. Schueler and H. Holland, Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott 

29 City, MD. 

30 Shearman, R. 2006 Turfgrass Cultural Practices for Water Conservation. In Beard, J.B., and M.P. 

31 Kenna. 2008. Water Quality and Quantity Issues for Turfgrasses in Urban Landscapes. 

32 Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA.

33 SNWA (Southern Nevada Water Authority). 2010. Water Smart Landscapes Rebate. Southern 

34 Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas, NV. <http://www.snwa.com/html/cons_wsl.html>. 

35 Accessed February 24, 2010.

36 StopWaste.org. 2008. Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: Sustainable Practices for the 

37 Landscape Professional. <http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/bay38 friendly_landscape_guidelines_-_all_chapters.pdf>. Accessed February 9, 2010.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 163 

1 Town of Cary, North Carolina. 2009. Cary Offering Incentives for Grass-To-Turf Switch. 

2 <http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/4605>. Accessed February 17, 2010. 

3 Township of Montville. 2010. New Fertilizer Regulations. Morris County, NJ. 

4 <http://www.montvillenj.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=487>. 

5 Accessed February 24, 2010.

6 U.S. Composting Council. 2008. Using Compost in Stormwater Management.

7 <http://www.compostingcouncil.org>. Accessed February, 25, 2010.

8 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. No date. National 

9 ArboretumDefinitions

10 Essential Turf Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 

11 Washington, DC.

12 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Nonpoint Source News-Notes. U.S. 

13 Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

14 <http://www.epa.gov/NewsNotes/pdf/86issue.pdf>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation

16 Landscaping: Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 

17 <http://www.nps.gov/plants/pubs/Chesapeake/toc.htm>. Accessed February 9, 2010.

18 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. 2009. BayScapes. 

19 <http://www.fws.gov/ChesapeakeBay/bayscapes.htm>. Updated November 3, 2009. 

20 Accessed February 9, 2010.

21 Vickers, A. 2001. Handbook of water use and conservation. WaterPlow Press, Amherst, MA.

22 Whatcom County. 2009. Establishing Regulations for Fertilizer Application on Residential 

23 Lawns and Public Properties within the Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish Watersheds. 

24 Whatcom County, WA. 

25 <http://www.mrsc.org/mc/whatcom/Whatco16/Whatco1632.html>. Accessed February 24, 

26 2010.

27 • Wisconsin State Legislature. 2009. Assembly Bill 3. Madison, WI.

28 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB-3.pdf>. Accessed February 24, 

29 2010.Nonessential Turf

30 • Hi-input Turf

31 Low-input Turf