The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscellaneous - 500 GREAT POND ROAD 6/17/2003 ESQ PISA. ; FOIE. ; VE C ,UNARY '� IV . s , � VED JUG! QQj NORTH ANpoV .R PLANNING pl"R�RTMENT _ Prepared By' John J Bresnahan Turfgrass;Envirorutrentat Consultants X17 Falmouth:Road... _ °Lorigweadow;`MA.01 t06 `413-565-53 0 is _ TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 GOLF COURSE TURF MANAGEMENT PLAN CONCEPT AND OBJECTIVES.................3 1.l Value of the Golf Course Turf Management Plan Concept .............................................3 1.2 Objectives for the North Andover Country Club Turf Management Plan........................3 2.0 TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT...................................................................................................4 2.1 Fertilization and Nutrient Balance Scheme......................................................................4 2.2. Turf Fertilization.....................................................................................................6 3.0 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.................................................................7 3.1 Integrated Pest Management Theory and Practice...........................................................7 3.2 Integrated Pest Management Program for NACC............................................................8 3.2.1 Identification and Assessment................................................................................8 3.2.2 Preventative Cultural Practices.............................................................................13 3.2.2.1 Height of Cut ............................................13 .............................................................. 3.2.2.2 Mowing Practices and Techniques.........................................................................14 3.2.2.3 Aerification of Soils................................................................................................14 3.2.2.4 To essin 15 3.2.2.5 Turf Fertilization.....................................................................................................15 3.2.2.6 Irrigation.................................................................................................................16 3.2.2.7 Overseeding.............................................................................................................16 3.2.2.8 Addition of Wetting Agents...................................................................................17 3.2.2.9 Addition of Soil Amendments.................................................................................17 3.2.3 Monitoring............................................................................................................18 3.2.3.1 Monitoring of Pest Populations............................................................................. 3.2.3.2 Monitoring Tools....................................................................................................22 3.2.4 Acceptable Thresholds.........................................................................................24 3.2.5 Stress Control Strategies and Actions...................................................................24 3.2.5.1 Cultural Practices....................................................................................................25 3.2.5.2 Chemical Control and Chemical Recordkeeping............................................•...... 0 3.2.6 Evaluation of Strategies....................................................................................... 3.3 Pesticide Management..................................................................................................30 3.3.1 Procedures..........................................................................................................30 3.3.2 Mixing ........................................31 3.3.3 Distribution..........................................................................................................31 3.3.4 Recycling .................................32 3.3.5 Posting.............................................................................................................. 3.3.7 Reporting .......................................34 5.0 REFERENCES................................................................................... c:\my documentAnaccipm902.doc ATTACHMENTI Record of Daily Monitoring ATTACHMENT II Action Threshold Guidelines ATTACHMENT III Record of Pesticide and Fertilizer Applications ATTACHMENT IV Guidelines for Pesticide Selection ATTACHMENT VI TurfGrass Environmental Consulting response to Planning Board and Conservation Commission review June 9, 2003 ATTACHMENT VII TurfGrass Environmental Consulting response to Conservation Commission review January 18, 2003 ATTACHMENT VIII Water Quality Monitoring Program for North Andover Country Club ATTACHMENT IX Hazardous Spill Response Plan ATTACHEMNT X Literature Review Best Management Practices for golf course 2 NORTH ANDOVER COUNTRY CLUB TURF MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.0 GOLF COURSE TURF MANAGEMENT PLAN CONCEPT AND OBJECTIVES The concept behind the Golf Course Turf Management Plan (TMP) is to establish the framework for implementation of an integrated approach to golf course management for the North Andover Country Club Facility located in North Andover, Massachusetts. The TMP integrates all aspects of golf course turf management at the facility including, cultural practices, turf management practices, pest management practices through an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program and environmental quality monitoring. The TMP, as provided here, has been developed to provide guidance for turf management practices at the North Andover Country Club. 1.1 Value of the Golf Course Turf Management Plan Concept There are numerous advantages to incorporating a TMP into golf course management practices, such as: • The TMP concept promotes a proactive prevention and early intervention approach to managing turf plant stresses instead of the reactive crisis intervention approach. • It serves as an operational guidance protocol that can be continually revised,updated and improved in response to physical and environmental changes to turf conditions on the golf course property. • It provides the Golf Course Superintendent with turf and pest management reference documentation and strategies that allow for cross-referencing,periodic updating, and consolidation of integrated turf management principles. • It provides a framework for modifying or incorporating any operational or infrastructure changes to the golf course,or property,to reflect modified operating conditions that could effect turf health and vigor over time. 1.2 Obiectives for the North Andover Country Club Turf Management Plan North Andover Country Club (NACC) has developed customized site specific turf maintenance and integrated pest management programs that establish turf monitoring, maintenance, and treatment protocols for the golf course facility to maintain healthy turf and 3 soil conditions while minimizing potential adverse environmental effects to human health or ecology on the property and surrounding wetland resource areas. It has been specifically designed for the NACC property taking into consideration the existing and desired turf types and quality, soil health maintenance requirements, and compliance with proven IPM principles and existing North Andover Conservation Commission Order of Conditions. 2.0 TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT Turfgrass management is defined as the range of activities necessary for establishing and sustaining turf at a desired level of quality. The first step in turfgrass management involves determining the specific level of turfgrass quality desired and developing a comprehensive program to achieve and maintain that level of quality(Turgeon, 1996). Turf management, integrated pest management and environmental protection strategies will be "integrated"to provide a"whole system" or holistic approach to turf management. The objective of this holistic approach is to adapt and implement turf management strategies, which will limit the use of pesticides and control the input of fertilizers to the property based on soil health principles. The TMP is an integrated approach to turf management cultural practices, turf irrigation, plant management, and pest management in order to maintain a high quality playing surface and enhance the environmental quality of the surrounding natural environment. 2.1 Fertilization and Nutrient Balance Scheme Principles of sound nutrient management for quality turfgrass provide sufficient nutrients for turfgrass growth and plant vigor while avoiding surface and subsurface nutrient losses. The objective of a turfgrass fertilization program is to maximize plant uptake of nutrients, and minimize nutrient losses to surface or groundwater. The approaches taken in the planning of the NACC turf fertilization and management plan call for optimum plant use of nutrients applied based on plant nutrient requirements and soil health. A soil system is a living system that provides a balanced organic environment that influences the nutrient cycle between plant and minerals. This chemical balance does not just consist of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Soil conditions must also balance mineralogical constituents such as pH, calcium, magnesium, and sodium. 4 The nitrogen cycle, whether from natural organic breakdown of plants or from available N of a commercial fertilizer, eventually results in a chemical breakdown and production of inorganic nitrogen within the root zone. Whether the original nitrogen source is organic or inorganic, the end result is inorganic nitrogen when considering the nitrogen cycle in the active plant/soil matrix. Organic nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen and ammonium nitrogen are the primary forms of nitrogen in the soil environment (Stevenson 1982a). After microbial and organic chemical transformation to inorganic nitrogen, these nitrogen forms are the same forms that are delivered to the plants for nutrient uptake when using commercially available organic, inorganic, or synthetic-organic fertilizer products. When inorganic nitrogen is immobilized in the nutrient cycle, the plants and microorganisms as part of their biological processes absorb nitrite. As the plants and microorganisms grow and die, their organic byproducts are mineralized by microbial breakdown of organic compounds to inorganic nitrogen forms. Ammonification and nitrification is the chemical transformation of organic nitrogen to inorganic nitrogen (ammonium) and the microbial oxidation of ammonium to nitrate and nitrite respectively. The nutrient exchange cycle continues to utilize the fertilization inputs and natural breakdowns in an efficient manner as long as the proper nutritional balances are maintained during the growing season. The understanding of this process requires knowledge of the organic chemistry of soils from the site, the needs of the turfgrass plants, and the limits at which fertilizers can be used without negative effects to the environment. These concepts are the basis for the proposed turf nutrient balance practices within the Golf Course Turf Management Plan. NACC's turf management program will utilize a combination of granular organic and inorganic/synthetic organic slow release fertilizers, as well as some inorganic/synthetic organic soluble fertilizers. Controllable soluble fertilizers will be used in specific situations for long-term turf management, incorporating new liquid organic products. Naturally occurring, synthetically produced minerals will also be used for making necessary soil adjustments. This practice of combining organic fertilizers with inorganic (soluble) fertilizers allows a wider variety of turf management methods to control the health of the turfgrass and minimize potential release of nutrients to surface water or groundwater. Typically the use of inorganic fertilizers involves applying extremely low 5 amounts of N, which when timed properly will be immediately taken up by the plant, thereby limiting environmental release. That practice along with the creation of a sound organic foundation for soil health development, provides the basic approach to nutrient management by providing sufficient nutrients for controlled plant growth while avoiding surface and subsurface nutrient loss to groundwater or surface water. 2.2. Turfgrass Fertilization Fertilization practices will rely on annual soil tests to determine optimum amount of nutrients and minerals required by the plant, pH of the soil, organic matter percentage, and total exchange capacity of the soil. Additional nutrients will be provided on an as-needed basis as recommended by soil test results. These nutrients include phosphorus, sulfur, minor elements (boron, iron, manganese, copper, zinc, and aluminum), and the exchangeable cations (calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium). The exchangeable cations (positively charged base elements), along with hydrogen and other bases needed in very low amounts, make up the base saturation percentage. Percent base saturation is the expression of the Base Exchange Capacity, which is saturated by each element (MDS Harris Laboratory). It is necessary that proper base saturation percentages be correct for optimum plant health. After analyzing the soil test results, routine liming practices will usually achieve the optimum percentages. Ideal base saturation percentages are as follows: • Calcium: 68-70% • Magnesium: 15-20% • Potassium: 4.5-6.0% • Sodium: <3.0% • Other Bases: 4-8% Hydrogen: 5-10% Although it may take several years to achieve the proper balance of bases, this balance is necessary for proper turf health. After addressing base saturation percentage, the pH of the soil must be managed. Bentgrass tolerates a wide range of pH levels, but prefers a pH that is slightly acidic. Reaching this level may never be possible if the soil is basic in nature; however, optimum pH of the soil is less of a concern than proper exchangeable cation amounts and base saturation percentages. For example, if the pH levels of the soils are high, and calcium and magnesium levels are low, lime will still need to be applied. 6 Phosphorus is usually needed in low amounts, but can often times be tied up in the soil. Applying the proper source of phosphorus can help increase availability. Phosphorus is a necessary nutrient for seedling germination. 3.0 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 3.1 Integrated Pest Management Theory and Practice IPM can be defined as a decision making and management system that uses cultural practices to promote healthy turfgrass, which has a competitive advantage against pests and environmental stresses. .The system incorporates appropriate management strategies, the most recent pesticide technology, and developments in agronomic techniques. Routine monitoring of turfgrass pests is used to determine their activity. Action thresholds provide a basis for decisions involving pest management. While an IPM system has the potential to reduce the reliance on pesticides, the main objective should be to maintain healthy, functional turf in an economically viable and environmentally sound manner (UMASS Protocols for an IPM System on Golf Courses, 2000). Employing Best Management Practices for IPM not only alleviates stress to the turf plants, but also reduces potential nutrient leaching to groundwater and surface water resources. In order for IPM to be successful, it must function within the framework of the Golf Course Turf Management Plan. No one facet of the Golf Course Turf Management Plan directly controls the working of the IPM plan. Instead, IPM integrates all aspects of the turf management plan to manage pests and turf plant stresses at tolerable levels Integrated Pest Management is often understood as a mechanism to limit or reduce pesticide use, and when implemented properly it accomplishes this. However, at NACC, IPM will be used not only to minimize pesticide use, but also to maintain the integrity and quality of surfaces turfed by applying low amounts of fertilizers, irrigating on an as-needed basis only, and taking special precautions around sensitive wetland areas. The IPM allows NACC to take a holistic approach to managing the golf course, where the property is seen as a complete ecosystem. When using a holistic approach, pesticide and fertilizer use is often decreased not only because it is environmentally responsible, but also because this approach benefits the overall agronomic qualities of the turf management 7 system. At times, applying a pesticide can reduce beneficial microorganisms as well as pest organisms. Plant and soil management is the key to the success of this management approach. This IPM plan designed for NACC will incorporate the philosophy that lower nitrogen use, lower chemical use, efficient irrigation use, and optimum soil health will lead to stronger turf plant conditions. The IPM program at NACC will be proactive, thorough, and responsive, with six different levels of management. These six levels of management integrate information and resources that will enable the club to manage a healthy and responsible golf course. The six levels of management are listed below and are discussed individually in detail within this section. • Identification and assessment of key pests and beneficial organisms and understanding their biology for successful control • Prevention • Monitoring of pest populations • Acceptable thresholds • Stress control strategies and actions • Evaluation of strategies employed versus results obtained 3.2 Integrated Pest Management Program for NACC 3.2.1 Identification and Assessment The first step in the IPM plan for NACC is to identify pests that will adversely affect the condition of the course, and assess where and when they might occur. This process starts with this plan, in that it identifies potential pests known to exist on other Massachusetts golf courses. Identification is an ongoing process. The golf course superintendent can generate large amounts of information as to what may happen in certain areas of the golf course. Microclimates will become evident, such as an area that receives full sun most of the day versus an area that may be in the shade for the majority of the day. This information is vital to being able to predict when, where and why the grass will face certain stresses. In a way, the golf course becomes a system that is micro-managed. Managing the entire property in the same manner would not be 8 optimal to the health of the system, and therefore would not be effective Integrated Pest Management. Experienced turf managers will over time are able to predict what pest will be seen on the course at a given time during the growing season. The following tables of pests and disease (Tables 3.1 through 3.4) were adapted from the UMASS Extension publication, Professional Guide for IPM in Turf for Massachusetts, 1999. These tables list key pests and other types of stress that can weaken the turfgrass plant and/or soil system and which can potentially occur at NACC. Table 3.1 Potential Diseases(foliar and soil borne pathogens) at North Andover Count Club Facilities Common Name Scientific Name Potential incidence Level of damage Dollar Spot Sclerotinia homoeoc a High Moderate to Hi Brown Patch Rhizoctonia solani High Moderate to High Pythium(foliar blight) Pythium spp. Moderate to Low High Pythium (crown and root) Pythium spp. Moderate Moderate to High Take-All Patch Gaeumannomyces graminis High High var.avenae Pink Snow Mold Microdochium nivale High Moderate (Fusarium Patch Gray Snow Mold Typhula incarnata Moderate Moderate (Typhula Blight) Typhula ishikariensis var.(multiple varieties Anthracnose(basal rot) Colletotrichum graminicola Moderate Moderate Anthracnose(foliar Colletotrichum graminicola Moderate to High Moderate to High blight) Necrotic Ring Sot Le tos haeria korrae Low to Moderate Moderate Summer Patch Magnaporth poae Moderate Moderate Curvularia Blight Curvularia spp. Moderate Low to Moderate Snow Scald M riosclerotinia borealis Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Red Thread Laetisaria fuciformis Moderate to High Low Yellow Patch Rhizoctonia cerealis Moderate Moderate Rusts Puccinia spp. (and others) Low to Moderate Low Fairy Rings 3 main types,but many Moderate to Moderate to different fungi High M01 Powdery Mildew Erysiphe graminis Low Low Gray Leaf Spot Pyricularia grisea Low to Moderate Low Leaf Spot Bipolaris spp. Moderate to High Moderate Drechslera spp. Exserohilium spp. Note_ The pests listed in this table could potentially occur at North Andover Country Club property. It should be noted that in most cases potential problems of any population would not occur for several years after grow-in. 9 Table 3.2 Potential Insects at North Andover Country Club Facilities Common Name Scientific Name Potential Incidence Level of Damage WCu"orm Agrostis ipsilon High Moderate to High tworm Peridroma saucia Moderate Moderate to Hiss Ataenius Ataenius s retulus High Moderate e Po illia 'a onica Hi HI ed Chafer C cloce halo borealis Moderate h High Southern Masked Chafer C cloce hala immaculata Moderate Oriental Beetle Exomala orientalis Low to Moderate Moderate to Mgh H perodes Weevil Listronotus maculicollis Low to Moderate High Bluegrass Billbug S heno horus paryulus Low Moderate Sod Webworms Crambus sp . Low to Moderate Moderate Arm orrn Psudaletia uni uncta Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Green June Beetle Colinis nitida Low to Moderate Moderate Note: The pests listed in this table could potentially occur at North Andover Country Club property. It should be noted that in most cases potential problems of any population would not occur for several years after grow-in,if at all. Table 3.3 Potential Undesirable Plant S ecies at North Andover Cotumtry Club Facilities Common Name Scientific Name Type Potential Level of Damage Incidence Common Stellaria media B High Moderate Chickweed Mouse-ear Cerastium vulgatum B High Moderate Chickweed Yellow Woodsorrel Oxalis s B Moderate Low to Moderate Spotted Spurge Chamae e maculata B Low Moderate Other Spurges Eu horbia s B Low Moderate White Clover Tri olium re ens B Mgb Sweet Clover Melilotus SPP B Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Thistles Cirsium spp. B Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Carduus spp. Plantains Plantago spp. B Low to Moderate Low Black Medic Medico o spp. B Moderate Moderate Dandelion Taraxacum ofcinale B Moderate Moderate to High Annual Bluegrass Poa annua G Mgh High Smooth Crabgrass Digitaria ischaemum G High Htgh Hairy Crabgrass Di itaria sanguinalis G Hi High Goose ass Eleusine indica G Moderate Moderate to Hi Dallisgrass Pas alum dilitatum G Low Low to Moderate Yellow Nutsed e Cyperus esculentus S Moderate to Hi Moderate to 9gh Purple Nutsed e QT erus strigosus .S Low to Moderate Moderate to Hi Note: The pests listed in this table could potentially occur at North Andover Country Club property. It should be noted that in most cases potential problems of any population would not occur for several years after grow-in,if at all. #The type of plant species is designated by B(broadleaf),A(annual grassy weed)or S(sedge). 10 Table 3.4 Potential Nematodes at North Andover Country Club Facilities Common Name Scientific Name Potential Level of Damage Incidence Cyst Heterodera spp. Variable Variable Dagger Xiphinema spp. Variable Variable Lance Hoplolaimus Variable Variable Lesion Pratylenchus spp. Variable Variable Needle Longidorus spp. Variable Variable Pin Paratylenchus spp. Variable Variable Ring Criconemella spp. Variable Variable Root-knot Meloidogyne spp. Variable Variable Spiral Hilicotylenchus spp. Variable Variable Stubby Root Paratrichodorus spp. Variable Variable Stunt Tylenchorhynchus spp. Variable Variable Note: The pests listed in this table could potentially occur at North Andover Country Club property. It should be noted that inmost cases potential problems of any population would not occur for several years,if at all. *List adapted for North Andover Country Club from Schumann,et al,1998 Although not included in most IPM manuals, potentially beneficial organisms are a necessary and vital part of a successful IPM program. Birds and mammals of various species not only feed on insects, but also more importantly are strong indicators for pest activity. In addition, there are literally millions of naturally occurring microorganisms that populate the turf canopy and soil environment. These microorganisms aid in organic matter breakdown, nutrient uptake, and root growth stimulation. They also compete with or are natural predators of pests, and are an essential part of denitrification. Some of the organisms listed are commercially available as biological controls and may be applied to turfgrass. Examples of some of the beneficial organisms or animals that could occur at NACC along with a brief description of their role in IPM are presented in Table 3.5. 11 FF Table 3.5 Potential Beneficial Organisms as Indicators of Turf Stress at North Andover Country Club Facilities Common Name Scientific Name Function and Role in IPM ]]All Foraging Birds Feed on insect pests at the surface and subsurface of turfgrass areas Skunks Feed on insects, especially in the larval stage. Can cause extensive damage when populations of larvae are high Birds of rey Feed on moles,voles S iders Feed on insects in the turfgrass canopy Azosporillium Azosporillium spp. Increased root vigor and mass,more efficient use of applied nitrogen Pseudomonas Pseudomonas Antagonistic to certain patbogens Bacillus Bacillus spp. Helps in improving soil characteristics Azobacter Found naturally in the soil,aid in the denitirificaiton process Mychorrizae Fungi Mychorrizae spp. Improves phosphorus and water uptake (Petrovic, 1999) Three other potential physical or biological stresses that could affect turfgrass include algae, moss, and localized dry spots. In general, algae are found in sites that are poorly drained or continually moist, and where the turfgrass is thin and weak. Algae can become a serious problem if conditions favoring its development are not corrected. Moss has recently become a serious problem on golf courses, predominantly on greens. Moss spreads over thinning turfgrass very rapidly under certain conditions, and once present, is very difficult to control. Moss is said to proliferate in wet or poorly drained areas; however, it can also thrive in almost any condition where turfgrass density and vigor are low. Moss can become a serious problem if allowed to proliferate. Localized dry spots in turfgrass are generally found on sand based soils and can actually repel water. The soils can become hydrophobic from an organic coating on the soil or sand particle. The organic coating results from the breakdown of organic substances such as roots or other soil amendments that may be part of the root.zone. When very dry, the coating can repel water, and along with the poor water holding capacity of a sandy soil, the turfgrass can experience severe moisture deficits (Karnock and Beall, 1995). If areas are left untreated,thinning and even death of the turfgrass plant can result. As suggested earlier, these lists serve as a baseline for what the golf course superintendent might expect to see, and over time, the list will evolve into what pests or other stresses are predominately observed at NACC. This first identification step in the 12 IPM program is essential; not only as background information, but also in moving to the next step,prevention. 3.2.2 Preventative Cultural Practices The prevention step in the IPM program entails employing management practices that benefit the overall health of the turfgrass, soil system, and the property by impeding severe pest outbreaks, while maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem as a whole. Preventative cultural practices are integral in promoting and enhancing plant vigor and stress tolerance and in helping the turf respond naturally, without chemical inputs, to attacks by pests and other stresses. The key to developing turf is to promote a strong root system, which can be achieved by the following cultural practices; proper irrigation to provide for plant growth and development (allowing the soil to dry after rainfall), maintaining mover heights to levels that will maximize carbohydrate production and provide for the desired qualities on the playing surfaces, raise mower height during stress periods, provide balances nutrition, implement soil testing to determine fertility levels of major and minor elements and pH level, conduct core aeration in late September with 1/2-inch tines and heavy topdressing, and creating a balanced fertility program. Cultural practices can have a direct impact in controlling certain stresses and pests. For example, removing grass clippings while mowing can decrease the chance of spreading weed seeds such as annual bluegrass (Poa annua). Below is a description of various cultural practices and how they relate to IPM. Additional pest control strategies using cultural practices and mechanisms will be discussed in greater detail in Section 3.2.5, Stress Control Strategies and Actions. 3.2.2.1 Height of Cut Turfgrass varieties respond better to stress at certain heights of cut. Mowing lower than what the plant can tolerate weakens the plant and leaves it vulnerable to attacks by disease, insects, and other stresses. Mowing heights were chosen for NACC to accommodate fair, yet challenging playing surfaces, and for overall plant health and sustainability. Proposed mowing heights for the specific playing surfaces are as follows: 13 Table 3.6 Projected mowing heights and frequencies for each of the managed turf types at North Andover Country Club. Height of Cut(inches) Season Greens Tees Fairways Rough Spring 0.150 0.625 0.625 2.5 Summer 0.125 0.625 0.625 2.5 Fall 0.125 0.625 0.625 2.5 Winter 0.150 0.625 0.625 2.5 Mowing Frequency 7 days 3-4 days 3-4 days 2-3 days 3.2.2.2 Mowing Practices and Techniques Although necessary, mowing puts stress on the turfgrass plant by opening a temporary wound and by taking a portion of its leaf surface away that would normally be used for photosynthesis. The amount of leaf surface removed during any one mowing will not exceed more than one-third of its total area. Removing more than 1/3 of the total leaf surface can put a large amount of stress on the plant and make it more susceptible to pathogens. Therefore, any technique used to alleviate some of this stress is beneficial to the plant. NACC will employ the following techniques to help prevent this type of stress. Mowing reels and blades will always be sharp, to make a clean cut which will promote faster healing. Operators will be trained properly on mowing equipment to avoid scalping of turf, and other injuries caused by improper mowing procedures. Most mowing will take place in the morning when there is less stress put on the plant from factors such as heat stress. Mowing patterns will vary day to day to avoid lying over of the grass, and to promote upright growth. During periods when the turfgrass is under high amounts of stress, raising the mowing height will be considered. This would allow a greater leaf surface that might help the plant better endure stress pressures. Another way to alleviate stress is to skip mowing from time to time to allow the plant to possibly grow through the period of stress. 3.2.2.3 Aerification of Soils Core aerification, the process of removing cores of soil from a playing surface, has many benefits to the turfgrass system. Some of these are increased thatch control, less soil surface compaction, more uniform water infiltration, increased surface aeration, and increased rooting (Carrow et al., 1987; Erusha et al., 1989; Dunn et al., 14 1995;Lederboer and Skogley, 1967; Shildrick, 1985; White and Dickens, 1984). All of these qualities strengthen the plant and soil and make them more defensive to pathogens and stress. Solid tine aeration, the process of aerating the soil without pulling a soil core, provides some of these benefits as well, but for a shorter period of time. Other types of aerification include deep tine (using solid tines to go deep into the profile - between 8"-12"), water injection, and shatter core aeration (going deep into the soil to break up compaction layers). The following list summarizes a potential schedule for aerification at NACC. • Greens—putting surfaces- spring and fall with deep solid tines.; Fall 1/2" to 5/8" hollow tines • Tees- core aerification done in the fall with 1/2" to 5/8"tines. • Fairways-Fall aerification to 4" depth with 5/8" tines; deep coring to areas of turf loss during the season 3.2.2.4 Topdressing Topdressing is the process of applying a thin layer of sand or other soil amendment onto the playing surface, and then working it into the turf canopy. This process allows for a more consistent playing surface, decreased thatch accumulation, and better water infiltration. Topdressing frequency coincides with the rate of thatch accumulation, which is in turn related to the growth rate of the plant. Topdressing of greens will occur, in two heavy applications, after core aeration. Through the summer months, four light applications will be added to increase speed, smooth the playing surfaces, and reduce thatch accumulation. 3,2.2.5 Turfgrass Fertilization Turf fertilization at NACC will build and manage the soils to allow for greater sustainability and stronger plant health. Fertilization practices will rely on soil, water testing and visual observation as discussed in Section 2.2.2. Nitrogen fertilizers will be applied on an as-needed basis only, as determined by plant health and vigor, rooting characteristics, growth rate desired, season, and tissue testing. Nitrogen will be applied in small increments to avoid nitrates moving through the soil solution, undesired flushes in growth, and increases in pest populations. For complete details on fertilization management,please refer to Section 2.2.2. 15 Extensive record keeping of all fertilizer applications will be maintained. Calibration methods and settings, amount of product and nutrient values, weather conditions at time of application, area(s) treated, size of area(s), and total amount of fertilizer used will be recorded on these sheets. All sheets in a given year will be kept in a binder and organized by golf course area. Records from previous years will be filed. Data from previous years will be reviewed and improved if necessary for the upcoming season. Retaining these records will allow the manager to track amounts and sources of nutrients, and to determine when and how soil nutrient imbalances were corrected. 3.2.2.6 Irrigation The following describes how irrigation management fits into IPM after grow-in. NACC will follow the philosophy of deep and infrequent use of irrigation. When managing for the turfgrass roots, irrigation must be supplied so it gets to the roots, not just to the surface. If irrigation were supplied in a fashion where short, frequent cycles were the norm, roots would not have to grow deeper to obtain water. Instead, they would stay closer to the surface where the water is, resulting in a shallow root system. When irrigation is supplied deep enough to reach approximately 1 inch below the bottom of the roots, the roots will grow down to that depth to obtain water (Throssell, 1992). Obviously, by doing this, the root system becomes stronger, and therefore the plant is stronger. A healthy, extensive root system will intercept more nutrients moving downward, and will be able to store more carbohydrates for energy, allowing the plant to draw on these energy reserves under severe stress conditions. A vigorous root system also dramatically reduces pesticide and nitrate leaching and runoff(Petrovic, 1999). 3.2.2.7 Overseeding The practice of overseeding, usually performed in conjunction with aerification or spiking, is a useful tool to re-introduce new seed into the existing stand of turf. This technique is used to increase density of the turf, particularly after the summer season when the density might decrease. Overseeding can also introduce new and improved varieties into the existing turf that over time will eventually convert to an integrated population of the new variety. 16 3.2.2.8 Addition of Wetting Agents Wetting agents, which are biodegradable soaps that break the surface tension of water resulting in greater water retention by the leaf and or the soil, have many beneficial properties. Wetting agents aid in controlling localized dry spots in greens, fairways and tees by reducing the amount of irrigation needed (Petrovic, 1985) and increasing the fohar uptake of nutrients (Carrow, 1992), such as nitrogen. Examples of wetting agents that may be used at NACC are Primer, Surfside, and Aqueduct. Greens will receive an application every three weeks. This practice combats and helps to reduce hydrophobic areas on the greens. 3.2.2.9 Addition of Soil Amendments There are many amendments used on golf courses that can be beneficial to the soil system. Some of the products increase infiltration rates, increase organic matter, increase porosity, raise cation exchange capacity (CEC), introduce food sources for soil microbes, hold water for longer periods (which may be desirable in high sand soils), and add organic nutrients and minerals. Some of these amendments have been on the market long enough to prove their worth, while others are new and have not been proven beyond testimonials. Below are several types of amendments that could be used at NACC. • Dolomitic limestone • Gypsum • Epsom salts • Profile • Hardwood saw dust 3.2.3 Monitoring Monitoring the golf course for pests, pathogens, and stresses is a yearlong process. It is a demanding effort and time consuming responsibility. The effort is worthwhile in the event a pest is found at the beginning stages of an outbreak and non-chemical strategies can still be employed to control the population. After identification and preventative measures are put into place, monitoring of the system begins. Monitoring requires trained and experienced personnel to observe pest populations and other stresses in the 17 early stages before the stresses can escalate. To successfully accomplish this, the superintendent, will conduct daily visual inspections of the golf course and its surroundings as he mows greens, tees, collars, fairways and roughs. The golf course superintendent is trained to recognize a variety of environmental parameters that influence pest populations such as changes in weather conditions, wildlife activity, and soil temperatures. In addition, the superintendent must be able to interpret and utilize available information such as, but not limited to: recent management practices that may influence pressures from pests, weather forecasts, analyses of soil and tissue testing, and groundwater data. 3.2.3.1 Monitoring of Pest Populations Monitoring of pests, pathogens, and other stress does not always require an action step to be taken. Instead, further monitoring of the pest in question may show that there is no damage being done, or that it has simply disappeared. Monitoring may also lead to slight management changes such as watering an hour later at night or decreasing the time of leaf wetness, which will decrease the incidence of some diseases. Knowledge of past weather conditions is very important since many diseases require a 24-48 hour period of continual humidity and/or temperature level. As stated earlier, monitoring for pests requires the monitoring team to have an extensive knowledge of all factors affecting turfgrass health, especially skills in identifying pests and various types of stresses. Tables 3.7 through 3.10 list characteristics of the pests that were identified earlier in the identification step in this IPM program. These guides can be used as a reference for the individuals that are scouting and monitoring the course. Information in these tables was compiled from the following sources: Smiley et al., 1993; Schumann et al., 1998; and Bhowmik et. al., 1999. 18 Table 3.7 Disease Monitorin Gnide Disease Weather Season Nitrogen Disease Symptoms Fertili Dollar Spot Warm June to September Low Small spots,straw-colored lesions that extend across leaf blade,white mycelium when turf is wet Brown Patch Hot July to September High Large patches,irregular-shaped lesion with thin brown margins,grayish smoke rings at outer edge when turf is wet Pythium Blight Hot June to August High Small spots,greasy brown to reddish,gay-white, cottony mycelium in early morning,easily streaked Pythium Root Rot All March to No effect Wilted,rotten,or straw-colored November Take--All Patch Cool or March to June, No effect** Medium patches or rings,no mycelium Hot September to on leaves,roots often brown and November decayed,bent grass host Pink Snow Mold Cold or October to May High Small spots that may coalesce,pink (Fusarium Patch) Cool mycelium after snow,greasy,salmon to red-brown colored spots in absence of snow,sclerotia,easily streaked Gray Snow Mold Cold November to April High Small to medium patches,gray (Typhula Blight) mycelium,brown sclerotia,snow cover required for development Anthracnose Cool to May to October Low Small to irregular spots,yellow leaf (Foliar Blight) Hot lesions with black centers,black hair- like setae on leaves or crowns Necrotic Ring Warm June to September No effect Medium patches or rings,no mycelium Spot On leaves,roots often brown and Decayed,Poa annua host Summer Patch Hot July to August No effect Medium patches or rings,leaves turn Yellow or brown starting at tip,no mycelium on leaves,roots often brown and decayed,Poa annua host Red Thread Cool to April to October Low Red or ink mycelium or"thread" Warm Growing from tips of infected blades, Straw-colored lesions,pink puffs of S res Yellow Patch Cool November to April High Medium to large patches of yellow Rings,usually nomycelium Rusts Cool to July to October Low Rusty colored powdery spores on leaf Warm Blades and leaf sheaths Powdery Mildew Cool to July to September High White superficial powdery fungus on Warm Surface of leaves Leaf Spot Cool to March to May, High Oval or eye-shaped chocolate-brown Warm September to Spots often with tan centers November Fairy Rings Cool,Warm or April to October No effect Rings or arcs up to 15'across often with outer ring Hot dark green. Mushrooms may be present in rin Gray Leaf Spot Hot to Warm July to September No effect Purple lesions and spots,twisted hooked leaf blades. Perennial ryegrass is susceptible. **Applying nitrogen in the form of ammonium sulfate can reduce take-all patch severity by decreasing pH of the upper 2 inches of the soil and thatch profile. Take-all patch is most active in soils with a high pH value. 19 Table 3.8 Insect Monitoring Guide Insect Areas found Season Sam fin Techniques Black Cutworm Greens,Tees, and Adults:May to September Adult:Black light trap Fairways Larvae:May to September Larvae: Soapy flush Variegated Greens,Tees, and Adults: May to Adult:Black light trap Cutworm Fairways September Larvae: Soapy flush Larvae: May to September Black Turfgrass Greens,tees,collars, Adults:April to May Late Adult: Soapy Flush Ataenius fairways July to August Larvae: Soil Sample Larvae:Late May to September Japanese Beetles All turf Adults:Mid-June to Adult:Pheromone traps September Larvae: Soil sample Larvae:March to May, July to September Northern Masked All turf Adults:Mid-June to Larvae: Soil sample Chafer September, Larvae:March to May, July to September Southern Masked All turf Adults:Mid-June to Larvae: Soil sample Chafer September Larvae:March to May, July to September Oriental Beetle All turf Adults:Mid-June to Adult:Pheromone traps September Larvae: Soil sample Larvae:March to May July to September Hyperodes Weevil Poa annua in greens, Adults:April to early May, Adult: Soapy flush tees,collars,fairways" July to September Larvae: Visual inspection Larvae:June to September of soil and thatch Bluegrass Billbug All turf Adults:May to early June Adult: Soapy flush Larvae:June to August Larvae:Visual inspection in soil and thatch **Damage to bentgrass by Hyperodes weevil has been recently documented in the Northeast(Skorulski, 1999) The sampling techniques mentioned in Tables 3.7 and 3.8 above will be used for monitoring these insects. These are not harmful to the turfgrass and a brief description of each is listed below. Soapy flush: Add 1 to 2 tablespoons of lemon scented liquid dish detergent to 1 gallon of water, pour over area 2 ft. by 2 ft. Caterpillars and adults of some species will be irritated and crawl to the surface within 5 minutes (usually quicker). If sampling in mid-summer, rinse area after counting insects to avoid scalding turf. 20 Visual inspection: Take a sample with a cup cutter, gently break apart turf and thatch, and look for insects. Place all material in dishpan with warm water. Insects will float to surface. Soil sample: Take a soil sample with a cup cutter to a depth of 2-4 inches. Break apart soil, looking for eggs (pearly white, spherical, 1/16 to 1/8 inch diameter) or grubs (cream colored, c-shaped, 3 pairs of legs just behind brown head). (Schumann, et al., 1998) Monitoring guides for undesired plant species and nematodes that could occur at NACC are provided in Tables 3.9 and 3.10 respectively. Table 3.9 Undesired Plant species Monitoring Guide Undesired plant type Period of peak germination Comments Crabgrass and other annual April to mid-June,Early Fall Soil temperature are 53°to 85°F grass weeds at a depth of 4 inches for a week Summer annual broadleaf April to June weeds Winter annual broadleaf weeds August to October May develop seed heads in fall if and annual bluegrass weather is favorable Perennial broadleaf weeds May to June August to September Table 3.10 Nematode Mo itoring Guide Nematode Season Symptoms Ectoparasistic Nematodes: Lance May to October Wilting,turf decline,reduced vigor and Needle shortened roots. Ectoparasitic nematodes Ring do not cause unique symptoms on roots, Spiral although Stubby Root and Needle may Stubby Root cause swelling of the root tips. Stunt Endoparasitic Nematodes: Cyst May -Oct Cysts can be found attached to plant roots if roots are washed gently Root-knot May—Oct Swelling and galls develop on roots Lesion May—Oct Small lesions may occur on roots Damage from nematodes is hard to identify; however, if the symptoms are present and other causes cannot be identified, collecting a sample for a nematode assay may be necessary. Samples will be collected from both the affected area and, for the purpose of comparison, an adjacent unaffected area. When no damage is evident, 21 sampling will be conducted to monitor seasonal changes in populations to create season to season informational trends. Trend samples should be taken from an area no larger than 500 sq. ft. and repeated in the same location seasonally. Collecting a composite sample (15 to 20 sub-samples using a 3/4 to 1-inch probe, at a depth of 4 inches throughout the site) will yield the most accurate estimation of nematode populations. The sample (at least '/2 pint) should be placed in a container, such as a plastic bag and clearly labeled with a sample number. The sample should be refrigerated or delivered as soon as possible after collection(Schumann, et al, 1998). 3.2.3.2 Monitoring Tools There are various field and laboratory testing activities that can be used by the superintendent to aid in the monitoring process. Specialists will analyze samples, make recommendations and provide feedback to the superintendent regarding pests and other types of stress. Examples of some of the tools for monitoring are listed below. Visual Observation and Scouting: Visual observation and scouting is the most important monitoring tool since it results in immediate identification of stresses. The ability to recognize stresses such as indicators of wilt and drought, disease-causing mycelium in the turfgrass canopy, and insect adults in and around the course, is invaluable. Mapping of the golf course for pest activity will be initiated in the 2000 season. Soil Probing: Soil probes can provide superintendents with a great deal of information such as layers in the soil that may impede water infiltration, the depth of root growth and density of the root structure, and the amount of moisture in the soil at varying depths. This type of information can be used to explain the occurrence of pests (white grubs, for example) or pathogens, which will enable the management staff to act before significant damage occurs. Soil Testing: Soil testing is one of the most important monitoring tasks. Soil testing of greens, tees, fairways, and roughs, will be conducted annually to develop a fertility plan for the following season. The samples will be sent to a qualified soil consultant who will report the levels of nutrients in the soil, and provide recommendations for correcting deficiencies or surpluses. 22 Irrigation Water Testing: Water utilized for irrigation will be tested annually for pH levels, bicarbonates, carbonates, sodium, salt concentration, alkalinity, metals, hardness, and other nutrients such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium. High concentrations of bicarbonates and sodium can lead to salt and metals accumulation in the soil profile. If these parameters accumulate in the soil, methods to reduce the concentrations in the irrigation water will be implemented. Among other solutions, calcium sulfate can be applied to leach the salts out of the profile. Biological Indicators: Many plants found in this region of the country are biological indicators of pest population growth and development. Some of these plants include horsechestnut, lilac, dogwood, and forsythia. When these plants bloom, other organisms in nature "bloom" as well. For example, bridal wreath spirea bloom is often an indicator of crabgrass emergence and development. Adult populations of black turfgrass ataenius and annual bluegrass weevil emerge and develop between the periods of forsythia full bloom and dogwood full bloom (Schumann, et. al., 1998). Though most of these plant species will not be found on the property, they are common in residential communities. By viewing these occurrences in the vicinity of the course, the managers of the NACC will make note of dates of bloom and associated pest occurrence, if any. These results will be recorded in the IPM monitoring guide and compiled to determine if biological trends develop. It must be noted that these are timing indicators and not necessarily proof of activity. Scouting will confirm actual population growth or existence. Examples of pests and the times of the year when they are expected to be observed include the following: annual bluegrass weevil begins in April when they begin to migrate form the woodline toward the tees and greens; adult Japanese beetles and Oriental beetles tend to appear throughout June and July; and cutworm are usually observed on greens and tees in late August. Monitoring of Microclimates: Microclimates in and around the property, where pest development and growth are evident, will be intensively monitored to predict future populations in similar areas of the golf course. These microclimate areas will be monitored almost daily if conditions are conducive to pest development. A combination of site-specific climatic conditions, pest models and documented trends will alert the manager of a need to monitor a specific area of the golf course (e.g. extended heat and humidity forecast, prediction model for brown patch, and 23 documented annual infestation on a certain tee complex). Experience with the site will become the most important monitoring tool. Microclimates on the golf course exist for a variety of reasons. Some develop due to thick brush that can allow insect pests to proliferate during the winter months; a stand of trees that block air circulation and sunlight; or shallow rocks in the soil that inhibit turfgrass rooting. Others may develop due to soil differences. For example, sandy soils may drain extremely well, but can require additional irrigation during drier conditions. Soils high in clay can remain moist and drain poorly during wet conditions, but can then turn extremely hard during dry conditions. Pests and diseases can, and often do attack certain microclimates first (known as hot spots), before attacking other locations on the golf course. Effective monitoring of these "hot spots" and proper identification of potential pest outbreaks will prevent the spreading of stress and damage to other areas on the golf course. 3.2.4 Acceptable Thresholds IPM programs typically establish thresholds for the amount of damage that will be tolerated before a chemical will be used. Assigning threshold numbers to different pests is often unrealistic in determining whether or not to treat an area with a chemical product. The level of damage tolerated or deemed acceptable will vary according to the pest in question, season, weather conditions and forecasts, and specific areas of the golf course (greens, tees, fairways, rough). For example, many experts suggest that golf course managers chemically treat for grubs when levels reach anywhere from 8-10 grubs per square foot;however,this threshold is not useful unless all factors are considered. At the time of grub infestation, the plant system may be able to tolerate this amount of grubs; therefore, chemical treatment may not be necessary. Chemicals can also inhibit natural processes that are working to control the pest through competition and succession. Since pests are always present in the turfgrass environment at some level, the important technique for setting thresholds is to visually observe when these pests are at intolerable levels. 3.2.5 Stress Control Strategies and Actions When a pest or stress is recognized, a decision for action has to be made. The decision may be that the pest population is not high enough to warrant further action, or that further monitoring needs to be performed. However, when the system can no longer 24 withstand the competition or damage from pests, some type of control action or strategy needs to be implemented. There are three different options for control that can be adopted to relieve stress imposed on the plant by pests. They are cultural, biological/natural, and chemical. Many times, a combination of two or more of these strategies is necessary to achieve control or one type of control can be replaced with another, dependent upon success of the strategies. When choosing a control strategy, it is important to remember a core IPM principle: 100% control will not be achieved. Instead of relying on 100% control, the managers at NACC will use control strategies to reduce pests to tolerable levels. Deciding on which type of control to use will be based on: • level of the pest present, • ability of the turf to recover from pest damage during a specific season(during the summer, turf often cannot recover quickly or at all), • severity of damage the pest will cause, and • estimated time between minimal damage and damage that cannot be tolerated. Specific examples of actions and strategies for the three options of stress control are presented in Sections 3.2.5.1 through 3.2.5.3. 3.2.5.1 Cultural Practices The following is a list of cultural strategies that can be employed as preventative action or to reduce stress from intolerable levels of pests: Mowing: During peak periods of high stress, there are changes in mowing techniques that can be instituted to lower stress. Substituting rolling for cutting will decrease mowing frequency and can limit stress to the plant that may cause an increase in pest populations. This can temporarily allow the turf to grow, while still providing a reasonably fair surface on which to play. If the clean up pass on greens, tees, or fairways are starting to show wear,these can be skipped a few times a week. Areas where disease is active can be mowed last to reduce chance of spreading pathogens to uninfected areas. 25 Raising Turfgrass Height: As stated in Section 3.2.2.2, the turfgrass height of cut can be raised to allow the turf to grow more. This can aid the plant in growing out of its damaged state or make it stronger by not adding another stress (mowing), which creates a wound. Fertilization: Although a well balanced fertilizer program can often prevent stress by itself, when certain pathogens do appear, a number of fertilization practices designed to reduce pest pressures can be prescribed. It must be noted that the addition or reduction of fertilizers does not directly affect the pest organism but does help the plant fight the infestation by improved vigor or by changing the composition of the hosting micro-climate. Specific examples are listed below. • Dollar spot is a disease that is usually more prevalent under low nitrogen regimes. If nitrogen is too low, and dollar spot is a problem, adding nitrogen at low amounts can reduce the dollar spot population. Adding low amounts of nitrogen can also reduce pressures from Anthracnose and Rusts. • Ammonium Sulfate fertilizers can decrease the disease activity of Take-all Patch by reducing the pH of the top 2 inches of the soil. This technique is often successful since the pathogen resides in the upper 2 inches of soil and prefers soils that are high in pH. • Lowering the amount of nitrogen applied can reduce the incidence of the following diseases: Brown Patch, Pythium Blight, Pink and Gray Snow Mold, Yellow Patch, Powdery Mildew, and Leaf Spot. • Certain undesirable plants are associated with differing levels of nutrients and pH. For instance,Poa annua tolerates high pH soils. Again, ammonium sulfate can be applied to lower pH,but liming practices should be monitored closely if Poa annua is a problem. • Some forms of organic nitrogen can reduce thatch accumulation,possibly by stimulating increased earthworm, insect,or microbial activity, all of which aid in thatch decomposition(Berndt, et. al, 1990). Since proper plant health is determined in large part by proper fertilization and soil health, competition of weeds is decreased when the turfgrass is growing actively. Leaf Wetness Removal: Leaf wetness is associated with many types of disease. Certain pathogens require a period of time when the leaf is wet to complete their 26 disease cycle. Removing dew from the turfgrass can break the disease cycles associated with many pathogens. For example, the occurrence of dollar spot can be reduced greatly by removing the morning dew(Williams and Powell, Jr., 1995). Dew removal can be achieved in many ways such as applying certain types of wetting agents, whipping or polling, mowing, knocking off dew with short irrigation cycles, or rolling. Certain combinations of these methods can be used to decrease some incidence of disease. Applying Wetting Agents: As mentioned earlier in the preventative portion of this program (Section 3.2.2.10), wetting agents can have many benefits in an IPM program such as improving water use, increasing foliar uptake of nutrients, reducing localized dry spots, and reducing the amount of irrigation needed. Wetting agent applications are an important ongoing tool that focuses on efficient uniform wetting of soils through the irrigation distribution system during the growing season. It is also believed that wetting agents also decrease the occurrence of certain insects, and also reduce the incidence of moss on turfgrass. Wetting agents will be applied routinely throughout the growing season at NACC, especially if irrigation efficiency decreases or localized dry spots increase. Thatch Control: Although thatch has many beneficial properties such as adding a cushion between the crown of the plant and the underlying soil particles, an excess of thatch can be detrimental to turfgrass health and quality. A heavy thatch layer can cause water use to be inefficient because thatch acts as a sponge, retaining most of the water. Thatch can also become hydrophobic which reduces water infiltration, increases fungal and insect organism populations, and ties up non-mobile nutrients such as phosphorus (Agnew, 1993). Cultural control of thatch includes aerification, topdressing, deep verticutting, and applying organic materials on an as needed basis to stimulate microbial breakdown of the thatch. Practices of thatch control are an ongoing process that if accomplished, will act as a preventative control measure for many pest conditions while controlling stress conditions that may occur if left unchecked. Irrigation Management: As discussed earlier, certain pathogens require a period of continual leaf wetness to complete their disease cycles. The correct timing of irrigation can control the time.that the leaf is wet. Most irrigation should be applied as close to the morning mowing to reduce leaf wetness. Applying irrigation at proper amounts will avoid pest outbreaks as a result of dry or water-logged soil and canopy 27 conditions. As a preventative measure, moisture control in the canopy and upper soil profiles is critical to preventing many turf pathogens. At the same time, the stresses from localized drying and heat stress can be addressed by handwatering and syringing. Selective Pruning of Trees and Understor_y: Pruning of trees or selectively clearing the understory around turfgrass areas can decrease the incidence of disease. If trees or understory inhibits air circulation, certain disease pathogen populations can increase. Selectively clearing understory or brush can also reduce the areas for insect pests to overwinter, thereby decreasing population levels the following season. In both of these management approaches, air circulation and vegetative management can prevent and control differing stress potentials. Drainage: All areas on the course should drain correctly. The turfgrass system relies on the air/water/soil relationship for its overall health. Optimal percentages for these three components are air(25%),water(25%), and soil (50%). When an area does not drain well, water takes over a percentage of the air space, and plant health is decreased. Drainage problems can cause a decrease in turfgrass quality and density and increase the potential for population growth of pests. Layering in the soil, poor soil structure, or over-applying irrigation can cause poor drainage. Cultural practices that can remedy drainage problems are proper irrigation use, proper timing and use of nutrient applications, modification of soil structure by aerification and/or topdressing, or the installation of drainage lines and tile. Clippings: Turf clipping removal can decrease the amount of weed seeds that can contribute to an increase in undesirable plant populations. Clipping removal can also decrease a place for pests to reside. However, returning clippings can result in an organic nitrogen source of up to 1 pound of nitrogen per 1000 square feet (Throssell, 1992) depending on the active growth rate of the plant. During initial grow in, the clippings will be returned in the process of building needed thatch for the protection of the new plants. After maturation, clipping removal will be a day to day decision dictated by club activities, climatic conditions and potential pest conditions. 3.2.5.2 Chemical Control and Chemical Recordkeeping A successful integrated pest management program does not mean zero use of chemicals, but it often means using them as a final option and using a minimal 28 amount. IPM focuses on other means of control first, with chemical control as the last option. As required by State law, records of chemical applications will be maintained. The record keeping will be very detailed as well as essential to the success of the IPM program. Records will always be available to review for efficacy of any product applied. Well-maintained records will also allow the managers to easily track the frequency of use and rates of application to ensure that pests do not build resistance from repeated use of some chemicals. A record of application and location will be made every time a chemical is used, whether it is a spot application or several square feet. Record sheets will include information such as products and rates used, common chemical name, EPA registration numbers, areas treated, size of area treated, total amount of chemical used, weather conditions at the time of application, and license number of the individual applying the product. A sample record is provided as Attachment V. Before and after applying chemicals to turf areas, certain precautions and procedures will be followed, including: • Proper calibration of the sprayer vehicle will be performed to ensure precise application of the chemical(s). The sprayer will be calibrated at least one time per month. Nozzles, strainers, screen, and pump efficiency will also be checked on a regular basis for wear and tear as well as for proper operation. • Before handling the chemical, the manager will read the label each time to refresh his/her memory of the procedures and precautions for handling the particular chemical. • According to the label, certain clothing and protective equipment must be used by the applicator during mixing and application. • Mixing will take place at the Golf Course Management Facility to eliminate the risk of the chemicals spilling on the turf or on other areas. • Empty containers will be rinsed and disposed of according to the label and the law. • Chemicals will not be applied when the immediate forecast predicts rain or when conditions are favorable for windblown spray drift. • Chemicals will be directed toward the target only. 29 • Areas treated will be monitored after applications to ensure the efficacy of the product used. After all pest control strategies are undertaken, the last step in the IPM program is to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy used. This last step is summarized below. 3.2.6 Evaluation of Strategies This final step of the IPM program will not only answer whether or not the strategy used to control a pest was effective, but will also help in future decision making concerning turf treatment strategies for these pests. Monitoring pest populations after the implementation of control strategies should be conducted as they were prior to implementation. The monitoring activities will entail detailed observations in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the control strategy. A strong IPM program must evolve and develop over time. As treatment data are compiled for NACC, this IPM plan will become more effective and more precise. As previously discussed, holistic management requires the continuous modification and evolution of turf management practices to create better solutions for the future. 3.3 Pesticide Management This section describes the procedures for proper management of pesticides including mixing, distribution, recycling, and posting of application, record keeping, and reporting. 3.3.1 Procedures Operating procedures recommended for this facility are as follows: • The pesticide storage building will be locked at all times. • Posting of proper signage meeting or exceeding State of Massachusetts law regarding fire and health codes will be practiced. • An emergency clean-up kit with absorbent blankets and appropriate safety equipment will be available for spill precautions. • In the event of a spill, spill material will be properly cleaned up, stored, and disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste company. 30 • All products will be labeled clearly by manufacturers labeling or (if packaging is damaged) clearly hand labeled conforming to all governing regulations, including 29 CFR 1910.1200 and/or Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). • Safety clothing, respirators, and gloves will be available to Massachusetts licensed operators. Personal protective equipment will be managed in accordance with 29 CFR 1910 Subpart I, as applicable. • No employee shall enter the facility unless accompanied by the club's licensed commercial applicator. • All material deliveries shall be accepted only by the club's licensed applicators. • Current weather conditions and forecasts are evaluated prior to pesticide application to ensure no undesirable conditions, for example wind or rain that would inhibit a successful application. 3.3.2 Mixing Mixing of any spray materials will take place at the maintenance facility. The stand- alone sprayer will be filled to 50% capacity with water at which time the appropriate material, according to the label, will be added and mixed by agitation. Once the mixes have been completed, the tank will be topped off for the appropriate dilution. Any unused concentrates left in the original packaging will be returned to the storage facility before the operator leaves the mixing site. All precautions and equipment required by worker safety standards will be adhered to which include, but are not limited to: coveralls, gloves, safety glasses respirators, boots, designated mixing equipment, and recycling containment. Only employees trained and certified licensed by the State of Massachusetts, Department of Food and Agriculture Pesticide Bureau in categories appropriate for this property will purchase, handle or apply pesticides for the NACC. 3.3.3 Distribution Spray equipment will consist of a standalone sprayer equipped with, at a minimum, a traction vehicle, holding tank,pump, and low-pressure boom all of which will be actuated by an operator controlled, electronic computer logic control panel. All pesticide 31 application will be made in accordance with label specifications as described in MA CMR 333. The sprayer will be calibrated for precise applications based on area measurements, application speed, system pressure, nozzle specifications, and application materials. The sprayer will be recalibrated for accuracy of application after the equipment has been altered for repairs, equipment part replacement or after any other adjustments have been made. Once a spray mix has been prepared in the holding tank and agitated, the operator will transport the mix to the target area for application. The spray tank will be completely empty at the end of the field application and the operator will return to the mixing station to refill for further application or cleaning. To clean the tank, the operator will fill the tank to 20% capacity with water, agitate thoroughly through the pump system, and apply the rinseate to inner rough areas adjacent to the originally treated areas via the spray boom. Once the sprayer unit is drained, it will be returned to the designated storage area and secured. Application records will be maintained in the Turf Management Plan that lists pertinent information of each application event, which will coincide with storage inventories, as well as information required in Sections 3.3.6 Recordkeeping and 3.3.7 Recording. The records of this journal and the material inventories will be implemented by the certified commercial applicators (golf course superintendent). Paperwork generated from rcordkeeping and application data documentation will be filed annually with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as required by Massachusetts Law. 3.3.4 Recycling Recycling of rinseate will not be of concern, as all rinse materials will be applied in highly diluted amounts to rough areas adjacent to the sprayed areas. The external surfaces of the sprayer will be washed periodically after each use. Plant control materials will be purchased in returnable Link Paks, when available, so the Link Paks can be returned to the manufacturer for refilling. All other packaging will be triple rinsed during the mixing process into the spray tank with the rinse being applied as part of the spray solution. Disposal of rinsed packaging will conform to Massachusetts Pesticide Regulations. 32 3.3.5 Posting At the time of any pesticide application, posted acknowledgement will be positioned at the entrance of the golf course as described in the regulated guidelines of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Pesticide Act. Guidelines for golf courses state that the entrance considered for posting would be the 1s`tee, starters, stand or registration counter of the golf course. At the NACC, this posting location will be the Starter Station at the #1 Tee. The posting for all application will include: Date and time of application • Location of application • Acknowledgement of pesticide use • Contact name for NACC '.. 3.3.6 Record keeping Under the IPM program, part of the overall management of the NACC golf course depends heavily on maintaining records for all activities. This is necessary in order to build a database for future management. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Department of Food and Agriculture requires records be kept by the state certified applicators employed by golf clubs. The individual application-recording page will include: • Applicator's name License# • Date Start time End Time • Product by brand name Active Ingredient EPA Registration# • Rate Amount used Target organism • Areas treated Size of area Weather conditions • Equipment Settings Calibration • Observation comment section 33 The managers of NACC will fulfill all requirements pertaining to Massachusetts Community and Worker Right-to-Know Standards, and posting notification conditions as defined by law. 3.3.7 Reporting Reporting requirements for pesticide use at the NACC will be filed annually with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Food and Agriculture, and Pesticide Bureau. The regulation CMR 333 states that each applicator or commercially certified applicator and or his/her employing company must file annual use reports for pesticides regulated in the state. The report requires the following: Employer identification • Applicator/s name • License numbers • Product name • EPA Reg. # • Method of application • Crop • Total amount of concentrate( not actual active ingredient) 5.0 REFERENCES Agnew, M.L. 1993. Thatch control. Golf Course Management, 61(8): 60. Alexander, M. 1977. Introduction to Soil Microbiology, John Wiley and Sons,NY. 467pp. Berndt, W.L.,P.E.Rieke, and J.M. Vargas, Jr. 1990. Kentucky bluegrass thatch characteristics following application of bio-organic materials. Hortscience. 25(4): 412-414. MDS Harris Laboratories. 2002. Personal communication,New Knoxville, Ohio. 34 Bhowmik, P., Clifton,N.,Ebdon, S., Owen, M., Schumann, G.,Torello,W., Vittum, P., and R. Wick. 1999. Professional Guide for IPM in Turf for Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts Extension Turf Program, Amherst,Massachusetts. Carrow,R.N. 1992. How wetting agents can help your turf. Landscape Management October, 48. Carrow,R.N.,B.J. Johnson, and R.E. Burns. 1987. Thatch and quality of Tifway bermudagrass turf in relation to fertility and cultivation. Agronomy Journal, 79: 524-530. Danneberger,K., and J. Street. 1990. Turfgrass growth substances. Golf Course Management, 58(4): 80-88. Dunn, J.H., D.D.Minner, B.F. Fresenburh, S.S. Bughrara, and C.H. Hohnstrater. 1995. Influence of core aerification,topdressing, and nitrogen on mat,roots, and quality of "Meyer"zoysiagrass. Agronomy Journal, 87: 891-894. Erusha, K.S., R.C. Shearman, and D.M. Bishop. 1989. Thatch prevention and control. Turfgrass Bulletin, 10(2): 10-11. Karnock, K., and M. Beall. 1995. Localized dry spots caused by hydrophobic soils: What have we learned? Golf Course Management, 63(8):57. Keeney,D.R.. 1983. Transformation and transport of Nitrogen in Schaller,F. (Ed.) Proc.Natl. Conf. Agric. Mgmt. and Water Quality, Ames, IA. 26-29. Lederboer, F.B., and C.R. Skogley. 1967. Investigations into the nature of thatch and methods for its decomposition. Agronomy Journal, 59: 320-323. Lo, C.-T.,Nelson, E.B., and G.E. Harman. 1996. Biological control of turfgrass diseases with a rhizosphere-competent strain of Trichoderma harzianum. Plant Dis. 80:736-741. Nus, J. 1993. Merging science and nature: Biostimulants. Golf Course Management, 61(3): 80. Petrovic, A.M. 1999. Personal Communication, Professor,Plant and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca,New York. Petrovic, A.M. 1985. Wetting Agents. Weeds Trees, and Turf Magazine, July. Psolla,R.H. 1998. Personal communication, REP Consulting, Inc,Hartville, Ohio. Schumann, G.L, Vittum, P.J.,Elliot, M.L., and P.P. Cobb. 1998. IPM Handbook for Golf Courses. Ann Arbor Press,Inc. Chelsea, Michigan. 35 Shildrick, J.P. 1985. Thatch: A review with special reference to UK golf courses. Journal Sports Turf Research, 61: 8-25. Skorulski, J. 1999. Proceedings from The New England Turfgrass Conference and Show. Providence, Rhode Island. Smiley,R.W., Dernoeden, P.H., and B.B. Clarke. 1993. Compendium of Turfgrass Diseases, second edition. APS Press. St. Paul,Minnesota. Stevenson, F.J. (Ed.) 1982a. Origin and Distribution of Nitrogen in soil. Amer. Soc. Agron. Madison, WI. Throssell, C. 1992. Personal communication, Professor of Turfgrass Science,Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette,Indiana. Turgeon, A.J. 1996. Turfgrass Management, fourth addition. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River,New Jersey. United States Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service, 1986. Soil Survey of Dukes County, Massachusetts, Atlas Sheet No. 7. U.S. Weather Bureau. 1961. Technical Paper 40. Varshovi, A. 1996. Humates and their turfgrass applications. Golf Course Management, 64(8): 53. White, R.H., and R. Dickens. 1984. Thatch accumulation in bermudagrass as influenced by cultural practices. Agronomy Journal,76: 19-22. Williams, D.W., and A.J. Powell, Jr. 1995. Dew removal and dollar spot on creeping bentgrass. Golf Course Management, 63(8): 49. 36 ATTACHMENT I RECORD OF PESUENVIRONMENT MONITORING DATE: Weeds: Location: Comments/Action Taken: 1) I) 1) 2) 2) 2) Diseases: Location: Comments/Action Taken: 1) I) 1) 2) 2) 2) Insects• Location: Comments/Action Taken: I)_ I) I) 2) 2) 2) Abiotic• Location: Comments/Action Taken: (circle number/problem) 1. Scalping 2. Poor air circulation 3. High traffic area 4. Moisture stress 5. Poor germination 6. Fertility 7. Thatch 8. Excessive wear 9. Overwatering 10. Shade 11. Compaction 12. Turf vigor/health Date of bloom of key indicator Identification: Location: plants COAVIlMNTS/OBSERVATIONS: 37 ATTACHMENT II ACTION THRESHOLD GUIDELINES Weeds: No general action threshold guidelines are available at this time. Weed species action thresholds can be established for a specific area of the golf course such as greens,tees, etc. The action level will vary from species to species and area. Preventative control may be used based on scouting information from previous seasons and suspected weed species. Diseases: Diseases of major concern in a"typical'year include;dollar spot,anthracnose,summer patch, brown patch,pythium,leaf spot and snow mold. Preventative fungicide applications are based on past history,local environmental conditions and specific disease cycle. Curative fungicide applications are based upon observation of disease symptoms,positive identification and appropriate threshold guidelines. Insects: Action thresholds guidelines are listed below for some turf insects. Specific threshold guidelines will be established based upon local environmental conditions,past history of turf damage and functional quality of turfgrass. Insect Action Threshold(no./sq/ft) Comments Annual bluegrass weevil Spring generation- Summer generation may be higher 30-80 larvae where grass is under less stress or Summer generation- there is little annual bluegrass 10-40 larvae Black turfgrass ataenius Spring generation- Higher spring populations have 30-80 grubs been observed Summer generation- 15-40 grubs Cutworms Highly variable White grubs May beetles- 2-4 Potential turf damage depends on grub species and populations of European Chafers-3-8 grub feeders such as skunks,crows and racoons in the area. Asiatic garden beetles and masked chafers- 12-20 Oriental and Japanese beetles- 6-20 Ants Highly variable This Chart has been adapted from"Protocols for an IPM System on Golf Courses",UMASS 38 ATTACHMENT III RECORD OF PLANT PROTECTANT AND FERTILIZER APPLICATION Applicator License# Time Date PLANT PROTECTANT INFORMATION Product Active Formulation Rate EPA Reg.# Lot# Amount Ingredient Used 1. 2. 3. APPLICATION INFORMATION Equipment: Sprayer Spreader Spray Vol_(GPA) Date Calibrated Pest: Target Pest Growth stage(if applicable) Location of treatment(indicate location applied) Total area treated Greens Tees Approach Fairways Rough Other WEATHER AT TIME OF APPLICATION Temperature Dew Point Wind speed&direction Time appl.remained wet Rainfall/irrigation: Before After Description of weather Comments: 39 ATTACHMENT IV Guidelines for Pesticide Selection at North Andover Country Club Pesticide Properties The potential ability of a pesticide to move in the soil solution is based on the chemical properties of the material. Many materials are absorbed into the soil, primarily to the organic matter component,while a few are volatile and lost as vapors. All of these factors are considered in the degradation rate,or how fast the material is broken down in the environment after they have been effective for the pests targeted at application. In order for a chemical to contaminate the groundwater,it must move through the soil faster than it degrades. One index of a pesticides potential to leach through to groundwater is the ability of the material to bind to the organic matter fraction of the soil. This is indicated by the K°'value for each chemical. An index of how fast degradation occurs is the length of time for 50 per cent of the material to disappear. This is the half-life or T0.5 value of the compound. The K" and the T0.5 are listed as mean values to assess which material might be the most sensitive as to leaching potential. An additional factor involved is application rate. Pesticides that are applied at low rates are more favorable since the quantity of active ingredient to be degraded is smaller. Soil pH at North Andover Country Club will be maintained in a range of 6.0 - 7.0 to favor healthy microbial activity, which is a key component of pesticide degradation. The following tables summarize important indices for proper selection of pesticides based upon environmental sensitivity and product efficacy. Pesticides,Sorption Coefficient(Koc),half life(t Y2),Relative Leaching Potential,Relative Runoff Potential,HALs,LC 50,and EIQ information. 40 Koc, t Y2, Augustin- Augustin- HAL LC 50 EIQ Pesticide Sorption Half Beckers Beckers (ppb) (ppb) Coefficient Life Model: Model: (ml/g) Relative Relative Human Aquatic Leaching Runoff RLPI RRPI meaning of smaller smaller smaller smaller smaller smaller smaller numbers number number< number> number> number number number< >leaching persistence leaching runoff >toxicity >toxicity toxicity What to look high low high high high high low for in a chemical acephate 2 3 7 7 30 730000 17.9 bendiocarb 570 15 1140 351 40 155 22.9 benefin 9000 66 >2000 3 2000 370 32.3 benomyl 1900 225 79 2 4000 170 69.5 bensulide 1000 120 83 8 50 700 26.5 bentazon 34 20 17 17 20 635,000 38.7 carbaryl 300 10 300 300 700 114000 22.6 captan 200 2.5 800 800 900 732 28.6 chlorpyrifos 6070 30 >2000 5 105 7.1 52.8 chlorothaloniI 1380 30 460 24 2 49 46.0 DPCA 5000 100 500 2 3500 100000 34.0 dicamba 2 14 1 I 200 28000 30 ethofumesate 340 30 ]33 98 8750 15000 ethoprop 70 25 28 28 0.1 13800 44.6 etridiawle 1000 103 97 10 No Data 4000 38.3 fenamiphos 100 50 20 20 2 110 78.9 fenarimol 600 360 17 5 500 1800 27.3 fluvainate 1000000 7 >2000 1 70 2.9 46.4 fonofos 870 40 218 29 IO 20 44.6 41 Koc, t'h, Augustin- Augustin- HAL LC 50 EIQ Pesticide Sorption Half Beckers Beckers (ppb) (ppb) Coefficient Life Model: Model: (ml/g) Relative Relative Human Aquatic Leaching Runoff RLPI RRPI meaning of smaller smaller smaller smaller smaller smaller smaller numbers number number< number> number> number number number< Aeaching persistence leaching runoff >toxicity >toxicity toxicity fosetyl-AI 20 0.1 2000 >1000 21000 428000 13.7 glyphosate 24000 47 >2000 1 700 8300 32.4 iprodione 700 14 500 102 280 6700 26.6 isazophos 100 34 29 29 0.1 8 30.7 isofenphos 600 150 40 11 35 2000 58.9 mancozeb 2000 70 286 7 20 1000 62.3 mccoprop 20 21 10 10 35 150000 31.7 (MCPP) metalaxyl 50 70 7 7 420 >100000 29.2 MSMA 10000 1000 1000 1 700 12000 oryzalin 600 20 300 83 400 3260 17.7 oxadiazon 10000 60 1000 1 40 320000 PCNB 5000 21 >2000 10 21 1000 21.8 pendimethalin 5000 90 556 2 280 199 25.8 propiconazole 1000 110 91 9 91 >100000 33.5 siduron 420 90 8750 18000 simazine 130 54 22 22 1 2800 15.7 thiophanate- 1830 10 1830 55 560 11000 51.5 methyl thiram 670 15 447 100 40 130 54.5 triadimefon 300 26 115 115 210 14000 33.3 trichlorfon 10 10 10 10 1250 400 31.2 trifluralin 8000 60 1330 2 5 41 26.8 vinclozalin 98 20 49 49 200 525000 29.4 2,4-D amine 20 10 20 20 70 1100 56.3 42 Tudgrass Environmental IlEcConsultants 7 Falmouth Road mgmeadow, MA 01106 lone: (413) 565-5340 �X: (413) 565-3134 June 9, 2003 Justin Woods Planning Board - 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01845 Dear Mr. Wood, North Andover Country Club(NACC) located at 500 Great Pond Road,North Andover, Massachusetts has applied to the North Andover Planning Board for a Watershed Special Permit to install a self-contained pesticide storage shed and addition to existing maintenance facility. The following comments are in response to the VHB review letters dated March 18,2003,May 22, 2003 and our meeting June 3,2003. The following numbered responses refer to the VHB letter dated March 18, 2003. In addition to the following comments;NACC has agreed to become an active member of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program(ACSP)for Golf Courses. NACC will work to complete the Water Quality Monitoring and Chemical Reduction and Safety section of the program within 3 years. NACC proposes to maintain the proposed water quality monitoring program for 3 years. After 3 years the water quality monitoring program results will be reviewed by the North Andover Conservation Commission,North Andover Planning Board,North Andover Board of Health and NACC to determine the continued length and scope of the program I. Watershed Special Permit 1. Please find that the lot was created prior to October 24, 1994. The NACC has been continuously operated at the current location since 1921. The attached plans show 325 foot buffer with 250 foot"no-disturb" zone from Lake Cochichewick and wetland resource areas. The attached plans also show the North Andover Conservation Commission 100 ft buffer zone for wetland resource areas. 2. John Bresnahan of TurfOrass Environmental Consulting,Longmeadow, Massachusetts has developed a Water Quality Monitoring Plan included in the Integrated Pest Management(IPM)plan. Mr. Bresnahan's c.v. has been included as qualifications for developing water quality monitoring plans for golf course operations. Current water.quality data(Table 1. April 2003) compares favorably with historical water quality nitrate data collected by the North Andover Board of Health. The implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) identified in the IPM plan and the data from the on-going water quality monitoring plan provide assurance that there will be no significant degradation of water quality of Lake Chochichewick from normal golf course maintenance practices. The golf course has been maintained with standard golf course fertility and pest management practices since 1897 with no significant degradation of Lake Chochichewick water quality. NACC requests a waiver for section 4.136.4.c.iii. 3. Based on the following reasons,there are no reasonable alternatives for the location of the proposed chemical storage shed and addition to existing garage. The location of the chemical storage building must be adjacent to the existing golf maintenance facility. The addition to the garage must be adjacent to the existing building. Daily work schedule, storage of equipment and installation of proposed chemical storage facility require close proximity to the maintenance facility to reduce over-land transport of fertilizer and pesticide materials. In addition,there are no locations outside the 325 foot Non-Discharge or 100 foot buffer zone adjacent to/or nearby the existing maintenance facility 4. Historical data suggested by the Board of Health(Town of North Andover Conservation Department letter,March 17, 2003) suggests that nitrate levels are well below federal limits of 10.0 mg/1. The golf course has been applying fertilizers and pesticides consistent with industry standards on the shores of Lake Chochichewick since 1897. A comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Program has been established for the golf course. An aggressive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) System has also been implemented at the golf course. Installation of a self-contained pesticide storage facility is constant with BMP of pesticide handling to reduce potential hazards to surrounding surface water resource areas. Current water quality results sampled April 16, 2003 (Table 1) indicate that past and current golf course maintenance practices have not impacted water quality of surrounding streams and Lake Cochichewick. Implementation of an aggressive IPM system and the construction of best technology chemical storage facility will not increase nitrate levels in adjacent water or wetland systems. Table 1. Location Nitrate Ortho- Pesticides Herbicides Phosphorus SWA-1 stream ND ND NS NS inflow SWA-2 stream ND ND NS NS inflow SWA-3 9 0.21 ND ND ND fairway SWA-4 behind ND ND ND ND clubhouse SWA-5 Lake 0.11 ND NS NS Cochichewick 5. The applicant has reduced the size of the proposed storage facility to conform to Section 4.136.4.f of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw. 6. The chemical storage facility will be placed on a 12 inch layer of 3/4 inch stone to allow dispersion and infiltration of water run-ofd The storage facility will be approximately 10 feet x 10 feet. The stone pad will extend 2 feet in each direction to properly disperse any roof run-off. 7. The proposed chemical storage facility complies with federal and state guidelines for the storage of pesticides. Installation of the proposed chemical storage facility is consistent with best management practices for the handling and storage of pesticides for the protection of surrounding surface and ground water features. There are no locations adjacent to or in close proximity to the maintenance facility outside the 325 foot Non-Discharge Buffer Zone. II. Integrated Pest Management Plan 1. The proposed IPM system strengthens the on-going commitment to environmental protection of the North Andover Country Club. An aggressive IPM system is the cornerstone of best management practices designed to protect water quality. 2. Plans are attached to this memo which identify the 25 foot wetland buffer, 50 foot wetland buffer, 100 foot wetland buffer, 325 non-discharge buffer zone and surface water monitoring sites within the proposed water quality monitoring program 3. As identified,the attached plans show all critical buffer zones. An overall plan showing all 9 golf holes is not available. 4. Historical data and the initial baseline sample April 2003 suggest that nitrate levels are significantly below federal health standards of 10 mg/1. The applicant suggests that one year of nutrient water quality data be compiled before a realistic action threshold is established. If within one year the nitrate levels exceed federal health limits of 10 mg/1 all synthetic fertilization will stop and organic products used for the remainder of the growing season. Once an acceptable action threshold for nitrate and orth-phoshorus levels has been established, and the surface waters of the golf course exceed that level, organic products will be used for the remainder of the growing season and all fertility practices will be reviewed. Should a pesticide product be detected at any time,the golf course surface waters will be immediately resampled to confirm presence of pesticide compound. If confirmed,that pesticide product will no longer be used at the golf course. 5. New fertilizer and pesticide products are continually entering the marketplace. NACC is committed to using the best technology available with proven scientific data for the control of pests and fertility regime. An important component of IPM is the availability of different classes of chemicals for the control of pests and disease. Rotation of chemical groups reduces the potential for pest resistance to a particular product. The list or products in table 2 may or may not be used during the growing season based on local environmental conditions, pest pressure and time of year. Table 2 NACC Turf Management Product List Product Name Active Ingredient Product Type Target Pest Dimension Dithiopyr Herbicide Crabgrass Acclaim IEC Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl Herbicide Crabgrass Lesco 3-way Dimethylamine Salts Herbicides Broadleaf Weeds Roundup Glyphosate Monsammonium Herbicide Weeds Siduron Siduron Herbicide Crabgrass Dursban Pro Chlorpyrifos Insecticide Annual Bluegrass Weevil Merit 75 WSP Imidacloprid Insecticide White Grub Battle Lambda-cyhalothrin Insecticide Cutworm Heritage Azoxystrobin Fungicide Broad Spectrum Alliette Signature Aluminum Tris Fungicide Summer Stress Complex Banner Maxx Propiconizole Fungicide Patch Complex Bayleton 50 Triadimefon Fungicide Dollar Spot Disease Chipco 26 GT Iprodione Fungicide Leaf Spot Cleary's 3336 Thiophanate Methyl Fungicide Patch Disease Fore Mancozeb Fungicide Algae Echo Chlorothalonil Fungicide Dollar Spot Disease Defend PCNB Fungicide Snow Mold Spotrete 75 Thiram Fungicide Broad Spectrum Subdue Mefonoxam Fungicide Plythium ssp. Touche Vinclozolin Fungicide Dollar Spot Eagle WSP Mycobutanil Fungicide Broad Spectrum Primo Cimectacarb Growth regulator Reduce top growth Kocide Copper hydroxide Bactericide Bacterial Wilt IBDU Isobutylidene diurea Fertilizer Slow-release OF Methylene urea Fertilizer Slow-release Milorganite Activated sewage sludge Fertilizer Slow-release Nature-safe Compost blend Fertilizer Slow-release Harmony Compost blend Fertilizer Slow-release Earthworks Compost blend Fertilizer Slow-release Urea Urea Fertilizer Water soluble SCU Sulfur coated urea Fertilizer Water soluble 6. A sample location along Lake Cochichewick is a part of the water quality monitoring program. The water quality monitoring location identified as SWA-5 is along the shoreline adjacent to the V and 9" golf holes. 7. The following parameters have been identified as part of the proposed water quality monitoring program,Nitrate,TKN, Ortho-phosphorus,pH, Specific Conductivity, and Pesticides. Baseline pesticide analysis will include EPA pesticide and herbicide screen. Continued pesticide analysis will include pesticide actually used within 90 days at NACC (as identified in the IPM plan). VOC's have not been considered within the water quality monitoring plan. The proposed water quality plan includes fertilizer components and pesticides used at the golf course. The applicant suggests that the water quality monitoring plan is adequate as proposed. 8. Buffer spaces will be identified and implemented based on the design and playability of the golf course. Incorporation of buffer areas will evolve over time to balance golf course aesthetics, playability, design and water quality protection. Should you have any questions concerning the prepared written responses,please do not itate to contact me at 413-565-5340. in re y, Jo resnahan 1P Specialist John J Bresnahan Turfgrass Environmental Consulting 47 Falmouth Rd Longmeadow, MA 01106 Phone(413)565-5340 Qualifications 2000-2002. Integrated Pest Management Specialist. Contracted through Cape Cod Cooperative Extension to develop Integrated Pest Management plans for the Towns and School Athletic fields of Cape Cod to comply with the Massachusetts 2001 Children's Protection Act. 2000-2001. Technical Assistant. Develop the structure of a golf course superintendent certification program to verify and implement Integrated Pest Management protocols on Massachusetts's golf courses. This program was based on the"Protocols for an IPM System on Golf Courses". 1999-Present. Environmental Monitor, Cold Spring Golf Course. Provide weekly construction reports to Belchertown Conservation Commission based on inspection of erosion control features. TEC also provides technical review of golf course construction techniques,products and services to ensure quality construction/grow-in of the golf course. 1997-Present. Principal, Tw)f rass Environmental Consulting. Establish turfgrass environmental consulting company. Services include technical assistance during permitting and grow-in of new golf course construction,development of golf course integrated pest management(IPM)plans,development of IPM plans for school athletic fields and grounds, and design and implementation of water quality monitoring programs. TEC also maintains a laboratory to analyze water quality,provide disease diagnosis to golf course superintendents and evaluate potential new biocontrol products. 1997-Present. Environmental Research Coordinator, Widow's Walk Golf Course. Widow's Walk Golf Course is the nations first Environmental Demonstration Golf Course. I am responsible for implementing and coordinating research designed to provide information concerning turfgrass management activities,wildlife habitat,wetland studies,water quality studies and biological control of turfgrass disease,which may provide data to better manage golf courses and the environment. Research projects at Widow's Walk include: • Golf spike research,University of Rhode Island. • Evaluate Pseudomonas aureofaceans Tx-1 for the control of dollar spot. Evaluate Xanthomonas campestris Xpo for the biocontrol of Poa annua on golf course putting greens. • Monitoring of over 160 nest boxes for birds,Massachusetts Audubon Society. • Evaluate the potential for nutrient leaching under the three different greens construction,University of Rhode Island. • Golf course construction and wetlands,Don Alvarez,University of Georgia,Master's degree thesis. • Assess biological diversity of wetlands,which have been affected by golf course construction. • Develop Integrated Pest Management Plan(IPM). • Develop water quality monitoring program of surface and groundwater as influenced by standard golf course maintenance practices. • Design and distribution of golf course guide in collaboration with Massachusetts Audubon Society illustrating the environmental management principles of Widow's Walk Golf Course. 1997-Present. Environmental Consultant,New Seabury Cape Cod. Design and implement environmental programs to include IPM,Wildlife Habitat,Water Conservation,and Water Quality Monitoring to qualify for International Audubon's Cooperative Sanctuary Program Certification(ACSP). By June 2003,New Seabury Cape Cod will have completed all six categories to become a Certified Audubon Sanctuary Program golf course. Additional golf courses currently under contract with TEC for ACSP assistance include The Ridge Club,East Sandwich,MA,Hickory Ridge Country Club, Amherst,MA,Twin Hills Country Club,Longmeadow,MA, Willowbend Golf Course, Mashpee,MA and Southport Golf Course,Mashpee,MA. 1998-Present. Longmeadow Conservation Commission. Member of the Longmeadow Conservation Commission responsible for the protection of wetland and critical riverfront areas in the town of Longmeadow. 1997-1999. Evaluate Biological Control Agent, Pseudomonas aureofaceans Tx-1. Design and implement a research project to evaluate the BioJect System for the control of Dollar spot,Brown Patch and Nematodes in a golf course environment. The Golf Course Superintendents Association of New England,The Golf Course Managers Association of Cape Cod,and the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture supported this study. 1999-Present. Technical Sales Representative,ABT/Lofts Seed Inc. Responsible for the sales and distribution of professional turfgrass seed. Consult with golf course architects, builders and superintendents to develop turfgrass specifications for new golf course construction,renovation and overseeding. 1995-1997. Teacher Assistant, University of Massachusetts,Amherst. Assistant in the preparation and lecture of 1 general plant pathology and 1 turfgrass pathology laboratory session each week. Duties include preparation of laboratory specimens, preparation of field specimens and coordinate lecture material to present each week. Education • Bachelor of Science,Environmental Science,University of Massachusetts, 1994 • Master's Degree Candidate,Integrated Management of Dollar Spot on Creeping Bentgrass Using Near-Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy, Turfgrass Pathology, University of Massachusetts,Summer 2003 University Research and Experience • Design and conduct field experiments to analyze Near-Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy(NIRS)and its application to monitor foliar nitrogen to minimize dollar spot on turfgrass. • Key personnel in turfgrass fungicide trials for brown patch,dollar spot and pink snow mold from May 1995-1996. This work included assessment of experimental chemical and biological control products. • Assistant at the University of Massachusetts Turf Diagnostic Laboratory from January 1994-May 1997. Lecture Experience • February 2003. Protecting Water Resources. Golf Course Superintendents Association of America. Atlanta,GA. • April 1999. Integrated Management of Turfgrass Disease for Lawn Care Professionals. University of Massachusetts Extension Service. • March 1999. Evaluation of the BioJect System for the Distribution of Pseudomonas aureofaceans Tx-l. Golf Course Managers Association of Cape Cod. • February 1999. Evaluation of the BioJect System for the Control of Fungal and Nematode Pathogens- 1998. Golf Course Superintendents Association of New England. • March 1998. Evaluation of the BioJect System for the Control of Fungal and Nematode Pathogens- 1997. New England Regional Turfgrass Conference. • November 1997. Evaluation of the BioJect System for the Distribution of Pseudomonas aureofaceans Tx-1. Golf Course Managers Association of Cape Cod. • May 1997. Integrated Management of Dollar Spot on Creeping Bentgrass. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. • February 1997. Management of Patch Disease's for the Lawn Care Professional. Massachusetts Association of Lawn Care Professionals. • October 1996. Integrated Management of Dollar Spot on Creeping Bentgrass, American Phytopathological Society,Northeast Meeting. • September 1996. A Plant Pathologists Role in Space Exploration. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. • May 1995. Taxonomy of Oomycete Fungi. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. • November 1994. Is Ds RNA responsible for Hypovirulence of Rhizoctonia solani (brown patch). University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Relevant University Level Courses Environmental Science Core Biological Control Plant Pathology Plant Disease Diagnostics Biological Control of Plan Pathogens Turfgrass Diseases Nematology Integrated Pest Management Professional Education Courses(GCSAA) Wildlife Management and Habitat Conservation,November 2001 Microbiology of Turfgrass Soils,February 2000 Preconstruction and Construction Management,February 1999. Construction,Renovation and Maintenance of Golf Course Putting Greens,November 1998. Wetlands and Golf Courses,March 1998. Writing Integrated Pest Management and Environmental Monitoring Programs for Golf Courses,January 1997. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Golf Course Superintendents Association of America(GCSAA) Golf Course Superintendents Association of New England(GCSANE) Golf Course Managers Association of Cape Cod(GCMACC) Sports Turf Managers Association(STMA) Turf grass Environmental Consultants Falmouth Road )gmeadow, MA 01106 one: (413) 565-5340 K: (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 October3, 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.f irther 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 Program. 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 Parrim 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 (q. 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 Tresent. 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 Bermudag ass 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 Trufgrass 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. Very truly yours, John Bresnahan Tufgrass IPM Professional Encl. CC. North Andover Country Club Jeffrey B. Renton, Esq. 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(April 2003).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 H, all monitoring locations at North . Andover GC will be sampled in September 2003. Analysis 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 H SWA South ofthe 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 II maintenance facility pH, Spec. Cond SW-3 7"' golf hole October Nitrogen Species Phase I stream pH, Spec. Cond. Phase H SW-4 Lake October Nitrogen Species Phase I Cochichewick Pesticide screen Phase H Total Phosphorous pH, Spec. Cond GW-1 October Nitrogen Species Rase Pesticide screen Raasse II T�ta�Phosphorus 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 H 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 measuremerts 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. £ 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 Quality 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 daylls sampling. One blank is prepared for every 10 water samples. A field blank is prepared by filling appropriate sample bottles with uitrapure 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: lNorth And North Andover, Ma sea 6, 1 � � � � EX15TING GO�IDITI�\`t . ! � ,';�''/ � 1 � 1-`/111: ARMSTRONG ASSOCIATES - JAMAR1Y MS eG4Lr "(a 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.ma.us/dem www.epa. ) . 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) 304-1133 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 aportion 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 P 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 fl-2 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- ,mecoprop at 0.5 lb ai A- , and dicamba at 0.1 lb ai A-1 formulated as dimethylamine salts. In most experiments, simulated rainfall (2.5 in h-) 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 2079 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 ( Members Program I Championships ( Rules I Amateur Handicapping ( 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/I997/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 2.25 lbs. 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 1I) 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 II 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 ( Members Program ( Championships I Rules Amateur Handicapping I Equipment I Foundation I Green Section ( Museum Golf Journal Golf Shop I Associations I News Contact Us Hhtp://www.usga.org/green/ARCHIVE/Record/02/mar apr/how_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 L"'. 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, NOA 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 MOUR MAIYrUdANM 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 to 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,TNIDL 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=35&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=35&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(N)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=35&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,eta • 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=35&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 experi encing 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,BB 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=35&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. http://grounds-mag.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazinearticleid=74523&magazineid=35&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. CT" Sheet Metal, Inc. Corporate Headquarters Manufacturing 0perations 29210 Quail Katy, Texas 77493 1.888.668.4591 19692 FM 365 Fannett, Tx 77705 Tel:281.391.0285 Fax: 281.391.4787 www.mctsheebmetal.coin Tel: 409.794.3613 Fax: 409.794.3614 Standard res G.S. Model • Skid • Electrical • Floor Grating • Ventilation • 3' X 7' Door • Containment sump • Insulation • Standing seam exterior • Polyethylene lining Containment Sump: The two containment sumps are the most important part of the facility. The primary sump is two feet wide by eight feet long. The secondary sump is eight feet wide by the length of the building. The floor of the secondary sump is sloped to the primary sump allowing the entire chemical to flow to the primary sump. The grating over the primary and the secondary sump is easily removed for cleaning or closer inspection. There is a hatch, two feet wide by two feet long, over the primary sump for removing and installing new absorbent pillows. Standing Seam Exterior: The standing seam exterior is installed using concealed clips so there are no exposed fasteners. This eliminates exposed fasteners that would accelerate the maintenance program of the building. The clips are thermal—responsive, allowing the standing seam to be a free,floating system, which allows for expansion and contraction. Thermal movement is a major cause of stress/leakage in a structure. This is why the thermal responsive standing seam is the finest in exteriors,providing the maximum protection against leakage while greatly enhancing the appearance. Electrical: The electrical system was designed with corrosion resistance in mind. The entire conduit in the facility is PVC. The switch covers and plug covers are all PVC. The lights are vapor resistant safety lights. The electrical system was also designed with the worker in mind. There is one GFCI receptacle, this is to protect against electrical shock. The exterior light is set on a light sensitive photocell, assuring the front entry is well illuminated. The interior light switch is located on the outside of the building by the front door, so that the lights can be turned on before entering the building. Polyethylene Lining: A polyethylene lining protects the walls and the ceiling. The polyethylene is 1/8"thick; the color is natural(off white). The 2olyethylene is trimmed in mill finish aluminum, or stainless steel. Polyethylene is used because of its durability and chemical ,esistance. Ventilation: The exterior louvers(4"wide by 24"long) are punched directly into the standing seam. These louvers lead directly into 6" ,ound louvers located on the inside of the building which are 16" above the floor level. There is a set of louvers located in each ;orner and there are four 6"round exhaust louvers located under the rain hoods. The continuous running exhaust fan brings the air 'n from the louvers located at the floor level. In turn, the air is removed from the building through the exhaust louvers that are under `he rain hoods. Insulation: The facility is insulated to "R"factor of 10, including the walls,floor and the ceiling to protect the temperature sensitive ;hemicals. installing the exterior metal, a vapor barrier is installed over the structure. Insulation consists offberglass in the vall and polyisocynurate insulation for the ceiling and the floor. CT Sheet Metal, Inc. Corporate Headquarters Manufacturing Operations 2921'0-wail Katy, Texas 77493 1.888.668.4591 19692 FM365 Fannett, Tx 77705 Tel:281.391.0285 Fax:281.391.4787 Tel: 409.794.3613 Fax: 409.794.3614 Technical Data Containment Sump Reinforced Co-polymer alloy Skid Construction Internal Structure Color: White Galvanized prior to fabrication Thickness: ASTM D751 Similar SMACNA Plate 129 (ASTM Al 23) Flush Panel 20 ga. Galvanized Grab Tensile: ASTM D 751 Welds touched up Zinc Clad steel G 90 Galvanized Tear Strength: ASTM D751 Designations: Water Absorption: Floor Grating ASTM A 525-9 lb ASTM D5570 Style 4.27 # ASTM A 526/A526M-90 Low temp crack: Thickness .243" ASTM A 527/A527M-90 ASTM D2136 Galvanized(ASTM A123) Puncture Resistance Method 203 Entry Electrical Federal Std. 101B Entry meets or exceeds the following: Flame Resistance UL 790 ASTM-.C578-69, Type 1 & 2 Vapor resistance safety lights Traffic pad Grade 2 UL standard 1571 Reinforced Co-polymer Alloy Federal specifications HH-I-524C, Die cast aluminum Type 1, 2, & 3 Guards are zinc die cast Military specifications MIL-P- Clear Globes, glass 19644C, Type 2 Class 1 (Other colors available) Exterior G.S. Model Department of Defense DOD427 Exterior quartz halogen lights 0.1=M Photocell operated Similar SMACNA plate 85, 86, Face sheets are 20 gauge UL listed 87 single locked (G40) steel, painted Slate Gray Die cast aluminum 24 gauge pre-finished galvanized Tempered glass lens ASTM A446 Insulation 300/500 watt Fufl-strength flouropolymer 1 GFCI receptacle (Min. 70%kynar 500 resin) "R" Factor =10 NEMA 5-15R Chemical/acid pollution resistance Ceiling and floor UL standard 943 ASTM D 1808 polyisocyanurate foam board Class A Abrasion Resistance: ASTM Federal specification HH-I- 1 Exterior mounted panel Accelerating Weathering 1972/GEN/and/or extruded boards ASTM G-23,type EH, 5,000 Hrs. polystyrene ASTM C-578-87 Single phase Chalk Resistance ASTM D659 Walls UL Listed Color Change ASTM D2244 Fiberglass blanket insulation Rigid PVC conduit and boxes Gloss ASTM D523 Federal specification HH-1558B Hardness ASTM D3363 High Density Polyethylene Liner Impact Resistance ASTM D2794 Color: Natural Ventilation: Life Expectancy 20 years plus; Density ASTM D-1505 Federal test method 141 Tensile strength @ yield Standard continuous running r, , ASTM D-638 Exhaust fan(1,000 CFM) IZOD impact notched @ 73F �tun� ASTM D-256 � Water absorption ASTM D-570 Complete list of chemical resistance Upon request ° gypupb MCT Sheep Metal_ nc Corporate Headquarters 1.888.668.4591 Manufacturing Operations 29210 Quail Katy, Texas 77493 to ny.mctsheetmetal.com 19692 FM365 Fannett, Tx 77705 Tel: 281.391.0285 Fax:281.391.4787 Tel: 409.794.3613 Fax: 409.794.3614 Safe Economical Chemical Storage Facility E>ivironment In order to help achieve and maintain a cleaner and safer environment, these chemical storage facilities are specially designed and developed for maximum protection of our surroundings. Owner / User-] Each facility is designed to achieve the maximum benefits for the owner. The facility is also "worker friendly" for the personnel using it day in and day out. One of the outstanding examples is the interior lighting system. The shelving is designed to let light pass through, so the floor is always illuminated resulting in a clear visual work area. Available Sizes All widths are 8'-3"wide Lengths start at 12'-3"long Increments of 2'-0" Up to 40'-0"long Truss Brocket Internol Stucture <,e '.,.,.... COntOi(Y98nt SVmp" '. Floor Grating\ '...... Golvorozed Sk.d Galvonized skid beoms �Fytun"'.sir SHEET MCT T , Inc. Katy, Texas eauliiont, Texas Toll Free: 888-668-4591 Chemical Storage Buildings MCT is a major manufacturer of chemical storage facilities. These are attractive, durable, long- lasting,chemical,s,torage buildings. They are designed to provide maximum protection and safety regarding certain hazardous, toxic, or similar type materials, which require a clean, secure, and climate-controlled environment. Each facility is designed to provide the utmost benefits, not only to the owner/customer, but also to the operational staff --the personnel who must use it on a day-to-day basis. This "user-friendly" design Double Doors makes it easier, safer, and more attractive to care for the materials being stored. For example, the interior uu lighting system is enhanced by the type of shelving which is used, a type that is designed to let light pass through. This ensures that the floor is always well illuminated resulting in an attractive and clearly visible work area I! MCT buildings are in use in 20 states and one eAll l foreign country (Russia). Golf courses, schools, Lights&Shelves a ;, hospitals, and various other types of commercial and industrial facilities use them. These structures are versatile and flexible in design. One primary use is in storing weed control, fertilizer, and rodent or insect - chemicals. MCT's buildings are available in a variety of sizes: Sink All widths are a standard 8 feet, 3 inches wide with lengths varying from 12 feet, 3 inches on up to 40 feet Floor Grating long in increments of two feet (i.e., lengths of 12 feet, 14 feet, 16 feet, 18 feet, etc.). Please contact us for more information. l kn MCT SHEET METAL, Inc. Toll Free: 888-668-4591 Email: sales @mctsheetmetal.com Web: www.mctsheetmetal.com Ready for Service 9