Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 500 GREAT POND ROAD 1/28/2003 iiTKTurfgrass Consultants Environmental _ C RI 47 Falmouth Road iJC. Fvl-H A1NFJ0VP=i=1 Longmeadow, MA 01106 ow-P�NVTTMrANT Phone: (413) 565-5340 FAX: (413) 565-3134 January 28, 2003 By Hand Delivery Ms. Julie Parrino, Conservation Administrator North Andover Conservation Commission Office of Community Development and Services Town of North Andover 146 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan for North Andover Country Club Dear Ms. Parrino: I am writing in response to your letter dated November 15, 2002, which provided comments on the IPM Plan for North Andover Country Club (the "Club"). The Club submitted the IPM Plan to the Commission under cover of letter dated October 3, 2002. The Commission requested preparation of the IPM Plan in May 2002, in order to administratively approve amendments to Condition No. 63, Order of Conditions No. 242-995 [Irrigation Project at the Club], and Condition No. 69, Order of Conditions No. 242-1122 [Pool Project at the Club]. The Club's response to your November 15 letter takes two forms. First, the IPM Plan is proposed to be supplemented with the following appendices (copies enclosed herewith): (i) Environmental Monitoring Program—Water Quality Monitoring Program at North Andover Golf Course; and(ii) Oil and/or Hazardous Materials Spill Response Action Plan—North Andover Country Club. Second, additional explanatory and technical responses are provided below. On the assumption that these further submissions and responses prove satisfactory, the Club again asks the Commission to administratively approve the IPM Plan, as well as the above- noted amendments to its Orders of Conditions (as further described in the October 3 letter). • Further Explanation of Water Quality Monitoring Proms. The enclosed Water Quality Monitoring Program [App. 1] calls for the collection of site-specific data from various monitoring stations along the two Lake Cochichewick tributaries which flow through the Club's property. In Phase I [April 2003], baseline data on nitrogen,total phosphorus pH, and specific conductivity will be collected prior to the application of any pesticides or fertilizers during this growing season. In Phase II [September 2003], all monitoring locations will be re-sampled, and a Ms. Julie Parrino Page 2 January 28, 2003 "pesticide screen analysis" conducted for products used during the prior 90 days. In Phase III [2004 and beyond], bi-annual sampling will take place for pH, specific conductivity, total ortho-phosphorus, nitrate, nitrite and total kjeldhal nitrogen, along with pesticide screening. All collected data—which will be provided to the Commission, Health Department, and Water Treatment Plant— will be used by the Club to ensure optimal protection of groundwater and surface water resources. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan also identifies the location of the pesticide storage and mixing areas at the Club, and stipulates that pesticides will be stored in a self-contained, spill proof locker. • Oil and/or Hazardous Materials Spill Response Action Plan. To further ensure appropriate response in the unlikely event of an uncontrolled release of pesticides, the IPM Plan is amended to include an Oil and/or Hazardous Materials Spill Response Action Plan [App. 2]. • The IPM Plan Promotes Further Protection of Lake Cochichewick. The development of healthy turfgrass within a sound IPM Plan provides an effective and site-appropriate means for protecting groundwater and surface water resources. Well tested Best Management Practices (e.g., verticutting, aeration) cultivate turfgrass plants able to withstand environmental and pest pressures with minimal fertilizer/pesticide applications. • No Feasible `Bio-Control" Alternatives to Chemical Pesticides at Present. Presently, there are no commercially viable and safe bio-control products effective to combat the wide range of pest pressure on turfgrass. Nevertheless, the IPM Plan calls for the continual evaluation of new technologies and bio- rational products, which if feasible would then be integrated into the IPM Plan to reduce chemical application wherever practicable. In the meantime, the responsible use of pesticides and fertilizers under the IPM Plan, together with implementation of the proposed Water Quality Monitoring Program, provides a high degree of confidence that water resources will remain well protected. • Vegetated Buffer Strips/Literature Review. In preparing the IPM Plan and this letter,the following papers—which describe the sorbent capacity of vegetated buffer strips and use of Best Management Practices as effective means for protecting water resources on golf courses—have been referenced: (i) Baird, James H., Evaluation of Management Practices to Protect Surface Water from Pesticides and Fertilizer Applied to Bermudagrass Fairways; (ii) Barton, Louise, and Colmer, Tim, Maximizing Turf urf Quality, Minimizing Nutrient Leaching; (iii) Branham, B. E., Gardner, D. S., How Does Turf Influence Pesticide Dissipation; (iv) Colmer, Tim, Minimizing Nutrient Leaching: Save Resources and Protect the Environment; (v) Liskey, Eric, Water Polluter or Water Filter?; and (v) Lyman, Gregory T., Alternative Strategies for Trufarass Management Near Water. Ms. Julie Parrino Page 3 January 28, 2003 I hope that this provides all of the remaining information you require in connection with this matter, so that the IPM Plan may be finalized and the administrative amendments made to the subject Orders of Condition. Of course, please do not hesitate to call with any questions. I may be reached most days at(413) 565-5340. Vdy truly yours, John Bresnahan Tufgrass IPM Professional Encl. cc. North Andover Country Club Jeffrey B. Renton, Esq. 1 1 1 1 1 l i 1 1 1 i i i i 1 i 1 9 1 t Environmental Monitoring Program Water Quality Monitoring Program at North Andover Golf course The Environmental Monitoring Program at North Andover Golf course will include water analysis of two tributaries of Lake Cochichewick and the surface waters of the Lake itself. The monitoring plan,based on sound, scientific principles will (1) establish a baseline of surface water data that will establish environmental conditions,providing a base for measuring compliance with environmental regulations,and(2)ensure that the Integrated Pest Management(IPM)system is functioning properly and that no environmental impacts have developed. The monitoring program will revolve around four basic principles:*(1) Reconnaissance or periodic observations to disclose changes or trends. (2) Surveillance will be initiated to comply with regulatory enforcement programs. Pesticide application licensing programs require record keeping which can be monitored at any time. (3) Subjective in terms of spot-checking for broad or open- ended exploration of potential problem areas. (4) Objective use of data to develop or confirm the results of on going programs. The Environmental Monitoring program at North Andover GC will focus on maintaining environmental quality and obtaining information on which to make adjustments in cultural management and/or pest management programs using all of these approaches. Results of the Environmental Monitoring Program will provide feedback to the golf course superintendent to be used as a tool within an operating IPM system For example, the results of the program can be used to assure that the correct application rates and timing of pesticides and fertilizers do not result in potential runoff, which can be detected within this monitoring program Should fertilizer and/or chemical products be detected above background levels, an immediate response by the golf course superintendent will be initiated. Should a pesticide be detected in the tributaries,the surface water will be immediate sampled again to confirm the presence of the compound. Confirmation of pesticide detection will subsequently eliminate future use of that product by the golf course. Pesticide samples will be collected every two weeks after confirmation until the compound is no longer detected in the surface water. Should nitrates above 10 mg/1 be detected in the surface waters, fertilizer formulation, application timing and environmental conditions will be reviewed to prohibit such runoff in the further. The Environmental Monitoring Program is established in two Phases. Phase I is the establishment of baseline data from sampling of identified locations before the 2003 growing season Surface water sampling for phase I will be coordinated with the golf course superintendent Jim Titus during early spring of 2003(Apri12003). Parameters to be sampled will include nitrogen species, total phosphorus pH, and specific conductivity. Phase H will be the continuation of water quality testing to ensure continued success that the cultural management practices within the IPM program are operating effectively to preserve environmental quality. During Phase 11, all monitoring locations at North Andover GC will be sampled in September 2003. A-aalysis will include nitrogen species, total phosphorus, pH, and specific conductivity. One surface water location will also be chosen as the additional pesticide screen analysis for products used during the last 90 days(Table 1). Sample Locations and Parameters Sample Location Time of Sample Sample Parameters Phase I (baseline) Phase II S W-1 South of the October Nitrogen Species Phase I maintenance facility Total Phosphorous Phase II pH, Spec. Cond October Nitrogen Species Phase I SW-2 North of the Total Phosphorus Phase 11 maintenance facility pH, Spec. Cond SW-3 7"'golf hole October Nitrogen Species Phase I stream pH, Spec. Cond. Phase 11 SW-4 Lake October Nitrogen Species Phase I Cochichewick Pesticide screen Phase II Total Phosphorous pH, Spec. Cond GW-1 October Nitrogen Species Rase Pesticide screen Phase II TQNPhosthor�us p pec. on Table 1. Pesticide Screen for North Andover Golf Course Propiconazole PCNB Vinclozolin Chlorpyrifos Triadimefon Azoxystrobin Carbaryl Isofenphos Chlorothalonil Phase I. Background Water Quality The goal of Phase I is to establish background water quality at North Andover GC. Analysis from water quality monitoring locations will be sampled for nitrogen species,pH, specific conductivity and total phosphorus. Sampling sites will be identified on a property map detailing water surface water locations. The water samples will be obtained from the exact location at each water feature . Sample stations will be located and permanently marked in the field,identified on maps, and photographed so that the stations are easily located during subsequent sampling efforts. Data from these sample stations will allow an assessment of the surface water quality of the site. Field Methods Surface Water. A number of variables will be measured on-site, including pH, water temperature, and specific conductance, pH will be measured with a pH probe that has been calibrated just prior to use and specific conductance will be measured with a calibrated specific conductance meter. Water temperature will be measured with a temperature probe attached to the specific conductance meter or with a hand held thermometer. Water level observation of each stream and wetland location will be recorded in the water quality-monitoring program-sampling log. The stream, brook or lake will be sampled by obtaining a"discrete"grab samples of water. Discrete grab samples are taken at selected location, depth and time, and then analyzed for the described parameters. Stream water will be obtained from the center of flow at mid-depth and analyzed for the variables described. Water will be collected in sample bottles that face upstream, and water is transferred to sample containers that include proper preservatives and labels. The sample containers are immediately placed in a cooler with ice and are taken to the laboratory for analysis. A chain of custody program is followed to assure that the proper transportation and storage practices are documented and that the appropriate analyses are conducted. A field sampling log of surface water collecting and observations will be maintained. The log book documents site conditions, including stream water depth, observations, weather conditions, and in situ measurements. A chain of custody program is followed to assure that proper transportation and storage practices are documented and that the appropriate analyses are being conducted. Groundwater. Groundwater will be sample from the irrigation well. The quantity of water removed will be determined from the well volume and recharge rate. In general, high-yield wells are purged of three well casing volumes of water and low-yield wells are pumped to dryness. Each well is purged using a portable pump that is cleaned between well sampling. Water is suitable for sampling when three consecutive measures of water have stable pH, temperature and specific conductance readings. Wells will be allowed to recharge after purging to allow the system to equilibrate. Depth to the water table is re-measured,recorded and water samples are extracted. Extraction will occur with pump, or a dedicated Teflon bailer. Water temperature,pH, and specific conductance are measured in water that will not be used for laboratory analysis. Water samples are decanted into an appropriate sample container that has the proper preservatives and is labeled. Samples are transferred from the sample device to the sample container in a manner that will minimize turbulence and loss of volatile compounds. Samples are immediately placed in a cooler with ice and transported to the analytical laboratory. A field-sampling log of water quality sampling and observations will be maintained. The logbook documents site conditions, weather conditions and in situ measurements. Phase II. Laboratory Analysis The goal of Phase II will be to test each water sample from North Andover GC for Nitrate-Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus and selected Pesticides. Samples will be collected and then transferred to an accredited lab within the state of MA. Water will be sampled as described in Phase I. After collection, the sample will be immediately transferred into a cooler packed with ice and prepared for shipment. The analytical laboratory will supply sample containers,properly cleaned and containing the proper preservative. Field Quality Control. The field quality assurance program is a systematic process, which, together with the laboratory quality assurance programs, ensures a specified degree of confidence in the data collected for an environmental survey. The field quality assurance program involves a series of steps,procedures and practices, which are described below. General Measures a. All equipment, apparatus and instruments shall be kept clean and in good working condition. b. Records shall be kept of all repairs to the instruments and apparatus and of any irregular incidents or experiences, which may affect the measures, taken. c. It is essential that standardized and field personnel use approved methodologies. Prevention of Sample Contamination The quality of data generated in a laboratory depends primarily on the integrity of the samples that arrive at the laboratory. Consequently,the field personnel will take the appropriate action to protect sample from deterioration and contamination. a. Field measurements should always be made on a separate sub-sample, which is then discarded one the measurements have been made. They will never be made on the same water sample, which is returned to the analytical laboratory for chemical analysis. b. Sample bottles, new or used, must be cleaned according to recommended procedures. c. Only the recommended type of sample bottle for each parameter should be used. d. Water sample bottles should be employed for water samples only. e. Recommended preservation methods must be used. All preservatives must be of an analytical grade. f. The inner portion of sample bottles and caps should not be touched with bare hands, gloves, mitts, etc. g. Sample bottles must be kept in a clean environment, away from dust, dirt, fumes and grime. Vehicle cleanliness is important. h. Specific conductance should never be measured in sample water that was first used for pH measurements. Potassium chloride diffusing from the pH probe may alter the conductivity of the sample. i. Samples will not be permitted to stand in the sun;they will be stored in an ice chest. j. Samples will be shipped to the laboratory without delay. k. The sample collector will keep their hands clean and refrain from smoking while working with water samples. Field Quak Control Quality control is an essential element of a field quality assurance program. In addition to standardized field procedures, field quality control requires the submission of blanks and duplicate samples to check contamination,sample containers, or any equipment that is used in sample collection or handling to detect other systematic and random errors occurring from the time of sampling to the time of analysis. Replicate samples must also be collected to check the reproducibility of the sampling. The timing and the frequency of blank, duplicate, and replicate samples are described below. Field Blanks. A daily "field blank" is prepared in the field at the end of the day0s sampling. One blank is prepared for every 10 water samples. A field blank is prepared by filling appropriate sample bottles with ultrapure distilled water, adding preservative in the same manner as it was added to the water samples,capping the bottles tightly, and transporting them to the laboratory in the same manner as the water samples. Duplicates. Duplicate samples (splits) are obtained by dividing one sample into two sub-samples. One sample in every ten samples will be split. Splits are done periodically to obtain the magnitude of errors owing to contamination, random and systemic errors and any other variable which are introduced for the time of sampling until the samples arrive at the laboratory. Replicates. Two samples are taken simultaneously in a given location. The samples are taken to measure the cross-sectional variations in the concentration of the parameter of interest in the system. One water sample per quarter will be replicated. Water Quality Monitoring Field Sampling Sheet North Andover Golf Course Station Number Field Technician Description Date of Sampling Time of Sampling Weather Field Measurements: Water Temperature(C) Air Temperature(C) pH Specific Conductance Depth of Water(m) Depth of Sample Taken Calibration of Instrument: Specific Conductance Meter Reading in KCL solution pH Meter Calibration Buffers Used Mode of Transport Shipping Date Remarks: North Andi \ i (l(( J k\ North Andover, Massac, V, ,\i , ��►;��%!`I xl� EXISTING COND(TIC) ARMSTRONG ASSOCIATES JAM1ARY 1999 SCALE Z. 4 / . - �,. , .. _ - __ . .,� � . _ . w �., �, ._. � _. � � � , �r ,.. ._ . . ._ r - - �- .,.. _ ,. e ,, � ���y ���: . � ,� ;�� _ . f� :� ,� �� s� 3: �. _ S F �.. f .. :.-� �.- ', .. d 5 _ _ _ �� ', ��"` �� OIL AND/OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILL RESPONSE ACTION PLAN NORTH ANDOVER COUNTRY CLUB NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS This Spill Response Action Plan has been developed for the North Andover Country Club, North Andover, Massachusetts as a guide to assist in the response to potential release of oil or hazardous materials to the environment. In accordance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 310 CMR 30 and 310 CMR 40.0000, a release or threat of a release of a reportable quantity of oil and/or hazardous materials must be reported to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Under the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protections (DEP) regulations 310 CMR 40.0000, a release of oil of 10-gallons or greater is reportable. Additional reportable quantities regulated by DEP in the event of a release, along with reportable concentrations of contaminants detected in the environment (possible during a sample event) are listed in 310 CMR 40.1600. Federal reportable quantities for releases into soil, water and air are listed in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR 302.4. Each regulatory agency has these reportable quantities posted on its respective website (www.state.maxs/dey, www.epa.gov) . 1.0 REQUIRED EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION PHONE LIST FEDERAL CONTACTS National Response Center 800-424-8802 STATE CONTACTS Massachusetts Department Of Environmental Protection Emergency Response Department Daytime: (508) 946-2700 After Hours: (888) 3041133 Massachusetts State Police 911 LOCAL CONTACTS North Andover Fire Department 911 North Andover Country Club Spill Response Personnel include the following: SPILL RESPONSE ON-SITE COORDINATOR Jim Titus Golf Course Superintendent North Andover Country Club 978-685-4776 In the event of a release, the on-site coordinator(OSC) shall establish whether a harmful quantity has been discharged to a surface water or wetland resource. A sheen on the water is a quantity that may be harmful. Federal Regulations 40 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) 112 provides guidelines regarding the release of oil, and general defines an oil spill of harmful quantity as "...such quantities of oil determined to be harmful to the public health or welfare...to include discharges which exceed applicable water quality standards....or cause a film or sheen on the surface of the water,or cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the water surface." Navigable waters has been defined as all surface bodies and streams, including surface water and groundwater. This is especially important, since a portion of the North Andover Country Club is located upgradient or adjacent to Lake Cochichewick. 2.0 IMMEDIATE ACTIONS Spill response actions may include the following (as personnel safety allows). 1) Initiate evacuation, if necessary. 2) Notify Federal and State Emergency Response Personnel 3) Stop spill flow when possible without risk of personal injury. 4) Contain the spill using whatever means readily available. 5) Make the spill location off limits to unauthorized personnel. 6) Restrict all sources of ignition when flammable substances are involved. 7) Report the release to the appropriate regulatory agencies (DEP,Fire Department, Conservation Commission, and Board of Health). 3.0 SPILL RESPONSE NOTIFICATION RECORD (To be completed during a release event) Reporter's Name Position Phone Number: Daytime Phone Number: Evening Company Address What type of materials discharged? Calling for Responsible Part Y Date and time of incident Source and/or cause of incident 4.0 RESPONSE EQUIPMENT LIST AND LOCATION (To be completed by OSC) 1. Sorbent materials Type and Purchase Date Amount Location 2. Hand Tools Type and Amount Storage Location 3. Communication Equipment Operational Status Amount Storage Location 4. Personal Protective Equipment Type Amount Storage Location Evaluation of Best Management Practices to Protect Surface Water from Pesticides and Fertilizer Applied to Bermudagrass Fairways Dr. James H. Baird Oklahoma State University Goal: • Develop effective and practical management practices that protect surface water from runoff of pesticides and fertilizer applied to golf course fairways and other turf areas Cooperators: Raymond Huhnke Nicholas Basta Gordon Johnson Daniel Storm Mark Payton Michael Smolen Dennis Martin James Cole The potential for runoff of pesticides and nutrients from turf, especially on golf courses, is the subject of increasing environmental concern. Consequently, a project was initiated in 1995 under the joint sponsorship of the United States Golf Association and the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station. The primary objective was to evaluate the use of buffers as a best management practice for reducing pesticide and nutrient runoff from golf courses and other turf areas. Studies were conducted in 1995 and 1996 on a three-acre sloped field of bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] located at the Oklahoma State University Agronomy in Stillwater, OK. The soil is a Kirkland silt loam. The area was surveyed to determine suitable locations for eight rainfall simulator set-ups, each containing four plots. The average slope of the plots was 6 percent. A portable rainfall simulator was used to apply controlled precipitation to a 50-foot diameter area containing the four plots (6 feet wide by 32 feet long). Each area of the plot receiving pesticide and fertilizer was 6 feet by 16 feet and mowed at 0.5 inches to represent a golf course fairway. The buffer area was considered to represent a golf course rough or the area between the treated area (fairway) and collection point (surface water). The following fertilizers and pesticides were applied to the treated area: 1. Nitrogen (N) at 1.0 lb ai 1000 ft"Z from urea (46%N) or S-coated urea(39%N); 2. Phosphorous (P) at 1.0 lb ai 1000 ft-2 from triple superphosphate (20% P); 3. Chlorpyrifos (0.5% granular or 50% wettable powder) at 2.0 lb ai A-�; 4. 2,4-D at 1.0 lb ai A-1, mecoprop at 0.5 lb ai A-', and dicamba at 0.1 lb ai A-' formulated as dimethylamine salts. In most experiments, simulated rainfall (2.5 in h"1) was applied for 75 minutes within 24 hours following application of chemicals. Start of surface runoff was recorded when a continuous trickle of water was first observed at the collection pit. Samples were collected at preset times after the start of runoff for individual plots using a nominal sampling schedule. Most plots were sampled 10 times during the simulated rainfall period. In most experiments, a single volume- weighted composite was prepared for chemical analysis from runoff samples for each plot. Figure 1. Plot of the predicted concentration of 2,4-D in surface runoff versus time in the 1996 buffer length experiment. *, ** Significant at alpha levels 0.05 and 0.01, respectively_ In 1995, buffer length (0, 8, and 16 feet), mowing height (0.5 and 1.5 inches), and solid-tine aerification were evaluated to reduce pesticide and nutrient runoff. Soil moisture before simulated rainfall in July 1995 was low and pesticide and nutrient loss to surface runoff was less than 3 and 2 percent of applied, respectively. Highest concentrations of pesticides and nutrients in runoff water were 314 ppb for 2,4-D and 9.57 ppm for PO4-P from the treatment containing no buffer. In August 1995, 6.5 inches of natural rainfall fell seven days before simulated rainfall. Pesticide and nutrient loss to surface runoff was increased to 15 and 10 percent of applied, respectively. Highest concentrations of pesticides and nutrients in runoff water were 174 ppb for 2,4-D and 8.14 ppm for PO4-P from the treatment containing no buffer. Overall, buffers were effective in reducing pesticide and nutrient runoff due, in part, to dilution. In most instances, buffer mowing height, length (8 vs. 16 ft), and aerification did not significantly affect pesticide and nutrient runoff. A paper describing research conducted in 1995 is published in the Journal of Environmental Quality Vol. 26 (1997). In 1996, the portable rainfall simulator was used to evaluate the effects of: 1) buffer length (0, 4, 8, and 16 feet) at a 1.5 inches mowing height; and 2) mowing height (0.5, 1.5, and 3.0 inches) over a 16-foot long buffer on pesticide and nutrient runoff from bermudagrass turf. In the buffer length experiment,buffers reduced surface runoff losses of the pesticides and PO4-P compared to no buffer. No differences in surface runoff were observed between buffer lengths of 4 and 8 feet. In the mowing height experiment, the buffer mowed at 3.0 inches was most effective in reducing surface runoff of pesticides and nutrients. No differences in surface runoff were observed between buffers mowed at 0.5 and 1.5 inches. Overall, effectiveness of buffers was dependent upon soil moisture content prior to simulated rainfall. In 1995 and 1996, estimated concentrations of each contaminant for each plot were computed from a single volume-weighted composite of samples taken in a time series throughout the course of a simulated rainfall event. The focus of an ancillary investigation in 1996 was the manner in which buffers affect contaminant transport over the course of the simulation. For this purpose, samples taken in time series from no-buffer and 16-ft buffer treatments were individually analyzed for pesticide and nutrient content. Significant ratios for 2,4-D ranged from 207 times higher for non-buffered plots at 15 min to 3 times larger at 40 minutes (see Figure 1). 2 Overall, the buffer was found to reduce and delay the onset of 2,4-D concentration in runoff, with a peak contamination of 41 ppb occurring approximately 51 minutes after the start of rainfall, according to the fitted model. Similar results were found for other pesticides and nutrients. For the conditions studied, significant ratios over the first half of the experiment suggest that the buffer takes an even more important role in reducing contaminant transport when rain events are expected to be shorter than 40 minutes. An analysis of estimated total runoff losses were not conclusive but suggests a buffer effect on runoff quality. In addition to evaluating the effects of buffers on surface runoff of chemicals from turf, the time series data were used to evaluate the effectiveness of surface runoff sampling techniques for rainfall simulation studies. Volume-weighted composite samples are useful for determining if a management practice (e.g., buffer) affects the runoff quantity or quality. The data were used to predict the volume-weighted concentration of pesticides and nutrients in the surface runoff for samples taken at various times after the start of runoff. For the conditions studied, it was found that the difference in volume-weighted concentration between buffered and non-buffered plots had the lowest statistical significance 15 to 25 minutes after the start of runoff. Therefore, sampling 40 to 50 minutes after the start of runoff is recommended. Time series data is desirable for predicting off-site environmental impacts from pesticides and nutrients in surface runoff. An optimal sampling scheme requires the smallest number of chemical analyses while still representing the actual time series accurately. For the data analyzed, the sampled data best represented the actual time series when sampling intervals were shorter at the start of runoff. The two schemes that worked best were: 1) sample every two minutes for the first 10 minutes after runoff and every 10 minutes thereafter; or 2) sample at 0, 2.5, 5, 10 minutes and every 10 minutes thereafter. The 2 to 10 minute scheme was more accurate, but requires two additional samples. Which scheme to select depends on the economics and objective of the study. Based upon this investigation, chemical losses in surface runoff from turf can be reduced by the following: • Install buffers between surface water and areas treated with chemicals; • Effective buffer length is dependent upon site conditions (longer buffers are safer); • A 3-in buffer mowing height is more effective than 0.5 or 1.5 in.; • Avoid chemical application following heavy irrigation or rainfall events; and • Choose pesticides and nutrients with low runoff potential. The USGA Story I Members Program I Championships ( Rules I Amateur Handicapping I Equipment I Foundation I Green Section I Museum Golf Journal Golf Shop I Associations I News I Contact Us http://www.usga.org/green/archive/research/1997/best_management_practices/best manage_... 3 RESEARCH RAP -Western Australia Australian Turfgrass Management Volume 3.4 (August - September 2001) Maximising turf quality, minimising nutrient leaching Louise Barton and Tim Colmer, Faculty of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia Improved information on fertiliser use efficiency in turf has been identified as a research priorty for the Western Australian industry. The University of Western Australia, in partnership with Horticulture Australia Ltd and industry groups, has initiated a new study investigating fertiliser and irrigation management practises that will maximise turf quality, while minimising nutrient leaching. In this article Louise Barton and Tim Colmer outline the objectives of their 3.5-year research project. Efficient management of nutrients and water is a major environmental and production issue facing the Australian turf industry. Turf producers, managers, customers and society are seeking more efficient systems for delivering consistent and high quality turf surfaces that do not impact on ground- or surface-waters. This is particularly challenging for turf management on sandy soils, as these soils are conducive to nitrogen and phosphorus leaching. Fates of nutrients in turf systems Nutrient management practices are best developed from an understanding of turf nutrient requirements, soil biogeochemical processes and the way dissolved nutrients move through the soil profile. Turf managers expect that the turf will take up a large proportion of the applied nitrogen and phosphorus. Nitrogen not utilised by the turf is subject to soil processes that may render it unavailable to plants. These soil processes include denitrification, ammonia volatilisation, ammonium fixation and nitrogen immobilisation (for details see the Text Box). Nitrogen not taken up by the sward, or made unavailable by soil processes may be leached. Similarly, phosphorus not used by the turf or"fixed" by the soil may also be leached. Many of the plant and soil processes that remove nutrients occur at a greater rate in the surface soil (e.g., top 20 cm) containing the turf roots. Irrigation and rainfall events that cause the nutrients to move beyond the rooting zone may lead to nutrient leaching. Therefore, choosing irrigation rates that maintain soil water in the rooting zone not only conserves water, but also minimises the risk of nutrient leaching. A number of processes influence the fate of nitrogen in soil. Denitrification and ammonia volatilisation occur under different soil conditions, but both result in the conversion of nitrogen to gaseous species that can escape to the atmosphere. Ammonium ions can be adsorbed onto soil surfaces (still available to plants) or"fixed" by certain clay minerals (unavailable to plants), while nitrogen may also be retained by soil organic matter (i.e., nitrogen immobilisation). Nitrogen immobilisation, however, is unlikely to be a long-term sink if soil organic matter is not continually increasing. The overall objective in a turf system is to match nutrient inputs to plant demands as best as possible in order to minimise the possibility of leaching. In most sandy soils, denitrification, ammonia volatilisation, ammonium and phosphorus fixation occur at low rates. Consequently matching fertiliser application rates to plant demand, and maintaining nutrients in the rooting zone, is important for minimising nutrient leaching from turf and other horticultural systems. Fertiliser applications may be better matched by using split applications, and/or by using "slow release"fertilisers. Information on fertiliser types and irrigation regimes that will maintain turf growth, but minimise nutrient leaching, is currently lacking. Developing appropriate fertiliser and irrigation regimes for turf The effects of fertiliser types, rates, and interactions with irrigation regime on turf(Wintergreen couch) growth, quality, and nutrient leaching will be evaluated at the Turf Research Facility in Shenton Park, Western Australia. A variable-speed travelling boom precision irrigator (Short and Colmer, 1998) will be used to ensure water inputs are precise and reproducible. Our field study will investigate four fertiliser types, each supplied at three rates, and under two irrigation regimes,with three replicate plots of each treatment located in a randomised block design. The four fertiliser types will be conventional (soluble) chemical fertiliser (NPK); slow release chemical fertiliser, pelletised fowl manure; and pelletised "bio-solids". These fertilisers vary in nutrient content and the rate they release nutrients, factors that may affect nutrient supply to turf as well as leaching patterns. Nutrient leaching will be evaluated using soil lysimeters installed in the field plots. Lysimeters containing intact soil cores will be collected by carving plastic casings into the soil, and then establishing turf on the soil surface. By using intact cores, soil structure is maintained,.which is important as soil structure influences how water moves through a soil. By monitoring the amounts of nutrients applied, the amounts taken up by the turf, and the amounts leached from each lysimeter, we will gain data on nutrient budgets for turf under various regimes. Managing nutrients for different stages of turf development Different fertiliser technologies may be more appropriate for different stages of turf development. Consequently we will investigate the fates of nutrients and turf performance during the establishment and later growth phases. In the first year of the study, plots will be established from "sprigs". At the end of the first year, turf rolls will be harvested using standard industry practices, and nutrient contents of the harvested product evaluated. In the second year, nutrient losses and turf performance during the re- growth phase and under the same treatments as the first year of study will be monitored. Nutrient management regimes more suited to the "maintenance phase"of turf will then be imposed and assessed in the third year of study. Research Outcomes Our findings on the fate of nutrients and performance of turf under different fertiliser and irrigation regimes will be made available to members of the Australian turf industry through a series of publications, seminars and field days. Updates on the project will be provided on our web site: http://www.agric.uwa.edu.au/turfresearch/index.htm Acknowledgements This research is supported by the Horticulture Australia Ltd (Project T000007), Turf Growers Association of WA, Golf Course Superintendents Association of WA, Scotts Australia, CRESCO/CSBP, Organic 2000, MicroControl Engineering (Rainman), City of Stirling, City of Nedlands, WA Water Corporation and WA Waters & Rivers Commission. References • McLaren, R.G., and K. C. Cameron. 1996. Soil Science: Sustainable Production and Environmental Protection. Oxford University Press. • Short, D., and T. Colmer. 1998. Water use and drought tolerance in turf grasses: new research in Western Australia. Australia Irrigation 13:4-7. How Does Turf Influence Pesticide Dissipation? Active thatch microbe populations can help reduce the risks of some pesticides. By B. E. Branham and D. S. Gardner Turfgrass management is considered a close cousin of production agriculture. Research a the University of Illinois documents pesticide dissipation in turf versus bare soil. It is no secret that production agriculture is receiving more and closer scrutiny because of concerns about pesticide and nutrient leaching that may be threatening some our nation's water resources. Like it or not, turfgrass management is considered a close cousin of production agriculture. Problems identified in production agriculture are assumed to apply to turf as well. So, it may be logical for government regulators, environmental activists, and concerned citizens to assume that highly maintained turfgrass sites also represent risks to the environment since turf, in many respects, is similar to production agriculture. To gain a better understanding of this, the United States Golf Association funded research at the University of Illinois for three years to document pesticide dissipation in turf versus bare soil. These side-by-side studies were designed to determine the role of turfgrass and associated thatch on the fate of pesticides applied to turf. WHY STUDY PESTICIDE DISSIPATION? There were several reasons for undertaking these studies. First,many of the computer models used to predict pesticide leaching and movement have been developed for use in row crop agriculture, where the application is usually made to bare soil. In turf, the pesticide application is made to a continuous layer of organic matter, the turf, which may play a dominant role in the ultimate fate of these pesticides. Second, it may be possible to adjust these models to account for the effect of turf on pesticide fate. Third, previous research indicated that some pesticides dissipate much faster when applied to turf than when applied to bare soil 1,2,3. In most cases, however, these were not side-by-side comparisons, but separate studies conducted by different investigators at different locations. This leaves open the possibility that the increases in pesticide dissipation rates were not due totally to the presence of turf, but to some other factors. At the University of Illinois, dissipation rates and leaching of five pesticides used in turf were examined. The focus was on newer pesticides, where little previous information on dissipation rates and leaching existed. Even for older pesticides,however, the amount of published information regarding their fate in turf is often quite limited or non-existent. The five pesticides chosen consisted of three fungicides, one insecticide, and one herbicide. These pesticides were selected to have a wide range of solubilities and half-lives that result in different leaching potentials. IMMOBILE OR MODERATELY MOBILE PESTICIDES After completing these experiments with five different pesticides, some trends began to emerge. The most illuminating finding is that pesticides classified as immobile or moderately mobile tend to have shorter half-lives in turf than in bare soil. The more rapid dissipation is due to the high microbial activity found in thatch. For immobile pesticides, the faster rate of dissipation has few benefits from an environmental perspective, since these products tend not to leach anyway. However, decreasing soil or turf residence times could reduce the likelihood of pesticide runoff, since they will be present in the environment for shorter periods of time. Preemergence herbicides, which need to remain present for several months to provide effective control, are often applied at higher rates in turf than in row crop agriculture. For example, the rate for pendimethalin in soybean weed control is 0.75 lbs. a.i./acre, whereas in turf, rates of between 1.5 and 2.251bs. a.i./acre are used. For this group of pesticides, field experience has already shown that pesticides break down faster in turf than in bare soil. The real value of turf appears in the case of pesticides that are moderately mobile. These products may leach to groundwater when conditions are favorable for leaching. These conditions include sandy soils, high rainfall or irrigation following pesticide application, or low soil organic matter content. In other cropping systems, the leaching potential of these pesticides does exist. In turf, it appears unlikely that these products would leach to a significant extent because of the capacity of turf to retain and degrade these compounds. One example of a moderately mobile pesticide studied is ethofumesate (Prograss). The distribution of ethofumesate with soil depth in turf versus bare soil was dramatically different. Ethofumesate leached to a deeper extent and persisted much longer in bare soil than in turf. Of all the pesticides studied, the effect of turf on pesticide dissipation was most pronounced for ethofumesate, where the half-life went from 56 days in bare soil to only three days in turf. The reduced half-life effectively eliminates most of the leaching risk of ethofumesate applied to turf. MOBILE PESTICIDES On a less positive note, pesticides classified as mobile tend to behave the same regardless of whether they are applied to turf or bare soil. We believe this is because the thatch does not retain these mobile pesticides, and so they bypass the pesticide-degrading thatch layer of turf. Both mefanoxam (Subdue Maxx) and halofenozide (Mach II) behaved about the same in turf as in bare soil. Both products quickly reached the lowest layer we sampled, six to 12 inches, by the fourth day after application. These products may dissipate more rapidly in thatch than in soil,but they tend to move through the thatch layer quickly and are not there long enough to derive the benefit of thatch on pesticide dissipation. While small percentages of the total pesticide application rate leached to the lower 2 soil depths, these are important amounts because once they reach these depths there is much less likelihood they will be degraded before reaching groundwater. One very practical result of this research is the recommendation that irrigation following the application of a mobile pesticide should be as light and infrequent as practical. In other words, try to keep the pesticide in the thatch layer where it can be degraded. While rainfall cannot be controlled, irrigation should be light enough that it does not move these products through the thatch for the first four to seven days after application. However, it is important to recognize where the target zone is for a particular pesticide. Many of these products are mobile by necessity. For instance, halofenozide will not be very effective against grubs if it is tightly bound by thatch, since grubs typically inhabit the soil layer below the thatch. In fact, irrigation is often suggested as a means to move grub-control pesticides through the thatch layer. Choose grub-control products with care. The newer products such as Merit or Mach I1 have more specificity (i.e., kill the pests, but cause less harm to other insects) and are less toxic than many of their predecessors. The challenge with these two products is that it is more difficult to use them curatively, and much easier to use them preventatively, which may result in overuse. As mentioned previously, the difference in pesticide half-life between applications to turf versus bare soil was most striking for ethofumesate. Ethofumesate is a preemergence herbicide that is used as a postemergence control of annual bluegrass in turf. Clearly, it is good that ethofumesate does have post-emergence activity because with a half-life of only three days, it is not going to persist long as a preemergence herbicide in turf. This result explains many of the field responses observed with ethofumesate. In our field trials, the level of preemergence control from ethofumesate was never as good as from other preemergence herbicides used in turf. We now understand why. TURF AS A MICROBIALLY ACTIVE ORGANIC LAYER The original goal was to develop a better and more quantitative understanding of the role of turf in pesticide dissipation and leaching. While this research certainly provides a better understanding of how turf affects pesticide dissipation rates, not as much progress has been made in quantifying the role of turf in pesticide fate. However, an initial study with cyproconazole (Sentinel) showed that the presence of turf was much more important than the amount of turf present in affecting the rate of pesticide dissipation. Perhaps the best way to view turf is not as a wonderful filtration system that degrades everything applied to it,but rather as a highly sorptive layer of organic matter teeming with microbial activity that will reduce the potential problems caused by the introduction of pesticides into this environment. It will not eliminate these problems,but it will dampen their impact on water resources. 3 Exercise special care when using pesticides that are considered mobile in soil. These products are most likely mobile in turf, as well. Modify irrigation practices to retain these pesticides within the thatch layer as long as possible. When a choice exists, choose pesticides that are classified as moderately mobile or immobile over those classified as mobile. It is the responsibility of the golf course superintendent to make wise choices regarding pesticide use and selection that minimize the risk of ground or surface water contamination. You have a good system to manage, but it still must be managed well. The USGA Story I Members Program I Championships I Rules I Amateur Handicapping I Equipment I Foundation I Green Section I Museum Golf Journal Golf Shop I Associations I News I Contact Us Hhtp://www.usga.org/green/ARCHIVE/Record/02/mar aprihow_does.html 4 Minimising Nutrient Leaching: Save Resources and Protect the Environment Dr. Tim Colmer, Lecturer in Plant Sciences at the University of Western Australia Australian Turfgrass Management Volume 3.1 (February - March 2001) Efficient use of nutrients and water should be a major objective of turf managers. If poorly managed, nitrogen and phosphorus in fertilisers can contribute to ground water pollution and eutrophication of surface water bodies. High levels of nitrate in water have adverse effects on animal health (including humans); the World Health Organisation set a maximum acceptable limit for nitrate in drinking water of 10 mg C. Phosphorus is generally the limiting nutrient for algal growth in water bodies, so additional inputs can cause "algal blooms" which inturn often have adverse effects on other organisms in aquatic ecosystems. These nutrients (and other chemicals) can move from the area of application near the soil surface to greater depths via a process termed leaching, or move to adjacent locations via the process termed runoff. In both cases a flow of excess water (either downwards in through the soil profile or lateral surface flow, respectively) transports the nutrients. Thus, water management is a crucial component of good nutrient management. Not all substances leach at the same rate. The chemistry of a particular molecule and the way it interacts with the soil determines its mobility. For example, positively charged ions (eg. potassium, K+) may be adsorbed to negatively charged sites in the soil matrix such as on clay minerals and organic matter, whereas negatively charged ions (eg. nitrate, NOO are repelled from these sites (see Figure 1). Thus, a high cation exchange capacity (CEC) is one soil property that can retard the leaching (ie. help retain) of the positively charged nutrient ions at least. Other soil properties (in addition to CEC) also affect the rate of movement of nutrients; thus soil type has a major influence on potential leaching. A well known example is that clay soils rich in iron- or aluminium-oxides tightly "bind" applied phosphorus, so losses via leaching are minimal. However, it is important to note, that even phosphorus bound to small clay particles can be lost via surface runoff since clay particles (with nutrients attached) are easily suspended in flowing water and subsequently deposited elsewhere as sediments. In contrast to the situation for clays, phosphorus applied to sandy soils is not tightly bound so that leaching of phosphorus from sands can be substantial. The low ionic adsorption capacities and high hydraulic conductivities of sandy soils contribute to the potential for large amounts of water and nutrients to pass beyond the rooting zone of plants. Such soils are a particular challenge for turf managers. Management Options: Public concerns over potential for pollution of ground water and wetlands has resulted in increased scrutiny of the issue of nutrient management in our landscapes. The objective of managers should be to better match nutrient supply with plant demand. Examples of management options and strategies are: • Split applications of soluble fertilisers, termed by some as "less but more often". • Use of"slow release" fertilisers, like (a)those with soluble nutrients enclosed within a physical barrier that prevents release of nutrients until such time as the coating is penetrated or degraded so that water can gain access; (b) those in which a soluble form of a nutrient has been reacted with other compounds to produce a new compound of lower solubility, so that the dissolution rate is decreased. • Use of organic fertilisers, since these contain both "soluble" and "insoluble" forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, with the "insoluble" pools becoming available with time as mineralisation proceeds. The rate of mineralisation will depend on the soil biota, temperature, and soil water availability. • Monitoring of the nutrient status of the soil and/or plant tissue can also aid management decisions. Data to compare sites and trends with time can be particularly useful. • Good irrigation scheduling so that water movement below the root zone is minimised will also reduce the potential for nutrient leaching. Different approaches may be appropriate for different management objectives (eg. high versus low input turf areas) or stages of development (establishment versus maintenance). For example, there has been recent interest in the use of fertilisers containing nitrogen and potassium but no phosphorus in the maintenance of established turf on sandy soils in sensitive locations near waterways on the Swan Coastal Plain in Western Australia. Soil amendments (eg. additions of clay-like materials to sandy profiles) may also aid nutrient and water management in sandy soils. Improved availability of information on nutrient use efficiency in turf systems under relevant management and soil types in several regions of Australia (different soils and climate) would assist turf managers to better match nutrient supply with plant demand. Mr Shahab Pathan (PhD student at UWA) has 'lifted' a lysimeter out of one of his experimental turf plots in order to sample leachates collected at the bottom of the colomn. Water is collected in a cup via a funnel at the bottom of the lysimeter. Also, note the 'hand-held' TDR probe inserted into the side of the column to measure soil water contents via a series of access holes at selected depths. Grounds Maintenance article Page 1 of 6 UAPffENANCE WATER polluter OR WATER filter? By Eric Liskey, editor Grounds Maintenance,Apr 1,2001 The question is hotly debated;the answers can be as clear as mud. What happens to rainwater after a storm probably is not something you spend much time thinking about. But that apparently trivial question is at the center of a brewing regulatory controversy. So take a moment. Where does it go? Some of it soaks into the ground. Some of it evaporates back into the atmosphere as surfaces dry out. And some of it runs off,ending up in streams and lakes,perhaps via storm sewers. This water holds residues from all the surfaces it has touched—roofs, roads,parking lots,fields, landscapes. And that's why the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers it pollution. Non-point-source pollution. The substances that comprise non-point-source pollution (NPSP)include a wide range of materials such as solvents, detergents,pesticides,fertilizers, petroleum products and other materials, such as silt and ice-melt chemicals.Imagine all the oil, gas, rubber, coolant and grease deposited on roads by vehicles—that's NPSP. Imagine all the household products and used motor oil that get dumped down storm drains because people don't know how else to dispose of them—or just don't care. That's NPSP too. Even leaves sitting in the gutter are considered contributors to NPSP (because as they decompose, they raise nutrient levels in water). Many experts feel the most important problems stemming from NPSP are those related to nutrient loading—a rise in nutrient levels such as nitrogen and, especially,phosphorus—that causes explosive growth in aquatic vegetation and so-called algal blooms. The resulting ecological disruption can be severe, say ecologists. Enter the Clean Water Act,the EPA and Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL. The Fertilizer Institute defines TMDL as"the amount of a given substance or pollutant that can be allowed to enter a body of water,like a stream or river,without causing that body of water to exceed its water quality standards." To combat NPSP,the EPA is enforcing compliance with its TMDL requirements,which say that states must take action to reduce NPSP in waterways that exceed EPA-established standards for various pollutants. And this is where it gets knotty.Determining that water is polluted is a lot easier than determining where the pollution comes from and what to do about it. The goal of TMDL regulations is to reduce overall pollutant levels below established thresholds;but many fear that among industries that could be regulated,there will be winners and losers according to who has more clout. The legislative history leading o the present situation is long and complex, but its origins date back to the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA). Despite some Congressional opposition,the EPA moved to implement TMDL regulations in July 2000. In response, Congress blocked implementation by eliminating needed funding. However, in one of President Clinton's famous last-minute actions,TMDL regulations were given the go-ahead by executive order. At this writing,the new TMDL rules still are http://grounds-mag.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazinearticleid=74523&magazineid=3 5&mo... 8/30/02 Grounds Maintenance article Page 2 of 6 scheduled to go into effect October 1, 2001. TMDL regulations will require states,territories and tribes to develop comprehensive lists of water bodies that do not meet water-quality standards established by the EPA for listed pollutants. State government agencies must then take action to bring waters into compliance, either through voluntary programs or mandatory regulations. For example,let's say the level of phosphorus (P)in a certain lake is exceeding the established limit, and it's determined that a reduction of some amount entering the lake through surface runoff will bring it in line with regulations. It will then be up to the state and local regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction to devise a plan to do so,by trying to determine where the excess P is coming from and how to reduce levels. Devising fair and realistic plans will be difficult. But one thing is not in doubt—turf care is in the crosshairs. Lawn care: the usual suspect Turf management is frequently blamed for non-point-source pollution because turf fertilizers typically contain substantial amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus,the two most-implicated nutrients in water- quality problems.These nutrients,especially phosphorus, are often the limiting factor for algae and aquatic weeds in natural habitats. A large increase may cause excessive growth in surface waters. However, the question of whether turf care is responsible for all that is alleged is debatable. •Phosphorus P binds strongly with numerous organic and mineral constituents in the soil profile and exhibits relatively low solubility in water. So how does P enter waterways?By transport of sediment, i.e., erosion. As erosion carries soil particles to storm-water drains, streams or lakes, P (bound to the soil particles) is carried with it. Erosion is usually insignificant in healthy grass stands established on good soil. If you correctly apply P fertilizer to dense,well-maintained turfgrass,P loss via runoff will be negligible. This is solidly supported by university research. But critics call this viewpoint unrealistic.Most turf is not in such ideal shape,they say. John Barten, water quality manager for Hennepin Parks(in Minnesota)and an advocate of P-free fertilizer, states, "... most lawns are not established on good soils. After the building is completed,the compacted ground is leveled with one or two inches of black dirt, and then seeded or sodded ....Unfortunately, neither grass roots nor rainfall can easily penetrate the compacted ground. As a result,the typical residential lawn cannot filter runoff like the test plots at research facilities." There is some truth to the claim that many lawns are established as Barten describes. But does that make it an argument against turf, or for properly established and maintained turf?After all,thick turf not only retains fertilizers that are applied to it, it also traps sediment,leaves and other sources of nutrients,making it a net benefit. After hearing arguments on both sides, it's difficult to know what the evidence is trying to tell us. According to Barten, this is an argument against fertilizing turf with phosphorus. However,Barten's argument is based on the assumption that soil contains adequate phosphorus (which in some instances http://grounds-mag.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazinearticleid=74523&magazineid=3 5&mo... 8/30/02 Grounds Maintenance article Page 3 of 6 is correct). In that case, it's true that turf quality should not suffer without additional P inputs. On the other hand,turf growing in soil deficient in P would benefit from it,P being necessary to a healthy stand. The result should be thicker turf that reduces runoff. The solution is to test soil and fertilize accordingly, in addition to performing other cultural practices necessary to a healthy turf. In fact,Barten strikes a similar chord, stating, "The good news is that we do not have to choose between poor lawns and clean lakes.By implementing [good cultural] practices, and raising the mower cut height to three inches or higher,the impact of lawns on water quality can be significantly reduced." • Nitrogen Unlike P,nitrogen(1) is water-soluble in many of its forms. Thus, it potentially can enter groundwater via leaching and surface waters via runoff, even in situations where erosion may be minimal. However, even though N can leave the application site dissolved in water,rather than bound to sediment,the key is still slowing water down enough to allow it to infiltrate. This is because turfgrass roots are extremely efficient at absorbing N. Soil microbes also utilize N. Investigators from major universities and the U. S. Golf Association(USGA)have studied this problem intensively. They found that very little N(less than 1 percent of the amount applied) leached if it was properly applied to well-maintained turf. This encouraging news even seems to hold true on sloped turf as well. In one study,researchers at Pennsylvania State University investigated N runoff on 9-to 13- percent slopes consisting of good-quality soil covered with creeping bentgrass and perennial rye. N was not found in runoff in significantly different quantities than in the water used for irrigation. As you would expect, research has shown that certain factors can increase N losses. Heavier doses of N, especially soluble N, increase losses; sandy soils are more prone to leaching than clay (adding peat to sand, such as in greens mixes,reduces N leaching significantly); stressed turf is less efficient at trapping N than healthy turf; already-saturated soils are more prone to N losses than unsaturated soils; and compacted soils are more prone to runoff losses than permeable soils. As with P,the moral of the story is that unhealthy,poorly maintained turf is susceptible to N losses, while thick, healthy turf is a N trap. Compared to what? Though some activists clearly would like to see it happen, eliminating turf altogether is not a good idea. Such an argument ignores a crucial issue: What would take its place?Pavement is one of the worst options because it traps no runoff. What about other types of vegetation? Better than pavement, perhaps,but healthy turf is known to have extremely dense root systems that hold the surface together as well as any type of planting. In fact,turf is arguably the best type of ground cover available if preventing soil erosion and runoff is your goal. So let's back up a bit. If healthy turf is so beneficial, and the alternatives are limited,what's the problem?The problem(when there is one),may not be turf generally,but poorly maintained turf,much of it resulting from do-it-yourselfers. To give turf critics their due, many of the regulations they support aim squarely at what may be the most serious source of turf-related NPSP: homeowners. Many homeowners possess several bad turf-care habits.For example,how many rely on Triple 12 or Triple 15 quick-release fertilizers for their landscapes, including turf?Quite a few. And how many http://grounds-mag.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazinearticleid=74523&magazineid=3 5&mo... 8/30/02 Grounds Maintenance article Page 4 of 6 over-throw fertilizer onto sidewalks, streets and driveways adjacent to turf?Many. Further, homeowners often neglect other cultural practices that would result in thick turf. aeration,regular overseeding, liming, etc. That's why we'll see more regulations restricting P levels in fertilizer, even(or especially) for products sold in retail outlets. Don't expect exceptions to be made for turf professionals. BMP—another acronym to remember TMDL regulations compel states to identify best management practices (BMPs)to control non-point source pollution. State agencies and land-grant universities frequently are charged with developing BMPs. Many already have them and make them available online and in printed form. To turf professionals,BMPs usually look pretty familiar and often seem like nothing more than common-sense practices to limit fertilizer and chemical spills. However, some BMPs address, in detail, site,weather and cultural factors that affect pollutant mobility, as well as turfgrass selection, fertilizers, irrigation, mowing,pesticide use and other cultural practices.Existing BMPs mostly have been, until now, designed to be voluntary methods that homeowners and lawn-care operators can use to minimize nutrient loading. However, as TMDL regulations come into full force,BMPs in many locations will have the force of law. Keep track of regulatory efforts related to TMDL that may impact turf care in your state. Talk to local government officials, extension agents and university experts. They can probably tell you if TMDL regulations will be affecting your area. It's crucial,if you want to influence regulations,to make your voice heard when it really counts—before the rules are finalized. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO REDUCE NUTRIENT LOSSES FROM TURF Best Management Practices(BMPs) developed by universities and state agencies may vary somewhat in their particulars and degree of specificity.However, the following are frequently cited as ways to reduce the risk of losing nutrients through surface runoff and leaching. • Water-in applied material,if appropriate, as soon as possible after application,but avoid applications if severe weather is impending. • Avoid spreading material onto paved areas.Use spreaders with side shields to keep fertilizers within the intended target area. • Use slow-release fertilizers. • Maintain thick,healthy turf with good cultural practices:proper mowing height, core cultivation, dethatching, good pest controls, etc. • Use fertilizer with appropriate N:P ratios (4:1 is common;many products go much higher). Avoid Triple 10 or similar"balanced"products. • Blow turf clippings back onto turf,rather than into the street. • Never allow fertilizer to be thrown directly into a body of water during application. • Use untreated and unfertilized buffer strips adjacent to bodies of water. http://grounds-mag.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazinearticleid=74523&magazineid=3 5&mo... 8/30/02 Grounds Maintenance article Page 5 of 6 - Educate your customers about proper watering practices. - Test your soils and adjust fertilization rates accordingly. - Avoid applying material that requires watering-in when soil already is saturated. A TALE OF TWO FERTILIZER REGULATIONS Of the many regulatory efforts aimed at fertilizers,we picked two that demonstrate how divergent such rules can be. As you'll see, some are more reasonable than others. The examples here were not designed to address TMDL requirements per se, but they are the kinds of regulations you can expect to see after TMDL rules take effect this October. St. Johns County (Fla.)is our first example. For the protection of local wetlands experiencing rampant vegetation growth, in January 2000,the St. Johns Board of County Commissioners enacted a ban on quick-release fertilizers for lawn care. Specific exceptions were made for certain golf-course uses. This regulation had several problems,according to local turf-care professionals. Among them were extreme enforcement measures that allowed county officials to stop and inspect any vehicle or equipment used for fertilizer application. Violators could face not only fines,but jail time as well. The regulation allowed officials to conduct testing on the spot, which presented another problem. How do you test to see whether a fertilizer is water-soluble?You take a sample and grind it up. Since many slow-release products are simply granules of quick-release N with a coating around them, such testing would (accurately) show the presence of quick-release N even though the product was formulated as a coated slow-release material. The St. Johns situation resulted in angry debate and legal wrangling(and still awaits final resolution). But it shows how local officials,unknowledgeable about fertilizers and,perhaps, unsympathetic to the turf-care industry, can impose well-meaning but poorly crafted laws. Another problem came to light during the St. Johns episode. Because of the exemption for some golf course uses,finger pointing within the local turf industry began. LCOs felt unfairly singled out, while some local golf courses apparently were supportive of the regulations. Regardless of the particulars, it was instructive for the turf industry. It would be naive to think that if one type of turf is targeted,others will not soon follow. Turf managers of all stripes need a unified voice. A bill that was recently introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives exhibits more moderation than the St. Johns ordinance. Introduced this year by Rep. Judy Berkstresser, HB 914 is directed at phosphorus-containing fertilizers and is focused on specific counties around a single lake that some feel is suffering from excessive P levels. The bill, if enacted,would limit the use of fertilizers containing more than 3 percent P on managed turf. Exceptions are made for soil that tests as deficient in P and for newly established(first year)turf.It also prohibits application of P-containing fertilizer to frozen or snow-covered ground, impervious services or on turf within 50 feet of a lake or stream. The bill does not discriminate between homeowners and professional applicators and requires retailers to post and provide free literature to buyers containing consumer information and Best Management Practices developed by the University of Missouri Extension Service. http://grounds-mag.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazinearticleid=74523&magazineid=3 5&mo... 8/30/02 Grounds Maintenance article Page 6 of 6 Perhaps the most burdensome requirement of the bill is that it requires commercial fertilizer applicators to be certified by the state. Unlike the drastic penalties included in the St. Johns ordinance,violators are subject to more reasonable punishments—$50 to$100 fines. One might be inclined to argue with the need for the measure, or with some of its particulars, but at least it has been crafted reasonably enough that turf professionals will be able to continue to function if it becomes law. © 2002, PRIMEDIA Business Magazines&Media Inc.All rights reserved.This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be reproduced, rewritten, distributed, redisseminated, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast, directly or indirectly, in any medium without the prior written permission of PRIMEDIA Business Corp. i http://grounds-mag.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazine articleid=74523&magazineid=3 5&mo... 8/30/02 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT NEAR WATER Gregory T. Lyman Turfgrass Environmental Education Program Department of Crop and Soil Sciences The implementation of buffer areas along waterways is becoming more common throughout our landscape as we strive to protect water resources from contamination. Imposing a "buffer strip" adjacent to a watercourse seems like a logical and simple concept, but can be challenging when you consider the details of size, shape,plant materials,management and function of these areas. Waterways in Michigan are represented in several forms ranging from wetlands, streams, ponds, rivers and lakes. Each one of these may likely have different demands for a buffer strip and therefore the buffer strip itself can take on different forms to satisfy the demands. In all cases, the basic objective of the buffer is to provide protection to the watercourse to the potential contaminants. The most basic buffer strip is simply an area of undisturbed, natural vegetation that is left intact adjacent to the surface water feature. In many undisturbed areas of Michigan, this is a forested plant community. It's rather easy to provide this type of buffer strip when you have undisturbed zones adjacent to the water feature, but these situations are scarce when compared to water corridors that have had some sort of disturbance and development. As you move from undisturbed areas and begin to consider creating a buffer strip along a waterway that has been disturbed,the term "buffer strip"can mean many different things. A person interested in promoting fish habitat may have a different vision for a buffer strip than a terrestrial wildlife specialist. Also, some confusion will be expressed as you compare the suggestions for buffer strips from multiple water quality advocates. Most organizations suggest buffer strips adjacent to waterways, but they are not consistent in their suggestions, or they are not practical for golf properties. To make sense out of these variable suggestions, let's reflect on the intent of a buffer strip and then apply a practical buffer strip to the circumstances on your property. To be successful, first learn to recognize the characteristics of sensitive areas and then evaluate the potential contaminants from your turf site. The most sensitive water zones on golf course properties are flowing water such as streams or drainage ditches where water moves through and leaves the property. These can range from high quality trout streams to turbulent rivers to drainage ditches. They are important because potential contaminants from the golf property or turfed areas can move off the property and cause an impact into the receiving water body. Other water areas of concern are wetlands, lakes or ponds that the golf property shares with other owners. Finally,ponds or lakes that are resident on the property and are not connected with off property water bodies. Castelle et al. (1994) identified that buffers are vegetated zones that can utilize a wide variety of plants situated between natural resources and adjacent areas that are subject to human alteration. In their review, they determined four basic criteria for determining buffer sizes. For a buffer area to be functional, it should consider the following areas: • resource functional value; • intensity of adjacent land use; • buffer characteristics; and • specific buffer function required. Applying these general concepts to the wide diversity of site characteristics present in Michigan would result in a variety of buffer strip prescriptions. To apply these concepts to golf course sites, we considered the primary contaminants with the potential to degrade water resources are inputs of fertilizers and pesticides, and soil sedimentation due to erosion. Cole et al. (1997) suggests that turfgrasses can be used as an effective buffer through the action of filtering and diluting chemicals and reducing surface flow velocity. To begin the process of establishing golf course buffer zones, an area 50' wide is superimposed around all surface water bodies. Within this zone, minimal inputs of nutrients and pesticides are prescribed. Next, the existing golf holes are also superimposed and those areas where the play of golf and the 50' buffer zone intersect are noted. The buffer area that intersects with golf play is designated with management practices that allow for the play of golf and maximize the protection to the adjacent surface water. Three different zones have been suggested for these"in-play"areas—a region adjacent to the water for terrestrial plants and extending into the water for submergent plants where growth of a minimum of 12-18" is allowed, then an "intermediate buffer" area of grassy vegetation 4-6"tall, then a region of 1.5" of"rough"height grassy vegetation. Specific inputs are designated for each area and designed to minimize impact to the water. Those buffer zones outside of the play of golf holes are also segregated into three different zones, yet allow for a wider variety of plant materials and minimal maintenance inputs. Finally, these buffer zones must be designed, implemented, and managed in a manner that is accepted by the owners and users of the golf course. Information will be prepared to educate these groups regarding the long-term changes to their landscape and the value of these changes. Without their acceptance, even the most thoughtful design will not be successful. References Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements—A Review. J. Environ. Qual. 23:878-882. Cole J.T., J.H. Baird, N.T. Basta, R.L. Huhnke, D.E. Storm, G.V. Johnson, M.E. Payton, M.D. Smolen, D.L. Martin, and J.C. Cole. 1997. Influence of Buffers on Pesticide and Nutrient Runoff from Bermudagrass Turf. J. Environ. Qual. 26:1589-1598.