[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
GvoR6. eq (o G 19 Guidance Manual for Siting, Design and Maintenance of Golf Course's in New Jersey New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and'Energy ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Bureau of Water Quality Analysis within the Wastewater Facilities Regulation Element acknowledges those individuals who participated in the completion of this guidance manual. The following personnel And programs were responsible for contributing to this project: Shing-Fu Hsueh, Ph.D., P.E., Chief - Overall Management and Report Review Dhun Patel, Ph.D., Acting Section Chief - Administrative Assistance and Report Review (now with the Department of Agriculture) Phillip Liu, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist II - Coordinator, Editor and Contributing Author Nonpoint Source Pollution Ttz'am, Office of Land and Water Planning - Best Management Practices Land Use Regulation Program - Statutory and Regulatory Component Pesticide Control Program Provision of Information on Commonly Used Pesticides in New Jersey office of Recycling & Planning, Division of Solid Waste Management - Provision of Information on Usage of Recycled Materials at Golf Courses Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife in conjunction with Division of Science Research - Provision of Advice on Ecological Concerns Margaret Elsishans, Senior Environmental Specialist - Report Review and Editorial Review Thomas Cosmas, Senior Environmental Specialist - Report Review. and Editorial Review Jane Wang, Research Scientist III - Editorial Assistance Guidance Manual for Siting, Design and Maintenance of Golf Courses in New Jersey Table of Contents Chapter No. Page No. 1. Objectives Ch. 1-1 2. Administrative Procedures Ch. 2-1 3. Survey Plan, Site Plan, and Environmental Impact Statement Ch. 3-1 4. Technical Procedures for Modelling Ch. 4-1 S. Best Management Practices and Pollution Prevention Ch. 5-1 6. Monitoring Plans and Requirements Ch. 6-1 7. Pesticides and Fertilizer Pl ans Ch. 7-1 S. Recycled Materials Ch. 8-1 9. Regulatory Authority Ch. 9-1 10. References Ch. 10-1 Appendix A - An Example of Modeling Simulation for a Proposed Golf course Appendix B - Reference Articles for a Ground Water Monitoring Study for Pesticides and Nitrates Appendix C - Control Measures for Storm Water Runoff and Infiltrate Appendix D - Pesticide Use on Golf Courses at a Representative Golf Course in Now Jersey and NJDEPE Laboratory Routine Capability for Pesticide Analysis Appendix E - Available Regulations Regarding the Use of Recycled Xaterials,on the Construction of Golf Courses in New Jersey Chapter 1. objectives An appropriate response to the environmental questions concerning, the proper design and maintenance of golf courses in New Jersey is long overdue. -It is paramount to have proper guidance to minimize and/or prevent adverse environmental impacts of golf courses on the natural resources of the state including surface watersf wildlife, ground waters and water supply resources. Also, in an attempt to respond to the growing demand for recreation in New Jersey, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE or Department) has developed this guidance manual for the siting, design, construction and maintenance of golf courses in areas requiring a Coastal Area Facilities Review Act Permit, a Waterfront Development Permit, a Stream Encroachment Permit, and/or a Freshwater Wetland Permit. This guidance manual is to inform the applicant of the different types of information needed by the Land Use Regulatory Program prior to processing and issuing a permit under their jurisdiction. This manual is not intended to serve as a detailed manual for the design and/or maintenance of a golf course. The objectives of this manual are: o. To identify and outline administrative procedures and application requirements when an applicant wishes to construct a golf course in 'an area requiring a Coastal Area Facilities Review Act Permit, a Waterfront Development Permit, a Stream Encroachment Permit, and/or a Freshwater Wetland Permit; o. To inform the applicant of specific technical, management, and planning information required to be submitted to the Department for review when he/she wishes to construct a golf Ch. 1-1 course in an area requiring any one of the above listed permits. Information to be submitted'includes: I. A Survey Plan II. A Site Plan III. Modelling Results IV. An Environmental Impact Statement V. Best Management Practices and Pollution Prevention Plans VI. Pesticides and Fertilizer Application Plans VII. Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Plans o- To provide general guidelines for the design of a golf course including site selection, restricted areas ofe, development, location of ponds and irrigation wells, and maintenance of undisturbed vegetated buffers adjacent to streams, wetlands, and other waterbodies, etc.; o. To provide guidance for performing pollution impact assessments including modelling to predict water quality impacts; o. To provide strategies for controlling the quality of stormwater runoff; o. To provide guidance for the design of water quality sampling/monitoring programs for surface waterbodies and ground waters at proposed golf course sites; o. To provide guidance for best management practices (BMPs) to minimize environmental impacts stemming from the operation of a golf course; o. To provide guidance for the application of pesticides and fertilizers; Ch. 1-2 To provide guidelines as to when remedial actions should be rendered if the impacts on receiving waterbodies and/or ground water are identified; and o. To better co-ordinate, process, and evaluate decisions made in the siting, design, construction and maintenance of golf courses so as to foster the integration of man's activities with the environment by creating eco-friendly golf courses. Ch. 1-3 Chapter 2. Administrative Procedures The administrative procedures as shown in Figure II.1 include the following steps: 1) Pre-application conferences; 2) Application package preparation and submittal; 3) NJDEPE review of submitted packet; and 4) permit(s) decision. The Land Use Regulatory Program (LURP) will serve as the initial contact for applicants and will be the coordinator of the review process. I. Pre-application Conferences Pre-application conferences are necessary to facilitate administrative procedures. The pre-application conferences will be held to clarify the requirements and proper procedures for the application for all necessary permits. Scheduling of the confererces will be arranged at a mutually convenient time for both the NJDEPE and applicant. The pre- application phase may consist of a series of meetings. For example, the first meeting will describe the application process. The second meeting is for the applicant to present the facts of the site and to discuss model selections. The third meeting will review the computer model data packet. The applicant is to provide a survey of existing conditions of the site and to prepare a map indicating the location of the proposed golf course and receiving waterbodies. Additional meetings may be needed as information is provided to the Department. 11. Application Packet Preparation and Submittal In addition to the standard requirements under the appropriate rules and based on the pre-application conference, the applicant will obtain all of the required information and/or perform required studies necessary to complete the permit application. Information required to Ch. 2-1 Figure II.1 AdministraUve Process Pro- p cc an Coni coo --------------------------------- -------------------- ------------------ Submittals Prspara6n7 by Applicant eased on Required Information Site Specific Information Interfacing with NJDEPE r as Needed BlUF I/Pollutlon Prevention Analyses Contact LURP for General Assistance .Contact ORP for SUP Information on -Contact BWQA for Modeling PestIcIdes/Nutrients Guidance and Approval. to be applied Modeling Activities L--------- ----------- ------------------------------------------------- Offlclal Application Packet Submission 20 working NJOEEPE Initial R days S fff I it Dajt@--- I <@O'Ulv Rce"q*u'lred Y Potendal Irnpact Analyses t D*clelon Ch. 2-2 complete the application includes, but not limited to: A. Surveyand site plan, Environmental Impact Statement (CH. 3); B. Modelling activities and water quality assessment report (CH. 4); C. Best Management Plan (BMP) and pollution prevention plan (CH. 5); D. Monitoring plan (CH. 6).; and E. Pesticides and fertilizers action plan (CH. 7). Table 1I.1 shows a partial summary list of information required for the application package. Ch. 2-3 Table II.1 PARTIAL SUMMARY OF INFORMATION NEEDED FOR REVIEW I,. General Site specific Information A. USGS Maps (1:24000 ,) of study area and GIS maps, if available. B. Topographic maps (1:2000) showing existing and proposed drainage areas and land uses including slopes, pervious and/or impervious coverages, etc. C. Proposed golf course layout and information including grasses to be used, distribution of greens, tees, fairway, ponds, waterway system, etc. D. Information and/or data (hydrogeometric, hydrological, formation, and other concerns) of waterways potentially impacted by proposed golf course. E. Soil types and other sail data including hydrological soil type, permeability, etc., to be outlined on the site .location map. F. Groundwater information including location of groundwater table, depth and thickness of aquifer, flow direction, etc. G. Identification of classification of potentially impacted waterways. 11. Golf course modelling and receiving water quality modelling A. Models used for golf course and receiving water impact assessment. B. Complete report of impact analysis on study area and receiving waterways including coefficients, parameters, constants and their justifications, reference, and rationale for.selection, etc. III. Pesticides and Nutrient (Fertilizer) A. The pesticides/herbicides to be applied and their application frequencies & rates. B. Kinetics and coefficients of fates of pesticides and herbicides C. Dosages and application frequencies & rates for nutrients and/or fertilizers to be applied to golf course. D. The concentrations of pesticides and nutrients in soils and ponds within an existing golf course. IV. BXPs/Pollution Prevention Analysis. Ch. 2-4 Chapter 3. Survey Plan# Site Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Survey Plan and Report The applicant will provide the NJDEPE with a survey of the site to determine the existing environmental conditions. The applicant will also submit to the NJDEPE at the pre- application conference a survey report with accompanying plans which include, but not limited to, the following information at the proposed golf course site: 0. Name of watershed(.s) and subwatershed(s); 0. Location of streams, ponds, or other waterbodies and their classification and use designation; b. Location and classification of wetlands with information on identification of vegetation type, and soil classification; Do. Calculated 100-year floodplain; 00. Topography with slopes differentiated as less than 10%, 11-19%, and larger than 20%; NO. Existing land cover (e.g., forest, meadow, etc.); 00. Location of significant plant and/or animal habitats, if available, including: documentation of species, date of last known sighting, status, and source of documentation; and b. Map of golf course outlined on appropriate soil Conservation Survey map showing various soil types at the site. 11. Site plan An objective of the site plan is to design the golf course so that there are no encroachments on the areas restricted from development and to minimize the impact of the overall site development on the natural resources of the area.. Ch. 3-1 A. Regulated Environmentally Sensitive Areas The applicant will identify on the site plan those areas such as wetlands which are regulated by the Land Use Regulation Program (LURP). LURP will provide advice and guidance for such site specific issues. The applica nt is to also identify on the site plan the surface and ground water classifications. For questions regarding the State's classification of surface water and ground waterl the applicant is to consult with the Department's Office of Land and Water Planning. B. Design standards After the applicant has identified those areas to be restricted from development, the site plan should also delineate the proposedilayout of the golf course. This plan should include, but not limited to, the following: 1. Tees,-greens, fairways, and practice range; 2.. Buildings (e.g. clubhouse, maintenance facilities, residential area, etc.); 3. Roads and parking lots; 4. Conceptual design for management of stormwater runoff and water quality including locations, methods and documentation that these locations and methods are practical; 5. Location of irrigation wells and/or ponds; 6. Classification of waters; 7. Possible endangered and threatened species; 8. Detention and retention basins; and 9. Irrigation and surface water drainage. Storage ponds and/or irrigation wells constructed for irrigation purposes or for storage of recycled runoff water, will not be located in an area where they will impact the potable water supplies or any other sensitive areas. Ch. 3-2 Where irrigation wells are proposed, a stream depletion analysis may be required. In the event that a depletion analysis is required, an assessment of the impacts of stream baseflow reductions on instream habitats will also be required. In construction of ponds requiring stream depletion analysis, the following impacts should be addressed: (i) changes in organic material transport; (ii) invertebrate drift; (iii) fish passage; and (iv) loss of wetland functions. C. Stormwater Ma nagement and Water Quality Management The applicant will include in the site plan, plans for management of stormwater runoff. Emphasis should be placed on the use of a combination of methods, such as infiltration trenches, grassed swales, shallow marshes, vegetated filter strips and forest buffers to provide water quality management. Appendix C presents several control measures for controlling stormwater and infiltrate. III. Environmental Impact Statement The applicant is to also submit an Environmental Impact Statement relating to the project for which he/she is requesting a permit. For the specific requirements of the Environmental Impact Statement the applicant is to contact LURP. Ch. 3-3 chapter 4. Technical Procedures for Modelling In order to assess the extent of potential contamination of nutrient and pesticides in surface and ground water systems which receive surface runoff and subsurface inflow from the proposed golf course, the applicant may be required to develop a mathematical model to assess the fate and transport of pesticides and nutrients in these hydrologic systems. I. General If modelling work is required, the applicant should follow the Department's technical guidelines and directions to perform all the modelling activities. The applicant, with the Department's consent, should select the appropriate model and submit the work plan to the Department for review. The work plan should include a Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) plan, model and users manual, and proposed sampling program. The final report should include the model application, input files, results, findings and conclusions; and should be submitted as a complete package to the NJDEPE for review. The important pollutants for modelling should consist of present and proposed pesticides and fertilizers which are to be used at the site. Figure IV.1 is the flow chart for performing the modelling activities for the golf course impact analysis. II. Technical Procedures The procedures for modelling includes: A. Identification of Waterbodies of Interest, B. Selection of Appropriate Models, C. Sampling Requirements, and D. Model Simulation and Prediction Ch. 4-1 Figure IV.1, Modeling Activities for Golf Course Impact Analyses FIde*ntificctJon of Major Selection of the Waterways of Concern Transport Routes of and/or Other Possible Pollutants of Concern acted Areas LJ n Is the Golf Course an Existing one Requesting Expansion n Sufficient Information for Modeling A Proposed Golf, Fs-of,n-"'p"'I*@l,n-,g",-,P-r-ograim Require7d, Course Sampling Proposal Review QA/QC Plans Field Data Collection Computer Simulations Simple to Medium Pesticides/Harbic idea 00"! using Conservative Complexity Models and/or Nutrients to be Used. _16'@ta and information Assumptions or using Intensive Survey Data for PRZM. ST11;M, etc Calibration/velfication Sol I and Land Uses I . ..... Information and Data Including Golf Course Meterological Data Projection by Using I" Appropriate Models 1 with Conservative Assumptions (i.e. 100-yr Storm) Computation of Concentra---'@ tion in the Impacted waterways Mass Balance In Low Flow Conditions (e.g. 7010) or In linkage with Appropriate Rec*Mng Waterway Models Including Surface and Water Quafty Models Ch. 4-2 A. Identification of Waterbodies of Interest Based on the proposed golf course plan, the drainage area, which may be impacted by operation of the golf course, should be delineated. The waterbodies, with their State assigned classifications, including surface waters and ground waters, should be clearly indicated in the study plan. The study plan should include, but not limited to, the QA/QC plan, topographic map and ground water flow maps. These should be submitted to the NJDEPE for review. B. Selection of Appropriate Models Once the waterbodies are identified, appropriate models need to be selected for assessment of short-term and long- term impact to surface and ground waters caused by'golf course operations. In general, the proposed models should include a watershed runoff model, a receiving water model and a ground water model. The complexity of the required models will be decided on a case-by-case basis. Many different models have been developed to simulate the fate of pesticides and nutrients transported from surface runoff and subsurface inflow to the receiving water system. The value of these models is their capability to predict impacts resulting from pesticide usage. Shoemaker et al. (1990) have listed several models with their capabilities for simulation of nutrients and pesti@_-ides (see Table IV.1). Watershed models such as SWRRBWQ ASimulator for Water Resources in Rural Basins - Water Quality; Arnold et al., 1991) and CREAM (Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems; Knisel, 1980) are good candidate models for the simulation of fate and migration of pesticides and fertilizers. Any model, as long as it is suitable for nutrient and pesticide simulations, can be provided to the Department for consideration. Ch. 4-3 Table IV.1 Simulation Capabilities of several Pesticide Xodels ------------------------------------------------------ Model Timestep Runoff Erosion Vadose GW Transport Transport ------------------------------------------------------- CNIS Daily no no yes no GLEAMS Daily yes yes Partial no LEACHMP Varies no no yes no MOUSE daily yes yes yes yes PESTAN n/a no no yes no PRZM Daily yes yes yes yes SESOIL Seasonal yes yes yes no SWRRBWQ Daily/ yes yes no no Seasonal ------------------------------------------------------- Source: Modified from Shoemaker et al., 1990. Ch. 4-4 C. Sampling Requirements 1. For the proposed expansion of an existing golf course, one-of the following two sampling plans should be considered: a. Baseline data: Representative samples of soil and water should be taken during a dry-weather period in the study area. These data will be used as a baseline to represent the initial background conditions of water quality for the model input necessary to predict the water quality impact due to the future expansion. In general, the sampling sites should include: low level golf course areas (soil), subsurfacec inflow:(ground water) and receiving waterbodies (water). As a conservative approach, the model constants, unit areal pollutant loading and hydrologic conditions app lied, should be relatively conservative. b. Intensive sampling surveys: Three sets of data should be collected including one baseline sampling and two wet-weather samplings. The first set of data should be collected during a dry-weather period to represent baseline data, and two other sets of data should be collected during wet-weather periods for. model calibration and verification. The wet-weather sampling should be conducted under different storm event conditions (i.e. frequency of occurrance, duration, etc.). The sampling sites should be selected based on the .topography of the existing golf course and the characteristics of the drainage area. 2. For a proposed new golf course, the sampling and modelling procedures will be similar to the Ch. 4-5 requirements of item 1.a, the exception of the sampling sites. The sites should be selected based on the current natural condition of the proposed golf course area. Any input values, which were derived from the literature, used for model projections should be selected, based on the most conservative assumptions. D. Model Simulation and Prediction Information required for model simulations include: 1) pollutants of interest; 2) soil type and texture, land uses, and drainage area; 3) meteorological data; 4) waterbodies of concern; and, 5) the baseline data for pesticides and fertilizers in the soil and ponds within the golf course and receiving waterbodies including surface and ground waters. Typical input information required, based on functions of model simulation, are summarized'in Table II.1. Appendix A presents an example of modelling simulation for a proposed golf course. Ch. 4-6 Chapter S. BEST KANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION A best management practices plan (BMP) and pollution prevention plan for the golf course will be developed by the applicant and submitted to the Department to minimize the impacts caused by the construction and operation of the golf course. High quality turf is not necessarily the result of increased fertilizer and pesticide usage. An outstanding golf course is the result of excellent design, construction, utilization of best management practices (BMPs), selection of the best turfgrass varieties available at the time of establishment and proper management of the facilities.' The golf course applic ant w*lll develop a BMP program in coordination with NJDEPE. BMPs are practices employed to reduce chemical and fertilizer dependence, water usage and all other impacts to receiving waterbodies through proper construction and operation of the golf course. The superintendent of the golf course will be required to implement and further refine the BMP program over time. As such, record keeping, reporting, monitoring and modifications are necessary to ensure that current practices are used. The application of BMPs requires the knowledge of many disciplines such as: entomology, plant pathology, weed science, nematology, wildlife biology, agronomy, soil science, meteorology, plant -.genetics, hydrology and economics. It should be kept in mind that the differences between the physiographic regions of the state including soil, topography, hydrology and climate will impact construction and management practices to be employed, as well as the appropriateness of siting a golf course. 1. Possible Pollution Source Categories A. Golf Course Construction Soils exposed, disturbed and stockpiled from golf course construction activities may result in significant losses of Ch. 5-1 water, sediment and nutrients. Sediment loadings from construction sites may be as much as 100 times greater per acre than those from agricultural lands and perhaps 2000 times greater than those from undisturbed forest land. Suspended solids represent not only an important pollutant in themselves, but are also a principal transport vehicle for other pollutants such as pesticides and metals. Golf course construction often involves the disturbance of an unusually large amount of.land. Unless runoff is properly managed during construction, increased erosion and sedimentation, increased turbidity, decreased aquatic productivity and reduced water quality on site as well as downstream will result.: Factors affecting runoff rates and volumes include: i,- Precipitation duration, intensity and spatial extent; P. Size, shape, orientation, topography and geology of the golf course watershed; v- A soil's physical and chemical properties, infiltration capacity and antecedent soil moisture conditions; o- Type and extent of grass cover (sod vs. seed); oo. Cultural practices (Watson, 1985; Welterlen, 1989); o- The duration and extent of soil disturbance; and P. The use of mitigating soil conservation practices (Balogh and Walker, 1992). When developing a site plan, these factors should be thoroughly investigated and BMPs chosen accordingly. Site planning should include not only long term Nonpoint Source (NPS) management, but should also incorporate temporary BMPs 1 ,(including timing and methods of construction) designed to control stormwater runoff during construction. B. Turf and Landscape Maintenance Fertilizers and pesticides are used extensively in the maintenance of turf and ornamental plants on golf courses. Ch. 5-2 High quality turfgrass is necessary in order to meet the demands of the public and to compete in the golf course industry. As a result, the level of landscape management is steadily increasing in the United States. Although a well maintained plant community can be an environmental as well as a recreational asset, water quality can be severely degraded if proper maintenance practices are not employed. Excessive and improper application are the major problems associated with fertilizers and pesticides. These common misuses often lead to ground and surface'water contamination. Some water quality impacts associated with these pollutants include,the following: 1. Rapid short term chaliges in water quality from stormwater runoff; 2. Longer term water quality impacts on biological communities and public health resulting from pollutants entering surface waters; 3. Impacts on the quality of ground water in aquifers utilized as sources of drinking water. Nitrogen and phosphorus in fertilizers are linked to eutrophication and subsequent deterioration of surtace water quality, as well as ground water contamination. The movement of nitrates into ground water may cause a public health hazard because high nitrate concentrations can cause infant methemoglobinemia (Blue Baby Syndrome). Numerous acute and chronic effects are similarly associated with pesticide exposure to humans and other organisms. These toxic substances can enter an organism through inhalation, ingestion or skin contact. Pesticides have caused decreases in aquatic populations either directly through damage to the food chain by decreasing reproductive success, or by indirectly reducing oxygen levels in the Ch. 5-3 water by reducing the populations of higher plants and phytoplankton. An additional concern in the intensive management of turfgrasses is the excessive use of water. Traditionally, many turfgrass managers have used water on golf courses as if inexhaustible in supply (Youngner 1970; Shearman 1985). In recent years water policy in this country has been driven by the realization that water is a limited commodity. The depletion of water supplies for drinking, recreation and other human uses has resulted in increased awareness regarding water consumption C. Golf Course Facilities The construction of clubhouses,. pro shops, food and beverage facilities and parking lots as well as maintenance and storage'structures causes water quality impacts similar to traditional commercial development. Runoff from these areas contributes sediment, heavy metals, fecal bacteria, organic and inorganic debris, household chemicals, and oil and grease from motor vehicles to surface and ground water. Since most of the facilities mentioned above require extensive impervious surfaces, stormwater runoff volumes are much heavier than pre-development conditions. The impacts of higher pollutant export are felt not only on adjacent streams, but also on downstream receiving waters such as lakes, rivers and estuaries. Improper design, poor construction and lack of maintenance of golf course facilities will magnify these impacts. Il. Best Management Practices A. Identify Site Constraints Identify and inventory natural resources with an emphasis on critical and unique habitats: P. Vegetative cover o. Wildlife habitat Ch. 5-4 Surface water classification o- Ground water resources P. Soil types P.- Drainage patterns o. Steep slopes P. Wetlands P. Threatened and endangered species and habitat Working over a topographic map of the site as a base, delineate the boundary of each area by carefully .determining the limit which should not be crossed by construction activity without causing adverse impact. For example, when plotting a natural drainageway, map its flow line, but also be sure to include that area of the adjoining side slopes which,.if disturbed, would cause a loss of integrity in its hydrologic function (i.e. top of bank to toe'of slope in a steep slope area). For critical areas, a BMP program should be developed and implemented such that no impairment or deterioration will occur. B. Alternative Course Layout and Design 0. Reduce area of tees, greens and fairways. P. Preserve roughs in their natural state. P. Develop traffic patterns which minimize surface runoff, soil compaction, pests, nutrient deficiencies and water usage. m. Maintain natural drainage patterns and maintain or increase quality of water on site and/or leaving the site. P. Avoid wetland and stream corrider disturbances. Fairways should be sited to reduce the number of crossings with streams, wetlands, forests, etc. Greens and tees should be located in areas where the maximum high water table or bedrock is greater than four feet below the surface. Field determination of high Ch. 5-5 bedrock and/or ground water should be conducted with respect to the final setting of those locations. Underdrain systems for greens and tees must also maintain four feet of soil separation between the subsurface leaching system and high bedrock and/or ground water. o. Maintain and establish buffer strips along the perimeter of wetlands. Wooded buffers which shade streams are preferred. P. Avoid loamy sand soils to the greatest extent possible. b. Designate conservation easements. P- Designate wildlife sanctuaries. P. Locate buildings andother impervious surfaces in areas which will minimize land disturbance. b. Minimize impervious surfaces. P. Where impervious surfaces are necessary, reduce the amount of runoff generated. 0. Carefully locate and.design any stormwater facilities that may be necessary. o@ Locate and design pesticide and fertilizer storage facilities in such a way that spills will not affect water quality. C. Construction Practices 1. Implement soil erosion and sediment control practices in compliance with the "Standards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey" developed by the State Soil Conservation Committee and enforced by the local Soil Conservation Districts. Immediate coverage of bare soil surfaces with seed or sod in conjunction with other soil stabilization measures should be emphasized. 2. Implement special soil erosion and sediment control i practices which address the unique pollution problems associated with golf course construction. Ch. 5-6 a. Extensive phasing of construction activities to reduce the impacts associated with large areas of disturbance. b. Increased buffers to wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas for soil stabilization and attenuation of the pollutants potentially generated by golf course construction in large amounts. c. Avoid irrigation rates or duration which may cause runoff of water, resulting from irrigation of turfgrass at rates greater than soil infiltration rates and soil storage capacity (Balogh and Walker, 1992). d. Where preferential flow paths are evident, wet detention basins should be considered provided conditions are suitable. e. Delivery reduction devices should be properly designed, sited, constructed and maintained. Regional considerations should be accounted for the design of stormwater facilities (e.g. downstream effects of detention basins). D. Source Controls 1. Choose the proper turfgrass species for greens, tees and roughs (if necessary): a. Native species should be used whenever possible. When it is not feasible to utilize native turfgrass species, choose a species or cultivar which is suited to the climate as well as physical and chemical characteristics of the site. When p lanting is ,necessary in rough areas, natives should be used exclusively. b. Select species and cultivars of turfgrass capable of efficient water use and drought resistance. Research has been completed and data are available on rates of Ch. 5-7 turfgrass evapotranspiration as well as drought resistance. c. Select species and cultivars of turfgrass that minimize nitrogen loss through-volatilization, leaching and surface runoff. Data are also available concerning nitrogen loss characteristics of various turfgrass species. d. Select'species and cultivars of turfgrass which are resistant to pests and diseases common to your geographic location. e. Select turfgrass species or mixtures which will compete favorably with weed species based on existing and proposed site;conditions. Seed mixtures should be weed free. 2. Use proper fertilizer management practices: a. Use organic slow release fertilizers to the greatest extent possible and avoid the use of soluble fertilizer. The type of nitrogen fertilizer applied significantly influences the availability of nitrogen to grass uptake and to runoff or infiltration. The more soluble the fertilizer, the more easily it can be transported away from the application site, either through runoff or by infiltration. Examples of water soluble fertilizers include ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate, urea and calciummitrate. -These compounds are more readily available to the turf plants and therefore are actively used. However, large applications of these types of fertilizers followed by heavy rains or irrigation may exceed the capability of turf grasses to assimilate the nutrients and therefore result in leaching to ground water or being carried in runoff water. Some examples of slow release fertilizers are urea formaldehyde, isobutylidene diurea (IBDU), sulfur coated urea (ISU) and plastic coated urea. Several Ch. 5-8 recent studies (Cohen et al. 1990; Horsley and Moser, 1990) have shown that the use of slow release fertilizers reduces nitrogen loading to the ground water. See Appendix B for additional information on the fate of nitrogenous fertilizers. b. Test soils to determine nutrient requirements. Nitrogen.should be applied to turf in amo unts no greater than the amount required for plant uptake. c. During the turf establishment phase of'construction, usually a six to nine month period, use sod filter strips of at least six meters in width around seeded slopes (Mason, 1990). d. Avoid the use of fertilizers in roughs. e. In areas of a high water table, in order to prevent ground water pollution, an underground drainage system can be employed an d leachate can be recycled to areas of greater depth to water table, detained or treated prior to release. f. Irrigation rates should approximate evapotranspiration rates. Overwatering significantly increases nitrogen losses. g. Avoid turf establishment on sandy soils to the greatest extent possible. The greatest potential for contamination of ground water comes from soils with high infiltration rates. h. Maintain buffers to wetlands. i. Whenever possible, incorporate fertilizers below the soil surface. j. Increase time between fertilization and rainfall events to the greatest extent possible. k. Light irrigation after application is recommended to incorporate fertilizers into the soil. 1. Fertilize during periods of maximum plant uptake. Fall and winter fertilization should be avoided. m. Proper handling of fertilizers during equipment loading and mixing is critical. Avoid spills at all Ch. 5-9 costs and immediately clean up any spills which do occur. n. Fertilize when the soil is moist, as grass will not take in nutrients during dry periods. o. Soil preparation should occur prior to seeding. p. Establish turf during fall, this way when growing season begins in Spring, turf has a greater chance of out competing weeds. 3. Use proper pesticide management practices: The concept of a Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program is to avoid wherever & whenever possible, the use of chemical pest:icides through the substitution of other control measures. The following is a list of some of these control measures. a. IPM techniques should be utilized at all times. b. The first steps in IPM are: selecting plants which are indigenous to the area, pest resistant, establishing proper cultural practices, sound fertilization techniques, and suitable irrigation methods. Only seed sources known to be weed free should be used to reduce the introduction of weed species during early turf establishment. Cultural controls include activities such as mowing, aeration, dethatching, fertilization and irrigation. Cultural controls are used to manipulate pesticide populations by culturing the crop to decrease the survival of the specific pest and to promote proper turf development. This will promote turf which is resistant to and able to recover from pest damage. c..Establish thresholds for unacceptable economic or aesthetic injury based upon a reliable measurement system. The mere presence of a pest organism does not necessarily constitute a pest problem. d. Monitor the environment and pest populations on a periodic, consistent basis. Ch. 5-10 e. Take action that modifies the pest habitat to reduce the carrying capacity of the site, excludes the pest or otherwise makes the site environment incompatible with the needs of the pest. In order to do this, a comprehensive knowledge of the life cycle of the pest is necessary. o. Regulatory Controls - Pests may be kept out of an area through qua rantine and inspection. o. Genetic Controls - Modify the- genetic makeup of the pest population so that it cannot survive. An example is the introduction of sterile males into a pest population to inhibit reproduction. P- Biological control - Introduce.and establish populations of natural enemies of a selected pest. An example is the use of Bacillus Thuringiensis and milky spore to control white grub populations. The objective should be to use biological controls wherever feasible to reduce dependency on chemical pesticides. o. Cultural Control - Making the environment unfavorable for pest reproduction, movement or survival. Examples include maintaining plant vigor, pruning, sanitation and species diversification. f. If pesticides are absolutely necessary, the following techniques are essential to minimize environmental impacts. (The commonly used pesticides for New Jersey golf courses are listed in Table VII.1.) Always read the label. o. Select a-pesticide that: is legal, is labeled for the plant, site of application and the pest, Ch. 5-11 has minimal environmental impacts (analyze solubility, toxicity, mobility, adsorption capabilities and persistence), is effective given the site and climate conditions, and Mix pesticides properly: take any special precautions specified on the label, never mix more pesticide than is needed - when adding water to a sprayer, partially fill it, add the pesticide, then continue to fill the tank until it is full, - the water source should be.equipped with an anti-backflow device, - never mix pesticides near a wellk and - avoid spills at all costs, but if they do occur, clean them up immediately. Apply pesticides properly: pesticides should only be applied by properly trained and certified personnel, - reduce the frequency of application to the greatest extent practical, - observe weather conditions at the time of application; if rain or high winds are forecast, postpone the application, - do not allow spray to drift into open water, wetlands or storm drains, - consider topography; application at a topographic high may impact low areas after a rain, and calibrate equipment properly; calibration requires an understanding of the equipment and how it works. 10. Clean up, store and dispose of pesticides properly: clean equipment after use to maintain it in good working order and to remove any residues which would become a part of the next application, check for leaks after each use, Ch. 5-12 store indoors in structurally sound containers, preferably in a secure, locked and prominently marked enclosure, when transporting pesticides, all containers should be secured, disposal of unused pesticide material is best handled by using all of the material during applications, giving the material to someone who can use it, or returning the unused portion to the manufacturer directly, if these options are not available, pesticides that are either acutely hazardous or hazardous wastes must be disposed of as such, and containers must be empty, free from any pesticide residue, triple rinsed, crushed or punctured before being disposed of in a landfill designated for this use. op. All pesticide ul-le shall conform with New Jersey's Pesticide Control Regulations (N.J.A.C.- 7:30 Subchapters I to 10). g. Evaluate the results of habitat modification and pesticide treatments. h. Keep written records of objectives, methods, data collected, actions taken and results. 4. Use proper cultural practices: a. The mowing height should be the optimum for the species of grass, but,in general, the higher the blades are set, the healthier the turf will be. b. Increases in growth rate from fertilization and other practices should result in an increase in mowing frequency. However, this practice should be balanced .with the damage to turfgrass leaf tips resulting from increased mowing frequency. Mowing frequency should increase to match the increased growth. If this doesn't occur, the turf may begin to thin out, leaving it vulnerable to weed infestations. Recent investigations have also suggested that the removal Ch. 5-13 of grass clippings"will result in a lowering of the overall risk from residual pesticides. c.@Lawnmower blades should be kept as sharp as possible at all times. d. A moderate thatch layer is useful in preventing pesticides and fertilizers from leaching into the ground water. The buildup of excessive amounts of thatch creates breeding sites for numerous insects and fungal diseases.. Thatch is the layer of living and dead plant material that accumulates between the green vegetation and the soil. A proper balance is necessary to attain a moderate thatch buildup. e. Irrigation should:be based on need, not the calendar. Tensiometers, pan evaporation or other proven quantitative methods should be used to determine need. f. Irrigation rates should approximate evapotranspiration rates. g. Irrigation practices should not result in a reduction of stream base flow. h. Properly design and maintain irrigation systems. i. Utilize proven soil manipulation techniques such as wetting agents and antitranspirants, if necessary. j. Irrigate during evening hours. S. Best management practices should be coordinated to insure compatibility on site and in the watershed. 6. Monitor all results such as disease incidence, pest occurance, health of turn, etc. and.keep, written records of.all of the best management practices employed. 7. In conjunction with BMPs discussed in this manual, for controlling stormwater runoff the applicant shall design the management plan in accordance with current program standards. These standards can be obtained during the Ch. 5-14 pre-application meeting. In addition, for controlling stormwater runoff from golf courses and associated facilities, the "Stormwater and Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Best.Management Practices Manual" (NJDEPE, 1992, Final Draft in print) may be applied where not in conflict with current regulations. Appendix C presents some pollution control measures for use in golf course construction and operation. III. Conclusions and Research Needs The Department believes it:is necessary to integrate pollution prevention and control early in the site planning process. The BMPs outlined in this chapter are arranged in the order of an effective pollution control program. BMPs which address water quality And quantity issues through preventative measures are listed first, followed by BMPs for pollution reduction. A properly designed golf course which includes a carefully planned BMP program can minimize the impacts to receiving waterbodies and can even provide certain environmental benefits, such as wildlife habitat. The practices specified above are not all inclusive. Additional research will need to be done in order for this guidance to be comprehensive and detailed. Much remains to be learned about the impacts of golf courses on the environment. New and innovative' techniques are continuously being explored as more information becomes available. Through monitoring the effectiveness of the pollutioncontrol methods currently used, BMPs may,need to be reexamined and modified. Ch. 5-15 Chapter 6. Konitoring Plans and Requirements The applicants and/or their consultants will develop a surface and ground water monitoring plan for the golf course. In order to provide protection of receiving surface waterbodies as well as ground waters it is necessary that monitoring programs be carefully designed and implemented. Three monitoring phases will be reqired: the baseline monitoring, follow-up monitoring, and routine monitoring. The baseline monitoring phase for surface and ground water will be for one year prior to start of construction. The follow-up monitoring phase will begin as soon as pesticides and fert@lizers are first applied and will include a period of three (3) years for surface waters and two (2) years for ground water (see monitoring steps in Table VI.1 for additional monitoring details). If no sign of contamination in the receiving waterbodies is found during the follow-up phase, the routine monitoring phase will be initiated. The routine monitoring will be performed on an annual basis and will be conducted in the season of highest pesticide and fertilizer application. The surface water monitoring will be conducted under wet-weather conditions which generate surface runoff. If other factors such as sensitive soil types, existences of endangered species, high quality receiving waterways, etc. are of concern in the study area, NJDEPE will require more intensive sampling programs on a case-by-case basis. The QA/QC plan and sampling stations will be submitted by the applicant for Department approval during the pre-application meetings. All sampling is to be done at a New Jersey State Certified Laboratory. Ch. 6-1 Table VI.1 Proposed Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program .at Cape Cod, Massachusetts I. Mottiforing We!ls: Installation of six to 10 monitoring wells 3. Aera!ion Zcne Sampling/ Analysis: Sampling water in the are planned for future water quality sampling. Monitoring aeration zone directly beneath areas of pesticide application wells will consist of five well clusters with each well cluster before it reaches the water table will provide a -worst case- containing two to three small-diameter (2-inch) wells, which assessment of the potential for ground water contamination at terminate at different dcpft within the aquifer (see Figure 6). the proposed golf course. The results of these analyses will Three of the well clusters will be located at the south- allow for a better planned and coordinated ground water southeastc.-n downgradicnt hydrologic boundary of the golf sampling program. course as determined by ground water flow directions simulated Using hand pumps, vacuum will be. produced on the from pumpage of three irrigation wells ( 150 gpm/ well) under lysimeters and water samples will be obtained quarterly (four transient conditions. Monitor wells along this boundary will times a year). Quarterly sampling of drain fields will also be be in a position to monitor all possible sources of contaminants undertaken. Samples will be composited (two locations per originating from within the golf course. A fourth monitoring sample) and analyzed for all pesticides (fungicides, insecticides, well cluster will be located along the western boundary of the and herbicides), nitrate, Kjcldahl, and ammonia-nitrogen. Property. A fifth well will be located downgradient of the Water samples will be iced and shipped to the analytical pesticide storage facility. These monitor wells will forewarn of laboratory within 24 hours. Chain of custody forms will be any potential water quality impacts to public supply wells 13, utilized to document sampling, shipping, and analytical times. 18. 19, 10. If and the two proposed wells at 16-77 and 18-77. 4. Resimpling/An2lysis: If any pesticides are detected in kny Wells will be screened both above and below clay layers where concentrations (including trace levels), resampfing and analysis present to enable sampling at discrete depths within the aqui- will be required for confirmation. fer(s) and to determine vertical contaminant stratification. 5. Ground Water Sampling/ Analysis: Diffing the first two years Anticipated well depths for well clusters are as follows: Screen of operation, monitor wells and irrigation wells will be analyzed elevations for deep wells will be set at approximately -20 to -30 for target chemicals quarterly (four times per year). Target feet MSL to detect possible contaminants migrating toward chemicals are to include all pesticides (fungicides, insecticides. well# 13 (nearest public supply well) with densities greater than and herbicides) used on the golfcourse, any known metabolites. water. Screen elevations for wells at mid-depth will be set nitrate, KjcIdahl, and ammonia-nitrogen. Sampling will be approximately -5 to -15 feet MSL to detect possible soluble accomplished using dedicated Teflon bailers following the contaminants at the same elevation as the sc-ten setting for evacuation of three to four well volumes. Water samples will public supply well $tl]l (-15 to -25 feet MSL). Shallow wells be iced and shipped to the analytical laboratory within 24 ho---rs. will be screened in saturated materials above clav lenses or Chain of custody forms will be used to document sampling, beds where present in the upp-r aquifer or at the water table shipping, and analytical times. surface. 6. Resarnpling/An2lysis: If any pesticides are detected in any Well construction wW consist of 2-inch-diameter flush- concentrations (including trace levels), resampling and analysis threaded joint PVC. PVC is selected for economic reasons and will be required on those wells on a weekly basis until two the -superior performance that can be expected of polymeric consecutive sampling rounds show no detection of those materials under acidic conditions- (Barcelona 1983), which is chemicals. generally the case for Cape Cod ground water (Frimpter and 7. Sampling/Analytical Frequency Re-eyalluation: After a period Gay 1979). Screens will be 10 feet in length and number 10 slot of two years, water quality data will be compiled and reviewed. size. Finished wells will be backfilled with material from the For those pesticides that have not been detected in either borehole scaled with bentonite to isolate the various screens aeration zone samples or ground water samples. the analytical and capped with a steel security cover that is anchored to a frequency will be reduced to annual (once per year) thereafter. cement base (see Figure 6). Those pesticides that have been detected (and confirmed) will Locations of the monitor well clusters arc indicated in continue to be analyzed quarterly (four times per year). Figure 7. Monitor wells are located in downgradicnt flow Regardless of these results, nitrogen components will continue direction as deter-mined from irrigation pumpage for three to be monitored quarterly. wells at 150 gpm under transient conditions. The irrigation 8. Pesticide Restriction: During the resampling and testing, the wells will also serve as monitor wells. use of the parent pesticide will be discontinued. If the detection 2. Lysimeters/Dritin Fields. Six pressure-vacuum lysimcters of chemicals persists for a period of two consecutive samplings, (constructed of TeflonO) and six drain fields will be installed to the use of the parent pesticide (fungicide, insecticide. and/or obtain water samples from the zone of aeration. The drain will herbicide) will be climina*--d permanently. New pesticides lead to a secured collection barrel so as to provide for composite proposed for use on the golf course must be approved by the sampling and avoid vandalism. These devices shown in Figure 8 Yarmouth Water Quality Committee. This approval will be enable sampling of water leaching through the root zone based upon the submittal of appropriate technical information before it reaches the water table. Both devices are proposed from EPA or other recognized environmental research institu- due to the lack of direct experience in the utilization of these tions. The Water Quality Committee should also reserve the systems in zone of aeration sampling on Cape Cod. Lysimeters right to discontinue the use of certain pesticides as new infor- and drain fields will be placed beneath both greens and fairways. mation becomes available. Locations shall be upgradient from monitor, well locations so 9. Justification for Remedial Action: If pesticides are measured as to Provide early -warning, which may be used to better tailor in concentrations of 100 parts per billion (ppb) or greater the -2round water monitoring program. Since the wells I'LC (either individuzl compounds or collectively) or as defined by downgradient of a powerline, which has been maintained by EPA drinking watcr@stdnclards as they become availab!e. a Commonwealth Electric. a pHiminary round of testing- I` hydrogeologic investigation will be undertaken to delineate those herbicides that have been used is recommended to the area of ground water contarma-iation and specific sources. determine background levels. Remedial actions including mitigation and cleanup will be Ch. 6-2 formulated and implemented. Table VI.1 Proposed Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program at Cape Cod, Massachusetts (continued) 10. Resampling for T6t2l Nitrdgen' If WW nitroger, levels (Kjcidahl. 1.4. Pumping Restriction: lf,water level observations demonstrate plus nitrate-nitrogen) reach 5 mg/ L total nitrogen. or greater, a more pronounced impact on the water table than that which resampling and analysis will be required on a weekly basis until was predicted by the computer model, the Yarmouth Water two Consecutive rounds are below 5 mgi L Department (in conjunction with the Yarmouth Water Quality IL Fertilizer Restriction: If total nitrogen levels above 5 mg/ L arc Committee) can place restrictions on the pumping of the found, (he application of fertilizer will be decreased propor- irrigation wells. Water usage restrictions may also be ordered tionate to the percentage of excess nitrogen concentrations. by the Yarmouth Water Department during drought condi- For example, a concentration of 6.0 mg/ L total nitrogen tions. Specifically, the following restrictions may occur. (a) measured in a monitoring well would represent a level of when a -voluntarv restriction" ordc, is issued to the public. the 20 percent above the planning guideline of 5.0 mg/ L Corrective Irrigation pumping will be reduced by the same proportion action would require a reduction of 20 percent in fe n4zer that occurs with the Yarmouth Water Department pumping, applied to the turf area upgradient from the well. and (b) when a -water ban- is issued to the public, a 100 12. Justification for Remedial Action: If total nitrogen is mcsured percent reduction in irrigation pumping will be implemented. in concentrations of 10 pans per million (ppm) or greater, a Under this scenario. irrigation will be derived from the golf hydrogeologic investigation will be undertaken to dc@inewe course storage pond. the area of ground water contamination and specific sources. To ensure proper implementation and enforcement of the Remedial measures, including mitigation and cleanup, will be proposed monitoring program, a cooperative agreement should formulated and implemented. be developed and executed between the Golf Course Committee 13. Water-Level Monitoring: Obsmation wells OW-15, OW-2- and the Yarmouth Water Quality Committee. The agreement OW-3, OW-4, and OW-5 shall be monitored for water table should include (1) the operative provisions of the monitoring fluctuations. The timing and frequency of these measurements program as described previously, (2) a requirement that moni- will coincide with the cur=nt water level monitoring program toring results be submitted upon receipt, 'and an annual report conducted by the Yarmouth Water Department (which is assessing the water q uality data to the Yarmouth Water Quality twice/ month at present) for the first year of operation. At the Committee and the Yarmouth Water Department, and (3) pro- end of the first year, the results of this monitoring effort will be vision for a contingency fund or environmental liability insurance reviewed by the Yarmouth Water Quality Committee. wo rt h at least S50,000 for hydrogeologic investigations/ remedial actions in the event that unacceptable ground watercontamina- tion occur. A schedule of the water-quality monitoring program tasks and the responsible organizations is shown on Table 3. Ch. 6-3 I. Ground Water Monitoring Program Two concerns regarding potential ground water impacts caused by operation of golf course to the ground water are: 1) hydrologic impacts upon downgradient wells and 2) water quality impacts from fertilizers and pesticides. A case study on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, for a ground water monitoring program at a golf course (S. W. Horsley and J. A. Moser, 1990) is recommended for adoption as a basis for ground water monitoring program at New Jerseyfs golf courses with modifications. The proposed ground water quality monitoring program of Cape Cod is presented in Table VI.1. In summary, the monitoring program includes the following: A. Monitoring wells Monitoring wells are to be located along the boundary of the golf course so as to monitor all possible sources of contaminants originating from within the golf course. Wells are also to be located upgradient and downgradient of the site. Site locations of these monitoring wells will be approved by the Department at the pre-application or other appropriate meetings. B. Lysimeter/Drain fields Pressure-vacuum lysimeters and drain fields are recommended be installed beneath greens and fairways to obtain water samples from the zone of aeration. An example of these devices is shown in Figure VI.1. These devices will enable sampling of water leaching through the root zone before it reaches the water table. C. Sampling/analysis The applicant is to contact the office of Land and Water, Planning to identify groundwater standards for the parameters listed below. The applicant is to sample each monitoring well for target chemicals quarterly (four times per year) during baseline and follow-up phases and once per Ch. 6-4 Figure VI-1 Drain Field Design for Subsurface Water Sampling SAMPLING PORT ZONE OF GOLF @--POLYETHYLENE LINER ZONE OF AERATION WATER TABLE v ERFORATED P'V.C. PIPE ZONE OF SATURATION '@R TL @ERFM@ZATZD Ch. 6-5 year during the routine monitoring phase and/or as specified by the Department based on application rates of pesticides and fertilizers. Target chemicals for sampling are to include: 1. all pesticides (fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides)-used on the golf course, 2. any known met abolites, 3. nitrate, Kjeldahl nitrogen, and ammonia-nitrogen and other fertilizer related chemicals used on the golf course. Additional monitoring rates and sites may be necessa@y when the golf course is located next to or near wells used as a source of potable water. D. Ground water' quantity monitoring 1. Ground water level monitoring - To provide an additional degree of protection to adjacent well supplies, water quantity wells should be identified and maximum drawdown levels established for each. The applicant will provide the following information: a. natural water table fluctuations prior to golf course development and initiation of the irrigation process, and b. ground water elevations for pre-determined monitoring wells. 2. Pumping restriction - If water level observations demonstrate a more pronounced impact on the water table than that which was predicted by desktop computation or the computer model, NJDEPE can place restrictions on the pumping of the-irrigation wells. Water usage restrictions may also be ordered by the NJDEPE. To determine if a permit is necessary for the irrigation Ch. 6-6 pumping system the applicant is to contact the Bureau of Water Allocation. E. Reporting Requiremen ts After the follow-up monitoring period, the applicant must compile and submit to the Department the ground water quality data. -For those pesticides which have not been detected in either aeration zone samples or ground water samples, the sampling frequency will be reduced to annual testing. If the concentrations of pesticides or fertilizers related pollutants are found to be higher than the allowable limits, the Department should be notified immediately and the application of pesticides and fertilizers should be terminated for further investigation of the causes. Il. Surface Water Monitoring Program A. Chemical Monitoring Monitoring sites will be determined at the pre-application meeting. The surface water parameters are to be monitored on a quarterly basis (March, June, September, and December) during baseline and follow-up phases and on an annual basis during the routine monitoring phase. Storm water samples collected during the follow-up phase should coordinate with golf course operations. If a storm event occurs within a week after the application of fertilizer and/or pesticide, monitoring should be conducted. The parameters required to be monitored are: PH, DO, Alkalinity, Total suspended solid, Total phosphorus, Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, Ch. 6-7 Ammonia nitrogen, Nitrite-nitrate nitrogen, Turbidity, _ Pesticides (i.e. Fungicides, Insecticides, and Herbicides, etc.), and Fertilizer components (if applicable) Pesticides and fertilizers to be monitored will be determined by.NJDEPE in cooperation with the golf course superintendent, and/or the developer's environmental consultants. For surface water quality standards, the applicant can contact the office of Land and Water Planning. B. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring 1. The assessment will include the following: Taxonomic composilion (at least to genus), Abundance (mean density), Taxa'richness, Diversity index (e.g. Shannon-Weaver), Biotic index, Functional group analysis. 2. Sampling will be conducted in the fall (e.g. late -October/early November) and in the spring (e.g. late March/early April) at each of the sampling stations during baseline and follow-up phases. Stream morphology and/or ground water aquifer or other reguired information should be submitted as shown in Table II.1. C. Reporting Requirements All test results data will be compiled in a report which will.be submitted to NJDEPE at the end of each quarterly monitoring period. All field notes and laboratory records should be available upon request. Ch. 6-8 Chapter 7. Pesticide and Fertilizer Plans In order to apply pesticides on lawns or turf at a golf course, the applicator must obtain a New Jersey pesticide applicator license in the appropriate category. The Pesticide Control Program (PCP) of NJDEPE will provide advice and guidance for pesticide related issues. The phone number for PCP is 609-530- 4070. For advice on pesticide selection, contact your County Cooperative Extension Office. Note: Pesticide means and includes any substance or mixture of substances labeled, designed, or intended for use in preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pest or for use as a defoliant, desicant, or plant regulator. Landscape management of a golf course requires the establishment and maintenance of a healthy turfgras s. In order to achieve this, fertilizers"and pesticides are often required to control insects, weeds, and turfgrass diseases. Application of pesticides and fertilizers has drawn increasing public concern and more attention and effort is needed to prevent or minimize adverse impacts on the environment and human beings. Some impacts to the environment which could be minimized through the careful selection, management, and application of pesticide and fertilizers include: A. contamination of potable and, non-potable ground waters and surface waters; B. wildlife kills, particularly fish and bird kills, due to the incorrect application and/or use of pesticides; C. foodchain accumulation; and D. adverse human health affects though the application, exposure and/or ingestion of pesticides. Concerning the above topic, it is important to note that the instuctions,on the label of the pesticide container are regulated State anct Federal requirements and improper application of the pesticide is a violation of State and Federal regulations. Ch. 7-1 I. Required information for pesticides and fertilizer action plan Information on pesticides and fertilizers to be applied to the golf course should be included in the application package. The pesticide and fertilizer action plan shall contain the following information: A. Name of the golf course; B. Identification of areas where pesticides are to be applied; C. Name and mailing address of golf course superintendent who is responsible for completing the application package; D. Storage, handling , mixing and loading procedures; E. Target pest, target site, method of application, rate of application, irrigation practices (if any), crop and the percent of foliar ground cover; F. Site specific data for each of the following: I. Top soilborizon depth; 2. Depth to seasonal high water table; 3. Soil Conservation Service Soils Hydrologic Group; 4. Soil test results of percent organic matter; 5. Any available monitoring data including a list of wells on the site and location of sampling stations in the receiving waterbodies; 6. Other data which supports a finding that the anticipated site is not a highly vulnerable site. The definition of highly vulnerable site, adopted from the Department of Food and Agriculture, Massachusetts, refers to a site which meets or exceeds the following criteria: a. Soil Conservation Service Hydrologic soil Group A .soils, whose products of the top soil horizon, in inches, and the soil organic matter, in percent, is less than or equal to fifteen (15); and b. The depth to the aquifer is less than 15 feet; and .c. The depth to the fractured bedrock or seasonal high water table is less than four (4) feet. Ch. 7-2 G. Post action inspection and monitoring - Following the application, it is necessary to perform investigations and inspections to determine the effectiveness of the specific action. There may be a need to attempt another control method to reduce the pest population below an acceptable level. Complete eradication of the pest will lead to an over use of chemicals and result in ground water contamination.. Golf courses are not to be constructed in areas falling under the category of a highly vulnerable site. All information submitted in the application must reference the source of the data. The Department reserves the ri4ht to request additional information from the applicant at any time throughout the review process. 1I. Commonly Used"Pesticides in New Jersey Information regarding major pesticides and their available analytical methods, as provided by PCP (Pesticide Control Program), NJDEPE, is listed in Table VII.I. Table VII.2 presents the environmental fate characteristics of pesticides and Figure VII.1 delineates the pesticide frequency of application on New Jersey golf courses. Appendix D shows NJDEPE laboratory routine capability for pesticide analysis and provides figures demonstrating the potential variability of pesticide use on a representative golf course including fungicide, herbicide, and insecticide. Ch. 7-3 Table VII.1 GOLF COURSE MONITORTN --COMPOUNDS August 21, 1992 Major Pesticides Used and Available Analytical Methods Active Inaredient Productial Amt. used/ % used' Analytical Methods - HERBICIDES 40179 20.2% Chlorthal-dimethyl Dacthal 12793 6.4% EPA 608.2 (GC) Bensulide Betasan 6673 3.3% EPA 636 (HPLC) MCPP Mecoprop 4880 2.5% EPA 615, 1658 (deriv. Q GC) 2,4-D Trimec, Triamine 4858 2.4% EPA 615, 1658 (deriv. & GC) Benfluralin Balon, Team 3799 1.9% EPA 627, 1656 (GC) INSECTICIDES 31195 15.6% Trichlorfon Dylex, Proxol 8061 4.0% EPA 1657 (GC) Isofenphos Oftanol 6408 3.2% FDA 212.1, 232.3, 232.4 (GC) Bendiocarb Turcam, Ficam 6071 3.0% EPA 639 (HPLC) Chlorpyrifos Dursban 5003 2.54 EPA 622, 1657 (GC) Carbaryl Sevin 411S 2.1%. EPA 632 (HPLC) FUNGICIDES 126919 63.6% Chlorothalonil Daconil, Bravo 44670 22.4% EPA 608.2, 1656 (GC) Thiram Spotrite, Bromosan 15714 7.9% (as total CS2] EPA 630, 630.1 EBDC9 (Mancozeb, Maneb, Zineb) �1 13732 6.9% [as total CS,J EPA 630, 630.1 Iprodione Chipco 260'iq 10213 5.1% ? (HPLC) Propamocarb HC1 7459 3.7% ? Anilazine Dyrene 7052 3.5% FDA 211.1 Triademefon Bayleton 6183 3.1% EPA 633, 1656 (GC) Metalxyl Ridomil, Subdue 5758 2.9% FDA 232.3, 232.4 Benomyl Benlate, Tersan 1991 366S 1.8% ? Thiophanate Cleary 3336 2911 1.5% [canceled in US) Fosetyl-Al Aliette 2502 1.3% (manufacturer ?I (GC) Propiconazole Banner, Tilt 2501 1.3% (manufacturer ?I (GC) GROWTH HORMONES 1159 0.58% Flurprimidol Cutless 650 0.33% ? Mifluidide Embark 203 0.10% ? Paclobutrazol clipper 79 0.04% FDA 232.4 TOTAL 199451 100.0% High use materials 185953 93.2% Total w/ available analytical methods 155849 78.1% Total w/ available analytical methods (excluding EBDCs & Thiram as total C82) I.26403 63.4% Pounds active ingredient (a.i.) reported 1990 NJDEPE/PCP Survey Pesticide Use on Golf Courses, TABLE VII.2 PESTICIDES - ENVIRONMENTAL FATE CHARACTERISTICS PESTICIDE TRADENAME CHEMICAL CLASS DEGRADATION PRODUCT ANILAZINE DYRENE; 1,3,5-TRIAZINE;o-CHLOROANILINE DICHLOROANILE BENDIOCARB TURCAM WP; FICAM CARBAMATE; METHYLCARBAMATE DEALKYLATION AND/OR HYDROXYLATION BENFLURALIN; BENEFIN BENEFIN;BALAN;BENEFEX DINITRO TRIFLUOROMETHYL ANILINE; TOLUIDINE DEAMINATION; HYDROXYLATION; ? BENSULIDE BETASAN (EC; G) OP; PHOSPHORODITHIOATE ESTER OXO-ANALOGUE BENTAZONE BASAGRAN BENZOTHIADIAZINONE; BENZOTHIADIAZOLE 2-NH2-N-ISOPROPYL-BENZAMIDE (STABLE, CARBARYL SEVIN(GRANULAR;4F;50W;85 SPRAY) ABCARBAMATE; N-METHYLCARBAMATE, 1-NAPTHYL C02;1,4-NAPHTHOQUINONE;1-NAPTHOL(PHOTO) CHLOROTHALONIL DACONIL 2787; WP-75,SC,G,L BENZONITRILE; CHLOROPHENYL- 2,4,5,6-C(4-ISOPHTHALIMIDE CHLORPYRIFOS SURSBAN;LORSBAN 4E;WP OP; ORGANOPHOSPHOROTHIOATE 3,5,6-TRICHLORO-2-PYRIDINOL CHLORTHAL-DIMETHYL (DCPA) DACTHAL TETRACHLOROPHTHALATE (TTA) TETRACHLOROPHTHALIC ACID DEGREDAT 2,4 - D DICHLOROANILINE DEG. OF ANILAZINE & IPRODIONE CHLOROAMINOBENZENE; CHLOROPHENYL-;AROMATIC DEG. PRODUCT ETHYLENETHIOUREA(ETU) DEG.OF EBDC,MANEB,ZINEB,MANCOZ UREA; THIOUREA; IMIDAZOLIDINETHIONE DEG. PRODUCT FENARIMOL RUBIGAN EC;WP;SC PYRIMIDINE(CtPHENYL)BENZHYDROL MANY PHOTODEGREDATES IN WATER IPRODIONE CHIPCO 2601;ROVRAL WP,SC,HN DICHLOROANILIDE; IMIDAZOLIDINE-DICARBOXIMIDE DICHLOROANIL:50%POST-APPLIC ISAZOFOS TRIUMPH,MIRAL,VICTOR;4EC,2%G OP; ORGANOPHOSPHOROTHIOATE 5CL-30H-1-ISOPROPYL-1H-1,2,4-TRIAZOL ISOFENPHOS MANEB TERSAN; DITHANE M-22 Mn-EBDC;MANGANESE DITHIOCARBAMATE POLYMER ETU; ETHYLENETHIOURA & DERIVS. NBC (CARBENDAZIM) DEG. OF THIOPHANATE & BENOMYL BENZAMIDAZOLE CARBAMATE FORMS SALTS WITH ACIDS MECOPROP; MCPP (POTASSIUM SALT) MCPP; MECOPROP 2-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOXY PROPIONIC ACID(KSALT 2-METHYL-4-CHLORO-PHENOL;MECOPROP-ME METALAXYL SUBDUE 2E(FOLIAR);RIDOMIL(SOIL ACYLPHENYLALANINE; XYLYLALANINATE N(diMe)PHENYL)N(2'OCH3ACETYL)ALANINE OXADIAZON RONSTAR EC,AL,GR DICHLORPHENYL; (OXA) DIAZOLE-2-ONE 15 PHOTO DEG;N-NH2-BENZOXAZOLENE DER PENDIMETHALIN PROPAMOCARB HCL (HYDROCHLORIDE) BANOL CARBAMATE; PROPYLCARBAMATE NON-DEG. PROPICONAZOLE TILT EC; BANNER; ORBIT CONAZOLE; TRIAZOLE-DICHLOROPHENYL DIOXOLAN 1,2,4-H-TRIAZOLE;TRIAZOLE ACETICACID QUINTOZENE; PCNB BRASSICOL; TERRACHKLOR CHLOROPHENYL; PENTACHLRORO; NITRO; BENZENE;AR PENTACHLOROAMINOBENZENE;ANILINE THIOPHANATE-METHYL TOPSIN-M CARBAMATE; PHENYLENE-THIOYL-BIS (CARBAMATE) MBC (CARBENDAZIM) IN WATER THIRAM TERSAN 75; POLYRAM; SPOTRETE-F DITHIOCARBAMATE-BIS(DIMETHYL-)DISULFIDE ETU ETHYLENETHIOUREA (MAJOR DEG.);EU TRIADIMEFON BAYLETON CONAZOLE; CHLOROPMENOXY-TRIAZOL-YL-BUTANONE TRIAZOLE;HYDROXYTRIAZOLE;BAYTAN(T1/2 TRICHLORFON TRICHLORO-2-PYRIDINOL DEG.OF TRICLOPYR; CHLORPYRIFOS TRICHLORO PYRIDINE DEG. PRODUCT TRICLOPYR TURFLON EC; GARLON EC PYRIDYLOXYACETIC ACID; TRICHLORO PYRIDINE; 3,5,6-TRICHLORO-2-PYRIDINOL(AC) TABLE V.2 PESTICIDES - ENVIRONMENTAL FATE CHARACTERISTICS (CONTINUED) PESTICIDE METABOLITE USE SOIL-INC MW MEL ANILAZINE AMINO/THIO-SUBST of CqL(TRIAZIN F0qJOLIAR; NONSYSTEMIC;2.59AI/L Oil 275.5 159 ENDIOCARS NC 7312; MOBILE 1; FOLIAR; SOIL INCORP. 0-.51, 223.2 128 BENFLURALIN; BENEFIN H; EC,G;PREEMERG.1.35kg AI/ha 01, 335.28 65- BENSULIDE H; PREEMERGE;SURF;11-22kgAl/ha 01, 397.5q(BC 34. ENTAZONE CONTACT HERB; 1-2.2 k9/45q0qL/ha 01, 240.3 137 CARBARYL qi-NAPHTHOL; 1-NAPHTHYL-N- CONTACT,SL.SYSTEMIC;UP TO 2kg 201.22 (OL -HYDROXYMI; Al/hq! CHLOROTHALONIL 4-OH-256-;CqL3-ISOPHTHALONITRILE F; FO IAR,SURF;0.46-1.89AI/sq. 0-0.511 265.91 250 CHLORPYRIFOS 3,5,6-TRICHLORO-2-PYRIDINOL 1; FOLIAR; SOIL 0-0.51, 350.58 41. CHLORTHAL-DIMETHYL (DCPA) METHYL TETRACHLOROTEREPHTHALATE H:PREEMERGENCE; W-75 0-0.51, 332 q(<0.24% HCN) 2,4 - D DICHLOROANILINE 162.03 71q- ETHYLENETHIOUREA (ETU) 102.17 M 203 FENAR1140L F; FOLIAR; 1-9 g AI/hqt (BC oil 331.2 117 IPR(JDIONE F; SURF.; 3-12 kg AI/ha oil 330.2 136 0 ISAZOFOS I&N; SURF.; 1-2(b AI/A 011; IRRIGATE 313.7 op= ISOFENPHOS ANE8 PLANT:ETHYLENETHIOUREA F; FOLIAR; @ 3.6 kg AI/ha 011q(x=Mn;y--Zn 265x+65y 192 NBC (CARBENDAZIM) F; SYSTEMIC; @400 9/ha Oil 191.2 302 MECOPROP; MCPP (POTASSIUM SALT) H;SYST.GROWTH-REG; 3.9kg/ha 0";AQ&FOREST 214.6 94- METALAXYL F; SYSTEMIC;vs.AIR&SOIL BORNE oil 279.3 71. OXADIAZON H; 2-4kg AI/ha; PRE-EMERG. oil 345.2 88- PENDIMETHALIN PROPANOCARB HCL (HYDROCHLORIDE) F; SYSTEMIC;SOIL/ROOT;FOLIAR 0-0.511 225(188) 45- PROPICONAZOLE F; SYSTEMIC;FOLIAR;250g AqI/ha oil 342.2 BP= QUINTOZENE; PCNB PENTACHLOROANAILINE;METHYLTHIO F; SEED OR SOIL TRMT. 061-0.511 295.3 146 TqHqIOPHANATE-METHYL PLANT -> NBC (CARBENDAZIM) F; 30-50g A1/hL oil 342.4(BC 172 TqHIRAM PLANT->ETU->THIURAM MONOSULFID F; FOLIAR OR SEED; FC,WP,DUSTS Oil 240.4 146 TRIADIMEFON F; SYSTEMIC&PROJ;125-250gAI/ha 01, 293.8(BC 82. TRICHLORFON TRICHLORO-2-PYRIDINOL TRICLOPYR It METHOXY-PYRIDINE;TCP SOIL TI H;FOL&ROOT SYSTEMIC;1-4-8kg/ha 01, 256.5 148 TABLE V.2 PESTICIDES ENVIRONMENTAL FATE CHARACTERISTICS (CONTINUED) PESTICIDE KOW K-DISTRIB KD-SAND KD-LOAM ANILAZINE 1020 (84q0 ENOIOCARB 50 (SC) f(SOIL) Sand S= 0.14; Sd= 0.6 (OL) CL= 1.14 (OL) ENFLURALIN; BENEFIN 195,000 (AC,OL) Sd(PH7.7)= 27 CLLm (pH6.9)= 117 ENSULIDE 16,500 (BC ENTAZONE 0.35 (B8qQ LmS=0.45 (OL) LmS=0.45;Heavy CL=0.176;C CARBARYL 1.38 (OL) CHLOROTHALONIL 758.6 (OL Sd= 3 Si= 29 CHLORPYRIFOS 50,119(OL);9.lE4(TDS SiLm2%OC=99.7; Lm6%OC=49. CHLORTHAL-DIMETHYL (DCPA) 2,4 - D DICHLOROANILINE ETHYLENETHIOUREA (ETU) FENARIMOL 2,512 (OL); 4,9OO(BC SdLm Kd=6.35 (OL) IPRODIONE 1,260 (80 0 ISAZOFOS; 6,309 (OL) 0.278q04q0 SiLm=2.37; Ct=3.92 (OL) ISOFENPHOS ANEB 0.205 (OL) I NBC (CARBENDAZIM) 36 (SC) MECOPROP; MCPP (POTASSIUM SALT) 1E-7 (OL); 1.26 @pH7 0.19 (OL); SdLm= 0.29 SiLm= 0.68; SiCqLLm= 0.43 METALAXYL Sd=0.43 (O4qW SdLmCI=1.4 (OL) OXADIAZON 63,100 (BC) PENDIMETHALIN PROPAMOCARB HCL (HYDROCHLORIDE) 0.0018 (88q0 PROPICONAZOLE QUINTOZENE; PCNB THIOPHANATE-METHYL 25 - (BC) 1.2 (BC) THIRAM TRIADIMEFON 1,510 (BC); 977(OL) 3.5-9(OL) 3.5-5.9 (OL) 5.9-9.3 (OL) TRICHLORFON TR I CHLORO- 2 - PYR I D I NOL TRICLOPYR 4.9 (OL) 0.975 (OL) SiLm=O.165;SdLm=O.57;C4qtL TABLE V.2 PESTICIDES ENVIRONMENTAL FATE CHARACTERISTICS (CONTINUED) PESTICIDE K-OC-SOIL PHOTO-SOIL PHOTO_H20 VAPOR PRESSURE WATER SOLU ANILAZINE 1000(SC ESTIMATE) 820 nPa (BC) 8 mg/L (BC BENDIOCARB 570 7.8 hr. 5E-6mm;3.5E-5mm(SCS);4.6mPa(OL 40ppm (EX/ BENFLURALIN; BENEFIN 11,000 (OL) UV DEG. 5.5 hrs. 3.7 mPa (VOLATILE) 0.1 ppm (0 DENSULIDE 1000est(SC REL.STABLE 4q0 33uPa@20C (EX; BE - 7mHg(SC 25mg/l (OL BENTAZONE STABLE DEG.<24 hr 0.46 mPa (BC) 500 mg/kg CARBARYL 200 (OL) 45hr@pH5(OL 1.2 E -6 Torr (OL) 120 mg/0ql @ CHLOROTHALONIL 1380(OL,SC STABLE <1.3Pa&40C(AC);2E-6m25(OL 0.6mg/L(RE CHLORPYRIFOS 6070(SC-GL 3-6d.(OL 2.5mPA(AC);1.7E5mHg(SC; VOLTL 2 mg/L 225 CHLORTHAL-DIMETHYL (DCPA) STABLE (OL) STABLE (OL) 2.1 E-6 TORR (OL) 0.5 ppin 4q(o 2,4 - D DICHLOROANILINE ETHYLENETHIOUREA (ETV) STABLE' STABLE 20 ppm (OL FENAR1140L 2,000(OL); 600(SC) STABLE 2.2E-7mmHg(SC); 0.013(nPa(BC) 13.7 mg/0qL IPRODIONE 700(SC); EST.EPA=lK DEG.1-2 wk DEG. 3-7d. <lE-7mmHg(sc); <0.133mPa(BC) 13 mg/t4q(BC C) AZOFOS Too (SC) 4.3 mPa (SC); 8.7E-5 m Ng(S4qQ 250mglL4q(*4q) ISOFENPHOS ANEB STABLE NEGLIGIBLE 0.5p eqgWL; c mane che8qL 0 MBC (CARBENDAZIM) STABLE <0.09ma(SC) &ng/L@pH7; ECOPROP; MCPP (POTASSIUM SALT) 5E-6mmHg (0a0; 0.3mPa (84q0 620 ppn (0 METALAXYL 50 (S4qQ; 35(GL) 0.293mPa@20C(A8qQ;5.6E-6mHgqmHg(SC) 0.7mg/L@20 PENDIMETHALIN PROPAMOCARS HCL (HYDROCHLORIDE) 1E+6 NON-SALT FORM STABLE STABLE c.OmmHg(SC;O.&nPa(SC;8OOmPa(AC 867g/L(BC, PROPICONAZOLE 100 (EST.DL);1000(SC STABLE DEG.in Id. O.13mPa@20C(A8qQ;4.2E-7mHg(SC) 110 mg/L QUINTOZENE; PCkB 6.6 mPa (VOLATILIZATION.LOSS) 0.44 mg/0ql THIOPHANATE-METHYL 1830(SC) <lE-7nvnHg(SC) 3.5mg/I8q(SC THIRAM 383 (OL) NEGLIGIBLE(B4qQ c. 30 mg/0qt TRIADIMEFON 1E+7q(EST.OL); 300(SC STABLE 10-12 hrs. 1.5E-&q=Hg(SC); 260mg/I8q(BC TRICHLORFON TRICHLORO-2-PYRIDINOL TRICLOPYR SiLrir-15; CiLw37(OL) <12 hrs. 0.168 MPA (AC) 440 mg/L table v112 pesticides environmental fate characteristics continued pesticed solidr sokl half life water half life palnt dr plant half life anilazine 12hr dampsoil 730-790hr @ph4-7 22hr ph9 bendiocarb lm2-4wk sdlm1-3dbc 5d sc lm2-3wk ol 46d ph548hr ph744min ph9 degrades rapid benfluralin benefin 2.5 8.2 wks ol 1-2 hrs ol bensulie 0.014-0.01 120-140dlmsdbcsc120 180d0 rel stable bntazonev stable to acid base hdrolys carbaryl 7-17d lmsdafc 7-14d sdlm225c 30daph6712dph7 2 4d natural water 100 dist h20 ol chlorothalonil 25-56d f h20t sdlm11d lm15d s137d stable 10wks fl 10dgleams chlophyrifos fsoil 11-14ld 2.5 wl 10ppm0 72daph5+ph7 16daph9 fph om 12hrcorn 303d chlortmal dimethyl dcpa 2-4wk 72%cl 25%si 4-7wk 60xsdol 24 d dichlordaniline ETHYLENETHIOUREA ETU 29-35D STABLE ANAEROBIC 149 D OL FEMWARIMOL 1YR 2MO-2YR F H20 AT APPLIC STABLE 20D AT PH6 1D AT PH9 iprodione 14d sc 15-45d ol f ph t acid stable 20d at ph61d at ph9 isazofos sdlm 34d sc cllm 60-90d ol 85at ph5 48atph7 19d at ph9 olcalc isofenphos manes lmsd dt50 c 25d bc dt50 24 hrs at ph 5-9 nbc carbendazim 1-5 mos approx bc 35d at ph5-7 124d at ph9 bc mecoprop mcpp potassium salt 7-9 d sdlm cl cllmol rel stable metalaxyl 70d sc 25d gl 200d at ph1 115d at ph9 12d ph10 10d gl pendimetmalin propanocarb hcl hydrochloride 30dsc 10-27d sc microb adapt acid stable propiconazole 70d ik 110d sc 5dacic stable irrig h20 1dol quintozene pcng very stable in soil ac stable in aciden deg in base thiophanate methyl 10d approx bc 1d ol stable ph5 aq deg cu complex deg mbc thiram ph6 1-2 wk ph7 4-5wk ol deg in air heat water deg to etu bc triadimefon 6d sicl 18dslm ol 26d sc 1 yr at all ph trichlorfow trichlorfow trichloro 2 pyridinol triclopyr 46d non leaching conditions TABLE VII.2 PESTICIDES - ENVIRONMENTAL FATE CHARACTERISTICS (continued) PESTICIDE PLANT WASHOFF % FIELD PERSISTENCE PERS. @ DEPTH & TIME MOBILITY SURFACE (I-5) ANILAZINE BENDIOCARB 0-6"soil @14-30d.Function(soil Rf=0.59Lm; Rf=0.83Sd (OL) BENFLURALIN; BENEFIN 4-8 mos. RES. ACTIVITY LARGE BENSULIDE 0-2"SOIL @ 4-12mos. NON-MOBILE IN SOIL BENTAZONE < 6 WKS. 4-8" @ 7 d. 94%LEACHEDc12"H2o;MOBILEinRUNO HIGH(OL) CARBARYL 1.2ppm-> 0.45(8d), 0.2(30d), <1d.SOIL,H20,SED.<1PPM Rf=0.2-0.46 Silm,MUCK 8%OM-Sdlm CV>LARGE (90%in1 .01(68d)(OL) 1.5%OM CHLOROTHALONIL 5% f(%SILT);NOT%OM; Sd.MOD;Si.LOW LARGE CHLORPYRIFOS 65% VOLATILE & WATER-PHOTOLYSIS TOP 2" SOIL LOWin>1%OC;LEACH in BASIC SOIL LARGE CHLORTHAL-DIMETHYL (DCPA) DT1/2>13 wk. SdLm (OL) Rf=0.0(no UV); Rf=0.75-0.9 <1%DCPA AND MTP (after light) (OL) LEACH 2,4 - D DICHLOROANILINE ETHYLENETHIOUREA (ETU) Rf=0.61; MED. MOBILITY (HA/EPA FENARIMOL FUNCTION OF WATER AFTER APPLIC Rf=0.02-0.05; NOT f(OM%, pH) MEDIUM IPRODIONE FUNCTION OF pH AND TEMPERATURE TOP 10 cm. SOIL MOBILE IN FINE, ACID SOILS MEDIUM ISAZOFOS 6-51% LEACHES MOBILE; FISH KILL POTENTIAL; ISOFENPHOS MANEB DECOMP.BY AIR, MOISTURE, HEAT ETU-MOBIL DEGREDATE LRG(TERSAN);MED MBC (CARBENDAZIM) DT50=1-5 mos. (BC) MBC IS REL.MOBILE MECOPROP; MCPP (POTASSIUM SALT) SMALL METALAXYL 70% FORMED DEGREDATE 99% @ 6-12cm SdClLm V.HIGH in SAND (70-90%LEACHES) SMALL OXADIAZON 96% @ 5cm. @ 16d. LOW MOBILITY IN SOIL PENDIMETHALIN PROPAMOCARB HCL (HYDROCHLORIDE) ACTIV.3-4WK;MICROB.ADAPT.5-56d IMMOBILE IN SOIL (OL) PROPICONAZOLE HIGH MOBILITY IN SAND MEDIUM QUINTOZENE; PCNB PERSISTENT; (4-10 mos. (AC)) LOW MOBILITY IN SOIL THIOPHANATE-METHYL SEE MBC; < 1 d. in SdLm, ClLm PARENT & MBC DEG. ARE MOBILE SMALL THIRAM THIOPH. 1-2 wks.ALL SOILS (OL) LARGE TRIADIMEFON 0-6"@5-8mos(Lm); 6-12"@9-29mos 0-6" sand @ 5mos. AGED RES.LEACH; Rf=0.16-0.28( MEDIUM TRICHLORFON TRICHLORO-2-PYRIDINOL TRICLOPYR >6" @ >20 d. TABLE VII.2 PESTICIDES - ENVIRONMENTAL FATE CHARACTERISTICS (continued) PESTICIDE LEACHING (I-5) ANILAZINE MOBILE BENDIOCARB BENFLURALIN; BENEFIN SMALL BENSULIDE BENTAZONE HIGH(OL) CARBARYL CHLOROTHALONIL FROM NON-SILTY CHLORPYRIFOS FROM BASIC SOIL CHLORTHAL-DIMETHYL (DCPA) 2,4 - D DICHLOROANILINE ETHYLENETHIOUREA (ETU) FENARIMOL SMALL IPRODIONE FROM ACID SOIL ISAZOFOS LARGE ISOFENPHOS MANEB SMALL MBC (CARBENDAZIM) MECOPROP: MCPP (POTASSIUM SALT) LARGE METALAXYL MEDIUM; Sd.HIGH OXADIAZON SMALL (OL) PENDIMETHALIN PROPAMOCARB HCL (HYDROCHLORIDE) SMALL (OL) PROPICONAZOLE MEDIUM; Sd.HIGH QUINTOZENE; PCNB THIOPHANATE-METHYL MEDIUM THIRAM SMALL TRIADIMEFON MEDIUM TRICHLORFON TRICHLORO-2-PYRIDINOL TRICLOPYR Table VII.2 Pesticides - Environmental Fate Characteristics (continued) GROUND WATER LEACHING CRITERIA Water Solubility: IS > 30 mg/l (ppm) Distribution Coefficient: Kd < 5 Adsorption Coefficient: Dads < 5 Soil (Organic Carbon) Distribution Coefficient: Kox < 300 Photolysis Half-life (UV): T(h) > 1 week Hydrolysis Half-life: T(k) > 25 weeks Soil Half Life: T(k) > 3 weeks (Aerobic metabolism) Persistence: > 12 weeks ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) Toxicity Pesticide Use (amount and site) GW/aquifer/well sensitivity Ch. 7-12 Pesticide Use on New Jersey Golf Courses Frequency of use Figure VII.1 Freguency of Pesticide Use on New Jersey Golf Courses Pesticide Ch lorothalon i ............ ......... .. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. ............ .......... lprodione::::::,::, ..................................... ........... ........... .................... ......... ..... ....................... ....... ............ ............ ................... ................ ........ Propamocarb ........... - --- -- ................... ...... .......... . .. ........... .... ............................... .......... ........... ................ ............. .. ............. ............................... M a n c o z e b 1111111 i ..................... ..................... ............ .......... . ... ............ ............. ............. ............. .... .. ......... ...... ...... .................. .......... ............... ........... ............................ ............ ........ ... ........ ......................... ............... ........... ........... .......... .............. ............ ................... ............ ............ ............. T h i ra m ........... ............ . . . . . . . . . . . .................. .. ..... . . . . . . .......... ............ II ... ......... ........ .................. . ............ .............. ........ ................. ....... ......................... . .......... ................ ........ Anilazine:::"*' ....................... .. ........ ............ ................ ....... . .............. ....... .... ......... ..... ... ..... ........ ................ ............... ... ................ .............. ............... ............. ............: .... . .............. Chlorthal-Dimethyl; ................ ..... ........... ............ . ........ '80 60 40 20 0 80 160 240 320 % of Courses Avg. Lbs. /course Chapter 8. Recycled Materials The use of recycled materials in the construction of a golf course is encouraged in order to conserve natural resources and to decrease society's production of solid wastes. Some specifics concerning the use of recycled material in the construction of a golf course are: A. New Jersey's Department of Transportation allows 1-5 aggregate used in roadway subbase construction to be produced from recycled concrete aggregate. For information concerning DOT's regulations please call the Department of Transportation at (609) 530-2098. B. The Bureau of Market Development, Source Reduction, and County Planning (BMDSR&CP) has been encouraging the use of'recycled materials under the condition that the effectiveness of the recycled material has been fully examined and considered. Recycled materials may be applicable for various structures at the golf courses including cart paths, some structures requiring wood, drainage applications, etc. For a list of recycled materials suitable for such applications and for information concering the substitution of virgin materials for recycled materials in the construction and maintenance of golf courses, please call BSRMD&CP at (609) 530- 8207. Ch. 8-1 C. The DSWM also recommends that whenever possible, recycled materials be utilized in the construction and maintenance of the golf course. Potential applications include the following: a. Recycled plastic pilings and structural building components used in cartpaths or for landscaping throughout the golfcourse particularly in wet areas; b. Recycled plastic automobile tire stops in parking lots; c. Recycled concret,,i aggregate or asphalt millings in parking lot or cart path construction; d. Recycled wood chips/mulch used in landscaping; e. Sludge derived products (pelletized fertilizers, liming agents, and compost) incorporated into the management of a golf course. (Note: Because sludge derived products are regulated under certain situations, further information should be obtained from the Residuals Management Permits Section at (609) 633-3823.) D. The National Standard Plumbing Code was rcently amended to allow the use of "crushed-recycled glass aggregate" in the construction of subsoil drains around the perimeter of all buildings having basements, cellars, or crawl spaces or floors below grade. (See appendix E) Ch. 8-2 E. Other recycled materials which may have potential use at a golf course for drainage purposes are currently being tested. The study results will be available to the public when the testing has been completed. The candidate recycled materials are crushed container glass (e.g. green and mixed color glass) and recycled concrete aggregate. Potential areas for application of these recycled materials would be the subsurface drainage layer of greens. F. For recyclable solid waste generated at the golf course, such as tree stumps, the Division of Solid Waste Management (DSWM) advises that regulation at NJAC 7:26A-1.1 et seq. require it be sent to one of the State's approved recycling centers. A current list of these centers and the materials they accept for recycling can be obtained by calling DSWM at (609) 530-8591. Ch. 8-3 chapter 9. Regulatory Authority Although other statutes are not excluded in determining the statutory and regulatory authority by which golf course construction is regulated in New Jersey, four state statutes related to the Land Use Regulation Program can be applied depending on the location and overall scope of the project. Each of the four statutes, as explained below, requires that specific findings be made to ensure that the resources of the area, including water quality, are not negatively impacted. I. The Coastal Area Facility Review Act, N.J.S.A.13:19-1 et seq. requires that certain sized facilities within a designated coastal area extending South along the coast from Middlesex/Monmouth to Salem/Cumberland counties receive a permit prior to the commencement of construction. While Golf Courses per se, are not one of the regulated activities, they are often associated with development of greater than 25 or more dwelling units which are regulated under the CAFRA Statute. Another measure also used in determining if a CAFRA Permit is required is proposed length of sewer, road construction or parking, which may be associated with golf course construction. outside of the designated CAFRA area, development including golf courses within 100-500 feet of a tidal waterway is regulated by the Waterfront Development Law N.J.S.A. 12:5-3. In each case, under either the CAFRA or the Waterfront Development Law an application is reviewed for consistency with the Rules on Coastal Zone Management N.J.A.C. 7:7E. These rules contain specific and detailed parameters set out in a framework of Location, Use and Resource Policies. Some Ch. 9-1 commonly encountered policies likely to pertain to golf course construction and management are as follows: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife or Vegetation K.J.A.C. 7:7E-3.38 and Critical Wildlife Habitat, N.J.A.C. 7:7E-3.38, are certain habitats, ecotones or edges between two types of habitats, which deserve protection from development which would adversely impact these areas. Water Quality, N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.4, requires that developments not violate water quality requirements under the Clean Water Act and recognizes that most of New Jersey's natural resources are directly affected by the quality of their surface and ground waters. a Surface and Groundwater Use, N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.5 and 6 require that any proposed work which shall utilize either surface or ground water would not exceed the ground water capacity nor alter the present surface water flow patterns or degrade the quality of the resource. Stormwater Runoff, N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.7 pertains to the maximization of surface water recharge utilizing best available management practices to ensure long term water quality protection. Regulated golf courses a@re required to provide a series of assurances through ground and surface water monitoring that no degradation of the water resources will be experienced. Vegetation, N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.8 entails the careful siting of a facility to minimize the physical disturbance of a site and maximize the retention of existing plant material. Uses of indigenous shrub and tree species are promoted through this policy. Important Wildlife Habitat, N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.9, habitats, which provide needed food and cover, are dependent on good Ch. 9-2 water quality to ensure maximum wildlife productivity. Any development that alters these sites without management techniques which minimize the impact, is discouraged. The Buffers and Compatibility of Uses Policy, N.J.A.C. 7:7E- 8.13, identifies the important function of set aside or buffer areas in order to protect the integrity of significant natural resources and current land uses. II. The Flood Hazard Area Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50, requires a stream encroachment permit for certain activities within the flood hazard area. The Rules and Regulations Governing the Flood Hazard Area are identified as N.J.A.C. 7:13-1.1 et.seq. The purpose and scope of the Act are as follows: A. The general purpose of the Act is to control construction and other developmental activities in stream channels and in areas subject to flooding in order to avoid or mitigate detrimental effects of such activities. B. The regulation's intention is to minimize losses and damage to public and private property caused by land uses and channel modifications which, at times of flood, increase flood heights and/or velocities; to safeguard the public from the dangers and damages caused by materials being swept onto nearby or downstream lands; to protect and enhance the public's health and welfare by minimizing the degradation of stream water quality from point and non-point pollution sources, and to protect wildlife and fisheries by preserving and enhancing water quality and the environment of thestream channel and floodplain. Ch. 9-3 C. Without proper controls, stream encroachments may adversely affect the flood carrying capacity of the stream, may create new facilities within areas subject to floods, may reduce natural flood storage that the flood plain provides, and may result in increased sedimentation, erosion, or other environmental damage. Any stream encroachment must conform to certain criteria which depend upon the characteristics of the area and the type of activity involved. The Stream Encroachment Permit is required whether the work is permanent or temporary. Examples of regulated work include removal of vegetation alonq a stream bank or a stream crossing, the construction-of culverts, outfall structures, detention basins, stormwater discharge, wetland fill, grading, etc. The Flood Hazard Area regulations apply to all stream encroachments within the flood hazard area and the 100 year flood plains within the State of New Jersey, at locations having a drainage area of over 50 acres and all Projects of Special Concern as defined in N.J.A.C. 7:13-5. The Regulations also apply to all perennial trout associated streams. A Project of Special Concern is a classification for a stream encroachment project which, because of its adverse impacts, will be subject to the special conditions described in N.J.A.C. 7:13-5. Activities which are proposed on a perennial stream that will channelize that stream for over 100 feet, disturb a distance over 300 feet on either side of a bridge or culvert, or remove 6,000 sq ft of existing woodlands within 25 feet of the banks will be classified as a project of special concern. In addition, stream encroachment projects which the Department determines would be likely to produce Ch. 9-4 serious adverse effects on the water resources of the State shall also be handled as Projects of Special Concern. Such effects shall include, but are not limited to the following: b. Potential serious adverse effects on the biota of the stream, the adjoining wetlands, or on sites where dredged spoils are to be disposed of including, but not limited to rare or endangered species. No. Potential serious degradation of water quality below the Department's Surface Water Quality Standards. 10. Potential serious adverse effects on water resources including, but not limited to, adverse effects on potable water supplies, flooding, drainage, channel stability, navigation, energy production, municipal, industrial, or agricultural water supplies, fisheries or ' recreation. Such impacts include damage to potential as well as existing water users. Projects of Special Concern always include stream encroachment applications requiring the loss of more than 6,000 square feet of vegetation within 50 feet of the banks of trout associated streams or the construction of low dams across perennial, trout associated streams, except for the reconstruction or repair of existing dams. In addition, stream encroachment projects causing exposure of acid producing deposits along Taore than 50 feet of stream channel, if the drainage area of the stream is greater than 50 acres, will also be classified as a Project of Special Concern. However, this applies to smaller streams if the stream is trout associated and if the stream is perennial. These regulations also do not apply to activities along the Delaware and the Raritan Canal except insofar as such Ch. 9-5 activities affecting streams that flow into, over, under, or parallel to the canal; nor do they apply to most tidal waterbodies where a Waterfront Development Permit is issued. III. Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (N.J.S.A. 13:9B-1 et seq.) Freshwater wetlands are protected under the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act because it has been determined that: freshwater wetlands protect and preserve drinking water supplies by serving to purify surface water and ground water resources; freshwater wetlands provide a natural means of flood and storm damage protection, and thereby prevent the loss of life and property through the absorption and storage of water during high runoff periods and the reduction of flood crests;-freshwater wetlands serve as a transition zone between dry land and water courses, thereby retarding soil erosion; freshwater wetlands provide essential breeding, spawning, nesting and wintering habitats for a major portion of the State's fish and wildlife, including migrating birds, endangered species, and commercially and recreationally important wildlife; and that freshwater wetlands maintain a critical baseflow to surface waters through the gradual release of stored flood waters and ground water, particularly during drought periods. Transition (or buffer) areas are regulated under the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act because it has been determined that a transition area serves as an ecological transition zone from uplands to freshwater wetlands. The transition area is an integral portion of the freshwater wetlands ecosystem, providing temporary refuge for freshwater wetland fauna during high water episodes, critical habitat for animals dependent upon but not resident in freshwater wetlands. Such an.area provides slight variations of Ch. 9-6 freshwater wetland boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatologic effect; and a sediment and stormwater control zone to reduce the impacts of development upon freshwater wetlands and freshwater wetland species. Golf courses are not specifically listed under the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act as a regulated activity. They end up being regulated when the applicant proposes a regulated activity within a freshwater wetlands or transition area (wetlands buffer). The following is a list of regulated activities within wetlands as set forth in N.J.A.C. 7:7A-2.3 and the list of regulated activities in transition areas as set forth in N.J.A.C. 7:7A-6.2: A. Wetlands 1. The removal, excavation, disturbance or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, or aggregate material of any kind; 2. The drainage or disturbance of the water level or water table; 3. The dumping, discharging or filling with any materials; 4. The placing of obstructions; 5. The destruction of plant life which would alter the character of a freshwater wetland, including the cutting of trees except for the approved harvesting of forest products pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:7A-2.7(b); and 6. The term "regulated activity" shall also mean the discharge of dredged or fill material into State open waters. B. Tran.sition Area 1. Removal, excavation, or disturbance of the soil; 2. Dumping or filling with any materials; 3. Erection of structures; 4. Placement of pavements; and Ch. 9-7 5. Destruction of plant life which would alter the existing pattern of vegetation. An example of a regulated activity commonly associated with a golf course is the construction of a stormwater outfall structure in the wetlands. These outfalls usually discharge waters from a "water hazard area" or detention/retention basin located on the golf course. In reviewing a freshwater wetland application, the Department would consider disturbance of wetlands, transition areas, state open waters, water quality and hydrological changes. In summary, wetlands and transition areas perform essential functions which range from acting as ground water recharge zones to habitat for numerous flora and fauna. Protection of these resources is mandated by the Act and when issuing a permit to disturb these areas the State must be confident that their long term functions have not been sacrificed for development. Therefore monitoring of project sites after construction allows the State two main pieces of information. One is the short-term verification of the success of the stormwater management plan. The other is the collection of data to assess the long-term impacts of development on these sensitive resources. With this information the Program is better able to appraise the impa cts a proposed project may have on the wetlands and transition areas and the resources associated with them. Ch. 9-8 Chapter 10. References Arnold, J.G., Williams, J.R. Griggs, R.H., Sammons, N.B., 1991, SWRRBWQ, A Basin Scale model for Assessing Management Impacts on Water Quality. USDA. Balogh, J., and Walker, W., 1992. Golf Course Management and Construction: Environmental Issues. Lewis Publish- ers. Chelsea, Mi. 951 pp. Beard, James, 1973. Turfqrass Science and Culture Prentice Hall. New York, N.Y. 672 pp. Cohen, S.Z., Nickerson, S., Maxey, R., Dupuy A., and Senita, J.A. 1990. A Ground Water Monitoring Study for Pesticides and Nitrate Associated With Golf Courses on Cape Cod. Ground Water Monitoring Review. Winter, p. 160-173. Horsley, S.W. and Moser, J.A.@, 1990, Monitoring Ground Water for Pesticides at a Golf Course - A Case Study on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, Ground Wa;@er Monitoring Reviw, Winter, p. 101-108. Knisel, 1980, CREAM Model (Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems), USDA. Leslie, Anne, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988. "Development of an IPM Program for Turfgrass". Integrated Pest Management for Turfgrass and ornamentals, August. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE), Bureau of Water Supply Planning, 1992. "Ground Water Protection Practices for Urban\Suburban Landscaping". June. NJDEPE, Office of Regulatory Policy, 1992 "Stormwater and Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Best Management Practices Manual", Final Draft. NJDEPE, Pesticide Control Program, 1992. "Survey of Pesticide Use on Golf Courses". August. Petrovic A. M., 1990. The Fate of Nitrogenous Fertilizers Applied to Turfgrass. J. Environ. Qual. 19:1-14.. Petrovic, A. Martin, Cornell University, 1989. "Golf Course Management and Nitrates in Groundwater". Golf Course Management, September. Powell, R. 0. and Jollie, J. B., 1990. Environmental Guidelines for the Design and Maintenance of Golf Courses, Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management, Baltimore county, Maryland, November 15., Ch. 10-1 Sherman, R.C., 1985. "Turfgrass Culture and Water Use". in Gibeault, V.A. and Cockerham, S.T. (Eds.) Turfgrass Water Conservation. University'of California, Riverside, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, p. 61-70. Shoemaker, L.L., Magette, W.L. and A. Shirmohammadi. 1990. Modeling management practice effects on pesticide movement to ground water. Ground Water Monitoring Review, 10 #1: P. 109-115. Stack, Lois, University of Maine, 1991. "Low Chemical Landscape .Management on a Golf Course". The Grass Roots, July/August. Triad Environmental Associates, Inc., 1990. "Environmental Impacts of Fertilizers Used on Golf Courses: A Review". Prepared for River Vale Realty Company, August. Watschke, Thomas L. and Mumma, Ralph 0., 1990, Environmental Resources Research Institute in Cooperation with Pennsylvania State University. "The Effect of Nutrients and Pesticides Applied to Turf on the Quality of Runoff and Percolating Water", February. Watson, J.R., Jr., 1985. "Water Resources in the United States". in Gibault, V.A. and Cockerham, S.T. (Eds.)Turfgrass Water Conservation. University of California, Riverside, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, p. 61-70. Welterlen, M.S., Gross, C.M., Angle, J.S. and Hill, R.L. 1989. "Surface Runoff from Turf". in Leslie, A.R. and Metcalf,,R.L. (Eds.) Integrated Pest Management for Turfqrass and Ornamentals. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Youngner, V.B., 1970. "Turfgrass Varieties and Irrigation Practices". Golf Superintendant. Ch. 10-2 I s- endix A. vp Example of Modeling Simulation for a Proposed Golf Course Pollution Prevention Assessment for the Proposed "Greens at Galloway" Development, Galloway Township, Atlantic County, NJ Prepared by Office of Regulatory Policy Standards and Systems Analysis Program NJDEPE May 1992 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Standards and Systems Analysis Program 'Within the office of ReTilatory Policy acknowledges those individuals who participated in the completion of this report. The following personnel were responsible for completing this project with contributions from the following: Shing-Fu Hsueh, Ph.D., P.E.J. P.P., Assistant Administrator - Overall Management and Policy Direction Dhun B. Patel, Ph.D., Acting Section Chief - Administrative Assistance and Report Review Phillip Liu, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist II - Coordinator and Principal Investigator - Coordination, Supervision, Technical Guidance, and Modeling. Tom Cosmas, Senior Environtlental Specialist - Soil and Nutrient Modeling Margaret Elsis hans, Senior Environmental Specialist Pesticide Modeling. Land Use Regulation Program Providing Site Plan and related Information. Standards and Criteria Section, Standards and Systems Analyses Program - Providing Waterway Classification and Criteria for Pesticides. POLLUTION PREVENTION ASSXSSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED "GREENS AT GALLOWAY" DEVELOPMENT, GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP, ATLANTIC COUNTY, NJ I. INTRODUCTION Plans for a proposed residential development, which would include a golf course in Galloway Township, Atlantic County were submitted to the Department for review. The property to be developed is approximately 371 acres in size; 123 acres would be residential, 91 acres would consist of an 18 hole golf course and the remaining acreage falls under the categories of wetlands, buffers, etc. The developers received a use variance from the Township to develop the golf course on land designated within the Township as open conservation. II. OBJECTIVE After the plans for the Greens at Galloway Development were received by the Department, the Land Use Regulation Program requested that the Standards-and Systems Analysis Program (SSAP), within the office of Regulatc 'ry Policy, review the proposed development plans. The objective of SSAP's review was to assess the water quality impact of a golf course development on the proposed site which is adjacent to a Category One waterway within the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (EFNWR). III. STUDY AREA The proposed 371 acre development is situated in the northeast corner of a 1,948 acre drainage basin. The Doughty Creek borders the northern border of the proposed development area and an unnamed creek borders the eastern side of the proposed development area. These two creeks, which are surrounded by wetlands, join together in the northeast corner of the proposed development and drain into Lily Lake which abuts and discharges directly into the Category One waterway in EFNWR. The distance between the juncture of the two creeks and the boundaries of the EFNWR is approximately one-third of a mile (Figure 1). As per N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.15(c), the EFNWR has a surface water classification of FW2-NTISEI (Category 1). This classification designates bodies of water in which "No measurable change" is allowed (including calculable or predicted,changes).to the existing water quality. The Doughty Creek and the unnamed creek will receive runoff and/or overflow waters from the proposed development and are located upstream of this Category 1 (Cl) waterway. Therefore, the creek water quality must be maintained at a level which will not violate standards and will not cause any measurable (calculable or predicted) change to the C1 water quality downstream. it was noted that an Oceanville Bog lies just beyond the 'wetlands buffer' -to the proposed Galloways development. The wetlands classification for the bog ranges from a scrub/shrub mixture of conifer & deciduous trees on saturated soils to stands of white cedar in seasonally to semipermanent wet soils. IV. SOIL and LAND USES Soil information was obtained from the local Atlantic County Agricultural Extension Service and the Soil Survey of Atlantic County, New Jersey Soil Book. The major soil types composing the development are Sassafras, a sandy loam and Dower, a loamy sand. The soils coverage for the basin was obtained by digitizing@the Ocean County SCS Soil Survey maps on the NJDEPE GIS (Geographic Information System). A summary s-oil series frequency table for the whole basin (Table 1.) was derived from this combined coverage. To obtain the area of each soil series in each subcatchment, a detailed frequency table (Table 2.) was consolidated. From this table it was found that of the nine soils present two soils represented approximately 61% of the total area. Sassafras soils represented 33% and Downer soils represented 28% of the total basin. Since these two soils have similar physical characteristics, rather than calculate a composite value for the various soil characteristics for each subcatchment, Sassafras was chosen as the typical soil for the entire basin for modeling purposes. Pre-development, the 1,948 acre drainage basin contains 5 sub- basins which eventually drain into Lily Lake (Figure Ia.). Post development, due to the construction of residential and golf course which will cause a topographical alteration, the area will contain 19 new smaller sub-basins to control and direct water runoff (Figure 1b.). Eighteen of the newly created subbasins would contain portions of the golf course; only one sub-basin would be completely residential. Based on the drainage plans of the golf course, the proposed ten ponds are designed to primarily catch runoff from golf @course which are composed of 10 sub-basins as shown in Figure 1. The remainder of the 19 sub-basins drain directly offsite into the two creeks flowing by the study area. In short, the 19 subbasins drain into either a pond or drain offsite into one of the two creeks draining into Lily Lake. Through regrouping into 'pond' and 'non-pond' catchments, the area represented by each land cover in each subbasin was determined and is shown in Tablc 3. IE3 9-:50 ... . ....... ........ ...... .. ............... 7 IE3-4 /4 j 1.21 IE3a . .... ....... .. ..... ..... 10 .9 IE3 I- Figure 1. b. Proposed site Plan for Greens at Galloways and development subcatchment delineation superimposed on the.pre-development subbasin delineation. -&-t,k@nr nar&-ar- areen tines a ore-devatopment subbesins, and btue tines - strewn and ponds) j ..... ...... 1131-3 IE3 .... ............. ............. . . ..... .......... Figure 1. a. Pre- Greens at Galloways subbasin delineation and location of the proposed development. Table 2. Soils & Land Use Data for Each Catchment Basin Above Lily Lake, Galloway Township, NJ (Total = 1948.97 Acres). Acres of Soil for Each Percentage of Sub- Subbasin basin L U Soil Soil Lnd Use Subbas Soil/ Soil/ L U/ Name Name Series Series Total Total Total Lnd Use Total Bl Glf AmB 0.10 0.02 0.17 ArB 1.52 0.25 2.68 DoA 4.04 0.67 7.14 HaA 6.99 1.17 12.36 KmA 11.94 1.99 21.11 SaB 31.98 56.56 5.33 56.53 9.43 Opn ArB 76.85 12.82 16.76 DoA 147.25 24.55 32.12 HaA 92.69 15.46 20.21 KmA 60.81 10.14 13.26 SaA 10.82 1.80 2.36 SaB 70.09 458.50 11.69 15.29 76.46 Res ArB 22.24 3.71 26.27 DoA 24.59 4.10 29.06 HaA 13.29 2.22 15.71 KmA, 6.87 1.14 8.11 SaB 17.64 84.63 599.69 2.94 20.85 14.11 B2 Opn ArB 35.99 32.58 32.58 DoA 3.36 3.04 3.04 HaA 1.94 1.76 1.76 KmA 10.08 9.12 9.12 SaB 59.07 110.44 110.44 53.49, 53.49 100.00 B3 Opn Ac 10.69 3.88 4.04 ArB 11.89 4.31 4.49 DoA 148.20 53.76 56.02 HmA 11.95 4.33 4.52 KmA 0.01 0.00 0.00 MU 3.72 1.35 1.40 SaB 78.12 264.57 28.34 29.53 95.97 Res DoA 0.68 0.25 6.13 SaB 10.43 11.11 275.68 3.78 93.87 4.03 Table 1. Pro-Development Soil Asiociation Acreage Area in Acres Soil Series Seaview Symbol Name Golf Crse Open Res S/F Total At Atsion 41-26 41.26 AmB,ArB Aura 1.62 270.55 43.69 315.85 DoA Downer 4.04 472.12 72.00 548.16 EvB Evesboro 2.53 2.89 5.41 HaA,HmA Hammofiton 6.99 227.84 27-27 262.10 KmA Klej 11.94 72.62 11.62 96.18 MU Muck 24.35 1.29 25.64, P0 Pocomoke 3.33 0.45 3.78 SaB Sassafras 31.98 550.62 68.00 650.60 Total 56.56 1665.20 227.21 1948.97 Percent Total Area of Basin Soil Series Seaview Symbol Name Open Res S/F Golf Crse Total At Atsion 2.12 2.12 AinB,ArB Aura <0.01 13.88 2.24 16.21 DoA Downer 0.21 24.22 3.69 28.13 EvB Evesboro 0.13 0.15 0.28 HaA,HmA Hammonton 0.36 11.69 1.40 13.45 KTnA Klej 0.61 3.73 0.60 4.93 MU Muck 1.25 0.07 1.32 P0 Pocomoke 0.17 0.02 0.19 SaB Sassafras 1.64 28.25 3.49 33.38 Table 3. Comparison of Pre- and Post- Greens at Galloway Golf Course Dbvelopment Land Use Distribution A. Study Area Land Use Distribution (Acres) Total Subbasin Open Res Turf Ponded All Non-Ponded la 499.83 84.63 15.23 0.00 599.69 599.69 lb 478.55 85.61' 15.23 20.31 599.69 579.38 2a 110.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 110.44 110.44 2b 43.43 12.25 44.91 9.85 110.44 100.59 3a 264.57 11.11 0.00 0.00 275-68 275.68 3b 157.46 22.72 1.70 93.80 275.68 181.88 4a 551.13 64.02 0.00 0.00 615.15 615.15 4b 458.80 126.57 15.46, 14.32 615.15 600.83 5a 280.78 67.45 0.00 0.00 348.23 348.23 5b 279.62 68.24 0.37 0.00 348.23 348.23 1 1 B. Percent of Non-Pond Area Subbasin 1 Turf acreage derived from the tees, Subbasin Open Res Turf fairways and greens distribution in the la 83.35% 14.11% 2.54% proposed Greens at lb 82.60% 14.78% 2.63% Galloways: 2a 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Galloways Golf Course Seaview 2b 43.17% 12.18% 44.65% Land Use Distribution G C 3a 95.97% 4.03% 0.00% Acres Percent Acres 3b 86.57% 12.49% 0.94% - F&T 50.24 25.87 14.63 4a. 89.59% 10.41% 0.00% G 2.04 1.05 0.59 4b 76.36% 21.07% 2.57% RGH 141.92 73.08 41.33 5a 80.63% 19.37% 0.00% TotalI194.20 56.56 5b 80.30% 19.60% 0.11% Note: Res Residential Area (may include commercial), Turf Fairways, Tees and Greens, RGH = Rough Open All remaining area (includes golf course rough), F&T- Fairways & Tees, G =Greens, a pre-development, b post-development. Table 2. Soils Lznd Use Data for Each Catchment (cont.) (Total 1948.97 Acres). Acres of Soil for Each Percentage of Sub- . Subbasin basin L U Soil Soil Lnd Use Subbas Soil/ Soil/ L U/ Name Name Series Series Total Total Total Lnd Use Total B4 Opn Ac 14.67 2.38 2.66 ArB 130.79 21.26 23.73 DoA' 90.11 14.65 16.35 HaA 9.83 1.60 1.78 HmA 71.25 11.58 12.93 KmA 1.72 0.28 0.31 Mu 7.32 1.19 1.33 SaA 83.25 13.53 15.11 SaB 142.17 551.lj 23.11 25.80 89.59 Res ArB 21.45 3.49 33.51 DoA 26.08 4.24 40.73 HaA 0.08 0.01 0.12. HmA 1.91 .0.31 2.99 KmA 4.75 0.77 7.42 SaA 9.75 64.02 615.15 1.59 15.23 10.41 B5 Opn Ac, 15.90 4.57 5.67 ArB 15.02 4.32 5.36 DoA 83.18 23.90 29.65 EvB 2.53 0.73 0.90 _HaA 36.21 10.40 12.91 HmA 3.97 1.14 1.42 MU 13.32 3.83 4.75 Po 3.33 0.96 1.19 SaB 107.09 280.56 30.77 38.17 80.62 Res DoA 20.66 5.94 30.62 EvB 2.89 0.83 4.28 HaA 11.99 3.45 17.78 MU 1.29 0.37 1.91 P0 0.45 0.13 0.67. SaB 30.18 67.45 348.01 8.67 44.75 19.38 Note: "Glf = Seaview Country Club & Golf Course Opn = Open space (i.e. not residential or golf course) Res = Primarily single-family residential area; , may include commercial/industrial development. V.1.1 Database and input information A. Pesticides The following list of pe sticides to be used at the golf course was submitted by the developers: HERBICIDES FUNGICIDFS INSECTICIDES MCPP Benomyl Chlorpyrifos Bensulide Iprodione Oxadiazon Triadimefon Maneb Anilazine Metalaxyl Thiram In this study, five of@the above pesticides were selected for simulation due to the availability of the data.. The five pesticides run through PRZM were: Chlorpyrifos, Maneb, Bensulide, Benomyl and Metalaxyl. Application rates were supplied-by the permittee. Fungicides are to be applied monthly from May through September. Insecticides are to be applied as needed with a one time application to the fairways. Herbicides are to be applied twice a year. Pesticide application dosages used in the model were the percent active ingredient present. The simulation duration for the pesticides were 3 consecutive years with an exception of Chlorpyrifos which was simulated with various design storm events. In summary, the scenarios for pesticides are: a. Chlorpyrifos - Chlorpyrifos is an insecticide which is proposed to be used on the greens and fairways of the golf course. The scenarios conducted for Chlorpyrifos were one application each at the rates of 1 lb/acre, 4 lb/acre and 8 lb/acre immediately prior to design storm events. b. BENOMYL - Benomyl is a fungicide which is to be used at the golf course on greens, tees and fairways. Benomyl is to be applied once per month from May through September for three consecutive years. As per the technical data sheet, Benomyl is toxic to fish. Benomyl is not to be applied where runoff is likely to occur. The.96 hour LC50 for rainbow trout is 0.41 ppm. c. BENSULIDE - Bensulide is an herbicide which is to be used at the golf course on greens, tees and fairways. Bensulide is to be applied two times per year for three years. As per the Material Safety Data Sheet untreated V. MATERIAL-and METHODS In or der to evaluate the quality and quantity of the runoff water from the proposed development site entering the Doughty Creek which eventually flows into the'EFNWF, two computer models, STORM (Storage, Treatment, Overflow, Runoff Model) and PRZM (Pesticide Root Zone Model), and one desktop groundwater model were selected to assess the pesticides and nutrients impact on receiving water via surface runoff and ground water seepage. In order to ensure pollution prevention to the downstream Category One water, the simulated scenarios were conducted.with conservative assumptions. For instance, a pesticide or nutrient application followed by a severe rainfall was a scenario used for analysis. Based on consultation with the USGS, the MA7CD10 flow at the confluence of the Doughty Creek and the unnamed creek is 1.1 cfs which was used as a basis for instream impact analysis. V.1 PRZX PRZM, an EPA model, is primarily used to determine pesticide chemical movement and hydrol?gy in the soil. The pesticide runoff flux (in grams per cm of soil) and water runoff (in cm) are the simulation outputs from PRZM. From these two pieces of information and proposed acreage of greens, tees and fairways within a particular subbasin to which the pesticide would be applied, the amount of pesticide and volume of water the ppb is then calculated. The information required for producing pesticide runoff flux includes: pesticide soil decay rate, pesticide application rates, pesticide foliar washoff rates, the formulation of pesticide applied, etc. The.data required for computing the runoff are rainfall data, soil data, and crop data of the site. The resources of required input data used for this simulation are presented in Appendix B. A more detailed discussion of the inputs follows. The rainfall data used for simulation of the Chlorpyrifos are 1-year, 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25 year, 50-year and 100-year design 24 hour type III storms. C. PRZX DATA INPUT (1). Control Parameters Time Series daily Number of Chemicals 5 Number of Compartments 50 (2). Hydrology Parameters Pan Factor (estimates ET) .77 Min. depth to extract evap. 17.5 CM Ave. dly hrs of daylight/mnth 10.00 10 .50 11.80' 13.10 14.20 14.70 14.4 13.90 12.20 11-00 9.80 9.20 Maximum interception storage of crop .30 Maximum active root depth of crop 90 cm Maximum Areal Coverage of crop 85% Runoff Curve Number (:.N) 61 (3@. Pesticide Parameters Pesticide Washoff Foliar decay Plant uptake Decay precp. rate rate rate Bensulide n/a n/a .069 .012 Metalaxyl .07 .70 .010 .027 Maneb .28 .10 .280 .023 Benomyl .11 .25 .660 .069 Chlorpyrifos .288 .10 .781 .023 (4). Pesticide names and applications: Bensulide (Herbicide): Greens 2 applications/year @ 14 kg/ha/appl Tees & Fairways 2 applications/year @ 3.34 kg/ha/appl Benomyl (Fungicide): Greens, Tees S.applications/year Fairways @ 1.590 kg/ha/appl Maneb (Fungicide): Greens 5 applications/year @ 9.7 kg/ha/appl Tees & Fairways 5 applications/year @ 4.48 kg/ha/appl effluent should not be discharged where it w-i.il drain into lakes, streams, or ponds. Bensulide is not to be applied where runoff is to occur. d. METALAXYL - Metalaxyl is a fungicide which is to be used at the golf course on tees and fairways. Metalaxyl is to be applied once a month from May through September for three consecutive years. .e. MANEB - Man 'eb is a fungicide which is to be applied to the golf course on the greens, tees and fairways. The scenario used for simulation of the Maneb is same as that for Metalaxyl. B. criteria or limits of Pesticides Although the regulatory guideline for Category One waters is "no measurable change", literature was searched and the following criteria or levels were found: (1). Environmental Protection Agency's 304(a) criteria: Acute Chronic Chlorpyrifos: Freshwater 0.083 ppb 0.041 ppb Saltwater 0.011 ppb 0.0056 ppb (2). Best Available Scientific Information criteria (BASIC) developed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy based on information obtained from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): Benomyl - 350 ppb Metalaxyl - 420 ppb (3). Aquatic LC50 values Application factor of 0.01 Bensulide - 379 ppb Bensulide - 3.79 ppb Maneb - 110 ppb Maneb - 1.10 ppb Benomyl - 5.6 ppb -Benomyl - 0..056 ppb The aquatic LC50s were obtained from Aquatic Toxicity Information Retrieval Data Base (ACQUIRE) multiplied by an application factor of 0.01 to provide a degree of protection for sensitive aquatic organisms as suggested in Quality Criteria for Water (in section of "the Philosophy of Quality Criteria", USEPA, 1976).. (8). Meteorological File Rainfall rates for the years 1584 through 1986 were taken from the NOAA weather data. Figure 2 illustrates the-rainfall records for 1984 - 1986. The minimum rainfall size required for generating a runoff is assumed to be 2.5 cm. This is due to the high permeability of the soil and low impervious area of the study area. Factors affecting the quantity of pesticide in the runoff are: solubility of the pesticide, pesticide decay rate, pesticide foliar washoff fraction, number and amount of applications of pesticides and formulation of the applied pesticide. V.2, Storage, Treatment, Overflow,:Runoff Model IISTORMII A modified version of the HEC STORM program, which was used for assessment of water quality impact from the Smithville Development Study (1982, Najarian), was used to simulate basin wide nutrient quantity and quality of runoff from urban and nonurban watersheds. The model generates tabulated ppllutograph data (e.g. flow, concentration, loading rate, etc.). Six basic water quality parameters can be simulated (suspended solids, settleable'solids, . biochemical oxygen demand, total nitrogen, orthophosphate, and total coliform). The applicant proposes to "use soluble fertilizers and pulverized lime ... immediately before forecasted rainfall or irrigation... 11 (Edstrom, 1990, p. 16). The practice of applying the fertilizer 11 immediately before" a rainfall or irrigation, as stated, will tremendously increase the potential for impact due to storm runoff. Therefore, more nutrients would be carried to the bog during wet weather period of time. Based on pollution prevention approach, the assessment of nutrient impa.ct to the receiving water was conducted using scenarios that storm events immediately follow fertilizer applications. The 1-yr, 2-yr, 5-yr and 25-yr design storm precipitation distributions were utilized in this analysis of the proposed Galloways development. Metalaxyl (Fungicide): Tees & Fairways 5 applications/year @ .38 kg/ha/appl Chlorpyrifos (Insecticide) 1 application/year @ 0.56, 2.24 & or 4.48 kg/hi@/appl (5). Soil Parameters Major soil type Sassafras Total Depth of Core (cm) 150 Number of Horizons 3 Horizon Thickness Bulk dengity Field 3cap Wilti39 P@. (cm), (g/cm (cm /cm (cm /cm 1 45 1.4 .284 .124 2 50.5: 1.4 .394 .174 3 55.5 1.5 .184 .064 (6). Kd RATE (Decay Rate, 1/day, in Different Horizons) HRZN I HRZN 2 HRZN 3 Bensulide 58.005 11.601 5.8 Metalaxyl 0.093 0.019 0.009 Maneb 5.8 1.16 0.58 Benomyl 12.18 2.4 1.2 Chlorpyrifos 35.2 7.04 3.5 (7). Golf Course Land Use Distribution (acres) PONDS GREENS TEES FAIRWAYS 1 0.00 0.13 0.81 2 0.16 0.17 2.76 3 0.24 0.47 0.00 4 0.34 1.06 15.41 5 0.08 0.00 2.58 6 0.19 0.13 5.27 7 0.05 0.24 3.37 8 0.09 0.08 0.57 9 0.00 0.04 0.25 10 0.00 0.19 0.02 NON-PONDED 0.90 1.88 14.76 V-2-1. Input Data for STORM model General and Design Storm Data The-coefficients used for nutrient simulation using STORM model were adopted from previous runoff studies such as Upper Millstone River Runoff Study (NJDEPE, 1991) and the Historic Smithville Towne development studies .(Najarian, 1982). The modifications made were to reflect the acreage of the basins, land use distribution (percent), rainfall distribution and nutrient application rate. Design storm distributions for the 1-yr, 2-yr,-5-yr and 25-yr event were used as the rainfall data for assessment of nutrient impact during wet weather time. B. Pre-development Simulation, Based on the 1989.USGS Oceanville topographic quadrangle stream'delineations and the proposed Greens at Galloway site plan, the Upper Doughty Creek Basin was divided into five subbasins. Each of these subbasins are defined by the hydrologic divide for that stream segment. The land use distribution was determined by digitizing' the approximate outline of the existing residences and the Seaview Golf Club. Commercial properties were included in the residential area. The remaining area was designated as open. Due to insufficient data of the Seaview golf course location within Basin 1, the land use distribution of the Seaview golf course was assumed to be similar to that of the proposed Greens at Galloway Golf Course (Table 3). In other words, in this study the Seaview golf course area was divided up into tees, fairways, greens and rough by the percent of each of these areas in the Galloways golf course. In the pre-development phase, the Seaview golf course is the major area on which the fertilizer was applied. C. Post-development Simulation The land use coverage was modified by digitizing the Greens at Galloway site plan provided by the applicant. The land uses delineated at the propoGed development were Fairways, Greens, Tees, Rough, Residential and 'Wetlands Buffer. After the Galloway golf course development, the fertilizer application area will consequently be increased. The land use of post- development of the Galloway golf course was described in previous sections and was used for assessment of nutrient impact. RAINFALL 1984 - 1986 7- ..,A. AA LA 0, i m 8 0 N Zo. V N U m J IN D 1986 AEFERS TO DATES WHEN RUNOFF CONTAINED PESTICIDES Figure 2. Rainfall Size for 1984 1986 transport equation governing advection, dispersion, first- order decay and linear, equilibrium adsorption in two dimensions in the aquifer for the above cases is: R 8c + v 8c D a2c + D a2c - KR c + m = d at x 8x xax2 yay2 d The last term on the right side of Equation represents the instantaneous discharge of mass at initial location. The m' in the equation is the strength of the discharge obtained by a formula that the mass of contaminants in injected divided by the thickness of the aquifer. The solution to the equation can be found by means of the integral transform or Laplace transform techniques: c(x,y,t)= coQ' (xRd-vxt)2 (yRd)2 exp -kt - b4npt(DxDy)1/2 4DxtRd 4DytRd where co = initial concentration of contaminant being discharged (mg/1) Q = volume of contaminant being discharged (m3) b = saturated thickness of aquifer (m) p = effective porosity (decimal percent, unitless) t = time (days) Dx = dispersion coefficients in x directions (m2/day) Dy = dispersion coefficients in y directions (m2/day) vx = seepage velocity of the regional flow in the x direction (m/d) x,y = location of point of interest (m), where the source is located at x=o, y=o k = first-order decay constant of the contaminant in the aquifer Rd = retardation coefficient for linear, equilibrium adsorption The seepage velocity, vx, is defined as vx = (kh/p)*(dH/dl)......................................................(c) where kh = hydraulic conductivity (ft/day) dH = hydraulic head change (ft) dl = distance between two interested points (ft) The retardation factor, Rd, is defined as: D. Nutrient Application Rates The model assumes that nutrients are applied evenly over an entire subbasin. In the case of a golf course, nutrients are not applied evenly over the entire golf course area. The application rates proposed by the applicant (Keenan, 1991) were utilized. Since phosphorus is only to be applied "as needed", the emphasis was only on nitrogen. The amount of nitrogen to be applied is as follows: on the tees and fairways, 150 pounds per acre per year for three applictions; on greens, 6 pounds per acre per year for three applications; no nitrogen is to be applied to the rough area. The application rate for nitrogen in each subbasin was assumed to be one third of proposed'total application rate and was calculated as follows: Fairways & Tees: F&T-Acres * 50 lb/Ac/day = F&T-Amt Greens: G-Acres * 2, lb/Ac/day = G-Amt Total: T-Area F&T-Acres + G-Acres T-N-Amt F&T-Amt + G-Amt Application Rate: T-N-Amt T_Area The application rate value was then utilized in the STORM input file as the loading rate for nitrogen. V.3 Assessment of impact via Ground Water Media to the Receiving Water As stated in previous section, the soil type in the study area is mostly sandy loam with low organic content. The mobility of pesticides in this kind of soil is considered to be high duc to the fact that soil has higher water conductivity and lower capacity for retaining organic compounds. Therefore, the pollution to,the receiving water via ground water route should be assessed. In this assessment, the,waste is considered to havd been instantaneously discharged at a point. Such an instantaneous discharge is also called a slug source. This approach has been used for assessing the pollutant impacts Since the information regarding,the subsurface is insufficient, assumptions were made in order to perform assessment including bulk density, hydraulic conductivities, hydraulid'gradient, and saturated flow thickness. For assessment of the impact via groundwater transport, not all the ponds and pesticides were used for analysis but only Pond 7 and Metalaxyl were selected. The rationale of this selection is that Pond 7 is one of the ponds, which is located near the receiving water, and-is of most concern. Metalaxyl, obtained from EPA Environmental Fate data base, has a lowest Koc (-20) among selected pesticides and is expected to give a lower retardation factor and relatively higher mobility. VI. RESULTS VI.1. Pesticides Simulation The pesticide impact to the receiving water was assessed using various pieces of information including rainfall, pesticide application rate, soil information, receiving water flow and pesticide chemistry and fate information which are discussed in section on data input. The results for Benomyl, Metalaxyl, Bensulide, and Maneb are illustrated in Tables 4 to 8. Tables 9 to 11 present the Chloropyrifos concentrations in the ponds, stream and runoff waters caused by different designed storm events. The results indicate the following: Benomyl exceeds the aquatic protection level of 0.056 ug/l for runoff levels within each of the 10 subbasins draining into the ponds and the instream concentration originating from the non-ponded golf course areas. Maneb exceeds the aquatic protection level of 1.10 ug/l for runoff levels within each of the 10 subbasins draining into the ponds and the instream concentration originating from the non-pondedgolf course areas. Bensulide exceeds the aquatic protection level of 3.79 ug/1 for runoff levels within subbasins 1 through 8 draining into these respective ponds. Levels for bensulide did not exceed the aquatic protection level for the i,nstream concentration although a predicted amount of this pesticide will enter the streams. For Metalaxyl an aquatic protection level is unknown, although a predicted amount of this pestici&-. will enter the streams and the ponds from the subbasins. Chlorpyrifos exceeds EPA's 304(a) criteria for both instream concentrations and for runoff levels entering each pond. The results of pesticide concentrationsin the ponds and instream water are shown in Appendix A. Rd 1 + (Kd * bulk desity/p) .................. (d) where Kd-= distribution coefficient (nl/g), a ratio of concentration 6f pollutant sorbed on soil to that in solution. and Kd KP Koc Xoc ............................ (e) KOC 0.937 log Kow 0.006 .................... M where KP = Partition Coefficient Kow = Octanol-water partition coefficient Xoc = Mass fraction of organic carbon in sediment Koc = Partition Coefficient expressed on an organic carbon basis The maximum concentration at any specified location occurs at time tmax. This time.is computed as: 2_4AC)1/2) (2A) .............. (g) tmax B + (B where A = (k4DxDyRd + vx2Dy) .......................... (h) B = (4DxDyRd) .................................. W C = (X2 Rd 2 Dy + Y2 Rd 2 Dx) ................... (j) V 3.1. Input data for Slug Source Ground Water Model Bulk density = 1.5 (assumed) Koc of Matalaxyl = 20 3 Volume of Pond 6 = 4757 m3' (after 100-year storm) Voldme of Pond 7 = 4032 m (after 100-@ear storm) Area of Pond 7 = 1.8 acre ( 78408 ft ) Kh (horizontal) = 133 ft/day (assumed to be similar to that of Spring Mill Drive site, Galloway township, NJ as reported by NJDEPE, 1992) Permeability = 8 ft/day (from USDA SCS for Dower soil) dH/dl = 0.0037 ft/ft ( assumed to be similar to Spring Mill Drive site, Galloway township, NJ as reported by NJDEPE, 1992) p (porosity) = 0.20 (assumed) Saturated flow thickness at Pond 6 = 4 ft (from USDA SCS) Saturated flow thickness at Pond 7 = 4"ft (assumed); Xoc = 0.5% (use Downer soil) x6, distance from Pond 6 to river = 300 ft x7, distance from pond 7 to river = 350 ft TABLE 4 PREDICTED CONCENTRATION.OF PESTICIDE IN D 'OUGHTY CREEK AND UNNAMED STREAM ORIGINATING FROM RUNOFF FROM NON-POND AREAS OF-GOLF COURSE (UG/L) PESTICIDE APPL.RATE MINIMUM MAX. AVG. S.D. BENOMYL 22 OZ/ACRE 1.47E-06 1.1 0.22 0.40 METALAXYL 22 OZ/ACRE 2.8E-09 3.8 0.67 1.42 BENSULIDE 12.5 LB/ACRE .0009 0.84 0.30 0.28 (GREENS) & 3 LB/ACRE (TEES & FRWYS) MANEB 4 OZ/1000 FT2 .00047 4.7 1.18 1.52 (GREENS) & 88 OZ/ACRE (TEES&FRWYS TABLE 5. PREDICTED CONCENTRATION OF BENOMYL IN RUNOFF FLOWING INTO PONDS 1 - 10 WITHIN EACH SUBBASIN (UG/L) APPLICATION RATE: 22 OZ/ACRE POND MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE STAN.DEV. 1 5.21E-05 42.7 08.97 14.07 2 5.73E-05 46.9 09.85 .15.45 3 1.07E-05 08.8 01.84 02.89. 4 7.83E-05 64.1 13.48 21.14 5 8.57E-05 70.2 14.75 23.14 6 7.95E-05 65.1 13.67 21.45 7 5.64E-05 46.2 9.71 15.23 8 1.23E-05 10.0 2.11 3.31 9 0.000125 3 * 9 0.83 1.31 10 3.48E-06 2.8 0.59 @0.93 TABLE 6. PREDICTED CONCENTRATION OF METALAXYL IN RUNOFF FLOWING- JNTO PONDS 1- 10 WITHIN EACH SUBBASIN (UG/L) APPLICATION RATE 22 OZ/ACRE POND MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG. STAN, DEV. 1 4.58E-06 151.5 25.0 52.0 2 4.77E-06 157.8 26.0 54.2 3 6.25E-07 20.6 3.4 7.0 4 6.75E-06 223.0 36.8 76.6 5 7.31E-06 -241.7 39.9 83.0 6 4.51E-06 149.2 24.6 51.2 7 5.33E-06 176.2 29.0 60.5 8 9.48E-07 31.3 5.1 10.7 9 4.28E-07 14.1 2.3 4.8 10 3.06E-07 10.1 1.6 3.4 TABLE 7. PREDICTED CONCENTRATION OF BENSULIDE IN-RUNOFF FLOWING INTO PONDS 1 - 10 - GREENS APPLICATION RATE 12.5 A.I./ACRE; FAIRWAYS AND TEES APPLICATION RATE 3 LB A.I./ACRE POND MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE STAN. DEV 1 3.12 20.0 10.2 5.1 2 3.99 25.6 13.0 5.6 3 1.33 8.5 4.3 1.4 4 19.6 126.3 64.4 38.5 5 135;0 68.9 42.2 6 13.0 83.8 42.7 25.9 7 15.3 98.4 80.2 30.9 8 2.70 14.0 9.1 5.3 9 0.29 1.8 0.9 0.4 10 0.21 1.3 0.7 1.4 TABLE 8. PREDICTED CONCENTRATION OF MANEB IN RUNOFF FLOWINGINTO PONDS 1 -TJO (in UG/L) - GREENS APPLICATION RATE 4 04"J/1000 F FAIRWAYS AND TEES APPLICATION RATE 88 OZ/ACRE POND MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE STAN. DEV. 1 5.2 167.1 47.0 53.7 2 o.r- 194.6 54.8 44.7 3 0.15 47.9 13.5 7.54 4 0.80 165.8 72.3 64.2 5 3.71 284.5 80.1 69.2 6 0.57 183.2 51.6 42.3 7 0.63 200.1 56.3 50.9 8 0.14 44.9 12.6 8.72 9 0.20 15.61 4.3 5.01 10 0.03 7.@O 3.1 3.58 TABLE 9. PREDICTED CONCENTRATION OF CHLORPYRIFOS ENTERING LILY LAKE FROM DOUGHTY CREEK AND UNNAMED STREAM ORIGINATING FROM NON-PONDED AREAS OF GOLF COURSE (PESTICIDE WAS APPLIED TO GREEN (ONLY) STORM EVENT & - STORM EVENT & APPLICATION RATE PPB APPLICATION RATE PPB 1 YR/1 LB APPL. 0.008 10 YR/1 LB APPL. 0.011 1 YR/4 LB APPL. 0.032 10 YR/4 LB APPL. 0.044 1 YR/8 LB APPL. 0.064 10 YR/8 LB APPL. 0.088 2 YR/1 LB APPL. 0.009 25 YR/1 LB APPL. 0.011 2 YR/4 LB APPL. 0.037 25 YR/4 LB APPL. 0.044 2 YR/8 LB APPL. 0.074 .25 YR/8 LB APPL. 0.089 5 YR/1 LB APPL. 0.010 50 YR/1 LB APPL. 0.011 5 YR/4 LB APPL. 0.040 50 YR/4 LB APPL. 0.046 5 YR/8 LB APPL. 0.081 50 YR/8 LB APPL. 0.093 100 YR/1 LB APPL 0.011 100 YR/4 LB APPL 0.047 100 YR/8 LB APPL 0.095 TABLE 10. PREbICTED CONCENTRATION OF CHLORPYRIFOS ENTERING LILY LAKE FROM-DOUGHTY CREEK AND UNNAMED STREAM ORIGINATING FROM RUNOFF FROM NONPONDED AREA OF GOLFCOURSE (PESTICIDE APPLIED TO FAIRWAYS ONLY) STORM EVENT & STORM FVENT.& APPLICATION RATE ppt APPLICATION RATE PPB 1 YR/1 LB APPL. 0. 131 10 YR/1 LB APPL. 0.181 1 YR/4 LB APPL. 0.524 10 YR/4 LB.APPL. 0.726 1 YR/8 LB APPL. 1.049 YR/8 LB APPL. 1.453 2 YR/1 LB APPL. 0.152 25 YR/1 LB APPL. 0.184 2 YR/4 LB APPL. 0.610 25 YR/4 LB APPL. 0.736 .2 YR/8 LB APPL. 1.221 25 YR/8 LB APPL. 1.472 5 YR/1 LB APPL. 0.167 50 YR/1 LB APPL. 0.191 5 YR/4 LB APPL. 0.669 50 YR/4 LB APPL. 0.765 5 YR/8-_LB APPL. 1.339 50 YR/8 LB APPL. 1.531 100 YR/l LB APPL. 0.195 100 YR/4 LB APPL. 0.781 100 YR/8 LB APPL. 1.562 VI.2 Futrient Simulation Results As stated, in order to simulate the water quality-for this area, thel-yr, 2-yr, 5-yr and 25-yr type III design storm distribut-ions were utilized. The results obtained from running the STORM program are the hourly concentration and loading for each subbasin. Table 12 presents the results of nitrogen loading from each basin as to storm events. Figures 3 to 6 illustrate the hourly loadings of each basin under various designed storm events. It was noted that the golf course areas produce a high loading of nitrogen in the runoff in both the pre- Galloways and post-Galloways simulations (Figure 3). Nutrient loadings in all basins will increase after development of the Galloways golf course based on the simulation. (Note the scale change from pre-Galloways to post-Galloways.) The conversion of 'open' space to 'turf' tends to cause a dramatic increase in the nitrogen loading to the upper Doughty Creek and the Oceanville Bog. Table 12. Nitrogen Loading From Each Basin (lb/basin/storm) Pre-Development 1 YR 2 YR 5 YR 25 YR B1 4.55 5.08 5.65 5.99 B2 0 0 0.02 0.02 B3 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 B4 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.1 B5 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 Post-Development 1 YR 2 YR 5 YR 25 YR Bl 4.71 5.23 5.77 6.09 B2 0.33 0.37 0.4 0.41 B3 0.47 0.5 0.55 0.62 B4 5.33 5.87 6.37 6.67 B5 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.25 TABLE 11. PREDICTED CONCENTRATION OF CHLORPYRIFOS IN RUNOFF FLOWING,INTO P014DS FROM EACH SUBBASIN (UG/L) 100 YEAR DESIGN STORM 25.YEAR DESIGN STORM 1 LB/ 4 LB/ 8 LB/ 1 LB/ 4 LB/ 8 LB/ POND ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE 1 4.31 17.'24 34.48 4.08 16.32 32.64 2 4.90 .19.63 39.26 4.64 18.58 37.16 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 6.88 27.55 .55.11 6.52 26.08 52.17 5 8.01 32.05 64.10 7.58 30.33 60.67 6 7.19 28.79 57.58 6.81 27.25 .54.50 5.43 21.72 43.44 5.14 20.56 41.12 8 0.90 3.62 7.25 0.85 3.43 6.86 9 0.34 1.37 2.75@ 0.32 1.30 2.60 10 0.02 0.08 0.16 0.01 0.07 0.15 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM 5 YEAR DESIGN STORM 1 LB/ 4 LB/ 8 LB/ 1 LB/ 4 LB/ 8LB/ POND ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE 1 16.12 32.24 40.30 3.74 14.98 29.99, 2 18.35 36.71 45.89 4.26 17.05 34.09 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 25.76 51.53 64.4 5.98 23.94 47.86 5 29.96 59.93 74.92 6.95 27.84 55.66 6 26.92 53.25 67.30 6.25 25.01 50.00 7 20.31 0.62 50.77 4.71 18.87 37.72 8 3.39 6.78 8.47 0.78 3.15 6.30 9 1.28 2.57 3.21 0.29 1.19 2.39 10 0.07 0.15 0.19 0.01 0.07 0.14 I YEAR DESIGN STORM 1 LB/ 4 LB/ 8 LB/ POND ACRE ACRE ACRE 1 3.11 12.45 24.90 2 3.54 14.17 28.35 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 4.97 19.90 39.80 5 5.78 23.14 46.29 6 5.19 20.79 @41.58 7 3.92 15.68 31.37 8 0.65 2.61 5.23 9 0.24 0.99 1.98 10 0.01 0.05 0.11 Pre -Development Post-Development N Concentration 2-yr.Design Storm N Concentration 0.9 2-yr Design Storm 1.4- f-I -0.8 1.6 .0.9 1.2, -0.7 4 @0.8 -0. '.2 -0.7 0.8 % -0.: 1 1 -0.6 0.6-- -0.4 0.8 -0.5 0.@ -C4 0.4-- 0.6 -0.2 0.3 0.2,- -.0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 Hour$ After SWA of Storm 00- -- -- -- 20,-- -ii R:T 30 r) Hours Alto( Start of Storm N Loading 1.2 2-yr Design Storm 0.9 N Loading 1 0.8 2-yr Design Storm 0.8 0.7 1.4- 0.9 0.6 1.2- 08 0.6 - 0.5 0.7 0.4 0@6 0. - 0.3 O.e. 1/h t 0.5 0.21 [02 0.6---- W I I 0A o. 03 9 0 1 0@4 U (Z 0 5 02 Hotn Afkw Start of Storm 0.1 0. 0 10 is -10 25 30 Hours Attar Start of Storm Baldn 2 -0- Basin 3 ash ' -'*- zin 4 Basirt 6 - predp Basin I - B Basin 4 - B Figure 4. Pre- and Post- Greens at Galloways development nitrogen concentration and loading for the 2-year design storm event. Pre-Development Post-Development N Concentmdon 1-YrDesionStorm N Concentration 1.6@ I -yr Design Storm 1.4- n* -0.7 rO-6 .4 n -0.5 -0.6 -0.5 0.8- -OL4 .0.4 0.3 0.8- 0.6 0.3 0.4 1,0.2 0.2 0.4, 0.2 0.2, L__@ SL Olt . . . . fo i-6 - - - - E - - - - is W 01 ....... '0 Hours Aftw SM of Storm 6 1,0 1'5 iO_ ''45" 30 Hours Afle(Starl of Storm N Loading 1-yr Destign Storm N Concentration 0.9- 1 -yr Design Storm 0 ,11. -0.8 1.2- 0.7 07, -0.5 It I I- M 0.6 1 1 -0.4 0.4 i4 i 0.3 O.S.- 0.5 03 V 0.2 0.6- 0.4 C .0 0.3 0 10 Is 20 0. Hours Ahw Sw of Storm 30 0.2 0.2- Basin I - Basin 2 Basin 3 11 main 4 -4+- Basin 5 P(KV 00 25 In 0 @@gk@ Hours After Start of Storm Basin I - Basin 2 Basin 3 [7- Basin 4 - Basin 5 Precip FigUre Pre- and Post- Greens at Galloways development nitrogen concentration and loading*for the 1-year desiqn storm event. Pre-Development Post-Development N Concentration 25-yr Design Storm N Concentration 25-yr Design Storm 1A _n __1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 -.1.2 0.8 0.8- 0.8 -0.6 0.6- 0.6 0.4 - -0.4 0.4- 0.2 - 0.2 0.4 0.2 0 M 'o 0 6 10 Is 20 30 0 0 Hours After Simi of Storm 6 10 16 20 25 30 Hours After Start or Storm N Uading 1.4 25-yr Design Storm N Loading 1.2 -1.4 1.6 25-yr Design Storm 1.8 t- -12 1.4 1.4 0.8 1.2 11 0.6 0.8 1 1 .40 O's 0.8 0.4 CL 0.:. Cx 0.2- -0.6 0@4 2 0. - @0.4 0- a lis 4ir- --- - 0.2- --o,2 5 to Is 20 25 Hourrs Aher Stan d Storm "o 0 20 25 30 Hours After Start or Storm Basin I - Basin 2 - Basin 3 -a- Basin 4 --w- Basin 5 - Predp Basin I - Basin 2 Basin 3 1 a-- --a- Basin 4 - Basin 5 Piecip Figure 6. Pre- and Post- Greens at Galloways development nitrogen concentration and loading-for the 25-year design storm event. Pre-Development Post-Development Concentration N Concentration 5-yr Design Storm 5-yr Design Storm 1,6- 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1 0.8 d 0.8 0. 7. 0.8 0.6 0.6 -0.4 0.4 0.4 iL 0.2 -0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 OWN @O 0 6 1,0- is 20 @25 30 Mouirs After Start at Storm 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 il ours After Start of Storm N Loading 5-yr Design Storm N Loading 1.2- 1.2 5-yr Design Storm 1.6 1.2 1.4 1 0.8. _.O.e 1.2 -0.8 CD 0.6. -0.6 1 0.4 0.4 0.8 -0.6 0.6 .9 0.2- -0.2 0.4- IT I 1\ -0.4 (L 0- 0 0.2, _.19 k.2 0 16 I's _ib- -is 30 0. *WfS4.@ 10 HoLn After Start of Storm 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Hours After Start of Storm Basin I - Basin 2 Bn3 Basin 4 -to- Basin 6 P .. cp Basin I - -Basin 2 Basin 3 --a- Basin 4 @ Basin 5 Plecip Figure-5. Pre- and Post- Greens at GalloWaYS development nitrogen concentration and - - A , - - r - - 4- %, - rz _% P@!% @- Am czz i ri n aupnt. When the pesticide simulation for Chlorpyrifos was run and calculated for the 100 year storm,-the runoff from the . subbasins and the non-ponded areas were simulated separately to determine if only the runoff from the non-ponded areas would exceed the EPA(a) limits, and it did. However it is possible that, if the ponds are full from a previous rainfall, and sufficient rainfall enters the ponds, overflow would occur. This overflow is designed to flow into the nonponded areas. This additional runoff would increase the amounts of pesticide entering the streams. Another potential source of pesticides runing into the waterway of the Refuge would occur when the pesticides are being applied. wind would carry the spray and deposit pesticide directly into the creeks and/or the Refuge itself. Drift of the pesticides would result in contamination of the wetlands at greater concentration. This resulting contamination, in greater concentrations than in the runoff, would enter the waters of the Refuge. The above represents situations where the Refuge waters would be degraded through regular, monitored use of the pesticides. Accidental ::,pills, discharges, leaks, inappropriate applications would all contribute to the alteration of the Category One classification of the Refuge's waters. Runoff from the development will exceed the EPA 304 (a) Criteria for fresh waterways such as the Doughty Creek, at upstream of a Cl waterway, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.' Immediately upon receipt of, and many years after receipt of the developmentts runoff changes in water quality may occur. Pesticides, through bioaccumulation, settling, and simple dilution would cause an alteration and degradation in the quality of the waters of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge along with the ecological systems intrinsically tied to the waters of the Refuge. Based on the results of the PRZM model it is concluded that the golf course runoff water would cause significant impact on the ENWFR which would degrade the waters of the ENWFR. VII.2. Nutrient The Edwin B Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (EBFNWR) downstream from Doughty Creek has been designated C1 Waters, which is allowed no degradation in water quality. The proximity of this development to the Bog and thenearly permanent saturation of the soils suggests that nutrients and pesticides would be washed into the Oceanville Bog through runoff and ground water flow. This proposed VI.3 Pesticides via Groundwater transport Computation using equations (c) to (f) shows that the seepage-velocity is 2.46 ft/day and retardation factor is 1.75. The pesticides carried by subsurface seepage water will take approximately 213 day to reach the receiving water at 300 feet away. This is due to the relatively high Kocs of Pe@sticides and less steep hydraulic gradient (0.0037 ft/ft based on Spring Mill Drive, Galloway Township's data as report'ed by Bureau of Wellfield Remediation, 1/1992) in subsurface flows. As a result, the impact to the receiving water through ground water will not be an immediate impact. Therefore, the computation of concentration (average and maximum) for pesticides from pond water seepage reaching the receiving water were not performed. However, it should be kept in mind that this is only a rough estimation due to insufficient data-for estimations of ground water related coefficients. As far as ground water pollution is concerned, the time for vertical seepage of pollutants from the rention ponds to the. ground water will depend on the depth of ground water tabl 'e, soil types,.and moisture content of soil beneath them. In this study it is expected to be short. This is due to the fact that the dominant soil types, Downer and Sassafras soil, are considered to be of relatively high infiltration rate (soil type B) and moderate rapid permeability (approximately 8 ft/day). However, due to insufficient information of local ground water profile, the computation of time for pesticides to reach the ground water was not conducted. VII. DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION VII.I.Pesticides. As a result of running PRZM, it was predicted that pesticides used on the golf course will cause water quality change in measurable amount in the runoff emanating from the development. The possible routes for runoff carrying pesticides are overland flow into the bordering creeks feeding Lily Lake which drains directly into the Refuge or enters the ponds which will seep into ground water. The above results represent concentrations for each individual pesticide. However, during a storm the-runoff would be composed of all of the various pesticides applied to the golf course and synergistic or additive effect of these pesticides in the runoff would therefore be much greater thereby increasing the impact to the biota in both Doughty Creek and the unnamed creek. development and the alternate plan to build more residential units would impact this system and degrade the water quality through the introduction of nutrients and pesticides. This conclusion is supported by the preliminary results obtained from the PRZM and STORM models. Both models show that pesticides and nutrients will be washed off the golf course into the Bog. The STORM output shows a tremendous increase in nutrients, which would promote algal growth and cause eutrophication, will runoff into the Bog. VII.3. Pollution impact via ground water As stated, insufficient site information has hindered a thorough assessment for this development. The required information for more thorou4h analysis includes the depth to groundwater table, thickness of aquifer, hydraulic conductivities for soils at pond location, hydraulic gradients between ponds and receiving waters. VIII. XISCELLANEOUS Part of the Seaview County Club Golf Course lies within the 1,948 acre drainage system. Assessment of the pesticides in runoff water from this golf course was neither included nor calculated in this assessment. It is anticipated that the pesticide concentration in receiving water will be higher than predicted if the loading from the Seaview golf course was taken into consideration. For two pesticides, Maneb and Thiram, a breakdown product is Ethylene thiourea. As per EPA's data, the carcinogen classification status of Ethylene thiourea is pending. Roof rainwater runoff is proposed to be captured by below ground seepage pits. As per Joe Reitzes of the Bureau of Construction and Connections, 984-4429, such pits are illegal. Reference Najarian,-.Thatcher & Associates, Inc., "Assessment of.surface and subsurface water quality changes resulting from the proposed development at the towne of historic.Smithville" prepared for Historic Smitheville Development Company, Smithville, NJ, 1982. NJDEPE, "Upper Millstone River Runoff Study", 1991. INSTREAM CONCENTRATION OF PESTIC"'iDES FROM NON-PONDED AREA z 0 3- p LU C.) z 0 0 .1 MIA EL OW3WU 0=184 Comm otr4w o3m*w awww'OVIN 4 lNow,12mw DATE BENOMYL METALAXYL IM BENSUUDE MANEB AOUATIC PROTECTION LEVELS: BENOMYL-.0.056 PPB BENSULIDE: &79 PP13 MANEB: 1.10 PPB CHLORPYRIFOS INSTREAM CONCENTRATION Greens 0.090- 0.080- CL CL 0.070- z 0.060-- 0 0-050-, 1 1 0.040-, z w 0.030- Z 0.020-, 0 0.010- 0.000 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 STORM EVENT Application Rate 1 lb/Ac 4 lbs/Ac 8 lbs/Ac umrm: ACUTE CHRONIC Freshwaftf: 0.083 PPB 0.041 PPS Saftwaftr. 0.011 PPS 0.ma Ppe INSTREAM CONCENTRATION OF ` PESTICIDE8 FROM NOWPONDED AREA PROTE-anON PROTECTION LEYEI: ca CL Z Ls- is- z 0 01- x., F n --i -d lam*", lva", Ulm" maim WW' ma", maw DATE DATE BENSULIDE AQUATIC PROTECrnON LEVEL-* &79 PPB ENOMYL AQUATIC PROTECTION LEVEL 0.058 P CL CL z 0 PROTECTION LEVEL W z "MA livam UAW DATE CONCENTRATION OF CHLORPYRIFOS!N RUNOFF ENTERING PONDS I YEAR DESIGN STORM 5 YEAR DESIGN STORM 0.100-- 0.100 -7 0.090- 0.090. Qow P" 0.080- a- 0.080- 0- CL er, 0.070- Q:. 0.070- 0 0.060- 0 0.060 0.050- 0.050@ 01041 F" Z 0.040- uj Z 0.040, z 0.030- 0 8 0.020- 0.020- ui 0.030- ppe Klk 0.010--- 1 0.010- k1al C@0004 w m-] kol -W -kni 4@0@� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.000 1 2 3 4 ' 5 ' 6 ' 7 ' 8' 9 ' 10 POND POND [ED I LBIACRE M 4 LBACRE = 8 LB/ACRE I LBACRE M 4 LBACREBE 8 Ei/-A7C711E 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM 25 YEAR DESIGN STORM 0.100---- 0.100. 0.090- 0.090- *.WPM a 0.680- 6 0.080- CL 0.070 Q:. 0.070- z 0 0 0.060. 0.050- 0.050. 0.060- 0.040- 1041 0.040 ab Z 0.030 Z 0.030- j: Z 0.020- 8 oo2o- m ima iml m kwv; 010 0. Lu Alk I M mf 0.000- ,@t @,NF k"El. kul Nw @kmf, 0. -0 -0 -0 i flW. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . 8 , 9 , io POND POND I LBACRE 4 LBACRE M 8 LBIACRE I LBACRE 4 LBIACRE 8 LBACRE 100 YEAR DESIGN STORM 0.100- 0.090- O.W. (Lan "s 0.070- z o 0.060- 0.050- Z 0.040- C.041 "a Lu 0 z 0.030- 0 0 0.020- 3.010 Pol.. PP9 am ppe 0.000 1 '2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 POND 4 1 offse,0C @ A I R/A,-.Rr- WM A LBIACRE I CHLORPYRIFOS INSTREAM CONCENTRATION Fairways 0.200- 0.180-1- co rL 0.160-- CL Z 0.140--- 0 0.120- 0.100- 0.080- z 0.060- z 0 0.040- 0.020-,-- 0.000-.- 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 STORM EVENT Application Rate 1 1b/Ac 4 lbs/Ac 8 lbs/Ac UMITS: ACUTE CHRONIC FreshWater. 0.083 PPS 0.041 PPB saftwater. 0.011 PISS 0.0050 PPB CONCENTRATION OF PESTICIDES IN RUNOFF ENTERING POND 2 2M.000-- 1M.000- 160.000-- ......... z 140.000- ------ - ---- -- ------------- - - ------ 120.000- 100.000- 80.000- z w 60.000- z 40.000- 0 20.000- 0.0od- 05130164 07,07,.4 10@/14/86 Z/05/86'12/09/86112118/86 DATE BIENOMYL METALAXYL RM BENSULIDE = MANEB UATIC PROTECTION LEVELS: BENOMYLO.056 PPB BENSULIDE:3.79PPB MANEB:1.10PPBI CONCENTRATION OF PESTICIDES IN RUNOFF ENTERING POND 1:; lao.ow- 160.00D-- CL 140.OOD- . .......... . ....... . Z i20.00D- 0 100.000- . .... . ... .... ............. ... .. .. .... ... 80.ODO- - -------- z LU 6D.000- Z 40.000- 0 0 220.0D0- LIS, 0.000-1- 05/30/54 1 1 07/07/84 05/28/85 01/26/86 03/13/881 166 08(18116110/14ft 11/05/86 12/09/86'12/18/86 DATE BENOMYL METALAXYL IM BENSULIDE MANEB UATIC PROTECTION LEVELS: BENOMYLO.056 PPB BENSULIDE:3.79PPB MANEB:1.10PPB CONCENTRATION OF PESTICIDES IN RUNOFF ENTERING POND 4 vo.000-- 250.000- Z 0 Mow- z W 100.000- z 0 50.0oo- OAW- .96 Iz 1 1111) 05130/54 O?M?/84 05128/55 011'26186 03/13/86 08/02/86108/18/86110/14/86 11/05/86 12/09/86 12/18/86 DATE BENOMYL METALAXYL BENSULIDE MANEB UATIC PROTECTION LEVELS: BENOMYLO.056 PPB BENSULIDE:3.79PPB MANEB:1.10PPB CONCENTRATION OF PESTICIDES IN RUNOFF ENTERING POND 3 45.000- 0- 40.000- 0- 35.wo. z- 0 30.000- 25.000- z 20.000- Lu c) 15.000- z 10.00- 0 5.000- z 0. 05130M4 /07/84 05P8185 Olt26186 03/0186 08/QM o8j /86 10/14/86 11105/86 12/09/86 12/IL/86 . DATE BENOMYL METALAXYL M BENSULIDE = MANEB QUATIC PROTECTION LEVELS: BENOMYLO.056PPB BENSULIDE:3.79PPB MANEB:1..IOPPB CONCENTRATION OF PESTICIDES IN RUNOFF ENTERING POND 5 300.000- 250.000- 0- Z 200.000- 0 !@ 150.000- z W 100.000- z 0 50.000- 0.000- Ail 05M.30 07/0 05/28185 01126/86 03/13/86 M211 8 08/18/86110/14/86'11105/86'12/09186' 1211BIB6 DATE BENOMYL METAUkXYL jM BENSULIDE MANEB @QLIATIC PROTECTION LEVELS: BENOMYLO.056 PPB BENSULIDE:3.79PPB MANEB:1.l0PPr3 CONCENTRATION OF PESTICIDES IN RUNOFF ENTERING POND 6 2W.000- m mo.ooo-- z 100.000- z w z 50.000- 0 0.000- -T- 7/84 05/28/85101/26/86103/13/MITQ@08118/86 10/14/86 11/05/86 12/@09/86 .2/181865 DATE BENOMYL METALAXYL BENSULIDE = MANEB PROTECTION LEVE @QUATIC LS: BENOMYL 0.056 PPB BENSULIDE: 3.79 PPB MANEB: 1. 10 PPB owo/84 07, iv?, CONCENTRATION OF PESTICIDES IN RUNOFF ENTERING POND,7 M-000@ co 0- 2W.WO- a- z 150.0w ow z w 0 z Mow- 0 0.000- 05/28185 01/26/86 03113186 08/=86 08/18/86 10114/86 11/05/86 12/09/86 12118186 DATE BENOMYL METALAXYL M BENSULIDE MANEB @QIJATIC PROTECTION LEVELS: BEN OMYL 0.056 PPB BENSULIDE:3.79PPB MANEB:1.10PPB I.M.4 07111171.4 CONCENTRATION OF PESTICIDES IN RUNOFF ENTERING POND 8 CQ Mow- ....... ... a_ Z 40.000- .... ..... .. 0 30.000-- . .... ........ ...... . .. z W 20.000- z 0 10.0oo- @6/86 03 051AM0184 185 01 113/86108/02/86108118'86 10114/86 111051865'121OM6112/18/86 DATE BENOMYL METALAXYL BENSULIDE MANEB 40TECTION LEVELS: BENOMYL 0.056 PPB BENSULIDE: 3.79 PPB MANEB: l..'l 0 PPBI ID Lllllol,@lgll Lo,,,,&, 0:@,, CONCENTRATION OF PESTICIDES IN RUNOFF ENTERING POND 9 20-000- Mooo.- ca 0- 145.000. a_ z 14.000- 0 12.000-- Ir- 10.000- 8.000- z w 6.000- z 4.000- 0 000- 0.000-1 -T @h 05130/84 07/07/84105/28/85101126186 03/13/86 08/02186 06/18/86110/14/W 111/05/86112/09/86 12/18186 DATE BIENOMYL METALAXYL IM BENSULIDE MANEB @QUATIC PROTECTION LEVELS: BENOMYL 0.056 PP8 BENSULIDE: 3.79 PPB MANEB: 1 10 PPB r CONCENTRATION OF PESTICIDES IN RUNOFF ENTERING POND 10 20. 18.000-- m wooo- 14.000- . ....... .. z 0 12.000- 10.000- z w 6.000- z 4.000- 0 2.000- n - - ---- 0. JUL- -- J I 05/30 4 07 14 05/28185 01/26186 03/13186 I= 08118/86 10/14/86 11105/86 12109IF6 12118186 DATE BENOMYL METALAXYL IM BENSULIDE MANEB @QUATIC PROTECTION LEVELS: BENOMYLO.056 PPB BENSULIDE:3.79PPB MANEB:1-10PPBl j..7107 /86TO8 86 CONCENTRATION OF BENOMYL IN RUNOFF ENTERING PONDS-, POND I ee, PROTECTION .... ... LEVEL a_ .. .. .. z < Lij ee@ e, "I" ee X, ,e] 043G.- -won 071071M aWaM* ola&W aanXft ma 12M=M s w" DATE POND 2 el. Tll--@-- co PROTECT]ION N- (L Ile ee. LEVEL CL "e, Z cl: ul ee, el "Aw, Iowa' Wom MATE oam BENOMYL AQUATIC PROTECTION LEVEL 0.056 PP CONCENTRATION OF BENOMYL IN RUNOFF EN-THERING PONDS, POND 3 PROTECTION CL LEVEL z F- F- IV V DATE POND 4 elf, aaw @WTEMON CL (L Z aaw Ix If Lu K-'. z 0 DATE BENOMYL AQUATIC PROTECTION LEVEL 0.056 PPB C-"ONCENTRATION OF BENOMYL IN RUNOFF ENTERING-i PONDS POND.5 F TECTION EL (L z < cr- z w C) z eA C) DATE POND 6 co TEC11ON (L a. L z *AM ui .00 0 wu DATE YL AQUATIC PROTECTION LEVEL 0.056 PPB kra"'ONCENTRATION OF BENOMYL IN RUNOFF ENTPERING PONDS POND 7 PROTECTION LEVEL CL Z QCd*- < LU z DATE POND 8 PROTECTION 03 LEVEL (L 0. z X.- 0 LU 0 Mil, DATE BENOMYL AQUATIC PROTECTION LEVEL 0.056 PPB CONCENTRATION OF BENOMYL IN RUNOFF ENTERING PONDS POND 9 PROTECTION CIO cl- LEVEL Im w ck v%aw DATE POND 10 aam. PROTECT11ON co (L LEVEL 0 ci w DATE BENOMYL AQUATIC PROTEC-nON LEVEL 0.056 @@B CONCENTRATION OF MANEB IN RUNOFF ENTERING PONDS POND 1 "v. z I X, --`1 C) ,A z TION 0 2- X.X Woom DATE POND 2 z Ne z '!@@;TION :-Xf 06,301" 07/6718. o6rww C, rm-A ow W" oblams om4?" t1low" IZMWN I zq ow" DATE MANEB AQUATIC PROTECTION LEVEL = 110 PPB CONCENTRATION OF MANEB lN RUNOFF. ENTERIN,G PONDS POND 3 "v co a. a. z el 0 e e, - 2. e eee: Xx e- z e., LJLJ ee- ee z ee@ 0 0 Ic MON .e,., ee 1;*.V '-' -, e: - UAl, Ve' "e" eeel e* eell eee, eee 7,1 OW30@ 07107'1" OWMW ot mm cam 3" aw=w "nw" lamom 1106- 12ow" swis" DATE POND 4 Ve,, vee is- ee,,@ ee, ee, co "e" z, .. d- ee, !ee" ell ell eee, F- < cc el." ee V el, z ... eell LLJ C) z r -e - e, TION Vee ej ee, ell o7lo7m. wm as -wwjoc M, w" Qnw" IlAw" swow" qww" Ie. DATE MANEB AQuA-ncPRoTEc-nON LEVEL 1.10 PPB CONCENTRATION OF MANEB IN RUNOFF ENTERING PONDS POND 5 e-.1 Z .. ON LLI 0 m 014sm am w" colova am a" lamww IMM" laomwa W&M DATE POND 6 ee co CL CL z cl: z -ION LU 0 =77 f OW@_ olmn" cmr@," 0raw" asomm Z, W" DATE IMANEBAouAmPROTECTION LEVEL 1.10 PpB .CONCENTRATION OF MANEB IN RUNOFF ENTERING PONDS. POND 7 ee ell ee e e eee -f- ell, e -e ee,@ eel -ee,@ eee "e, ee- ee ee'. 'e"e ee.- e e Vx eee "V, . . . . . . ee, V eell ee e co V. ell e, el,, ee, ell e. ee.. e -ee 1 -.11 Z eel ,e ell eee ell. e." 0 'e eee a- el'X ell v" eee eell -'ee eeel z e- ION eell e, ee .ee z A ri"e 0 eeel -v "'v: eee 'e". e- !eell e.le ee, eee, eee, as.- el". -"ee eeel e-, eee ee., e- 0&-3WU OYM71W OW2WW (Ar"N ftM WW *&Wft MR W" IQM*M 11IM" laV*" I-- DATE POND 8 'e.. ele eel 'ee llee ell." e-le eee, ee, , e, eee e Co 3- e 'e elle CL ee'. eell eee e eee, Z e.le 0 elle eee, ee". e -:ell 2- ee., -le -eee z TECTION 'e"el eell ell., Llj Xe, .. .. e" EVEL z ree-'i 0 ... .. eX ee ee, ee. ee,, -1-- eel ee',, v%'el eee@ ee. ell ee ell., -T- 'eee -ee 'e, .... ... .. v- ia,44W maw" lzvwn DATE RAAM9=R AOLJA-nr, PRoTEc-nON LEVEL= 1.10 PPB CONCENTRATION OF MANEB IN RUNOFF ENTERING PONDS POND 9 co ele eee el eel. e z "lle, e-" eee eee cr- z e., eee, e. PROTECTION LLJ ell". e e. LEVEL L) eee. z "e.. eeel eeel e eee ee ee' ell 0 ee 0 ee ee@l :Z'l el --e .... ee ee, .. .. ... 'ee" eee e", as- ee": amr3als, o7)o?ma o&12&lw cm r2s" cam 301M oaq)vw O&M IM IaM4M IIMM lzma" Iwww DATE POND 10 eel. ee., eell Z eee 'e- .. ee., rr77 ee,, cc: elle, z X, W PROTECTION elle "e, L EVEL z .. .. .. ... oW=64 07fQ7iM OWSW W rM" 01INM 1%102f" (w,w" IW.V6 I I AAM4 Iwo,-" I," w" DATE MAMF:R AOUATIC PROTECTION LEVEL = 1.10 PPB .CONCENTRATION OF BENSULIDE IN RUNOFF ENTERING PONDS POND 1' I ell lee E i ON 'ee, eee ee 'et," eee eee eee, co 3- eee ... ... a- e- ee" .. .. ... .. e. ... ... eell, z 2.31 0 ee. -ee -e. e,, "fe el, eel,@ et teee, '-'ee "ee: vee e.. "N" eee elle eell. tr1l ee ee. A-3 e", Z-e, eee tol, ee ell om- DATE POND 2 7,T- ele eee -E 'ee eell, -ee. llee - a-1 ION Vell. --e ell e- e ee- elle ell@ e, e. L ell "t ell -e. K-1 ell, .-V eee: ee- ee-, "'A eee "'@,e- el." 'eee el-e e- ... .... a- .."r elle, .. ee %@,eZ N , 'ell eee, eee@ eee, fee" 'e" eee. "e", ee", -e ee ... ee" tt," elle, eee, F- e.lel eee, LIJ -Xv eee- ee-, e - e@,el ee e"t ... eell e -Xv e-. e t: ee- V tl@@ eell. ell. e%le ;% ee-l, e fee, eell e,%-: `Ix, 05- mleel J.." eee, "'e, el", ellej eez e,, OW'30?' 071071" 0&t2WW ()I r-W" 03M 3,W *VOW" QM 4A IMemo svoww 1 .1 at" DATE eee eee eee eee elle --ee BENSULIDE AQUATIC PROTEC71ON LEVEL 39M PPB CONCENTRATION OF BENSULID-E IN RUNOFF ENTERING PONDS' POND 3 eee, ION "V. -e - L ee,@ Xe., . .... Z 2.s- el, .. e e., 2- 115 el", -e e", V Ile, -e e- ee 07PO71" O%wMM jMrAM MW" OWOZMS MRW" Ic"405 "Jaw" lam*" lamw" DATE POND 4 f M-, X e"e e, PROTE TION -,.,e LEVEL eel, co e e CL ee, CL .. .. ee, eee eee, < v., X-e, ,ee, z e. e., eee, eee e-el ee, Lu e Xel eeX 0 ee. .. ... ... e 0710 mr-14W 03MI" lanow Iflow" Z%ot" DATE BENSULIDE AQUATIC PROTECTION LEVEL = 3*79 PPB] CONCENTRATION OF BENSULIDE IN RUNOFF ENTERING PONDS POND 5 ee@', "e" ee e", eee: PROTE @TION ele LEVEL el"". -e co ev'- CL ee. a- e., eee ee, Z "N' "e*' eell .. .. Ie eell ,ee 'ee z v;e' e K, elle, eee el ei el-1-1 "ell e" e'. ... e, oll - @ I @11 .11 1 _ @*11 o7m?/u awm oor-w" am W" awmm cam sm 1amv" lljw" 1zow. lamw" DATE POND 6 MON r. PROTET .. . .. LEVEL V, eee "e, eell -.-ee eee, 111. elo I I . eee 3- 'ee e ee', e "e" ell F- "e, "ee cr e w z eee e. ee" eee. e.. ee, e". ee ee', eel. .. eee, e- e ee. ee e", 0&30(" C7n?@ O6r2%'W 01 rm" 03n Vw cam %oA 111ou" 1w(w"_1 I an Im" BENSUUDE AQUATIC PROTECTION LEVEL = 3.79 PPB CONCENTRATION OF BENSULIDE IN RUNOFF ENTERING PONDS POND 7 Xe, ee eel.. ee.' eee. PROTECTION "xe ee" "e-' LEVEL ell co -'ee CL "-X. ell eee CL eell. V@ ee@ fell elle ee", ee el" -e e eee "e, ell el. ee Z e- eee. W e. ... w 'N eee "ee el eX "e ee. eee- eee eee eee@ ee' ell" 0-- 0&@"" 07107M4 OWMW olrmw mnwm OMM" CM&M lam4w llmmIs ImagoomI 'Wlaw DATE POND 8 :7" . . . 77 --------------------- elle l,"fROTECTION ee. EVEL co ...e., "e., eee Xe a_ eee, CL ee Z as.- 'e"e ee, ee. eee eee w e., L) fee- elle e-, r'v X- e "".1 eell, eell -e llee: ell". "Ile 05- eee -4- r m rAms cam ww alwom" omn w" Ion 4m. 1 I)o&m4 I vow&@ I Ill va eee eee ee. eee eee DATE BENSULIDE AQUA11C PROTEC11ON LEVEL 3979.PPB CONCENTRATION OF BENSULID-E IN RUNOFF ENTERING PONDS POND 9 I PROTECTiON LEVEL 3, CL CL z 0 W 0 ol EPA -r -T- T 7 OW2..w 01 M&W mmv" *slow" aww" lcf.@ mou" IZVW" 12ftw" DATE POND 10 PROTECTION LEVEL co 3- CL Z 0 < cr z uJ .s- Wow" 04AW" i2n%ss DATE 7ECTiON L 0710 1" LBENSULIDE AQUATIC PROTECTION LEVEL 3979 PPB Appendix B. DATA INPUT SOURCES for PRZM Model ITEM--- SOURCE Pan Factor PRZM Manual, p.40 Snow Factor N/A Minimum evaporation, PRZM Manual, p.42 extraction depth Avg. daily hours of light PRZM Manual, p.43 Maximum active root depth Maximum areal coverage of crop estimated Runoff curve number EPA Depth of soil core Atlantic County SCS Number of soil compartments Arbitrarily chosen Soil Bulk density Atlantic County SCS Number of soil horizons Atlantic County SCS Soil horizon thickness Atlantic County SCS Hydrodynamic dispersion PRZM Manual', p. 76 Initial soil water content EPA Field capacity soil water content EPA Wilting point soil water content of horizon EPA Sorption partition coefficient EPA for soil horizon/pesticide combination Organic carbon content of soil horizon Atlantic County SCS Chlorpyrifos Bensulide Benomyl Half Life in Soil SWRRBWQ, APP. 5 BC SWRRBWQ, APP. V Kow PRZM, p. 72 BC SWRRBWQ, APP. V Soil Decay Rate Calculated Calculated Calculated Foliar Washoff SWRRBWQ, APP. V N/A SWRRBWQ, APP. V Plant uptake Calculated Calculated Calculated efficiency Plant Decay Rate Calculated N/A Calculated Half Life on Plant SWRRBWQ, APP. V N/A SWRRBWQ, APP. V Maneb Metalaxyl Half Life in Soil SWRRBWQ, APP. V SWRRBWQ, APP. V Kow OL Calculated Soil Decay Rate Calculated Calculated Foliar Washoff SWRRBWQ, APP. V SWRRBWQ, APP. V Plant uptake Calculated Calculated efficiency Plant Decay Rate Calculated Calculated Half Life'on Plant SWRRBWQ, APP. V SWRRBWQ, APP. V Koc SWRRBWQ, APP. V SWRRBWQ = Simulator for Water Resources in Rural Basins- Water Quality, 2/6/91 BC =British Crop Protection Council, 9th Ed. PRZM =Pesticide Root Zone Model, Release 1 OL =EPA-Environmental Fate Database, 1990 CALCULATIONS Plant Decay Rate .693/half life days Soil Decay Rate =-.693/half life days Plant Uptake 0.784 exp - [(log Kow 1.78)2/2.,44] Efficiency Factor PRZM p. 75, .24 AppendiX B. Reference Articles for Fate and Ground@Water Monitoring Study for Pesticides and Nitrates A Ground Water Monitoring Study for Pesticides and Nitrates Associated with Golf Courses on Cape Cod kv Sh@art Z. Cohen, Susan Nickerson, Robert Maxey, A ubry Duptq Jr., and Joseph A. Senila Abstract Scientists and regulators in the United States began emphasizing the study of pesticides in groundwater in 1979anc 1980. The scientific community began to emphasize the study of nitrates in ground water as a result of fertilization in th( mid to late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, tens of thousands of wells were found to contain elevated nitrate concentrations anc detectable concentrations of pesticides. Few, if any, of the data were collected from wells associated with the nation'., 13,000 golf courses. Golf is popular on Cape Cod, an area that depends on a hydrogeologically vulnerable aquifer system as its principa source of drinking water. Pesticides and fertilizers are applied to golf courses, often at high rates on greens and tees, Therefore the EPA, the Barnstable County government, and several local golf course superintendents collaborated on a study of the impact of golf course turf management on ground water quality. Nineteen monitoring wells were installed upgradient. and in greens, tees, and fairways on four golf courses. Selected soil core samples were collected and analyzed. Four to six rounds of ground water samples were collected over one and a half years'and analyzed for 17 pesticides and related chemicals, nitrate-N samples were collected al least monthly. Seven of the 17 chemicals were never detected. The most frequently detected chemical - dichlorobenzoic acid - probably had been an impurity in herbicide formulations. Chlordane was detected in several wells at concentrations exceeding the health advisorylevel, perhaps due either to repeated heavy applications coupled with preferential flow of the boundipar- ticulate phase and/or cross contamination during well installation. The results show no cause for concern about use of these currently registered pesticides. Nitram-N concentrations were generally below the 10 ppm federal MCL, with some exceptions. Overall. nitrate-N concentrations decreased in response to lower application rates and use of slow-release fertilizer formulatio 'ns. Introduction and Background 1986, U.S. EPA 1988(b)). However. few if any of the data Scientists and regulators in the United States began were collected from wells associated with the nation's to -emphasize the study of pesticides in ground water in , 13,000 golf courses. 1979 and 1980 following detections of three pesticides. Rates of pesticide application to golf course greens The nernaticide 1,2-dibromochloropropane (DBCP) Was and tees arc usuay much greater than analogous rates found in the ground water of California, Arizona, South for farmland, but the greens and tees usually cover less Carolina, and Maryland, and the insecticide/ nernaticide than 3 percent of the total golf cours e (GCSAA,,'NGF aldicarb (Temik) was detected in the ground water of 1985). New York and Wisconsin (Zaki et al. 1982, Cohen et al. Golfing is a popular sport an Cape Cod, and golf 1984(a), Holden 1986, Lorber et al. 1989). Atrazine was courses arc key factors in the local economy. Most of also found in ground water during this time period Cape Cod is underlain by a sole source aquifer, which (Spalding et al. 1980, Wchtje et al. 198 1). EPA has imple- supplies most of the area's drinking water (U.S. EPA mented or proposed several regulatory actions as a result 1982(a), Guswa and LeBlanc 1985). Cape Cod's hvdro- of these findings (U.S. EPA 1979, U.S. EPA 1983, U.S. geology is characterized by a shallow, unconfined, highly EPA 1987(a), U.S. EPA 1988(a) ). transmissive aquifer, high recharge, and sandY soils The scientific community began to emphasize the (Guswa and LeBlanc 1985). Consequently. local citizens study of nitrates in ground water as a result of fertilization and town officials began questioning whether new golf in the mid to late 1970s (e.g., Olson et al. 1973, Hallberg courses could be constructed without iMDacting ground 1986). water quality. Iritially, these questions were evaluated by Bv the mid 1980s there had been extensive detcctions paper" risk assessments involving environmental fate. of pesticides and nitrates in ground water in many agri- toxicity, and Pesticide Root Zone Model assessments cultural areas (USGS 1984, Cohen et al. 1986, Hallberg 'Cohen 1984, Severn 1986). These EPA assessments 160 @Vinter 1990 GWMR generally concluded that good science could be used to select turt' pesticides that could be applied without at'-. verseiy impacting ground water. However. 1Z was recOg- nized that these mod-Jing assessments were educated gucsses that could be verified only withgood monitoring data. In addition, the Cape Cod PlanninL, and Economic Development Commission (CCPEDC) had e@tablished a nitrate-N planning-guideiine of 5 ppm within zones of contribution to public supply wells to assure compliance with the 10 ppm federal MCL (CCPEDC 1978). Conse- quently, CC P EDC and E PA decided t o co nd uct a gro und rl C. water monitoring study of selected golf courses on Cape Cod. G-C. G.C. Regional Hydrogeology Cape Cod 'is compnised of unconsolidated glacial sediments that overlie bedrock. The bedrock surface dips &C. eastward and ranges in depth from 80 feet below sea level at the Cape Cod canal to greater than 900 feet at Pro- Figure 1. Golf course locations and physical features of Cape Cod vincetown (Guswa 1985). The glacial sediments were (adapted from USGS 1985). deposited during the Pleistocene epoch as thrust moraines A; and outwash plains. Ekwaton W-1 A number of spits and tomboios formed (,luring the 40 Holocene bound Cape Cod Bay, the Atlantic Ocean, and 3"0 2 Nantucket Sound. A generalized map is sho :vn in Fig- W-3 ure 1. The Sandwich and Buzzards Bav morali."es consist 20 of sandy till mixed with stratified sand and gravel. Out- wash plain sediments generally consist of strazified sand and gravel with local silt and clay layers. Eastern outwash 0 plain sediments are nixed with till and ice contact sedi- -101L In ments. Generally, sediments become finer grained with depth and distance from the moraines. The topography is marked bv numerous kettles and kames. The outwash plains are cut by many stream valleys, which are usually Figure 2. Ban River Golf Course geologic cross section- dry (except where tidafly influenced) due to the permeable tendent at Hyannisport). nature of the underlying sand and gravel (01dale 1981). The fresh/saline ground water transition zone is Six fresh ground water flow systems constitute the approximately 200 feet below the inland ground surface. Cape Cod aquifer and are commonly referred to as lenses The transition zone becomes shallower toward the shore. (Guswa 1985). Two of the lenses occupy upper Cape Cod, Most shallow ground water on Cape Cod occurs under where the four golf courses in this study'are located unconfined conditions. Along the Outer Cape it occurs in (Figure 1). The two lenses are separated by Bass River. lenses bounded by saline water (LeBlanc et at. 1986). Ground water in both systems flows radially from inland recharge areas to surface water discharge areas. Precipi- Site Descriptions and Hydrogeology tation is the only source of fresh water recharge. Bass River Golf Course Annual ground water recharge is approximately 20 The Bass River Golf Course is situated on the west inches on Cape Cod (using the assumption presented bank of Bass River, north of South Yarmouth. in the by LeBlanc et al. 1986, that 45 percent of the average Harwich outwash plain. Sediments here consist of sand annual precipitation recharges the aquifer). Average and gravel, which are mixed with clay in some places. A annual precipitation on Cape Cod is approximately cross seciion of the study area ;s shown in -Figure 2- 44.3�2.2' inches. This average was derived from data Monitoring wells 5 and 6 are upgradient of the site from 15 coastal weather stations in Massachusetts during followed by wells 1, 2, and 3. Monitoring well 4 is the the period.1941 to 1970 (NOAA 1978). Also included most downgradient well. were data from the station at Hyannis for the period 1985 Depth to ground water, as measured at the six moni- through 1987. The Hyannis average and the NOAA aver- toring wells, ranges from 6.45 feet to 35.37 feet below age were not significantly different. These data indicate ground surface (Table 1). Elevations above sea level range that quantities of precipitation are similar throughout from 4.72 feet to 6.' 92 feet as calculated from the overall upper Cape Cod. Recharge probably approaches 30 Inches depth to ground water. Potentiorrictric surface data -3 W_ W'2' beneath the 2olf courses because of irrigation (approxi- recorded from the wells since 1984 irdicate thar ground mately 20 In year. according to the go!f course superin- water flow is generally to the southeast. toward Bass Winter 1990 (;%%'NIR 161 TABLE I Monitoring Well Construction Summary* Bass River Golf Course Well #1 Well #2 Well #3 Well #4 Well #5 Well #6 Location Fai-wav 99 Gr.-en $110 Green #10 and Tee #11 Background New background Tee #11 Depth of Well 36.55 ft 29.45 ft 19.65 ft 11.50 ft 41.60 ft 40 ft Length of Screen 3 ft-PVC 3 ft-PVC 3 ft-PVC 3 ft-PVC 3 ft-PVC 5 ft-Teflon,5 Construction PVC riser, PVC riser, PVC rism PVC riser, PVC riser, PVC riser, Method glued joints glued joints glued Joints glued joints glued joints threaded joints Drilling Technique Drive and wash Drive and wash Drive and wash Drive and wash Drive and wash Hollow-stem auge Mean Depth 32-17 24.80 14.64 6.45 35.37 25.56 to Water Wells 1-5 were installed-pre-viously for a related study. Falmouth Country Club well #1 well #2 Well #3 Well #4 Location Tee # 18 Background Green # 17 New fairway well Depth of Well 45.00 ft 40.00 ft 40.00 ft 40.00 ft Length of Screen 5 ft-Teflon@ 5 ft-Tcflon 5 ft-Teflon 5 ft-Teflon Construction Method PVC riser., PVC riser, PVC riser. PVC riser, threaded joints threaded joints threaded joints threaded joints Drilling Technique Drive and wash Drive and wash Drive and wash Hollow-stem auger Mean Depth to Water 35.53 36.30 35.63 34.71 Eastward Ho! Country Club Well #1 Well #2 Well #3 Well #4 Location Fairway #6 Background Green #6 Tee P7 Depth of Well 15.00 ft 65.00 ft 9.00 ft 13.00 ft Length of Screen 5 ft-TeflonO 5 ft-Teflon 5 ft-Teflon 5 ft-Teflon Construction Method PVC riser, PVC riser, PVC riser, PVC riser. threaded joints threaded joints threaded joints threaded joints Drilling Technique Drive and wash Drive and wash Drive and wash Drive and. wash Mean Depth to Water 8.08 56.19 6.00 5.28 Hyannisport Country Club well #1 well #2 Well #3 Well #4 Well #5 Location Green #2 Tee #16 Fairway #2 Background New green well Depth of Well 2100 ft 15.00 ft 15.00 ft 27.50 ft 15.00 ft Length of Screen 5 ft-Teflon,9 5 ft-Teflon 5 ft-Teflon 5 ft-Teflon 5ft-Teflon Construction PVC riser. PVC riser, PVC riser, PVC riser, PVC riser, Method threaded joints threaded joints threaded joints threaded joints threaded joints Drilling Technique Dri-e and wash Drive and wash Drive and wash Drive and wash Hollow-stem auge; Mean Depth to Water 11.18 8.64 11.76 23.71 9.74 River, at A -gradient of 0.001 (Table 2). Aquifer character- bogs bound the property on the west. Sediments beneat istic data generated by Guswa @1985) are presented in this golf course belong to the Mashpee pitted outwas Table 2. plain. Well logs (Figure 3) reveal that f ine-to-coarse san and gravel underfie this site to -12.62 fect(MSL). Groun4 Falmouth Golf Course water occurs in the sandy gravel at mean depths rangin The Falmouth Golf Course is located aporoximately from 34.97 feet to 36.30 feet and elevations of 14.47 t I mile north of the village of East Falmouth. Cranberry 15.36 feet above sea level. Monitoring Nvell 2 is the rrio@ 162 Wirter 1990 GWMR TABLE2 Aquifer Characteristics Bass River Falmouth Eastward lio! Hyannirpo.-t Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity (K, ft/day)* 250 ISO 225 250 Ratio, of Horizontal to Vertical K* 10:1 10:1 io: 1 10:1 Hydraulic Gradient (i) 0.001 0.002 0.050* 0.00 1 Ground Water Velocity (V. ft/dav)'* 1.1 1.2 45 1.0 Guswa 1986. 'stimated velocitv calculated using V = Kii n. where n is porosity value for sand and gravel (Reath 1983). Hydraulic gradient determined from measure water table elevations in wells This is gradient beneath green. tm and fairway well. Background well is not included because it is not along same flow path. Rastvard No upgradient well. followed by wells 4,3. and 1. Monitoring Fak"outh "s.5 M. well 4 is the most downgradient well. Ground water flow is north to south. The hydraulic gradient (Table 2) is 0.002, based on data from all five on-site wells. Ground water velocity is estimated to be 1.3 ft/day using the equation shown In Table 2. Eastward Ho! Golf Course Eastward Ho! Golf Course is located on the north side of Nickerson Neck. The course is bounded on the north by Pleasant Bay. Sediments beneath this golf course are part of the Harwich outwash pWn. The plain also StUre 3. General ftokogic logL contains more recent beach sediments. Drilling logs reveal that the sediments cunsist of sand with some gravel. A of pesticide application. clay laver was encountered at elevations of 5 feet to Ground water flow is to the south-southwest, beneat] 58 feet. The elevation of the sand was approximately the portion of 'the golf course where the green, tee. ani -10 feet MSL (Figure 3). Mean depth to ground water fairway wells are located. Ground water flow is probabl- ranged from 56.19 feet at the background well to 5.28 feet to the southeast at the background well, based on topo at the tee well (Table 1). Mean water table elevations graphy. This could not be measured because the back range from 1.44 feet MSL to 3.63 feet MSL (this does not ground well does not lie within the same flow path as th include the background well elevation, because it was not three other wells. The gradient beneath the tee, green, = surveyed). Ground water flow direction at the background fairway wells is estimated to be 0.001 (Table 2). Groun( well is to the northwest (based upon surface topography). water velocity beneath the course in this area is estimatei Flow direction is to the northeast beneath the eastem to be I ft/day, assuming a sand porosity of 25 percen portion. where the tee, green, and fairway wells are located. (Heath 1983). The golf course is situated within a probabl, Ground water flows toward Pleasant Bay, which is within zone of contribufion to a nearby public well. 20 feet of the course. 'Me ground water gradient (Table 2) is estimated'to be 0.05 feet beneath the northeastern portion of the course. Study Design Ground water velocity is estimated to be 45 ft/day, Goff Course Selection assuming a formation porosity of 25 percent for the Initially, the objective was to estimate the extent o sandy aquifer (Heath 1984). Monitoring well I is the most occurrence of pesticides and nitrates in the surficial aquife: upgradient well followed by wells 4 and 3. Monitoring as a result of their application to all 30 golf courses oi well 2 is not within the same flow regime as the others but Cape; Cod. Hydrogeologic vulnerability and pesticid, it is upgradicrit from areas of pesticide application. usage were to be used as design parameters. Thus it wa. Hyannisport Golf Course decided to use stratified random sampling (Snedecor an( Hyannisport Golf Course is located on the eastern Cochran 1980, Cohen et al. 1986) to select the golf course shore of Centerville Harbor on Nantucket Sound. The for study. However, there were funds to study only fou sediments beneath this course are part of the Bamstable golf courses, and a properly conducted stratified randon outwash plain and are predominantly fine to coarse sand, study, with conclusions applicable to all golf courses oi to at least an elevation of -10 feet MSL. Monitoring the Cape, would have required more than four. Therefori wells I and 5 are the most upgradi-7:nt wells followed by it was decided to conduct a worst-case assessment first wells 2 and 3. Monitoring well 4 -is not within the same fo!lowed by a more comprehensive study if indicated b- flow regime as the others but it is upgradlent from areas the results of the first study, Winter 199f) GWNIR 16 The Cape's seven nine-hole golf courses were elimi- Tox lcity -drink ing water health guidance levels nated from the potential sampling universe because it was Analvtical chemistry-methods and detection limits. believed that their turf management practices might not Pesticide mobility and persistence were evaluated t( be reprcsentative of most golf courses. The remaining ensure that pesticides with even a slIgh-, potenual to leac) golf courses were evaluated according to the following to ground water (Cohen et all. 1984) would be included ii design criteria: Lhc study. Health guldance levels (HGLs). which includi 9 Site stratigraphy/ hydrogeologic vulnerability. Higher HALs, MCLs, SNARLs, etc., were not available foi risk ratings were assigned to goLf courses in glacial most pesticides, so they were calculated according to tht outwash plains with sandy soils. Lower risk r ratings following formulas. HGLs for pesticides exhibiting thre were assigned to golf courses overlying moraine depos- shold -effects, i.e.. toxic endpoints with a No Obser%abh its, which may contain silt, play, or other relatively Effect Level. can be calculated as follows: impervious deposits. HGL ADi x 70 kg,'2L/day (for most toxic effects) 9 Pesticide and fertilizer usage. Subjective rankings were HIS L ADI x 10 kg/ I L 11 day (for cholinesterase inhibitors' based on the amounts of pesticides and nitrogen fertil- izers applied. Information was obtained from golf where course records and interviews with golf course ADI acceptable daily intake in mg1; kgi day superintendents. 70 kg adult body weight Golf course age. Golf courses more than 30 years old 10 kg child body weight were assigned a higher risk rating due to the increased 2 L/day = standard water consumption factor for time available for pesticides to rr@grate to ground water adults and the in=ased likelihood that older, riskier pesticides I L/dav = standard water consumption factor for would have been applied to the golf courses. children. Seven golf courses were ranked high in all three For carcinogenic end points, the H G L was calculatec Potential risk categories. The original plan was to ran- from the carcinocenic potency factor (Q*) for a negligibit domly sample four golf courses from the high-ootential- risk standard-a I x 10-6 upper limit probability of cancer risk list so that statistically valid inferences could be occurrence in a lifetime of exposure. extrapolated to all golf courses in that risk category. The list of organic chemical analvtes. their commor However, only four of the seven golf course personnel agreed to participate in the study.'Thus the golf courses names. and their uses arc contained in Table 3. HGLs are included in the study are Falmouth Country Club, provided in the discussion section of this paper for pesti- cides that were detected. Hyannisport Club, Eastward Ho! Golf Club, and Bass One to four years of pesticide .application data pro- River Golf Club. Their locations are depicted in Figure 1. vided by the golf course superintendents are provided in Table 4. The reader is cautioned against extrapolating Chemical Selection these data too far into the past. For example. chlordane A iist of pesticides commonly applied to golf course use-on turf was not allowed during this time period. Also, turf on Cape Cod was developed and evaluated according it is the first author's experience that. over a multiyear to three criteria: period. 2,4-D and mecoprop use might have been more Environmental fate-mobility and widespread than it is today as Indicated on this table. persistence Nitrogen application data are contained in Table 5. TABLE3 Organic Analytes for the Cape Cod Golf Course Study (Common Name/Trade Name) Herbicides Fungicides Insecticides dacthal/ DCPAI! chlorothalonil/ Daconil chlorpyrifosl' DursbanO*- chlordanc** anilazine/ Dyrene trichloropyridinol dicamba iprodione/Chipco 26019 (Dursban metabolite) mecoprop! MCPP isofenphos.'Oftanol 2.4-D diazinon 2.4-dich)orobenzoic acidt chlordane** siduron/Tupersan pentachlo ro phenol/ PCPTT Dactlial diacid metabolite included. Technical chlordane and heptachior epoxidt. Use unknown. suspecied impurity. Specifi@ target Pest unknown. out this wood preserv:ttive had been formulated as Pan of an herhicidc mimure 164 NVinter 1990 GWMR TABLE4 Pesticide Application Data* Bass River Falmouth Hyannisport Eastward Ho (AI) TP) (AI) (TP) (A PEsticides 1984 1985 1986 1987 1986 1987 1986 1987 1986 198 No Data dacthal diazincin dicamba 0.06 gal 0.02 gal 2.4-D 0.50 gal 0.13 gal 6.75 Gal 1.77 anilazinc 10. 1 gal 18.1 gal 7.5 gal chlordane chlarothaiunil 31.75 gal 15.6 gal 9.0 gal 4.04 gal 4.1 gal 3.64 gal 5.5 Gal 8.08 chloropyrifos 41.0lb 2.0 gal 2.20 gal 3.30 1 iprodione 69.2LB 27.0 lb 5.1 gal .98 gal 8.95 gal 9.40 1 isofenphos 55 gal 2.75 gal 1.5 gal .55 gal 42.0 gal 6.2 GAL mccoprop (MCPP) 0.27 gal 0.07 gal pentachlorophenol 5.34 gal iiduron 9.38 gal 6.6 gal 32.0 lb Pesticides on this table were analyzed for this study. This list does not include ail the pesticides used on the golf courses. Al-ActIVE INGREDIENT TP-Total product. Total areas oF tees. FairwaYs. and greens are aRE AS fOLLOWS Bass River 45 acres Falmouth 42 acres (including roughs) HyannIsport - 29.1 (including roughs) Eastward Ho! - 44.5 acres INCLUDING roughs). TABLE 5 Average Nitrogen Applied per Year (lb/1000 ft2) Bass River Falmouth HyAnnisport Eastward Ho! T G F I G F T G F T G F 1987 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3. 1 4.0 1.1 1.7 1.7 NA 1986 2. 1 4.8 1.9 2.0 6.2 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.2 4.0 5.0 2.6 1985 4.35 5.5 2.0 NA* NA NA NA NA NA 2.6 1.2 2.0 1984 3.6 4.0 3.25 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1983 1.0 5.25 3.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA T =TEE. G =GREen. F=FAIRWAY. No data available. Monitoring Well Site Selection Generally, wells were not placed in aREAS where surface MonitORIng well site selection was performed in con- runoff mighT collect. One exception was the green well at junction with the U.S. Geological Survey. Under an Eastward Ho! Country Club, which was at the base of a EPA/ USGS cooperative agreement, CCPEDC staff and steep mound. on top of which was the green. a hvdrogeoLogist from the USGS BosTON office revieWED each golf course for appropriate monitoring well locations. Methods In each case. on-course wells were sited at a fairway, a Monitoring Well Construction green, and a tee so that variable management practices Nineteen ground water monitoring wells were installed within each course could be evaluated. Wells were placed for this study. At each of the four GOlf courses participating where the shallowest depths to ground water occurred in the study, wells were placed at one tee, one greEN and and downgradient of the site of interest (tee or green) one fairway, and one well was placed upgradient of all when the well could not be placed directly in the managed treated areas to establish background water- quality con- area. Upgradient background wells were sited in locations ditions (Table 1 Sixteen of the wells were installed in presumed to be unaffected by nearby sources of contam- 1985 using the drive-and-wash techNique. Three additional ination. such as septic systems or road runoff. It was not wells were installed in 1987 using a hollow-stern auger. in response to concern that the drive-and-wash method may possIBLE TO SITE the background well directly upgradienT, of the monItorinG wells at the HyannIsport and Eastward have caused cross contamination betweEN surface sOILs HO! GOLF COURSES. and the aquifer. All of the wells are flush mountED and Winter 1990 GWMR 165 made ol'2-Inch PVC. The wells were screened .-. or just by a two-stage cleanup on a Flonsile column lollowei below the water table. Equipment during drive-and-wash a silica gel column. instahaLion was cleaned with water between boreh3les. Detection and quantlitaticri cif analvtes were zcc Hollow-stem auger equipment was steam cleaned between plished by gas chruriiato-praphv (GC) with a H.-w r holes. Packard 57 10 C-C (ground water) and a Hewlett-Pack A sand pack was placed I to 2 fee- above the top of the 5730 GC (soil,, both equipped with NIo3 electron capi Screen. followed by a bentonite seal. Native soil was then detectors (ECD). All samples were analvzed on backfilled into the annular space in wells completed by columns (6 foot x 4mm I.D.) consisting'of 3 perc the drive-and-wash method. This was done contrary to SP-2100 and 5 percent. SP-2401 operated at 190 the well construction protocol. but according to standard Approximately 20 percent of positive samples were a lvzed on a third column (6 foot x 4mm I.D.) consistin practice in that area, and may have caused cross contam- ination (see the discussion section). The wells were deve- 31 percent SP 2250 operated between 200 and 215 loped by bailer until the water was clear. depending on the analytes present. Ground Water Sampling Quantitation was done by comparing response! Each well was cleared of four times its volume prior analytes in the sample with responses of authentic. a to sample collection. based on guidelines developed by lytically pure external standards. the National Water Well Association and the'Massachu- Iprodione was not analyzed for after the first rot setts; Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. due to the labor-intensive nature of this extraction @ the total lack of detections for this pesticide In the f Evacuation was accomplished by peristaltic pump where round. distances to ground water allowed. Otherwise wells were evacuated by bailing. PhenoxylPhenol-Ground Water In the initial phase of the project, samples were col- . The analysis of the chlorinated phenoxy,, phenol a iected using a Teflont bailer, which was washed with lytes was based on validated modifications to U.S. E hexane between each well, and rinsed threc times with methodology (U.S. EPA 1982(d)). deicinized water. Later in the study. after pesticides were The water was acidified and extracted with et@ detected in the wells, dedicated PVC bailers-ere assigned to each well that tested positive. I hydrolyzed with base followed by ether wash. reacidi Water samples were placed in I-liter Iamber glass and extracted with ether, concentrated, methviated.., bottles for pesticide analysis and 5OOmL glass jars for cleaned up on Zrisde and silica gel columns. The GC analvses were performed on a Hew] nitrogen. Samples were kept in sturdy plastic coolers with ice until repacked for shipping or delivered to the Packard 5710 equipped with N 1-63 ECD. All saml I were analvzed on two columns (6 foot x 4mm 1. laboratory. consisting -of 3 percent SP-2100 operated at 165 C E PA-approved QA! QC, procedures for sample integ- 5 percent SP-2401 operated at 170 C. Approxima rity, including chain-of-custody 'protocol, were followed 20 percent of positive samples were analyzed on a tf throughout the monitoring program. Pesticide samples were collected quarterly over a one column (6 foot x 4mm I.D.) consisting of 5 perc and a half year period beginning in April of 1986. Sampling SP-2250 operated at 190 C. was conducted in August of 1986 and 1987, one to two Quarititation was accomplished as in the OC months after the usual application time of the more method. mobile herbicides -2-4- D, MCPR and dicamba. This Siduron-Ground Water sampling schedule should have been adequate considering The analvsIs of siduron in the ground water samr the likely time-of-travel of these solutes. Nitrate samples were collected semimonthly or monthly at all fourcourses was based on U.S. EPA methods (U.S. EPA 1982(c) z over a two-year period beginning in January 1986. U.S. EPA 1987(b)). The pH of the water samples was adjusted to 7, a Analytical Methods they were extracted with methviene.ch lo ride. All pesticide analyses were performed by EPA's The siduron concentration was determined us Environmental Chemistry Laboratory (Office of Pesticide high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) usini Programs) in Mississippi. Waters Model 840 H PLC System with a DuPont Zort OrganochlorinelOrganophosphate (OCIOP)-Ground ODS (C-18, reverse phase) column operated at ro@ Water and Soil temperature. An Isocratic solvent system of water. a The determination of the OC!OP components was tonitrile, 45/55 with a flow rate of 1.0 mL: min and a based on U.S. EPA methods forground water(U.S. EPA detector (238 nm) were used. 1982(b), 1982(c)) and for soil samples (U.S. EPA 1980). Some modifications of these procedures were used: how- Confirmational Analyses ever, all analytical methods were validated in the lab prior Gas chromatographyimass spectrometric (GC N' to beginning analytical work. analyses were performed on analytes detected witt The water samples were extracted with methylene Finnigan 5100 GC..'MS System equipped with a I' chloride and were cleaned up on silica gel columns. The DB-5 capillary column (0.25mm i.D.) operated bet%vc soil samp!es were extracted vath accione/ hexane, followed 60 and 220 C at 20 C; min. 166 Winter 1991) GWMR Sample Containers, Shipment. and Storage this sample through the entire procedure. Recovery values Water samples were collected in specially cleaned obtained on these samples were plotted on control charts. I-liter ambor Wheatcn@@ bottles fitted with Teflon-lined which were maintained for all analyses. __@ept for unila- lids. The bottles were washed with detergeit and water, zine, which could not be ac-_,_,rately quantitated. Data 6r followed by rinsing and distilled water. aceton--, and preclsion, exoressed as standard devi7ition (SD, and rela- methylene chloride and were dried overnight In an oven tive sItandard deviatioa (RSD), and recovery, expressed at ' 5(T C. as mean percent recovery, for the method obtained or Soil samples were collected in quart Mascin@ jars these QC samples was calculated for the ground watei cleaned as previowdy described for the water samples. samples. Recoveries (accuracy) averaged better than 7C These containers had Teflon-lined lids. percent for the majority of analytes. and precision. All samples were shipped under ice via "next-day expressed as RSD, was, in general. below 20 percent foi delivery- from Cape Cod directly to the laboratory. The most analytes. samples were kept refrigerated (4 C) and out of light at A method validation study for soil was used to con- the laboratory until the time of analvsis. sruct the control chart limits. Recoveries averaged bette, than 70 percent for all analytes. and RS Ds for all analyten Quality Assurance/ Quality Control were well below 10 percent. Many of the samples in the study were run in duplicate. In general. quality assurance and quality control were and several samples were run in replicate. that Is, the% maintained using established U.S. EPA methods (U.S. were re-extracted at a later date. Precision data. expressed EPA 1976, U.S. EPA 1984. U.S. EPA 1986). Prior to the as relative percent difference (RPD). were calculated foi study, a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was the duplicates and replicates. RPD was calculated using specifically written and approved for the analytical work associated.with the project. the following: Detailed sample tracking documentation was used 1XI - XA throughout the analvses. and all lab glassware and reagents RPD (x I + X2) x 100 were cleaned prior to use following U.S. EPA-approved procedures. 2 As part of the QAPP. a method validation study was done prior to analvzing samples to determine minimum where RPD is relative percent difference between detection limits (M DB) and to determine the precision duplicates and accuracv of the method. Ten to 12 water I soil replicate xi = concentration (ppb) of analyte 'In sample samples. spiked at 2 x, 4 x, and 100 x MDLs for all x, = concentration (ppb) of analvie in duplicate sample analytes. were run for each method. The precision and The mean RPDs; for most analytes averaged less than 20 accuracy data obtained during these studies were used to percent. construct control charts, which were maintained Surrogate standard spikes were used in ea& sample throughout the analysis of field samples. to assess matrix effects and mechanical losses of recoveries The field samples were analyzed in sets of no more for the analytes; in the OC/OP and phenoxy.- phenol than 15 total samples. Typical sets consisted of no more methods. Methyl parathion and p,p'-DDT were used for than 8 to 10 field samples, one field bank, one method the former method, and 2,4,5-T for the latter. Predeter- blank. one duplicate sample, one standard reference spike mined recovery acceptance limits for these surrogates had control, and one cleanup control, when a method with to be obtained in order to have a valid. analysis for each cleanup was used. sample. To minimize any problems associated with long hold- Analyte detection limits were significantly different ing .times. ECS expected to extract aff samples within than background noise, as all reported quantitative posi- three weeks after arrival at the laboratory. This was the tives demonstrated a signal to noise ratio of at least 10: 1 case with OC.'OP ground water sample sets, with one on the gas chromatograms. The linear operating ranges exception-a 27-day holding time. There were three of GC detectors were determined prior to analysis and all exceptions with the phenoxyl phenol ground water sample analytical standard solutions were validated prior to use. sets-two at 22 days and one at 30 days. The analytes of The analytical purity of aH standards was > 98 percent. interest were considered stable once in their final extract' Nitrate-N Analysis Final analyses were completed within two to five weeks Ground water samples were analyzed for nitrate-N by after extraction. The soil- cores, taken in December 1985, were not the Barnstable County Health and Environmental Department using the American Public Health Associa- shipped to ECS until September 1986. Prior to shipment, tiOn (1985) Standard Method 418-A - UV Spectra- they -had been stored in a freezer. They were stored photometry continuously at 4 C, as described earlier, and were extracted in October and November of 1987. Analyses Organic Matter Analysis were completed over the period October 1987 through Organic matter content of the soil cores was analyze( January1988. by the University of Man1and Cooperative Extensior The standard reference spike consisted of spiking a Service's soil testing lab using the dichromate oxidat;o@ water or soil matrix with analytes of interest and carrying colorimetric method. Winter 1946 16' Results the other pesticides. Most pesticide concentrations w less than 5-ppb. The toxicologic significance of the reSU Pesticide ANALYSES is discussed in the following text As are TRends in the da Results of analyses of soil cores fROM tHree goLf courses FoR the sake of simplicity, only results OF THE 16 k for, eight pestic ides are contained in Table 6. The soil study wells are presented in Table 7. cores were collected During well installation. Only technical chLordane-a mixture of several hepta-. octa-, and non- NitrAte-N Analyses achlorinated compounds-and heptachlor epoxide were Results of anaLYses of nitrate-N are contained found. Heptachlor is a component of technical chlordane, Table 8. Most samples contained detectab and heptachlor epoxide is a weathered or oxidized form concentrations. of heptachlor. Chlordane reportedly was used as a turf Discussion herbicide and insecticide from the 1950s to the 1970s. SoIL Pesticides cores were not collected from the Bass River golf course Spatial Trends because most of the monitoring wells had been installed Most findings of pesticides and related compounds shortly before this study began. ground water centered around the greens and tees. A Results of analyses of ground water for l7 pesticides eight green and tee wells had at least one detection dunii and related compounds arc contained in Table 7. Ten of the study, whereas only three fairway wells and tv the compounds were detected. In decreasing order of background wells had detections. The Difference is evi frequency of occurrence, they were (number of wells-with more apparent when one totals individual chemiC detections in parentheses): 2.4-dichlorobenzoic acid detections for each well. Using this approach. the followii (DCBA) (10); technical chlordane residues, including numbers are obtained: green wells-12 detections; t heptachlor epoxide residues (7): total clacthal residues, wells-12 detections; fairway wells-7 detections: bac speciFically the diacid metabolite (3): chlorothalonIL (2) groUnd wells-2 detections (both were DCBA. the appare Isofenphos (2), chlorpynifos, including the pyridinoL herbicide impURITY). (There were no records at E PA der metabolite (2); dicamba (1); and 2.4-dichloro- onstrating that DCBA was ever a registered pesticide. I phenoxyacetic acid (2,4D) (1). Generally, the highest structure is somewhat similar to dicamba. and less simil concentrations were DCBA, followed by chlordane and to 2.4-D.) TABLE 6 Soil-Core Analysis Results Sample Description Organic Technical HeptAchlor and Location MATTER% Chlordane (ppb) Epoxide (ppb) Found MDL GC/MS Found MDL GC/M Eastward Ho! 96 FairWAY: 3.0 334 5 NR 7.7 0.6 NR 1'-3 1.5' 0.8 ND 5 ND 0.6 4'-4.5' 0.3 ND ND 0.6 6'-7.5' 0.2 ND 5 ND 0.6 Falmouth #17 Green: 0'-1.5' 2.3 4310 5 NR 39 0.6 NR 8'-9.5' 0.3 85 1; C 0.86 0.6 15'- 16.5' 0.07 29.5 5 N R N D 0.6 24'-25.5' 13 N D 5 N D 0.6 Hyannisport # 16 Tee: 0'-1.5' 2.0 2190 5 N R 199 0.6 N R 2'-3.5' 0.4 509 5 C 8.08 0.6 C 3.5'-5' 0.2 4.75* 5 N R 0.73 0.6 N R 5.8'-7.3' 0.2 N D 5 ND 0.6 Six other pesticides were analyzed for but neVEr detected. pesticides and MDLs (in ppb were dacthal. 0.5-5: chlorothalonil. 0.3.5: isoLenphos. 0-1! chlorpYRITOS. 1-10. diazinon. 4: anilazine. 20. (The highest MDLs usually only arose in samples from the topsoil. which often contained MANY interference MDL-method detection limit NR not run ND not detected C confirmed GS MS(qualitative) B broken sample * SLIGHTLY BELOW MDL BUT SAMPLE AFFORDED RELIABLE QUANTITATION 168 Winter 1990 GWMR TABLE 7 Ground Water Organic Analysis Results AnAlyte MDL --Bass River Eastward Ho! Falmouth Hyannisport B T F G B T F G B T F G B I F Technical Chlordane 0.125 ND 0.96 NO 0.11 ND ND NO ND NO 0.12 NO 0.10 ND 0.32 0.39 (0.49- (N D- (N D- (ND- (N D- (N D- 1-17) 0.34) 0.23) 0.21) 0.96) 1.39) ChlOrothalond 0.015 N D N D N D 0.08 ND ND ND ND NO 0.05 ND NO ND ND NO (N D- (N D- 0.38) 0.22) Chlorprifos 0.05 N D N D N D N D NO NO ND ND NO NO NO 0.04 ND N D N D (ND- 0.1) 2.4-D 0.05 N D N D N D 0.10 ND NO ND N D NO NO - ND ND ND. ND (N D- 0.24 ) Dacthal Diacid 0.20 NO 0.16 NO ND ND NO ND 0.29 NO 0. 16 - NO ND NO ND (N D- (N D- (ND- 0.21) 1.07) 0.35) Dicamba 0.05 N D NO NO ND :N D N D 0,03 NO NO NO - NO NO 14D NO (ND- 0.06) 2.4-Dichlorohenzoic Acid 0.20 0.24 9.38 0.05 0.14 5.82 0.13 0.89 ND NO - NO NO 0.13 NO (DCBA) N D- (N D- (N D- (N D- (N D- (N D- (N D- (N D- (N D- 0.42) 32) 0.08) 298) 0.24) 8.94) 0.21) 3.26) 0.361 Heptachlor Epoxide O.03 N D 0. 04 NO NO NO NO ND NO ND NO N D N D ND 0.05 0.04 (0.03- (N D- (ND- 0.06 ) 0.16) 0.08) lsolenphos 0.75 N D N D NO NO NO NO NO ND NO NO NO 0.57 ND NO N (ND- 1.17 3.5.6-Trichloro-2- Pyridinol 0.10 NO NO ND NO NO ND ND ND ND NO - ND ND- 0.24 ND (N D- 0.76) All results in jug L. Average concentration provided (assuming NO = 1/2 MDL). followed by range in parentheses. SEVEN other ANALYTEs were never detected (see Table 3 MDL = method detection limit, B = background well. T = tee well. F = fairway well, G = green well. : Highest DCBA concentrations should be viewed qualitatively only since analytical difficulties were experienced in the initial sampling round. Subsequent concentration typically 2 to 10 ppb. Three conclusions can be drawn from this assessment: (1) Pesticides and related compounds were found in areas . rounds. Between the first and second rounds of sampling, where Pesticides are more intensively applied-the greens 14 detections of chemicals in wells declined and six and tees-according to superintendents' records; (2) increased. Between the second and third rounds. IC chemicals that may have leached to ground water under detections of chemicals in wells declined and three greens and tees do not appear to have migrated extensively increased. This trend is consistent with the possibility of to the other wells; and (3) the mystery Compound- cross contamination during well installation. Due to a DCBA-was the only organic chemical ever detected in scheduling mixup, the 16 drive-and-wash wells were the background wells. This suggests the possibility of an installed without the presence of a practicing geologist. A off-site source. This point is discussed later. 2 to 3 foot plug of bentonite was used to seal the borehole above the well screens, but native soil was used to backfill Temporal Trends the annular space above the bentonite plug. Thus it might This study was limited to four complete rounds of be possible for pesticides to desorb from Contaminated sampling over a one and a half year period. Therefore one surficial soil and ]each to ground water, especially if the would not expect many temporal trends to become bentonite seal is not complete. (Note the high surficial apparent. Only one temporal trend was noted in organic chlordane concentrations in Table 6.) In addition. the analvsis results. There were significant declines in pesticide wash-and-drive techniques itself may have introduced cross concentrations between the first round of sampling and Contamination. Water level records for the time period the second round. and between the second and third show a general. but small decline. However. this apparent Winter 1990 GWMR 164 TABLE 8 Nitrate-N Ground Water Results* Golf Course Well 1986 1987-1988 Overall Average Median Range Average Median Range Average Bass River B 8.36 8 .00 5.60 -12.0 6.78 7.00 5.60- 7.50 8.02 T 2 .21 1.30 0.20- 7.00 0.52 0.50 0.10- 1.00 1.03 F 3.98 4.00 1.30- 6.50 6.16 6.00 4,40-10.00 4.16 G 3 G-2 1.27 1.25 0.10- 3.21 4.65 4.80 0.10- 9.00 2.79 Eastward Ho! B 0.10 0.10 0.10- 0.10 0.10 0.10 ND-0.10 0.10 T 1.81 1.50 0.10- 5.00 0.40 0.40 ND-0.80 0.99 F 11.90 13.00 0.10-20.0 4.10 3.20 1.80-10.0 6. @6 G 11.26 9.00 2.80-30.0 3.03 3.00 1.40-5.00 6.31 Falmouth B 0.10 0.10 0.10- 0.10 0.10 0.10 N D-0. 10. OJO T 0.74 0.70 0.40- 1.80 1.58 1.55 1.10-2.40 1.54 F (not sampled) (2 samples - 0.30 and 0- 10) G 2-52 1.50 6.50 1.40 0.65 0.50-6.00 2.44 Hyannisport B 0.11 0.10 0.10- 0.20 0.10 0.10 ND-0.10 0.10 T 2.25 2.20 0.80- 3.00 1.50 1.50 1.00-4.80 2.24 F 3.46 3.60 0.60- 6.00 2-60 2.60 1.40-6.50 3.24 G 7.62 7.50 4.00-10.20 4.36 4.20 1.48".50 5.82 Results in mg/ L Detection limit 0. 10 mg/ L. N D - non-detect (0. 1 values do reflect detections) B - background well. T - tee well. G - green well, F = fairwav well. decrease in recharge may not be sufficient to explain the (HGLs)-calculated according to the procedure 1 declines in pesticide concentration. "Chemical Selection"discussed previously-and the rati The last round of pesticide results would be the ones of the maximum concentrations to the HGLs can 1: least likely to be influenced by well installation. Therefore, listed as follows: it is interesting to note that pesticides were detected in Chemical HGL (ppb) ([Clmax)/HG only five wells in the final round of sampling-at Bass River (green and tec), Hyannisport (green), and Eastward chlorclane 0.03 240 Ho! (green and fairway). Chlordane was only detected chlorothalonil 2 0.2 once, at Hyannisport. The other pesticides were DCBA, chlorpyrifos 5 0.02 dacthal diacid, and dicamba. 2-4-D 70 0.003 Three hollow-stem auger wells were installed in 1987 dacthal (- diacid) Soo 0.002* dicamba 200 0.0003 (Table 1). Two of these wells were installed to try to 2.4-DCBA resolve the uestion of cross contamination. Unfortu- heptachlor epoxide 0.004 40 nately, the results were euivocal. One well Yielded no isofenphos 1,- 35 0.06 chlordane detections, for example, and the other one did 3.5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (0.22 ppb). However, the second well was approximately 2to 3 feet from an original drive-and-wash well that Unknown. but probably >50 ppb based on its structural class (chlorinate contained chlordane, leaving open the uestion of whether benzoic acid) and its similarity to dicamba. chlordane reached ground water through the nearby A chlorpyrifos metabolite that has lost the molecular fragment most borehole or more regionally. The chlordane results are responsible for ch0lorpyri0fos' toxicity. discussed further in following text. This indicates that onlv chlordane and its weathere Some of the explanation of the initially high concen- impurity were present at concentrations producing long trations of DCBA may be due to the fact that the labora- term health concerns following long-term exposure. The tory had not set up to analyze for this unexpected inpurity, high ([C})max)/HGL ratio of chlordane and heptachic and encountered a high variability in their initial analyses. epoxide was due more to the low HGLs for these corr Therefore the first round DCBA results should be regarded pounds rather than high concentrations. as ualitative. Chlordane use on turf is no longer allowed. Therefor none of the 12 currently registered turf pesticides targeted Toxicological Significance of the Results in this study were detected in conrenirations greater than The detectef chemicals. their health guidance levels one-fifth of the HGL. 170 Winter 1990 GWMR Pesticide Mobility and Persistence Comparison With Other Data Guidance for making, judgments about the relative The Cape Cod study is the oniy one of 'Lis kind mobility and persist.i..e of pesticides has appeared else- Turf-plot lysimeter studies of 2.-'D and dicamba (Gold e where (Cohen et al. 1984. Gustafson 1989). Basically, ad. 1988) ard nitrate (Mortor et al. 1988) have dernon pesticides that are very mobile and very persistent have a strated minimal losses of these solutes it. rOC' zon high probabi!ity of Icaching to ground water in vulnerable leachate. This may be due to the dense root and shoo environments. svstem of turf. coupled with a surficial thatch iaver. Following is a subjective, simplistic assessment of the The concentrations and frequencies of occurrence o mobility and persistence of the pesticides targeted in this these turf chemicals in ground water are generally les study. The rankings below are based on published litera- relative to typical findings of agricultural chemicals 11 ture, personal experience, and educated guesses. (The row crop and field crop culture (Cohen et al. 1986, U.S Gustafson (1989) and Cohen et al. (1984) references also EPA 1988(b)). U.S. EPA (1988(b)) and Cohen et al. (1986 cite other article-- with good pesticide chemistry data.) summarized monitoring data frequently obtained fror vulnerable environments, analogous to Cape Cod. How Mobilitv ever, in one sense the comparison may not be valil because some of the more mobile and persistent pesticide High Medium Low used in agriculture are used minlimally in turf managem ent 2.4-D siduron chlordane In particular, nernaticides were not applied to these gol 2,4-DCBA PCP heptachlor courses. Certain nernaticides; can be mobile and persisten dicamba iprodione epoxide and are often detected in ground water in agnicultura dacthal diacid trichloropyridinol dacthal areas. Nematicides are applied to turf in more southen MCPP diazinon chlorothalonil areas. isoferiphos chlorpyrifos anilazine Nitmtes Persistence Different nitrogen management practices- tended t4 High Medium Low influence the extent to which nitrate-N leached to groun( chlordane iprodione 2.4-D water. The Falmouth golf course seemed to use the highes siduron dicarnba MCPP proportion of slow-releasc nitrogen fertilizers, and it ha( PCP. isofenphos dacthal the lowest concentration of nitrate-N in ground water 2.4-DCBA dacthal diacid The Eastward Ho! golf course had the greatest nitrate-@- heptachlor chlorothaiond ground water concentrations in 1986. and also tended t( epoxide chlorpyrifos apply more water-soiuble nitrogen. When nitro-eei trichloropyridinol application was significantly reduced in 1987, grouric anilazine water concentrations of nitrate-N were also significand, diazinon reduced. These trendscannot be explained by the rainfal data summarized under the Regional Hydrogeolog! section. By these subjective criteria, a moderately mobile These encouraging results indicate that reasonabf( chemical would have a Koc (soil organic carbon/ water changes in management practices can minimize nitrat( partition coefficient) roughly between 500 and 1200. A contamination in the types of environments that wert moderately persistent chemical would have soil metabo- studied. lism and hydrolysis half lives of approximately two to eight weeks and one to six months, respectively. Conclusions Thus this study examined pesticides with a broad Eight pesticides and pesticide metabolites and Ewc cross section of pesticide mobility and persistence. pesticide impurities were found in ground water at the study sites. Only chlordane/ heptachlor. a banned pesticide Chlordane Results formulation, was found in toxicologically significani Initiallv, the chlordane findings were especially puz- concentrations. Therefore use of turf pesticides by four zfing. Chlordane is persistent and had a high label rate for golf courses with vulnerable hydrogeoiogy was found to turf, but it is immobile. However, asmall studywas done have minimal impact on ground water quality; however. that demonstrated that chlordane in the ground water some of the contamination mav also have been due to was removed when the water was passed through a 20 to preferential flow through macropores. Z5ii filter. Thus it is reasonable to assume that chlordane This study was done with one set of pesticides in one migrated to ground water via facilitated transport, ;.e., hydrogeologic environment. It is recommended that via macropore flow in the bound phase and $'or via cross additional studies of this type be done in different hydro- contamination during well installation (see the previous geologic settings and include some nernaticides. Nemati- Temporal Trends discussion). The nature of dense, healthy cides tend to be more mobile and persistent than other turf. and the preserce of poorly aggregated sands would pesticide classes. with the possible exception of systemic @end tG argue against macropore flow, but this point herbicides, and they tend to be used more In southern cannot be proven either way. climates. Ad ditional hvdroeeoloyfic setfin,_,s wort nst ud Winter 1994) CWAIR Ing include areas with enhanced secondary permeability National Golf Foundation. 1985. Golf Course Main such as karst environments or areas of shallow fractured tenance Report. p. 5. bed I oc L. Gustafson. D. 1989. Ground water ubiquity score:'/ The study Indicated that turf management practices simple method for assessing pesticide leachability. J are closeiv related to n;tra(e concentrations in ground Environ. Tox. Chem., v. 8, pp. 339-357. Guswa, J. H., and D.R. LeBlanc. 1985. Digital Models o water. Rate and frequency of fertilizer application as well Ground- Water Flow in the Cape Cod Aquifer SYsteni as type of fertilizer used appear to be sign 1 ficantfacto rs in Massachusetts. USGS Water-Supply, Paper 2209 ground water nltrate@nitrogen concentrations beneath pp. 32-49, U.S. Government Printing Office managed areas. In at least one instance, reduced fertilizer Washington. D.C. application correlated with a decline in nitrate Hallberg, G. R. 1986. Overview of agnicultural chemical concentrations. in ground water. in Proceedings of the Agricultura Impacts on Ground Water-A Conference, Omaha Acknowledgments Nebraska. August 11-13.1986.pp. 1-63, National Watei Well Assoc., Dublin, Ohio. We acknowledge the cooperation and capable efforts Heath, R.C. 1983.'Basic Ground Water Hidrologr. USG@ of these colleagues performing much of the analytical Water Supply Paper 2220, U.S. Government Printinj work on this study: Dr. Han Tai, Elizabeth Flynt" Gerald Office. Wasf@ington. D.C. Gardner. Stanley Mccomber, Robert Robertson, an Id Holden, P. 1986. -Pesticides and Ground Water Quality.' Ray Shaw, all of EPA; and Jan Watkins of Sverdrup Report for the Board on Agriculture of the Nationa Technology Inc. In addition, Suzanne Schmidt and Research Council. National Academy Press, Washing Kirsten Eliason. formerly of CCPEDC. contributed sig- ton, D.C. nificantly to sampling and project management activities., LeBlanc, D.R., J.H. Guswa, M.H. Frimpter. and C.J Joe DeCola. EPA Region 1. Mike Frimpter, USGS-' Londquist. 1986. "Ground Water Resources of Capt Cod, Massachusetts." USGS H.,wdrologic investigation! Boston. and Jeff Carlson. Massachusetts Department of Atlas HA-692, 4 sheets, U.S. Government Printinj Food and Agriculture, provided much helpful assistance Office. Washington, D.C. during several phases of the project. The Golf Course Morton, T.G.. A.J. Gold, and W.M. Sullivan. 1988 Superintendents Association of America funded most of Influence of overwatering and fertilization on nitroger the write-up effort, the EPA-Office of Pesticide Programs losses from home lawns. J. Environ. Qual.. v. 17 funded much of the field work, and the Cape Cod Turf pp. 124-130. Grass Managers Association provided invaluable support National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1978 in continuing the study, Climates of Ae States, v. 1. p. 476. Gole Researcl- Co., Detroit. Michigan. Oldale. R.N. 198 1. Geologic Histor v of Cape Cod. MW Note sachusetts. USGS Popular Oublications Serie@ -17he views expressed here are those of the authors and Washington. D.C.. U.S. Government Printing Office do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Severn, 'D. '(U.S. EPA). March 20, 1986. Written com Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of munication to R. Oldham, Town of Yarmouth, Yar trade names or commercial products constitute endorse- mouth, Massachusetts. ment or recommendation for use. Snedecor, G.W., and W.G. Cochran. 1980. Sialislica Methods of Chap. 21 Seventh Edition, The Iowa Stat, University Press, Ames, Iowa. References Spalding, R.F.. G.A. Junk. and J.J. Richard. 1980. Pesti cides in ground water beneath irrigated farmland 11 Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Com- Nebraska, Aug. 1978. Festic. Monit. j., v. 14, no. 2 mission. 1978. Water Quality Management Plan/ EIS pp. 70-73. for Cape Cod. Barnstable, Massachusetts. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. EPA Cohen. S.Z. (U.S. EPA). February 28, 1984. Written 600/1-76-017 Manual of AnalYtical Qualit.%, Contro communication to S. Blauner, Board of Health, Town for Pesticides and Related Compounds in Human ane of Brewster. Brewster, Massachusetts. Environmental Media. Cohen. S.7_ R.F. Carsel,S.M. Creeger, and C.G. Enfield. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Dibro 1984. Potential for pesticide contamination of ground mochloropropoane (DBCP): Suspension order anc water from agricultuiral uses. Treatment and Disposal notice of intent to cancer. Federal Register, v. 44 of Pesticide Wastes. R.F. Krueger and J.N. Seiber November 9, pp. 65135-65179. (Eds.). pp. 297-325. American Chemical Society, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. EPA. Washington, D.C. 600/ 8-80-038 Manual of Anal 'wical 4@ethods for thi Cohen. SZ. C. Eiden, and M.N. Lorber. 1986, Monitor- Anairsis of Pes:icides in Humaru and Environmenta ing ground water for pesticides. Evaluation of Pesticides Samples. Sec. 11, A p-l. in Ground Water, W.Y. Garner, R.C. Honeycutt, and U.S..Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Cape Cod H.N. Nigg (Eds.), pp. 170-196.. American Chemical Aquifer Determination. Fed@ral 'Register, v. 47 Society, Washington, D.C. no. 134. pp. 30282-30284. Gold. Al, TG. Morton, W.M. Sullivan, and J. McClory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982b. Vetho6 1988. Lcaching of 2,4-D and dicarrba from home 608 Tem Method-Organochlorine Pesticides ant@ lawns. 4'ater Air and SoilPoll., v. 37, pp. 12 1-!29. PCBS. pp. !-11. Golf Course Superintendents Associat:lon of American/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc.y. 1982c. Method 172 Winter 1990 GWMR r 622. The Determination of Orgnophosphorus Pesti- publications in the area and is the author of the colums cides in Industrial and municipal Wastewater pp. 1-22 "Agricultural Chemical News," which appears in each U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982d. Method issue of Ground Water Monitoring Review. 615 Determination of Phenoxy Acid Herbicides in Susan Nickerson is the executive director of the Industrial and Municipal Wastewater, pp. 1-22. Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod (P. 0. Box U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982e. Method 636, Orleans, MA 02653). She oversees development 0 632. The Determination of Carbamate and Urea Pes- ticides in Wastewater bY Liquid Chromatography, scientific information on Cape Cod's natural resources PP. 1-19. provides public education on means of protecting those U.S. Environmental-Protection Agency. 1983. Ethylene resources, and promotes legislation to preserve ant dibromide-notices of decision and emergency order enhance the Cape's natural environment. From 1981 to suspending registrations of pesticide products contain- 1988, she was the Water Resources coordinatator of th, ing EDB for use as a soil fumigant... Federal Register, Cape Cod Planning and Economics Development v. 48, October 11, pp. 46227-46248. Commission, where she was responsible for conductin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Chapter 5 ground water studies and developing a regional grouni in Compilation of Data Quality Information for Envi- water management program. She has a B.S. in biology ronmental Measurement Systems. and an M.S. in public health from Tufts University. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. OPP- Robert Maxey has been a chemist with the EPA, HED-EAB-QAPP-86-6 and OPP-BUD-COBECS- (Environmental Chemistry Section; NASA Building 1105 QAPP-86-6 Quality Assurance Program Plan for Stennis Space Center, MS 39529) since 1970. He is cut Office of Pesticide Programs and for Environmental Chemistry Laboratory Section. rently the ECS project leader for the National Pesticid U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 1987a. Survey (NPS) and Project Office and technical monito "Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water: Proposed for NPS analytical contractor work on two of the NP, Pesticide Strategy." Office of Pesticides and Toxic methods. He has served as chemist and team leader fo Substances, Environmental Protection Agency, numerous projects involving methods development ano Washington, D.C. environmental monitoring of pesticides, especially aci U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987b. National herbicides. He has a B.A. degree in chemistry from th Pesticide Survey-Method 4. University of Southern Mississippi U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988a. Prelimi- Aubry Dupuy Jr. is section chief of EPA's Office o: nary determination to cancer registrations of aldicarb products and notice of availability of technical support Pesticide Programs (OPP)/BEAD/ACB/Environmenta document. Federal Register. v. 53, June 29, Chemistry Section(ECS)(Stennis Space Center, Missis pp. 24630-24641. sippi 39529-6000. He holds a B.S. in chemistry from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1988b. Pesticides Tulane University and a Ph.D. in organic-analytic in Ground Water Data Base 1988 Interim Report-" chemistry from Louisana State University in New Orlean Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and (now the University of New Orleans). His responsibilite include providing and directing residue analytical chem U.S. Geological Survey. 1985. -National Water Summary istry laboratory support to OPP studies, such as th 1984-Hydrologic Events; Selected Water-Quality National Pesticide Survey (NPS) of Well Water, Pesticid Trends and Ground Water Resources," USGS Water Tolerance Petition Method Validations, Dioxin/fura Supply Paper 2275, pp. 93-105. U.S. Government Printing Office), Washington, D.C. analytical studies, and other special projects dealing wit Wehtje, G., J.R.C. Leavitt, R.F. Spalding, LN. Melke, the analysis of pesticides. He has authored several publ and J.S. Schepers. 1981. Atrazine contamination of cations and has been with EPA for 19 years. ground water in the Platte Valley of Nebraska from Joseph Senita is a geologist/project leader with Bi non-point sources. Sci Total Environ, v. 2 1. pp. 47-5 1. spherics Inc.(12501 Indian Creek Court, Beltsville, M Zaki,M. H., D. Moran, and D. Harris. 1982- Pesticides in 20705). He conducts soil-gas studies, ground water involving pe ground water. The aldicarb story in Suffolk County, tigations, and unsaturated zone modeling involving pe: New York, Am. J. Public Health, v. 72, pp. 1391-1395. (icides, industrial solvent, and fuel. He conducts ronmenial audits in real estate transactions and h Biographical Sketches extensive gas chromatography experience. Senita has Stuart Cohen is the manager of Ground Water and B.S. in geology from, West Virginia University, wit Environmental Programs at Biospherics Inc. (12051 coursework in organic chemistry and graduate coursewor Indian Creek Court, Beltsville, MD 20705). His office in hydrogeology. He joined Biospherics in 1985 followin conducts ground water monitoring studies for pesticides work in sediment/erosion control and petroleum geology. and environmental audits for real estate transactions. He received a B.A. degree in chemistry from the University of Maryland-Baltimore County and a Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry from George Washington University, with thesis work in hydrolysis reactions. He joined EPA in 1976, has been working with pesticides in ground water since 1979, and became Ground Water Team leader in 1984. He joined Biospherics in 1986. Cohen has many Winter 1990 GWMR Rep-inted from the Journal o( Environmentai Qualitv Vol. 10. no. i. ;anuzry-March ,990, Copy-right @ 1989. ASA. CSSA. SSSA 677 Sout:i Segoe Road. Madison. Wl 53711 USA The Fate of Nitrogenous Fertilizers Applied to Turfgrass A. Martin Petrovic ABSTRACr 24 to 95% of the drinking water supply for urban and Maintaining high quality surface and groundwater supplies is a rural areas, respectively (Scott_1 985). The dependence tuitional concern. Nitrate is a widespread contaminant of ground- on groundwater supplies is increasing at a faster rate water. Nitrogenom fertilizer applied to turfgrass could pose. a threat than for surface water (Solley et al., 1983). A wide. to groundwater quality. However, a review of the fate of N applied range of contaminants are found in groundwater. Ni- to turf9rass is lacking. but needed in developing management sys- trate (N03) is considered one of the most widespread tems to minimize groundwater contamination. The discussion of the groundwater contaminants (Pye et al., 1983). Sources- fate of N applied to turfgntss is develop" around plant uptake, of NOi contamination include effluent from cess pools Atmospheric los& soil storage. leaching, and runoff. The proportion and septic tanks, animal and human wastes, and fer- of the fertilizer N that is taken up by the turigrass plant varied from tilization of agricultural lands (Keeney, 1986). Nitrate 5 to 74% of applied N. Uptake was a function of N releam rate, N leaching from fertilizers applied to turfgrass sites has rate and species of grass. Atmospheric loss. by either NH3 VOlAtil- been proposed as a major source of nitrate contami- ization or denitrification. varied from 0 to 93% of applied N. Vol- nation of groundwaters in suburban areas where turf- atilization was generally. <36% of applied N and can be reduced grass is a major land use (Flipse et al., 1984). substantially by irrigation after application. Denitrification was only To date. a comprehensive review of the effect of N found to be significant (93% o(applied N) on fine-textured. saturated, applied to'turfgrass on groundwater quality is lacking warm 50MIL The amount of fertilizer N found In The soil plus thatch or has been ignored in another review (Keeney, 1986). pool varied as a function of N source. release rate@ age of site- and The purpose of this paper is to provide a review and clipping management. With a soluble N source. fertilizer N found critical analysis of the cu nt state of knowledge of in the sod and thatch was 15 to 21% and 21 to 26% of applied N. rre respectively, with the higher values reflecting clippings being re- the effect of nitrogenous fertilizers applied to turfgrass turned. Leaching losses for fertilizer N were highly influenced by on groundwater quality. This review ran be useful in fertilizer management practices (N rate. source. and timing). soil Providing information on the development of best texture, and irrigatkm. Highest leaching losses we e reported at 53% management practices to minimize-the impact of turf@ of applied N, but generally were far less than 10%. Runoff of N grass fertilization on groundwater quality and to in- applied to tur(grass has been studied to a limited degree and has dicate gaps in the knowledge base, which can empha- ken found seldom to occur at concentrations above the federal drink- size future research needs. ing water standard for NOi. Where turfgrass fertilization posft a The discussion of the fate of N applied to turfgmss threat to groundwater quality. management strategies can allow the will cover the five major categories of the N cycle: turfgrass manager to minimize or eliminate NOi leaching. plant uptake, atmospheric loss, soil storage. leaching, and runoff. As illustrated in Fig. 1, N can be found in both organic and inorganic,forms in the turfgrass HE IMPORTANCE of maintaining high-quality sur- Dep. of Floriculture and Ornamental Horticulture. 20 Plant Sciences Tface and groundwater supplies cannot be over- Bldg.. Ithaca. NY 14853. Received 2 Aug. 1988. *Corresponding stated. Groundwater accoun 6 for 86% of the total author. - water resources in the contiguous USA and provides Published in J. Environ. Qual. 19:1-14 (1990). 11-4 ENNIRON. QUAL. VOL 19, JANJAkY-MARC;-i 1990 INPU7S Feflifts-r, raintaH, Turfqrass Plant -Soil Systems b104012iCal N2 fix.Vion and/or irrigation NH3 Voiankzation OUTPUTS DeniftifiCation N03 Leaching I RunoH NH4+ Excft Fixei NH.- W4.. Plart Leaching E Runoff r------ rr--- 1, Orgaric N NH4 Residu.-s Fig. I. The N cycle for the tudgrass ecosystem. plant-soil system. Inputs of N into the system are pni- bentgrass (Agrostis palustris Huds.) when fertilized at marily from fertilizers but to a lesser extent from rain- an N rate of 240 to 287 kg ha-1 yr-' (Sheard.let al., fall, irrigation, and biological N2 fixation. Once the N 1985). Cisar et al. (1985) found that 'Enmund I Ken- is in the turfgrass plant-soil system it may be found tucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis Q had N uptake rates in one of the N pools of NO-3, NH*,, soil organic N or in the field of 4.6 g N m-1 d-1 compared with 3.1 g N as part of the turfgrass plant. Nitrogen leaves the sys- M-2 d-1 for 'Yorktown 11' perennial ryegrass. tem via several routes: gaseous loss to the atmosphere Recovery of fertilizer N in the clippings of Kentucky (NH3 volatilization and denitrification), leaching into bluegras -s has been studied more thoroughly and fbun@ groundwater, runoff into surface water, and removal to be highly influenced by the rate at which N becomes in the clippings of the turfgrass plant. available from various N sources during the growing season. Nitrogen recovery via clipping removal ranges Plant Uptake from 25 to 60% from N sources from which most of the N is released during a single year. Over a 3-yr The goal of an environmentally sensitive N man- period, N recovery in the clippings averaged 46 to 59% agement system is to optimize the amount of N uptake of the 245 kg N ha' yr-1 supplied by sulfur-coated by the plant. However, the uptake of N is influenced urea (SCU), isobuty1dine diurca (IBDU), and by numerous factors temperature and mois- NH4NO3 (Hummel and Waddington, 1981). Others ture that affect plant growth rate, available N pool, N have found similar (Hummel and Waddington, 1984) source and rate, and the genetic potential differences or slightly lower (Selleck et al., 1980; Starr and DeRoo, between species and/or cultivars. With numerous fac- 198 1) recovery with similar N sources and rates. How- tors influencing the amount of N taken up by a plant, ever, with sources from which N is not entirely re- direct comparisons of results of research from various leased in I yr, N recovery in the clippings is consid- experiments are somewhat difficult. However, this sec- erably less. Recovery of applied N in clippings was tion summarizes and evaluates the results of numer- 22% from ureaformaldehyde, 29% from activated sew- ous studies (Table 1) of the plant uptake of fertilizer age sludge, 11% from ammeline, and 5% from melam- N for grasses used for either turf and nonturf type ine (Hummel and Waddington, 1981; Hummel and situations. Waddington, 1984; Mosdell 'et al.. 1987).' Grass species and grass use patterns have a major A comparison of two highly water-soluble N sources impact on N recovered in clippings. Barraclough et ai. showed that 53% of the applied N from NH4NO3 was (1985) observed that 99% of the fertilizer N, applied recovered in the clippings of an infrequently harvested as ammonium nitrate (NH.N03) at an N rate of 250 perennial ryegrass compared with 3 1 % recovery from kg ha-1 yr-1 was recovered in the single harvest of the urea (Watson, 1987). Although, little difference in turf- shoots of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L), grass quality has been shown between turfgrasses whereas the N recovery in the clipping steadily de- treated with either urea or NH,N03 (Rieke and Bay, -2 clined with increased N rates to about 50% fertilizer 1978), one would expect a difference in quality due to N recovery at an N rate of 900 kg, ha-1 yr-1. In contrast, a difference in uptake substantial as that reported by about 60% of the fertilizer N was recovered in the Watson (1987). The rate of N applied has a variable season long clippings yields of the'Penncross' creeping effect on N recovery in the clippings. At N rates less T T - c; PETROVIC: FATE OF NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS Table 1. Uptake of fertilizer N by turfgrasses. Clipping Nitrogen Soil Plant uptake Grass Use Frequency Placement Source Rate Season texture Clippings Other Reference days kg N ha % of applied Argrostis palustris Putting 4-13 removed Urea 287 Year Sand 60 -- Sheard et al. Huds 'Penncross' green (1985) 'Melle' loam et al. (1985) 900 50 - Lolium perenne L. Forage once 7 Urea 90 Sandy 31 16 Watson (1987) 'Melle' wks loam (1984) NH4NO3 90 53 25 Poa pratensis L. Lawn 7 removed SCU-11 245 Fall Hagers- 32 1.9 Hummel and 'Merion' town silt Waddington loam (1984) 245 Spring 37 2.3 NH.N0, 245 Spring/fall 59 2.1 147 Spring/fall 53 3.1 Poa pratensis L Lawn 7 removed Not stated 100 Year Haven- 36 39 Selleck et al. River- (1980) head Sandy loam 200 36 31 400 35 20 Poa pritenis L and Lawn 7 removed (NH.)3SO4 180 Spring/fall Merri- 29 - Starr and Festuca rubra L mac DeRoo (1981) sandy loam returned 30 - Poa prateasis L Lawn 7 removed IBDU-course 197 Spring/fall Hagers- 37 - Hummel and 'Baron' town silt Waddington loam (1981) IBDU-fine 47 - Ureaformal 22 - dehyde Activated 29 - sewage sludge Methylene 42 - urea (NH)SO. 48 - Poa pratensis L LAwn 12-15 removed Melanie 98 Summer Chalmers 5 - Mosdell ct al. *Wabash' silt loam (1987) Ammeline I I - Table I (cont.) than optimum for shoot growth, increasing the rate of plied SCU was found to enhance total N recovery in N will result in an increase in the percentage N re- the clippings over fall-applied material (Hummel and covered in the clippings (Selleck et al., 1980; Wesely Waddington, 1984). In a growth chamber, Mosdell and et al., 1988). When rates are near optimum for shoot Schmidt (1985) observed that at day/night tempera- growth, the recovery was not influenced by the in- tures of 16 *C/4 C from 26 to 39% of fertilizer N was crease in the rate of N applied (Hummel and Wad- recovered in the clippings of Kentucky bluegrass. dington, 1984; Selleck et al., 1980; Wesely et al.: 1988). However, at temperatures of 30 C/24 C, N removal Furthermore, at higher than optimum rates, percent- in the clipping was no greater in pots fertilized with age of N recovered generally declined (Barraclough et either NH4NO3 or IBDU at a N rate of 74 kg ha- I than al., 1985; Halevy, 1987; Selleck et al., 1980). on the unfertilized pots. Limited information exists on the percentage of fer- Clipping management should be expected to influ- tilizer N recovery in the clippings as influenced by soil ence fertilizer N recovery in the clippings (Rieke and type. In one study 9% more of the fertilizer N was Bay, 1976), but Starr and DeRoo ( 1981) found almost found in the clippings from plants grown on a silt loam. identical amounts of fertilizer N (29%) in the clippings soil than a clay loam soil (Webster and Dowdell, 1986). on plots either having the clippings retured or re- The difference was found to relate to greater amounts moved. of leaching, denitrification, and/or storage of N in the The amount of fertilizer N found in other plant parts clay loam soil. (roots, crowns. stems) has been studied to a lesser ex- Season, temperature, and irrigation also have some tent. Selleck et al. (1980) observed that the percentage effect on fertilizer N recovery In clippings. Spring ap- of fertilizer N found in verdure, crowns, roots. and 4 J. ENVIRON. QUAL. VOL. 19, JANUARY-MARCH 1990 Table 1. (Continued). Clipping Nitrogen Soil Plant uptake Grass Use Frequency Placement Source Rate Season textures Clippings Other Reference days kg N ha % of applied Poa pratensis L. Lawn 7 removed Urea 9 Spring Sharps- 49 - Wesely et al. Park burg silty (1988) clay loam 18 60 - 27 59 - 36 59 - Lolium perenne L Forage 21 removed IBDU 1120 Glasshouse Sand 71 - Halevy (1987) Engels 2240 41 - 3360 22 - 4480 12 - 1120 64 - 2240 42 - 3360 25 - 4480 15 - Urea 373 71 - 746 70 - 1307 64 - 2053 44 - Unspecified Forage 7 removed Ca(NO1)2 400 year Clay 52 - Webster and loam Dowdell (1986) Poa pratensis L Lawn Once, 70 removed NH4NO3 400 Silt loam 63 - 74 Lodi silt Mosdell and loam Schmidt (1985) 16 C/4cL 12 - H 39 - 30 C/24cL 0 - H 0 - IBDU 16 C/4cL 26 - H 43 - 30 C/24cL 0 - H 0 - Other plant parts including roots, stems, and verdure. Sulfer-coated area, 36% N with 11% 7-d dissolution rate. Growth chamber study, day and night T; L and H refer 2.5 and 5.0 cm of irrigation wk, respectively. Hagerstown, fne, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludalfs; Haven-Riverhead, mixed, mesic Typic Dystrochrepts; Merrimac, sandy, mixed, mesic Typic Dystrochrepts; Chalmers, fine-silty, mixed, mesic Typic Haplaquolls; Sharpsburg, Typic Argiudolls; Lodi, clayey, kaolinitie, mesic Typic Hapludults. debris (possibly thatch) was 39,31 and 20% of applied N at N rates of 100, 200, and 400 kg N ha-1 yr1, respectively. Hummel and Waddington (1984) observed 1.5 to 3% of the applied fertilizer N recovered in the unmowed portions of the plant (top, roots, and debris). The different results may be a function of the amount of thatch present as suggested by the results of Starr and DeRoo (1981). They found that 14 to 21% of the fertilizer N was found in the thatch layer. Neither Selleck et al. (1980) nor Hummel and Waddington (1984) provided thatch data; therefore, this explanation is only speculative. Uptake of N from (NH4)2S)4 as measured in the clippings of Kentucky bluegrass-red fescue (Festuca rubra L.) turf, occurred primarily within the first 3 wk after application (Starr and DeRoo 1981). During the period from 3 to 9 wk after application, most of the N uptake was derived from the soil N pool and occurred at a rate (0.24 kg ha-1 d-1) five faster than that from fertilizer N. Clipping management during the 3 yr of this study had a major impact on total N uptake. About 9% of the total N found in the clippings was derived from the current year's returned clippings: whereas the N found in the clippings from the previous 2 yr returned clippings accounted for 20% of the N in the clippings during the third year of the study. ATMOSPHERIC LOSS OF FERTILIZER NITROGEN Nitrogen applied as a fertilizer to turfgrass can be lost to the atmosphere as either ammonia (NH3 volatilization) or as one of several nitrous oxide compounds (denitrification). Numerous factors influence the degree of NH3 volatilization and denitrification as summarized in Table 2. Ammonia volatilization can occure very rapidly following an application of N fertilizaer such as urea. Factors that influence the amount of NH3 volatilization include N source/form (liquid vs. dry) and rate, soil pH amount of water (irrigation or precipitation) received after application and thatch. In addition, when urea was applied to bare soil and to turfgrass, the amount of NH3 volatilization was higher in the turfgrass system than from bare soil (Volk 1959). Thus, some other factor(s) related to the presence of turfgrass resulted in the acceleration of the NH3 volatilization process. Studies of NH3 volatilization can be divided into field and nonfield studies. Results from the nonfield and/or closed system monitoring field studies are highly quantitative, and are useful for comparing treatment effects. Aerodynamic or other open system techniques can give results more typical of field conditions. TT-7 PETROVIC FATE OF NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS 5 Table 2. Atmosphere loss of fertilizer nitrogen applied to turfgrass Nitrogen Soil Tempera- Single/total moisture ture Location Sampling Source application % irrigation (relative Soil NH Denitrifi- Grass of study perion rate saturation or rainfall humidity) volatilization volatilization cation Reference kg N ha1 cm c(%) ----%applied N---- Poa pratensis Bowman et L Benson Field 3d Urea 58 - 0 27-39 Yolo loam 3-36 - al. (1987) - 0.5 2-21 - - 1.0 1-8 - - 2.0 1-5 - - 4.0 0-3 - Poa pratensis Growth L Baron chamber 10d KNO3 52 75 - 22 Hadley silt - 0.02 Mancino et 75 - >30 - 0.11 al.(1988) Hadley silt 75 - 22 loam - 0.4 75 - >30 - - 100 - 22 Hadley silt - 5.4 100 - >30 - 94 Hadley silt 100 - 22 loan - 2.2 100 - >30 - 46 Poa pratensis Growth 8d Urea 253 - 2.27d1 Flanagan Nelson et al. L chamber silt loam 5 - (1980) Thatch Flanagan silt loam IBDU - Thatch Poa pratensis L and Festuca rubra L Field 8d (July) Urea 100 - 0 15.1 - Sheard and 5d (August) - 0.19 6.7 - Beauchamp (1985) Poa pratensis L and Festuca rubra Field Growing (NH4)SO 90/180 - - Merrimac sandy 24 Starr and DeRoo L Growth Season Urea loam Crosby silt 36 (1981)Titko et al. (1987 Poa praiensis Chamber 84h (granular) 73 - - loam L merion - 10 18 - - 22 43 - - 32 61 - - (31) 39 - - (68) 61 - 0 - 51 - 2.5 - 2 - Urea (disolved) 73 - 10 3 - - 22 17 - - 32 12 - - (31) 2 - - (68) 12 - 0 - 16 - 2.5 - 5 Poa pratensis Growth L chamber 21d Urea 293 - - 24 Flanagan 10 - Torello et al. SCU 2 (1983) Urea 10d (granular) 49 - - 24 2 Urea (dissolved) 5 Ureaformal 4d dehyde 49 - - 24 3 Methyl 5 urea Values are a combination of NH, volatilization and denitrification for plots where clippings were returned. qt Values are a combination of NHqI volatilization and denitrification for plots where clippings were removed. I Yolo. Typqic Xeorortherm Hadley. coarse-silty. mixed. nonacid. mqesqic Typic Udifluvenm Flanagan. Aquic Argiudolls: Merrimac. fine. mixed. mqesic Aqeric Ochrattualfs. Examining the results of studies from nonfield or thatch but only 5% volatilized from cores having 5 cm closed systems field experiments, several important of soil and no thatch below the sod. It should be noted concepts can be put forth. An aspect of the turfgrass that urea was applied at an extremely high N rate in ecosystem that has a dramatic impact on NH3 vola- this study (253 kg ha16). Substantial urease activity has tilization is the absence or presence of thatch. Nelson been noted in the thatch laver which is needed to et al. (1980) observed that within 8 d after application convert urea to NHq3q. and this activity serves to explain of urea, 39% of the applied N volatilized as N H3, from the role thatch plays in NH., volatiiization (Bowman cores of Kentucky Bluegrass containing 5 cm of et al.. 1987). 11-8 J. ENVIRON. QUAL., VOL. 19. JANUARY-N1.-XRCH 1990 The source, rate, and form of N influences the pool he rate at which liquid urea dries influences NH3 of NH3 available for volatilization. Torello et al. volatili7ation. Ammonia volatilization from urea on (1983). noted that 10% of the applied urea volatilized nonimigated sites is shown in Fig. 2. Ammonia vol- as NH3 within 21 d after a single N application of 293 atilization appears independc@-., of the maximum tem- kg ha-1, whereas only I to 2% of SCU N was volatilized perature recorded in the first .2i h after application. as NHj. At a lower rate of urea (49 kg ha-1) only about However, NH3 volatilization was ii,-@rselv related to 2% was volatilized. In general, Titko et al. (1987) ob- the daily open pan evaporation rate. r-6rthermore, served rpore NH3 volatilization with granular than dis- Titko et al. (1987) noted more NH3 volatiliza:;on at solved urea. However, Torello et al. (1983) noted the 68% relative humidity *han at 3 1% with either granu,.2r opposite. or dissolved urea. An estimate of NH3 volatilization under field con- Information regarding direct measurements of the dition was observed by Sheard and Beauchamp (1985). magnitude of denitrification under turfgrass condi- Using an aerodynamic procedure they found that 15% tions is limited. Mancino et al. (1988) used the acet- of urea was lost by NH3 volatilization from a blue- ylene inhibition technique under laboratory condi- grass-red fescue sod fertilized at 100 kg N ha-'. tions to measure the denitrification rate of KN03 Ammonia volatilization is influenced by the posi- applied to Kentucky bluegrass. They observed that tion of the N in the turfgrass system after application. when the soil was at a moisture content 75% of sat- The position is highly influenced by rainfall or irri- pratioh, less than 1% of the N from KN03 was den- gation. Bowman et al. (1987) studied the influence of tnified. Soil type and temperature had no effect on de- imption on NH3 volatilization after an application nitrification. However. when the soil was saturated, of liquid urea (49 kg N ha-1). They observed a max- denitriffication became significant. When temperatures imum of 36% NH3 volatilization when no irrigation were 22 *C or less, 2 and 5% of the N from KN03 was was supplied, whereas applying I and 4 cm of water denitrified on a silt loam and silt -soil, respectively. within 5 min after application reduced NH3 volatili- When temperatures were 30 *C or above, denitrifi- zation to 8 and 1%, respectively. Titko et al. (1987) cation was substantial: 45 to 93% of applied N for the also noted a significant reduction in NH3 volatilization silt loam and silt soil, respectively. Thus, during pe- from either dry or dissolved urea applied to turfgrass riods of high temperatures, substantial losses of N by .that received 2.5 cm of irrigation. Irrigation after ap- denitrification could occur in wet soils. plication dramatically affects the position of the urea. Starr and DeRoo (1981) studied the fate of N in Without irrigation 68% of the urea was located in the turfgrass. Using a 'IN-labeled (NH4)2SO,.tO calculate shoots and thatch (Bowman et al., 1987). Irrigation at a mass balance, they concluded that between 24 and 0.5 and 1.0 cm reduced the percentage of urea found 36% of the fertilizer N applied to Kentucky bluegrass- in the shoot and thatch to 31 and 26%, respectively. red fescue turf site was lost to the atmosphere by NH3 Urease activity was highly confined to the shoot and volatilization and/or denitrification. The higher thatch region (97% on a dry wt. bases.). Sheard and amount reflects clipping removal. When clippings Beauchamp (1985) also noted that NH3 volatilization were removed, less fertilizer N was found in the soil was reduced from,15 to 7% when a 1.2-cm rainfall and thatch; thus, reducing the total amount of N ac- occurred within 72 h after the urea application. counted for and a higher calculated value of gaseous loss. DAILY EVAPORATION - CM 025 0 50 0.75 100 t2S 1.50 1.75 FERTILIZER NITROGEN STORED IN I I I I THE SOIL 0 When N in fertilizers, rainfall, or-irrigation reaches the turfgrass-soil system, it may enter the inorganic pool (NH*, NOi), the organic pool, or be taken up by 4 30- the plant. * Organic N must be converted through microbial ac- e 0 Evawauan Y:55.23-32.96(evaponbm) tivity to an inorganic form before it can bee taken up 0 P 0.0s R3 0.&38 < 900 N 90 :3 20 Td* so. 0 LWea NH4 _N Z 70. ",02 -N > 0 Z Uj 60- R 50 10- U. 40- 0 0 ae 30- 20- 1C. 25 35 0 MAXIMUM AIR TEMPERATURE -C 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 Fig. 2. Ammonia volatilization as influenced by maximum air tem- DAYS perature (9) and evaporation (0) the first 24 h after a liquid urea Fig. 3. Percentage of urea applied N recovered as urea, NH.-N. and application (data from Bowman et al.. 1987). N03-N as a function of time (data from Mosdell et al., 1987). 1 PETROVIC: FATE OF NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS 7 by the turfgrass plant. The rate of conversion is highly deep core, containing either soil or thatch. treated at influenced by the form of the N, temperature, and an extremely high single N application rate of 253 kg moisture. At low temperatures or when soils are very ha-'. Fifteen days after treatment, only 2% of the urea- dry, urea will not be corverted to an inorganic form. N was left in cores with thatch compared with 58% However, in warm, moist soils, urea conversion is very without thatch. For lBDU, the amounts recovery of rapid. Mosdell et at. (1987) followed the transforma- IBDU-N was 96% from cores with thatch and 67% tion process for urea (98 kg N ha-') applied to Ken- from cores without thatch. tucky bluegrass (Fig. 3). They observed that 76% of Determining the amount of fertilizer N that is even- free urea was still present the day of treatment but tually incorporated into soil organic matter is difficult, little urea was found 4 d after treatment (DAT). Am- thus only a few studies have been done. Nitrogen monium accumulation peaked at 2 DAT. The amount stored in the soil is not all from fertilizer N; therefore, of N03-N never exceeded 4% of the applied N. a tracer for the N in the fertilizer is necessary. Com- The conversion of other N sources often takes a monly, a 15IN source is used for this purpose. Starr and slightly difFerent pathway than that for urea. Urea in DeRoo (198 1) fertilized a Kentucky bluegrass-red fes- SCU must escape the S coating before conversion. cue turf with (NH4)2S04, containing 15N. They found Urea is liberated by hydrolysis from IBDU. Organic at the end of the year (4 months after last application) N forms (e.g., activated sewage sludge), like any other that 15 to 21% of the fertilizer N was stored in the component of the soil organic matter pool, must be soil. The lower value was from treatments from which mineralized to NH4 then can be nitrified to N03. clippings were removed. Also, they noted that 21 to The amount of fertilizer N stored in the soil is in- 26% of the fertilizer N was found immobilized in the fluenced by the release rate of different N source, clip-: thatch layer, again the lower number is from treatment pings management and organic matter content as re- with clippings removed. Other studies using 'IN ap- flected in the age of the turfgrass site (Table 3). The plied to perennial ryegrass have shown similar results. source of N is important when considering sources that Watson (1987) noted that 13 and 17% of the applied have delayed N release. Waddington and Turner N was found in the soil organic N pool 7 wk following (1980) determined the amount of undissolved SCU an application with urea and NH4,N03, respectively. pellets at selected time intervals after the application Webster and Dowdell (1986) found between 20 and (Table 4). They noted that SCUs with lower dissolu- 24% of the fertilizer N remained in the organic N pool tion rates (% N dissolved after 7 d) and more S coating soil 4 yr after the final appliction. had a larger amount of residual SCU pellets recovered. The results of the research cited above indicate that In a short-term control environmental chamber study 15 to 26% of the N applied by urea, NH4N03, and using Kentucky bluegrass, Nelson et al. (1980) deter- (NH4)2SO4 Is present as organic soil N Within 4 months mined the percent of residual fertilizer N in a 5.3-cm to 4 yr after application. If N in thatch (Starr and Table 3. Soil storage of fertilizer N applied to turfgrass. Nitrogen Days from last Clipping Grass Soil texture Source Rate treatment management Thatch N Soil N References kg N ha'1 % of applied N - Poe pratensis L. Flanagan silt Nelson et al. loam ures 253 15 Removed - 58 (1980) lBDU - 67 Thatch Urea - 2 IBDU - 96 Poe pratensis L and Merrimac Starr and DeRoo Festuce rubre L. sandy loam (NH4)2S04 195 120 Returned 26 21 (1981) Removed 21 15 Lolium perenne Removed Sandy loam Urea 90 49 (once) - 13 Watson (1987) (NH4)2N03 - 17 Perennial grasses Webster and Clay loam C2(N03)2 400 1460 Removed - 24 Dowdell (1986) Silt loam - 20 Table 4. Residual undissolved pellets on turfgrass fertilized with S-coated urea. Fertilizer chacteristict Months after last application 7-day Sulfur dissolution Source N coating, rate 0 6 13 23 30 % of applied N SCU- 16w 37 21 15 l5c* 17bc 6cd 3d Od SCU- 17 34 27 17 37a 37a 21a 26a l3a SCU-26w 37 19 27 3c 3c 1d 1d Od SCU-26 35 24 27 26b 23b l5b 17b 9b SCU-35 36 22 35 14c 14cd 8C 8C 4c Gold-N 30 34 37 3d 10de 3cd 4cd 1cd *Values within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different. (LSD Walker-Duncan. k - 100). Each material was applied on 16 May 1974, 20 May 1975. and May 1976 at a rate of 195 kg N ha-' (from Waddington and Turner, 1980). SCU sources with a w have a 2% sealant-, all other sources have a S coating only. J. ENVIRON. QU-\L_ VOL 19. JANUARY-MARCH 1990 5000 4000, 3000- 0 2000- 1000 10 210, 30 40 so AGE OF TURFGPASS SITE, YEARS Fig. 4. Total N in surface layer of soil (0- 10 cm) as a function of the age of the turfgrass site. Bulk density, 1.4 Mg m-1 (with permission from Porter et al.. 1980). DeRoo, 1981) 'is added to that in soil. then 36 to 47% and lost to the atmosphere. Older turf sites (>25 yr of the fertilizer N becomes part of the organic N in in this example) should be fertilized at a rate equal io the soil-thatch system. the rate of removal by the plant and by loss to the Generally, when turfgrass is established on an area, atmosphere. Thus. old turf sites should be fertilized the soil organic matter will increase for several years less to reduce the potential for N03 leaching. Even because of the increased input of organic matter to the though other cultural information was obtained in this soil (thatch, roots) and the lack of soil disturbance. survey (i.e.. grass type. N rate, irrigation practices). During this period of increasing soil organic matter, only age influenced the storage of N in the soil. These some of the fertilizer N applied to the turf will be factors could be important but due to the relative small stored In the organic matter. Eventually, a new equi- sample population (100) the influence of these factors librium will be established, and soil organic matter could not be determined. content will remain relatively constant. Therefore, the capacity of a turfigrass to store fertilizer N in the soil LEACHING OF FERTILIZER NITROGEN is a function of the age of the turfgrass. However, an APPLIED TO TURFGRASS exception would be when turfgrass is established on a soil that already has a relatively high organic matter Several methods have been utilized in studying the content. Turfgrass would not increase organic matter, leaching of fertilizer N. These include collection of and consequently, little of the applied fertilizer N drainage water, soil sampling, sampling of soil water would be stored in the soil organic matter. above the saturated zone, trapping NOi on ton ex- Only one attempt has been made to study soil N change resins and sampling shallow groundwater. In accumulation as a function of age of turfgrass sites. most of these studies the assumption made was that Porter et al. ( 1980) sampled 100 turfgrass sites ranging once NOi leaches past the root zone. it will eventually in age from I to 125 yr on Long Island, NY. Sites were move into groundwater. This is true assuming.little chosen that had received somewhat uniform mainte- upward movement of water from below the root zone. nance over a long period of time and from an array A majority of the studies determined the degree of of turfgrass sites including residential lawns, golf fertilizer N leaching by adjusting the values for back- couirse, church yards, and cemeteries. The level of ground leaching from unfertilized plots. Starr and maintenance was recorded and soil samples to a depth DeRoo (198 1) used 'IN to more closely determine the of 40 cm were collected and analyzed for total N. Fig- fate of applied N. ure 4 graphically depicts their results. Total N accu- The degree of N03- leaching from a N fertilization mulation is very rapid in the first 10 vr and changes of a turf@rass site is highly variable (Table 5). Some little after 25 yr. Thus, on younger sites (< 10 yr in researchers reported little or no leaching, whereas this example) the rate of N applied should match the others suggest that as high as 80% of the fertilizer N rate at which N is stored in the soil. used by the plant was leached as N% Factors that influence the degree PE-ROVIC: FATE OF NITROGENOUS rERTILIZERS Table 5. Surnmary of nitrate leaching from fertilizers. applied zo turfgrass. Nitrogen Single N Total -application yearly Season soil % of Applied N Concentrate of Grass Source MCC N rate applied texturet Irrigation leached NO,-N in water References - kg: hi-I mm d-' mg L` Cynodox dacyo-lux June Brown et al. L Ureaformaldehyde 224 224 Sand/peat 6-8 - 0 (1 9n 8-10 - < I 10-12 - < I NH.NO, 163 163 Feb. 6-8t - < I 8-10t - > 10 for 20 d tO-12 - > 10 for 28 d Milorganite 146 146 Oct. 6-8 - <3 8-10 - <6 10-12 - <5 (NH.)SO. 24 24 Summer 12 37 <10 49 49 12 25 <10 73 73 12 22 ->10 on 3 d 99 99 12 16 > 10 on 3 d Cynadox dacyryloor June Brown et al. L IBDU 146 146 Sand/peat; 12 0.9 0 (1982) Sand/soil/ Peat 12 0.7 <2 Sandy loam soil 12 0.1 < I Milorganite 146 146 Oct. Sand/peat 12 7.7 0 Sand/soil/ peat 12 2.4 <2.2 Sandy loam soil 12 0.5 0 Ureaformaidehyde 224 224 June Sand/peat 12 0.2 0 Sand/soil/ .peat 12 0.3 0 Sandi loam soil 12 U 0 NH.NO, 163 163 Feb. Sand/peat 12t 22 > 10 for 25 d SandJsoiL/ peat l2t 22 > 10 for 25 d Sumly loam soil 12t 8.6 >10 for 25 d Pba prosensis L and June, Nov. Merrimac Morton et al. restwa nora Urea + fluf 49 98 sandy loam 1.8 - 0.87 (1988) 49 98 Jum Nov. 5.4 - 1.77* June, July, 49 245 Aug, Now. 1.8 - 1.24 June, July, 49 245 Aug., Nov. 5.4 - 4.021 0 0 1.8 - 0.51 0 0 5.4 - 0.36 Pon prateasis L Cool Lodi silt Mosdell and .Adeiphi' NHN0, 74 74 loam. 3.6 0 - Schmidt (1985) coal 7.2 0 - Warm 3.6 1.2 - Warm 7.2 2.6 - IBDU 74 74 Cool 3.6 2.7 - Cool 7.2 0 Warm 3.6 0 Warm 7.0 0 Pea prounsis L Nelson et al. ISDU 245 245 silt Itmun 2.3 26 (1980) thatch - 7 Warm Flanagan Urea silt loam - 32 thatch - 94 Poe paseasis I- Nov. Riverhead Pttrovic et al. Urealormaldehyde 98 99 sandy loam None 0-4 (1986) PCU (150D) 0-0 Milorganite 0-3 Urea 29-47 Agr-fis palm-is SCU Wh .ok year 11-12 Sheard et al. Huds. Urea 24 294 Sand Not given 2.0 < 1.3 (1985) SCU 1.2 < 1.3 Pod prounis L and Ammonium May/Sept. Merrimac Starr and rubm sulfate 98 176 sandy loam None 0 0 DeRoo (1981) Cywdm x 'Year Pompano Synder et al. mqnissii H. Check 0 0 sand As needed 0 - (1981) Tabk 5 Non(.) TT-1? 10 ENVIRON OUAL VOL. 19. JANUARY MARCH 1990 Table S. (Continued). Nitrogen Single N Total application yearly Season soil % of Applied N Concentrate of Grass Source rate N rate applied texture: Irrigation leached NO,-N in water References kg ha-' mm d'1 mg L' Methylene Urea 39 245 <1 <1 Ureaformaldehyde <1 < 1 SCU 0 <1 IBDU 0.5 <1 Urea 0 <1 C2(NO3)3 4.7 <1 Methylene Urea 78 490 2.0 <1 Ureaformaidehyde 0.1 1 Scu 0.8 <1 IBDU 5.5 1.4 Cynodon X Pompano Synder et al. magenissii H. Urea sand 0.9 1 (1981) C2(NO3)2 9.3 2.4 Cynodon X Feb.Mar. Pompano Synder et al. magenissii H. NH4NO3 49 98 sand 6 (daily) 54.6 9.4 (1984) scu 33.1 6.5 Fertigation 7.O 1.2 NH4NO3 1.5 (sensor) 40.5 14.4 Scu 11.2 4.0 Fertigation 6.3 2.2 NH4NO3 June-July 3 (sensor) 9.3 3.2 scu 1.6 0.8 Fertigtion 0.8 0.1 NH4NO3 12 (daily) 22.2 3.2 scu 10.1 1.4 Fertigation 15.3 2.1 NH4NO3 Apr.-May 3 (sensor) 1.9 6.2 scu 0.3 1.0 Fertigation 0.3 1.0 NH4NO3 8 (daily) 56. 1 18.9 SCU 14.4 4.8 Fertigation 3.5 1.2 *.Values significanty higher than unfertilized control plots (P - 0.05). t Irrigation applied every other day. t Riverhead, mixed. mesic Typic Dystrochrepts; Pompano. Typic Psammaquents. of leaching were found to be soil type, irrigation, N at 163 kg ha-1 (three times the normal rate from ber- source, N rates, and season of application. mudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.) greens in Texas). Soil texture can have a dramatic effect on the leach- However, the results from a Florida study (Svnder et ability of N from turfgrass sites, because of its influ- al., 198 1) with berm udagrass sand greens revealed that encc on the rate and total amount of percolating water, average N03 leaching loss from urea over a 2-yr period extent of denitrification, and to some degree ability of was only 1% of applied N (78 kg ha-1 bimonthly). The soil to retain NH+4. On an irrigated site in upper Mich- mean N03-N concentration in the drainage water from igan, Rieke and Ellis (1974) followed the movement this treatment was about 0.2 mg L-1, well below the of N03 in a sandy soil (91% sand) to a depth of 60 drinking water standard of 10 mg L-1. cm by periodic soil sampling. Applying 290 kg N ha-'1 The information on N03 leaching from cool and as NH4NO3 each spring (six times the normal N single warm season grasses grown on sandy loam soils is application rate), significantly elevated the NO- con. much more extensive. Brown et al. (1982), studying centration over that in the unfertilized plots in the 45- N03 leaching in bermudagrass greens built with a to 60-cm soil depth on only two of the 20 sampling sandy loam soil, found that 9% of NH4NO-N leachcd during the 2 yr of the study. The results suggest only as N03 from a single application of NH4,N03 at 163 limited. potential for NO3. As expected, soil NOS con- kg N ha-'1 (three times the normal N appiication rate). centrations were highly elevated most of the 2 yr of Significant N03 leaching occurred from 10 to 40 DAT. the study in the surface 30 cm of the soil. Applying Rieke and Ellis (1974) conducted a study in lower the same total amount of N in three applications re- Michigan on a sandy loam soil identical to the one vealed a similar trend. Sheard et al. (1985) observed they conducted in upper Michigan on sand. Even that creeping bentgrass sand greens lost only 1.2 to though N was applied at six times the normal single 2.0% of applied N in the drainage water (N rate of N application rate (290 kg ha-1), none of the treatments 242-390 kg ha-'1 yr1). The results on N03 !caching increased soil N03-N concentrations in the 45- to 60- from a U.S. Golf Association specification putting cm soil depth over concentrations measured in the green were somewhat higher. The U.S. Golf Associa- unfertilized Kentucky bluegrass plots. As before, soil tion specification putting greens have a minimum of N03-N concentrations in the surface soils were ele- 93% sand, a maximum of 3% silt and 5% clay, and an vated but deeper movement Of N03 appeared not to infiltration rate of at least 5 cm hr. Brown et al. (1982) occur. Several others also have observed limited N03 noted that 22% of NH4N03-N leached as N03-N in leaching and on sandy loam soils. especially at normal the drainage water when N was applied in Februarv N fertilization rates. Starr and DeRoo (1981) studied PETROVIC. FATE OF NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS j the fate of 'IN-(NH,)2SO4 applied to Kentucky biue- N03-N onlv 4 d. Furthermore, ttlCv Ob---rved Con5l( - grass-red fescue turf. They observed NO-3-N concen- erably less @;O, leaching from activ'ated sewage sludgc tration in the saturated soil zone ( 1.8-2.4 m deep) to (Milorganite) or ureaformialclehyde. ev,!ri when these range from 0.3 to 10 mg I.-' over the 3 yr of this field - matenials were applied at very @Igh single N applica- study. In only one sample did.they find any 'IN and' tion rates of 146 to 244 kg ha-'. concluded that (NH,)2SO. applied at a yearly N rate Synder et al. (198 1) also studied the N-leaching po- of 180 kg ha-1 to a sandy loam soil in Connecticut did tential from sand as influenced by the source and rate not result in N03 contamination of groundwater. of N. At a low rate of 39 kg N ha` applied bimonthly. Information on N03 leaching from fertilizer N ap- they noted very little leaching with any N source. The plied to turfgrasses grown on finer-textured soil is lim- highest leaching of inorganic N (NOj+NH,*) was for ited. Furthermore, the studies were conducted as CaN03, where 2.9% of applied N leached over 2 yr of short-term growth chamber experiments; thus, long- the study. However, at a higher N rate of 78 kg ha-1 term field data are lacking. Nelson et al. ( 1980) studied applied bimonthly, leaching occurred, in the order of the leaching potential of urea and IBDU applied to 9.3 and 5% of applied N was leached from for CaN03 Kentucky bluegrass underlaid with either 5 cm of a and IBDU, respectively. At the higher N rate, it ap- silt loam soil or thatch. Applying 253 kg ha-1 (five pears that the amount of N for these two sources was times the normal rate) and collecting leachate for 15 applied in excess of that used by the plant, stored in DAT, they found that 32 and 8 1 % of the applied urea soil, or lost to the atmosphere; thus, more leaching leached as NOi from the silt loam soil and thatch, &curred. Less than 1% of the applied N was leached respectively. Only 5 to 23% of the applied IBDU-N from ureaformaldehyde, SCU. and urea. The mean was leached from the thatch and silt loam soil cores, concentration of N in the leachate for CaN03 and respectively. Nitrogen leaching losses with 1BDU from. IBDU-treated areas was 2.4 and 1.4 mg N L`, re- the thatch were lower than from soil. Thatch has been spectively. far below the safe drinking water standard shown to have a lower moisture retention capacity of 10 mg L-1. than soil (Hurto et al., 1980); thus, thatch could have Sheard et al. (1985) monitored N in the drainage dried between waterings and may not have been as water from creeping bentgrass sand greens. They ob- favorable an environment for IBDU hydrolysis as soil. served that only 1.2 and 2.0% of the applied N (293 A conclusion one can draw from this work is that if kg N ha-1 yr-1) was collected as N05 in the drainage N05 is present in a soluble form above a concentration water for an entire year on greens fertilized with either that can be used by the plant and if water moves SCU or urea. respectively. They also noted very little through thatch or a silt loam soil (or any soil). then difference between N leaching on acid (1.8%) on al- N03 leaching can occur. If the N is not readily avail- kaline (1.4%) greens, from urea. Synder et al. (198 1) able, as in the case for IBDU. NO-3 leaching losses were found a big difference in N leaching between the sol- significantly less. uble nitrate source (CaN03) and urea. They attnibuted The impact of the source and rate of N on the leach- the lower leaching from urea to greater NH3 volatili- ability of N has received considerable attention. Most zation on the slightly alkaline sands. However. neither of the studies were conducted under the "worst case reported their post-irrigation irrigation practice. which scenario," namely, sandy soils that were heavily irTi- has a major impact on the degree of NH3 volatilization gated and fertilized at several times the normal use (Bowman et al., 1987). rate. Others studies were conducted under less extreme The last example of studies on sandy soils with high conditions. N rates was from Rieke and Ellis (1974). In the upper . Generally, worst case scenario studies have shown Michigan site. a sandy soil (91% sand) received 122 that as the rate of N increased, the percent of the fer- cm of rainfall plus irrigation the first year and 83 cm tilizer N that leaches decreases; however, the amount the second, four N sources were applied in the spring of N03 leaching on an area basis was found to increase at 378 kg ha-'. a rate of eight times the normal single with increasing rates. Brown et al. (1977) observed that N application rate. As one would expect, N03-'N con- on putting greens containing root zone mixes of 80 to centrations were significantly higher in the surface 30 85% sand, 5 to 10% clay, and up to 10% peat, the cm of the soil most of the growing season. From their percent of N from (NH4)2SOI that leached as N03 in deepest sample (45 to 60 cm), N03-N concentrations the drainage water decreased from 38 to 16% as the were significantly higher than those in the unfertilized rate of N increased from 24 to 98 kg ha-1. However, plots one sampling date only. In this case more NO-3 the amount of N03 leached increased from 9 to 15 kg leaching was noted from NH@1403, ureaformaidehyde. ha-1, which is important-in terms of the concentration and IBDU than from activated sewage sludge. ' of N03-N in the drainage water. They noted, however, Brown et al. (1982) studied the interaction of N that when a fine sandy loam soil was used as the root- source and soil texture on NOi leaching from U.S. ing zone media, the percent of fertilizer N that leached Golf Association specification greens of bermuclagrass. as N03 was reduced from 15 to 5% as the N rate in- Irrigation was provided to encourage some.leaching creased. More importantly, the amount of N03-N that into the drainage water. With root zone mixtures con- leached (4 to 5 kg ha-) on an area basis was essentially taining greater than 80% sand. leaching losses were unchanged as the N rate increased. Thus, increasing 22% from NH,N03, 9% from activated sewage sludge. the rate of N applied to highly sandy greens would and <2% from either ureaformaldehyde or IBDU. On lead to a deterioration in,the drainage water-quality; greens constructed with a sandy loam soil. the losses whereas, on sandy loam greens, increased N fertiliz- were 9% from NH4N03, 1.7% trom activated sewage ation would not further reduce the drainage water sludge, and < 1% from either ureaformaldehvde or quality. Even at the high N rate of 98 kg ha-1 the IBDU. drainage water exceeded drinking water standards fnr There are several reports on the effect irrigation has 12 J. EVIRON. QUAL VOL. 19. JANUARY-41 ARCH 1990 on the leaching potential of fertilizer applied to turf- MPa and the second was 3.75 cm water wk-1. The grass. Morton et al. ( 1988) studied the effect of two N former did not result in water draining out of the root rates and two irrigation regimes on the leaching of N zone, but the latter did. Drainage water was collected from a Kentucky bluegrass-red fescue lawn. The N and analyzed for NH; and N03. Irrigation based on rate was typical of a moderate to high lawn fertility tensiometer reading did not cause a significantly (P program, of 50 urea and 50% flowable ureaformalde- 0.05) higher mean annual N conrentration in the hyde (Fluf) applied at 98 and 244 kg N ha' yr'1. Two drainage water at either rate of N applied than was irrigation regimes were used; one applied 1.2 cm of found in the unfertilized control plots. However, ir- water when the tensiometer readings reached -0.05 rigating at a higher rate resulted in significantly higher N concentrations in the drainage water (1.8 and 4.0 mg L-1 for the low and high N rates, respectively). 05 6 These values are still well below safe drinking water Activated Sewage Sludge standards of 10 mg NO3-N L-1. 3 - Rain Snyder et al. (1984) studied the Interactive effect of 35cm 125 cm 573 15cm 2.4 irrigation and N source on seasonal N leaching from sand under bermudagrass. Ammonium nitrate and Irrigtion rate SCU were applied at a rate of 98 kg N ha-1 to plots 0 High 2 - that were irrigated either on a fixed daily schedule or 0 Medium by tensiometer-activated irrigation (sensor). In addi- a Low tion, N was also applied in the irrigation water (fer- tigation). Soil water samples were extracted daily to determine the amount of N (NH4 + NO3) leaching past the root zone. The percent of applied N leached ranged from 0.3 to 56% and was highly influenced by N source, irrigation schedule, and season of the year. The greatest leaching occurred in the February and March period, less in April and May, and the least in 3- the June and July. The decline in leaching loss was probably due to both increased plant growth and in- 45cm 30cm 58cm 12cm 2.5cm creased evapotranspiration. In every case, N leached from the daily-irrigated plots was 2 to 28 times greater than that leached from the sensor-irrigated plots. Gen- 2- erally, N leached from plots treated with NH4,N03 Was Ureaformaldehyde from 2 to 3.6 times greater than that leached from ones treated with SCU. Generally, fertigation resulted in lowest N leaching losses, except for the June and July NO3-N.mgL-1 period. Brown et al. (1977) also evaluated the effect of N source and rate of Irrigation on NO3 leaching. Irriga- tion had little effect on NO3 leaching from plots treated with very high rates of N (146-244 kg ha-'1) from either 40- 45 72 92 56 activated sewage sludge or ureaformaldehyde (Fig. 5). In fact, N03 concentration in the drainage water never 30cm Rain 6.75cm exceeded the safe drinking water standard. However, when NHN03 was applied at the extremely high sin- 30- gle application rate of 163 kg, N ha-', medium to heavy irrigation (0.8-1.2 cm d-1) resulted in substantial in- creases in N03 concentration in the drainage water 5 to 30 DAT. Drainage water from greens irrigated with 0 NH4N03 less than 0.8 cm d-1 (low) did not have elevated 20 - NO3 concentrations. 0 0 0 In a 10-wk growth chamber study, Mosdell and 10- Schmidt (1985) determined the N leaching by collect- ing drainage water from pots of Kentucky bluegrass containing a silt loam soil. They applied 74 kg N ha-'1 as either NH4NO3 or IBDU and irrigated the pots at 2.5 and 5.0 cm wk-1. At coot temperatures, (16 C/ 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 4 C), the only treatment with high N concentration TIME (days) in the drainage water was IBDU irrigated at 2.5 cm wk-1. Correcting for the leaching from the unfertilized Fig. 5. Leachate concentration of NO3-N as a function of N source check, this would amount to 2.7% of the applied N and irrigation (low, medium, high): Milorganite applied on 17 being leached. At a higher temperature regime (30 C/ Oct. 1973 at a rate of 146 kg N ha-1 ureaformaidehyde applied on 6 June 1973 at a rate of 244 kg N ha-1; N04N03, applied on 24 C) leaching of N from the NH4,NO3 and IBDU 16 Feb. 1973 at a rate of 163 kg N ha-1 (with permission from pots occurred. but never in excess of 2.5% of applied Brown et al.. 1977). N. Leaching was not influenced by irrigation amount. PETROVIC. FATF OFNITROGENGUS FERT11.1ZERS 13 The season at which the N Is appiled can have a suits in soils with high infiltration capacity; thus. run- diroct effect on. the amount of N that Is leached. Leach- off seldom occurs. ing is significant during periods when temperature'is low and precipitation (minus potential evapotransp'ir- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ation) is high. e.g., Nc-,ember through April in north- ern climates. The @ool temperatures reduce denitrifi- The distribution of fertilizer N applied to turfgrass cation and NH3 volatilization. limit microbial has generally been studied as a series of components immobilizall 'on of N in the soil and limit plant uptake. rather than a complete system. Only Starr and DeRoo However. low temperatures also reduce the rate of ni- (198 1) attempted to study the entire system of the faTe trification. With low evapotranspiration by plants and of N applied to turfigrass. However, their findings are relatively high precipitation, more water drains out of limited to a small set of conditions (i.e., cool-season the root zone. turfigrass, unirrigated, sandy loam soil). Thus. more The late fall has become an important time for N information of this nature is needed on a wide range fertilization of cool-season grasses (Street, 1988). How- of conditions. ever, as stated above, this period may lead to a greater Generally, the amount of fertilizer N recovered in potential of NOi leaching. This concept was tested in the turfgrass plant (clippings, shoots, and roots) varied a cool season turfgrass study on Long Island, NY. Ni- from 5 to 74%, depending on factors such as N source, trogen was applied at 97 kg ha-1 in November (Pe- fate and timing, species of grass, and other site-specific trovic et a]., 1986). The amount of N leached out of -,conditions. The highest recovery of total fertilizer N the root zone (30 cm deep) was determined by trapping was noted for'Kentucky bluegrass fertilized with a sol- the NOi with an anion exchange resin. The researchers uble N source at a moderate rate (102 kg ha' yr') found. as expected, that significant N05 leaching can@ (Selleck et al., 1980). In contrast, the lowest recovery occur.when a soluble N source like urea is used. Nitrate also occurred on Kentucky bluegrass fertilized with a leaching ranged from 21 to 47% of applied N for urez' very slowly available N source (Mosdell et al.. 1987). depending on the site characterics. On the site with a When accounting for recycled feriflizer N in the re- gravely sand B horizon, there was more N03- leaching turned clippings, Starr and DeRoo (198 11) observed from urea. Losses from activated sewage sludge (Mil- that about 29% of the fertilizer N was found in the organite), ureaformaidehyde, and'a resin coated urea. turfgrass plant. Information on N recovery from were less than 2% of applied N, whereas, NOi leaching warm-season grasses is lacking but very necessary to from plots treated with a nonsealed SCU was 12% of develop models that predict the fate of N applied to applied N. Even though the late fall N fertilization warm-season turfigrasses. principle has many good agronomic benefits, the en- Atmospheric loss of fertilizer N can occur by NH3 vironmental impact may overshadow the positive fac- volatilization or denitrification. Ammonium volatil'- tors in groundwater sensitive areas. Nitrate losses were zation losses can range from 0 to 36% of the applied also greater on warm-season grasses fertilized in the N. Reducing NH3 volatl lizatIon can be accomplished cooler periods of the year (February or March) com- by irrigating the fertilizer into the soil (Bowman et !I., pared with warmer seasons (Brown et al., 1977, Synder 1987). by using slowly available N sources and reduc- et al., 1984). ing the amount of thatch present (Nelson et al., 1980). Runoff Information on denitrification is limited. Losses can be substantial (93% of applied N) under conditions of When fertilizer N is applied to any site, there is a a saturated silt soil at high temperatures (Mancino et potential for some of it to run off into surface waters. al., 1988). However, more information is needed on A limited number of studies have been conducted to a wider variety of site conditions (soil) and turfgrasses determine the quantity. of fertilizer containing N that to more thoroughly understand the impact that de- will run off a turfgrass site. In a 2-yr field study in nitrification has on the fate of N. Rhode Island, Morton et al. (1988) observed only two The storage of fertilizer N in the soil generally occurs natural events that lead to runoff of any water. One in the soil organi'c matter phase or as undissolved fer- was from frozen ground and the other occurred from tilizer pellets of slow-release N sources (Hummel and wet soils receiving 12.5 cm of precipitation in one wk. Waddingtion, 1981). The actual amount of fertilizer The concentration of inorganic N (NH4* + NOi) in found in the soil was determined by Starr and DeRoo the runoff water from the two events ranged from 1. 1 (1981). They found that between 36 to 47% of the to 4.2 mg L-1, far below the 10 mg L` drinking water fertilizer N was in the soil-thatch pool. standard. This amount, regardless of the treatment, Leaching of fertilizer N applied to turfigrass has been accounted for less than 7% of the total N lost by leach- shown to be Hghly influenced by soil texture. N ing and run off. source, rate and timing, and irrigation/rainfall. Ob- Brown etal. (1977), studying theimpactof N source, viously, if a significantly higher than normal rate of a rate and soil texture, only @Iound in one case (1-d pe- soluble N source is applied to a sandy turfgrass site riod) that runoff water had NOi concentrations in ex- that is highly irrigated, significant N03 1@aching could cess of 10 mg N03-N L-1. occur (Brown et al., 1977). However, limiting irriga- Watschke (persona! communication 1988), studying tion to only replace moisture used by the plant (Mor- runoff from turf sites on a 9 to 12% slope, silt loam ton et al., 1988; Synder et al., 1984), using slow-release soil, also observed only one natural precipitation event N sources (Brown et al.. 1982. Petrovic et al.. 1986, that led to runoff over 2 yr of the study. Results of Synder et al.. 1984) and using less sandy soils (Brown these studies suggest that the turfigrass ecosystem re- et al., 1977) will significantly reduce or efirninate __ I / 14 ENVIRON QUAL. VOL. 19. JANUARY-MARCH 1990 NO3 leaching from turfgrass sites. If turfgrass fertil- nation in the United States. Univ. of Pennsylvania Press. Phila- delphia. P.A. ization does pose a threat to groundwater quality, sev- Rieke. P.E.. and R.A. Bay. 1976. Soil research report. p. 1-6. In eral management options are available to minimize or Proc. 46th Michigan Turfgrass Conf.. E. Lansing, M L 21-22 Jan- eliminate the problern. uary. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI. Rieke, P,E. and R.A. Bay. 1978. 1977 Turfgrass soils research re- REFERENCES port-nitrogen carrier evaluation. p. 13-25. In Proc. 48th Mich- igan Turfgrass Conf., E. Lansing, Mi. 10-12 January. Michigan Barraclough. D., E.L Geens, G.P. Davies, and J.M. Maggs. 1985. State Univ. E. lansing, MI. Fate of fertilizer nitrogen. III.The use of single and double labelled Rieke. P.E.. and B.G. Ellis. 1974. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on 15N ammonium nitrate to study nitrogen uptake by ryegrass. J. nitrate movement under turfgrass. p. 120-130, In E.C. Roberts Soil Sci. 36:593-603. (ed.) Proc. 2nd Int. Turfgrass Res. Conf. ASA. Madison. WI. 19- Bowman. D.C.. J.L Paul, W.B. Davis, and S.H. Nelson. 1987. Re- 21 June 1972. Blacksburg, VA. ducing ammonia volatilization from Kentucky bluegrass turf by Scott. N.R. (ed.). 1985; Groundwater quality and management. Ex- irrigation. Hortic. Sci. 22:84-87. periment Station Committee on Organization and Policy. Comell Brown, K.W., R.L Duble, and J.C. Thomas. 1977. Influence of Univ., Ithaca. NY. management and season on fate of N applied to golf greens. Agron. Selleck. G.W.. R.S. Kossack. C.C. Chu. and K.A. Rykbost. 1980. 1. 69:667-671. Studies on fertility and nitrate pollution in turf on Long Island. Brown, K-W., J.C. Thomas. and R.L. Duble. 1982. Nitrogen source p. 165-172. In Long [stand Hortic. Res. Lab. Rep. Cornell Univ., effect on nitrate and ammonium leaching and runoff losses from Ithaca. NY. greens. Agron. 1. 74:947-950. Sheard. R.W., and E.G., Beauchamp. 1985. Aerodvnamic measure- Cisar. J.L. R.J. Hull, D.T. Duff, and A.J. Gold. 1985. Turfgrass ment of ammonium volatilization from urea applied to bluegrass- nutrient use efficiency. p. 115. In Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Mad- fescue turf p. 549-556. In F.L. Lemaire (ed) Proc. 5th Int. Turf- ison, WI grass Res. Conf.. Avignon, France. 1-5 July. INRA Paris. France. Flipse, W.J., Jr., B.G. Katz. J.B. Lindner, and R. Markel. 1984. Sheard. R.W. M.A. Haw, G.B. Johnson, and J.A. Ferguson. 1985. Sources of nitrate in ground water in a sewered housing devel- Mineral nutrition of bentgrass on sand rooting systems. p. 469- opment. central Long Island, New York. Ground Water 32:418- 485. In F.L. Lemaire (ed.) Proc 5th Int. Turfgrass Research Conf., 426. Avignon. France. 1-5 July. INRA Paris. France. Halevy, J. 1987. Efficiency of isobutylidene diurea, sulfur-coated Solley, W.B.. E.B. Chase and W.B. Mann IV. 1983. Estimated use urea, and urea plus nitrapynn. compared with divided dressing of water in the United States in 1980. USGS Circ. 1001. USGS. of urea, for dry matter production and nitrogen uptake of ryegrass. Washington, DC. Exp. Agric. 23:167-179. Starr, J.L.. and H.C. DeRoo. 1981. The fate of nitrogen applied to Hummel, N.W., Jr., and D.V. Waddington. 1981. Evaluation of turfgrass. Crop Sci. 21:531-536. slow-release nitrogen sources on Baron Kentucky bluegrass. Soil Street, J.R. 1988. Newconccptsin turf fertilization. Landscape Man- Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:966-970. agement 27:38. 40. 42. 44, 46. Hummel, N.W., Jr., and D.V. Waddington. 1984. Sulfur-coated urea Synder. G.H.. B.J, Augustin. and J.M. Davison. 1984. Moisture for turfgrass fertilization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:191-195. sensor controlled imgation for reducing N leaching in Bermuda- Hurto, K.A., A.J. Turgeon. and LA. Spomer. 1980. Physical char- grass turf. Agron. J. 76:964-969. acteristics of thatch as a turfgrass growing medium. Agron, 1. Synder. G.H., E.O. Burt, and J.M. Davidson. 198 1. Nitrogen leach- 72:165-167. ing in Bermudagrass turf: 2. Effect of nitrogen sources and rates. Keeney, D. 1986. Sources of nitrate to ground water. Crit. Rev. p. 313-324. In R.W. Shead (ed.) Proc. 4th Int. Turfgrass Res. Environ. Control 16:257-304. Conf.. Univ. Guelph. Ontario. 19-23 July. Univ. of Guelph. Mancino, C.F.. W.A. Torello. and D.J. Wehner. 1988. Denitrifica- Guelph. Canada. and Int. Turfgrass Society. tion losses from Kentucky bluegrass sod. Agron. J. 80:148-153. Titko, S., 111, J.R. Street. T.J. Logan. 1987. Volatilization of am- Morton, T.G.. A.J. Gold, and W.M. Sullivan. 1988. Influence of monia from granular and dissolved urea applied to turfgrass, overwatering and fertilization on nitrogen losses from home Agron. J. 79:535-540. lawns. 1. Environ. Qual. 17:124-130. Torello. W.A., D.J. Wehner, and A.J. Turgeon, 1983. Ammonia Mosdell, D.K., W.H. Daniel, and R.P. Freeborg. 1987. Melamine volatilization from fertilized turfgrass stands. Agron. J 75:454- and arnmeline as nitrogen sources for turfgrass. Fert. Res. 11: 79- 456. 86. Volk. G.M. 1959. Volatile loss of ammonia following surface ap- Mosdell, D.K., and R.E. Schmidt. 1985. Temperature and irrigation plications of urea to turf or bare soil Agron. J, 51:746-749. influences on nitrate losses of Poa pratensis L turf. p. 487-494. Waddington. D.V.. and T.R. Turner. 1980. Evaluation of sulfur- In F.L. Lemaire (ed.) Proc. 5th Int. Turfgrass Research Conf., coated urea fertiltizers on Merion Kentucky bluegrass. Soil Sci. Avignon. France. 1-5 July. INRA Paris, France. Soc. Am. J. 44:413-417. Nelson, K.E., A.J. Turgeon, and J.R. Street. 1980. Thatch influence Watson. C.J. 1987. The comparative effects of ammonium nitrate. on mobility and transformation of nitrogen carriers applied to urea. or a combination of nitrate/urea granular fertilizer on the turf. Agron. J. 72:487-492. efficiency of nitrogen recovery by perennial ryegrass Fert. Res. Petrovic, A.M., N.W. Hummel, and M.J. Carroll. 1986. Nitrogen 11:69-78. source effects on nitrate leaching from late fall nitrogen applied Webster, C.P., and R.J. Dowdell. 1986. Effect of drought and irri- to turfgrass. p. 137. In Agronomy abstracts. ASA. Madison, WI, gation on the fate of nitrogen applied to cut permanent grass Porter, K.S., D.R. Bouldin. S. Pacenka. R.S. Kossack, C.A, Shoe- swards in lysimterm nitrogen balance sheet and the effect of sward maker, and A.A. Pucci, Jr. 1980. Studies to assess the fate of destruction and ploughing on nitrogen mineralization. J. Sci. Food nitrogen applied to turf- Part 1. Research project technical com- Agri. 37:845-854. plete report. OWRT Project A-086-NY. Comell Univ., Ithaca, Weselv, R.W,. R.C. Shearman. and E.J. Kinbacher. 1988. 'Park' NY. Kentuckv bluegrass response to foliarly applied urea. Hortic. Sci. Pye, V.I., R. Patrick, and J. Quarles. 1983. Groundwater contami 23:556-8q559. II-17 AppendiX C. control measures for Storm Water Runoff and Infiltrate STORM WATER RUNOFF-RETENTION/DETENTION PONDS01 RECONSTRUCTED WETLANDS Detention and Retention Ponds Detention and retention ponds are designed to hold runoff for extended period of time in order to reduce flooding, and to rembve suspended solids (silts, etc.) and their associated pollutants (metals or organic compounds adsorbed to particulates). Detention and retention ponds differ in the way that run-off is handled. Retention ponds are designed to capture and infiltrate runoff although some form of spillway is generally provided to handle large flood events. Detention ponds serve to detain and release runoff at a controlled rate. History has shown that if stormwater is detained for 24 hours or more, as much as 90% removal of pollutants is possible. Therefore, when using ponds for water quality benefits, extended runoff detention ponds or retention ponds should be provided. Ground water recharge is limited to the runoff which infiltrates through the pond bottom during the relatively infrequent times when the pond is flooded. While simple detention ponds are typically dry, extended detention ponds may be wet or dry. Figure 1 provides a schematic of a typical extended detention pond. Another design consideration is to prevent resuspension of deposited materials by scouring basin sediments by incoming runoff. Retention ponds are generally "wet ponds" which retain a permanent pool and prevent resuspension of particulates by slowing incoming water with the existing pool (see Figure 2). Retention and extended detention ponds are an effective water quality control measure. If properly designed and maintained, ponds are very effective in removing suspended solids and their associated compounds. Costs are site specific and vary considerably. In general,ponds cost between $15,000-$40,000. In cases where retention ponds are used, biological processes within the pond also remove soluble nutrients such as nitrate and. ortho-phosphorus. Artificial wetlands may be created in association with extended detention ponds and retention ponds to provide'further pollutant removal. Additional positive impacts of retention and detention ponds include the creation of local wildlife habitat and landscape amenities. Negative impacts include potential safety hazards, the need for regular maintenance and occasional nuisances such as algae, odor and debris. FIGURE 2. SCHEMATIC OF WET POND Top View Embankment ZZ;, Y: sti iniet cfi Wed -sha Forebay Perman mt Pool Oulfall > Protection Safety Bench e (10 Feet Wide Emergency 4., spillway Side View %sh Hood Sl ormwe t;, storage W;.r 71 ix. Embankment Permanent PO Anti-jeep Sediment Forebay (Planted as Marsh) Collars SOURCE: T.Schueler, 1987 Infiltration Basin A typical infiltration basin, shown in Figure 3, is an effective BMP for removing fine particulates and dissolved materials. Infiltration basins trap and hold runoff until it percolates into the soil. To function properly a site must have permeable soils and adequate (at least 2-4,feet) depths to bedrock and water table to allow percolation. When designing the basin, coarse particulates should be removed before-allowing runoff to enter the basin to lessen dogging of soil pores. Using a combined, detention-infiltration basin design which utilizes a modified riprap settling basin to trap coarse particulates is al@o an effective option. Design problems generally involve ensuring an even spread of flow over the basin floor; and handling a variety of storm intensities. A variety of design modifications exist to accommodate these problems (see Schueler, 1987 for further information). Construction and maintenance costs for infiltration basins are slightly more than those for extended detention ponds, o 'wing to the need to encourage infiltration. The primary disadvantages for their use include the need for high permeability soils, a backup drainage system in case of infiltration failure, failure due to soil freezing, and the potential danger of ground water contamination when used near public and private water supply wells. Infiltration Trench Figure 4 presents a schematic of an infiltration trench. As for infiltration basins, trenches will quickly clog unless coarse sediments are. removed from runoff prior to entering the trench. They are effective in removing fine suspended particles and dissolved pollutants. Infiltration trenches are a very flexible BMP because they can be tailored to a wide variety of runoff control situations. Infiltration trenches can be a desirable option for reducing runoff-borne pollution from parking lots and roadways because of their minimal space requirements, easy construction and relatively low cost. Figures 5-7 show several differur t trench system. Maintenance requirements and costs are generally low to moderate, but as for all infiltration structures, proper maintenance is essential for good performance., Disadvantages include need for high permeability soils and high cost for large scale runoff control situations (>10 acres). FIGUREE 3. SCHEMATIC OF INFrLTRATION BASIN Top View rE@ Flat Basin Floor with Inlet Dense Grass Turf Riprap Settling Basin and Level Spreader Riprap Outfall Protection Back-up Underdrain Emergency Spillway Side View Exfiltration Storage Valve Inlet Back-up Underdrain Pipe in Case of Standing Water Problems 10Q'/ FIGURE 4. SCHEMATIC aF.INFILTRATION TRENCH WellC3P Observation Well 0. V Fmergency Overflow Be rm K: munaff Filters Throug 2 Foot Wide Grass Suff er Strip Protective Layer of Filter Fabric Filter Fabric Lines Sides to Trench .6. M Prevent Soil Contamination 3-8 Feet Deep Filled with t5-2.5 inch Diameter :4z@. Clean Slone 16 Cr. .................................. Sand Filter (642 Feet Deep) .........................:.............. ...................... .... ... .. or Fabric Equivalent .......................... ..... Runoff Exflltrates 'Through Undisturbed Subsoils with a Minimum fe of 0.5 IncheslHour SOURCE: T.Schueler, 1987 FIGURE 5. SCIiEMATIC OF MEDIAN STREP TRENCH Top View Side View inflow 'A C11-7 $A 20' Qrji," Filter Strip t 4to .......... T f e n c: h Sides Uned with Permeable Filter Fabric Permeable Filter V. e. Filt*r Fabric One Fact Clean wasg" ed Stone or Gravel Below Surface. 0. a. (1.5-&0 Inch) Traps Debris 6-12 Inch Sand Filter at Permeable Filter .4. Screened Overflow Pipe Cloth Lines Bottom Outflow FIGURE 6. SCHEMATIC OF PAI-,'@G LOT I.-RENCH Top View Side View Oripline of Tree Should q Not Extend Over Trench Berm (Grassed) Slope of ...... Parking Lot Slotted Curbs Act as a LeW Spreader Cars Trench Filter Stn,p Protective Filter Directly Abuts Cloth Layer Pavement ter Storm Crain Slotted Curb Spacers (it Partial Eifittratioril SOURCE: T.Schueler, 1987 FIGURE 7. SCHEMATIC OF UNDERGROUND TRENCH WITH OIL/GRIT CHAMBER Top View Overflow Pipe Manholes for Clean-out Acces Starmdrain Inlet 0 Perforated Pipe Inlet Thr*e-chamber Water Ouslity Inlet Underground Trench Side View Overflow Pipe Impermeable Filter Cloth Te I f 10, W ke. 6 inch Inverted -----------I. ...... ....... Orifices Elbow 6 inch Sand Layer SOURCE: T.Schueler, 1987 Porous Pavement Porous pavements, if constructed correctly, can eliminate any need for further pollution treatment because they act to infiltrate precipitation into the ground before it has a chance to become surface run-off. As shown in Figure 8, the pavement must be constructed over permeable soils and are limited to gentle slopes to prevent run-off. However, it can remove both suspended and dissol7ved pollutants. The major disadvantages of porous pavements are the need to prevent clogging from sediments carried onto the pavement, the tendency toward cracking due to freeze and thaw periods. The pavements are liable to clog if the roadway receives any eroded soil or sediments from the surrounding watershed. Likewise, it is unclear whether this pavement is a viable long-term option in the northeast due to its susceptibility for cracking due to winter cold. While the use of porous pavement offers many advantages: reduced land requirements, little or no need for curbs and gutters, and ease of maintenance, further research is needed to evaluate their use in the northeast. Grassed Swales Grassed swales (Figure 9) are constructed, grass-lined channels that utilize flat slopes or grasses to direct runoff and remove particulates. In many cases, grassed swales serve as an alternative to standard curb-gutter drainage systems since they are generally less expensive and allow at least some stormwater infiltration and pollutant removal on site. Swales aid to control peak discharges through reducing run-off velocities and allowing infiltration. However, the volume of infiltration is generally small. Grassed swales are capable of removing particulates from run-off, however, they are not effective in removing dissolved pollutants. Due to their limited capacity to provide infiltration and pollutant removal, grass swales are generally used in conjtL-iction with additional run-off control measures for large developments. Grassed swales can be very effective in reducing soil erosion because, if properly designed, the grass and gentle slopes slow down 'runoff flow velocities. They are much less costly in both construction and maintenance costs than curb-gutter drainage systems. Care must be taken not to use large amounts of fertilizers or pesticides to maintain grass cover because they can end up being tarried directly into the receiving body of water by storm runoff. FIGURE 8. SCHEMATIC OF POROUS PAVEMENT tide View ------------- ---- ---------------- ---------- Porous Pavement Course (2.5-4.0 Inches Thick) Filter Course (0.5 Inch Diameter Gravel. 4 0. i.0 Inch Thick) W 1-.' 7ia .07 tf :0 .0 -0i 5 q .0 A Stone Reservoir A P, 0* ..a. (1.5-10 Inch Diameter Stone on A; ' I I - 0 C; M ;4-7 C C .-:0 4@ 0. 00'@o Depth Variable Depending OA14 - q Ca %. - ,70.0 Sz * "'.4 an the Storage Volume %= 0-0 **-1 , i @J.. . --'W@ -- 0 - - -I a - 0 ?@@ 19-.'.0*d % No ed, Storage Provided )6 10 ad by the Void Space Between OZ S: *a Mi Stones .;*a U.0; - %-i6N 0, 0: Sp Filter Course (Gravel, 2 Inch Deep) Filter Fabric Layer Undisturbed Sail SOURCE: T.Schueler, 1987 FIGURE 9 SCHEMATIC OF GRASSED SWALE Side-slopes 3: 1 o r L a a a Railroad Tie Swale Slopes -dam Chock as Close to (increases intutrationi Zero as Drainage Will Permit ......... Dense Gr 3.th J. afGrass(Re*d 41;t@p,F, et Canary or KY-31 rtlf et T all Fescue) -,weep HoM n2 w. its; Stone Pf events Downstream Scour S ,OURCE: T.Schueler, 1987 FIGUR.E 10. SCHEMATIC OF C.ONSTRUCTED WETLANID urban Forestry .. ........ I A.Z. vegetated sin Landsc ping 5A.. 7@. Sili0ow . . . . . . . marsh SOURCE: T.Schueler, 1987 Constructed Wetlands Wetlands are generally constructed on-site as an extension to retention and detention ponds (Figure 10). When properly designed and constructed, man-made wetlands mimic a natural wetland's ability to remove large amounts of dissolved and suspended materials from runoff flow. Constructed wetlands are generally very successful at handling stormwater run-off generated on-site, but are expensive to construct and maintain. A summary of the pollution reduction benefits:of various runoff control structures is provided in Chapter 2 of the book, "Controlling Urban Run-off: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs" by Thomas Schueler, Department of Environmental Programs, Metropol 'itan Washington Council of Governments. A copy of this section is included in th',s course manual. Wastewater Septic systems are often a source of water pollution. Sewage effluent may enter lakes through ground water or surface water run-off. In lakes where groundwater represents a significant amount of water input, sewage from properly functioning septic systems may be a significant source of nutrient loading. If septic systems are not maintained, such that that it fails and sewage backs up at the land surface, effluent may travel in overland run-off, conveying nutrients, bacteria and viruses to the lake system. DEM staff may control nutrient loading from septic systems through their proper siting and maintenance. REFERENCES Cohen, SZ, S. Nickerson, R. Maxey, A, Dupuy, and J.A. Senita. 1990. A ground water monitoring study for pesticides and nitrates associated with golf courses on Cape Cod. Ground Water Monitoring Review. 1.0 1: 160-173. REFERENCES (Continued) Schueler, T.R. 1987. Controlling urban runoff- a practical manual for planning and designing urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Synder, G.H., B.J., Augustin, and J.M. Davison. 1984. Moisture sensor-controlled irrigation for reducing N leaching in Bermuda-grass turf. Agron. J. 76:964-969. Fig- 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT > AM V, \j Underdrain System Water for Tee or Green Forest Buffer Quality Basin Fig. 6 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT L 41 ............. . Underdrain System Vegetated Swale for Tee or Green Shallow Marsh Irrigation Forested Buffer Pond Fig. 7 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT Underdrain System for Tee or Green Infiltration Trench Organic Layer Sand Stone Appendix D. Pesticide Use on Golf Courses at a RepresentatiVe Golf course in New Jersey and NJDEPE Laboratory Routine Capability for-Pesticide Analysis Pesticide Use April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - Fiingi6ide 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ibs al'applied - 1996 Ibs a.i.-applied - 1991 ital acreage 226 mrse acreage = loo resticide Use April - May- June - 111 fj 1@1,; July- J August - September - Octo'ber - No.vember- OH'erbi:cide 10 8.. 6 4 2 0 2. 4 6 8 10 lbs a.J., -applied - 1990, lbs a.i. applied - 1991 1-11 MMPM... 'otal acreage 226 lourse acreage = 100 Pesticide Use April - May- June - July - August - .11 September - -October - November - Insedicide I T----- T_ I T_ 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Ibs al'applied - 1990 lbs a.i. applied - 1991 a.] acreage 226 irse acreage = 100 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 .:i 61 b. - 30 ... ... .. .. 20 ......................... 20 10 . . . . . . . 10 ..... . ...... m;::::! a .............I - ... @::: 0 0 4/22 516 5/20 6/3 6/ 17 7/1 7/15, 7/29 8/12 8/26 ?/9 9/23 10/7 10/21 11/4 Fuingicides E --- JI Insecticides LLJ Herbicides Fungicide Use lbs a.i. applied ................ 3 5 ........ ................ .. ................. ............................... .................. .......................... .......................... .............................. ............................. ................ Year ............................... ............. ......... ....... ..................... .... .............................. 30 ......... ........... ............................ ............................. :"* ................ ...................... .......... .................... .................. .. .......... ...... ...... ................... 0 + 199@ ......... ..................... ..................... ...............I.............. . .......... ............. ....... .......................... ............. 25 ...................... .......... ............................... ...................... ............... ... ........................ ................ . ...... ......................... 4 .......................... ... ... .. ... ... .. ..... ............. .................. 20 ................... ...... .. ................. ... .............. . . ....................... ....... ..... ...... ......... ....... ....... ........ ................ ............ ..... ...... ....... .. ........... ............... .................... ....... ................. ........ ...... .......... ... ......... ... PA.. ........... ....... ... ............ ............. 15 ................. :.................... ......... .............................. .... ........ .................. :: ....... ....... ................... ........... ....... .......... .......................... ............................... . ..... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .:. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ::::: :: ::::::: @: :@ @:q::::::::::::::::;;:::. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aj. . . . . . . .......... ........... ..... ................. ............... :::::: ...................... ............................ .......... ........... ... :: @riiM. ..- - -!!!!II!i ::::::;:: ............. ...... . .. . ... .......................... ...... ............ ......... ................ .............. . .......................... 10 ............ . ..... . ......................... .......... ........ . . . ....................... .. ...... .... V. ....... .. ................. ............... ............................... ....... ...... .............................. . .................... ...... 5 ............ ..................... ................ ............... .... ............ ..................... ........... .............. .......... .. .. ....... ............. ....... ................. ......... . ........ ....... ........... ............. ....... ........... ......... Q$ Q) Q@ (@O Q@ . A@@ rp 'r P- (-p Z9 NO Atlantic Co. Representive golf course SOP APPENDIX, NIM-11C LASORATDRY ROU71NE CAPABILITY FOR PESTICIDE ANALYSIS UPDATED 8/1/92 (PCPrrEAM/AMW) rcr rr-vnctDp ..SA PLIR k .ATRIX. Ex .I.uc .. Tift coniq comwea chemical Name Svftb Water son Ak Otheir SOLVI-w4T TRADENAMB SYN(WYUS :STABLnj4f:tAPlOIl 40 24.5-T SWAB WATER SOIL FORM MeCI2/ACrD rif 2 41 14..5-TP (SILVEX) SWAB WATER SOIL FORM MeCIVACID SILVEX tit 2 39 ZA-13 - SWAB WATER SOIL FORM MeCIVACID P-STPRON;DACAMTNP:WPPDONr 44 Z4-De (DICHLORPROP) SWAB WATER SOIL FORM McCIVACID BLITYRAC p116-7cilei 9 ACEPHATIR SWAB WATER SOIL 14PXANE ORTHENE;TORNADO;PT- t100 tit 7 47 ALACHLOR SWAB WATER ACETONE/MeCI2 APENXLASSO.LAZOALANPX 22 ALDICARIB SWAB WATER SOIL FORM MMANOL or PCP TEMtK pFI J-6 29 ALDRIN SWAB WATER SOIL HEXANE TERMINIX A-4 rAl 5-7 is ALLPTIIRIN SWAB IIEXANE PYNAMIN -6 97 ARSENIC (INORGANIC.) AA/ICP ARSENIC Fit 4 .15 KrRAZINE SWAB WATER SOIL METMANOI,*tMeCI2 AATREX:-PRIMA*I'OI,iATRATOl- fil 7 7 AZINPIIOS-MFTlIYl. (GlrIllION) SWAB WATER son, IIVXANE rilmiloN 14f 7 19 BENDIOCARR SWAB WATER soft, MEVANOL OR PCP FICAM. DYCARII; TURCAM Of I ...... 95 RENTUIRALIN' SWAB BFNPrIN; 1311NMURALIN; TRAMI (52) 49 DENOMYL SWAB N.@ It SOIL FORM ACPTONITRILE HUNLATP; TERSAN I"I: rif 7 ...... 110 111INSMIDS SWAB WATER soft, FORM ACPTONE(ISOOCTANE BPTASAN;PRl!r-ARJlP-TAMFC@R4461 pil 3-6 126 BIFENTIIRIN SWAB WATER son, FORM ACPTONPJMeCI2 TALSTAR: BRIGADE 1.17 Be M Y'L SWAn ACPTONEIFTIIANOL MY BAIT GRITS 92 BORON; BORATVS: BORIC ACID DUST AA / ICP DORIC ACID 63 BROMACIL SWAB SOIL METIIANOL BROMACIL. IIYVAR X p117-9 73 rAPTAFOL SWAB WATPR SOIL r-ORM IIEXANP DIFOLATAN 72 CAPTAN SWAB WATER SOIL 11EXANE ORTI-IOCIDE:CAPTAN ril 2-4 21 CARDARYL SWAB WATER Son, METIIANOL CAR BARY`L;SPVlN:SAVIT:.SEVIMOI, pi. 13 ..... 23 CARBOFURAN SWAB WATER SOIL FORM MEIHANOL FURADAN tit 3-5 27 C-IILORDANE SWAB WATER SOIL AIR HPXANE CtfLORDANE;C-100-. TPRMIDP (MIX) ril 3-c CIILOROBROMILTRON SWAB MALORAN 101 CHLOROT14ALONIL SWAB WATER SOIL AC11TONPIXYLEN17 13RAVO:F)A('ONTL:(EXOIMP-RM)TP-mn. rill 3-8 2 C-IILORPYRIFOS SWAB WATER SOIL AIR HEXANE DLIRSBANLORSBAN@EMPIRPTLIRLOE pll 3-4 309 CLOi4AZONF (IDIMET14A70NE) FORM MET"ANOL C(TVMANDCOMMPNCE*: (52) COPPER (CUPROLISC.IIPRIC MTS) AA / ICP COPPER COPPER SULFATEAlYDROXIDIIJOXIDE 57 CYANAZINE SWAB METIIANOL' BIADEX-. EXTRA7tNr" (55) pill 6-8 138 CYFL11TVIRIN SWAB WATER SOIL IIFXANP TENIPO@ BAYTHROID@LASVR Tit 5-6 109 CYPERMET11RIN SWAB WATER SOIL IfP.XANE pil 5-6 210 DALAPON SWAB WATER SOIL DALAPON; DOWPON 175 DDD4.4- SWAB -',VATPR SOIL IIPXANE 176 DDP 4,4- SWAB WATER SOIL I I I- Xf@ N P, 177 DDT4.41- SWAB WATER SOIL IIEXANP DEET FORM IIP.XANP/ACVTONP. DEETPOWDER r-0RMl.n.ATION 178 DPMPTON SWAB WAT12R sort, FORM lll!XANf' SYSTOX 3 DIAZINON SWAB W@TER SOIL AIR IIr--XANF DIA71WON;SPV.Cl RACII)F:KNOX Otrl' p117 ..... VkAl SOP APPENDIX N)Dr-.PE LABORATORY ROUTINE CAPABILITY FOR PES71CIDE ANALYSIS UPDATED 8/1)92 (PCPfMAWAMW) rcr PrISTIC11311 I A*MFLlft:W-AT'Vk'VJC@.':: kX%*AC1!OjN CODE COMMON Cbeftleal News Swab wa*r 361 Air 10ther Sovvim TRAD04AME tiWottVjift 42 DICAMBA SWAB WATER SOIL MeOH/ETHER/ACOD BANVEL; PH 2-8 14 DICHLORVOS (DDVP) SWAB SOIL AIR HEXANE DDVP; VAPONA fit 3-6 ..... DICOFOL (KELTIIANE) SWAB WATER SOIL FORM METHANOL DICOPOL:KELTHANE 184 DIELDRIN SWAB WATER SOIL FORM HEXANE PH 7-8 183 hipNoctit-OR WATER SOIL Vegetation HEXANE PENTAC 105 DIFLUBPNZURON SWAB ACETONITRILE DIMILIN; VIGILANTE r413-6 DIMET1110ATIR SWAB WATER SOD, FORM HPXANE' CYGON-.DEFP-ND 136 DINOSPX (DNBP) WATER SOIL ACID DINOSEB-.DNBP:PREMl71RGP tA 1 4 -6 83 DIPHAC.INONE FORM RAMIK -91 VIQUAT WATER FORM Solid Phase 11mraction DIQUAT. AOUACIDE 135 DIVRON SWAB WATER SOIL METIJANOLJMeC12 DIURON; KARMEX: DIRPX 124 IDORMANTOIL SWAB FORM IIPXANe 120 DSMA (DISODO.TM METHANE ARSENATP) AAACP ARSENIC ANSAR: DI -TAC.; WEED-17- RAD I" P-DB(E-nIYLENE DIBROMIDE) SWAB IVATER SOIL MeC12/IIPXANP- DIRROME. BROMOFUMP 200 EDC(E711iI.PNEDICHLORIDE) SWAB %@'ATFR SOIL MeC12/1-1EXANI!, 11ROCIDE 30 ENDOSULFAN. 1. 11'. (ALPHA. BETA) SWAB WATER SOIL IIEXANE T1410DANTNDOCIDE:TIOVM: r4f 7 .89 ENDOTTIAL FORM Direct lojection of Liquid AQUASHALUENDOTIIALl. rJI 3-6 193 ENDRIN SWAB WATER SOIL IIEXANP ENDRIX:"EXADRtN rill 7-8 69 Erm. SWA13 14EXANP POTAKERADICANE 141 S-A 197 E7MION SWAB WATPR McC12 PTHION I" 12THYLENP DIBROMIDE(ED13) SWAI WATER son. MeC12/llr-.XANP IIROMOFUMR@DIBROMP 200 ETtlYLFNE DK'IILORII-E (PDC) SWAB WATER SOO, McCl2/HEXANe BROCIDE ETU (EIMYLEN11 1111OUREA) SWAB FORM ME114ANOL DEGRADATE OF EBDC'S:MANPD@ZtNEB 129 FPNAMIP"OS SWAB WATER HPXANE PQMACUR fill 6-7 137 FENOXYCARB SWAB WATER ME711ANOL TORUS 39 FENVALERATE SWAB WATER SOIL AC.CTONPAIEXANE PYDRIN; TRIKITP; ASANA rAl 4-7 216 FOLPET SWAB WATER SOIL HEXANP FOLPET; FOLPAN@ PHkLTAN 71 GLYPAOSATE WATER SOIL FORM BUFFERS Rdt?110@ROUNDUPXLEPNUP@ NONE 7 OUTHION (AZtNPHOS-METHYL) SWAB WATER SOIL IIEXANE GtrfmoN rill 7 HCH ALPHA (BHC/HEXAC.HLOR014EXANE) SWAB. WATER SOIL FORM IIEXANE/MeCl2 HCH BETA (BI-IC/1-11EXACI-111.0110"EXANE) SWAB WATER SOIL FORM IIEXANPJMcC[2 31 HCH GAMMA (BHC / LINDANE) SWAB WATPR SOIL FORM HPXA?4E HCH DELTA (BHCIHPXACHLOROHEXANE) SWAB WATER SOIL FORM HEXANE 29 HEPTACHLOR SWAB WATER SOIL AIR FORM IIEXANE TERMIDF-C-l -00 ril 4-6 106 IIEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE SWAB WATER SOIL AIR FORM IIEXANE IIPPTACIILOR DEGRADATM 1(7 225 IIEXAZINONE SWAB SOIL METHANOL VFLPAR 123 ISAZOFOS SWAB WATER FIS11 IIEXANE TRIUM!"ll pit 3-6 1 ISOFINP"OS SWAB WATER SOIL AIR FORM fleXANP PRYFON6: OFTANOL@ AMAZV: fit 3-7 31 LINDANP (GAMAIICII) SWA13 WATER SOIL AIR Ilf!XANP ISOTOX rwill- 6 SOP APPENDIX NJDEPF, LABORATORY ROUTINE CAPA131LITY FOR PESTICIDE ANALYSIS UPDATED 8/1/92 (PCP(I`EAM/AMW) rcr rp-STICIDS SAPAPLI3 %dAf*tX- stir s "ON CODE -commoachemical Name 1"ll Wolof son Air. dituts SOLVFNT: 66 LINLIRON SWAB WATER ACETONE OEMINI;LOROX:LrNPX pit 7@0 8 MALATHION SWAB WATER SOIL AIR HFXANE MALATHION.CY711ION Fit 5.6 Burr-na 79 MANCO7PB FORM METHANOL PENNCOZP-B;DITIIANP M-45; 78 MANEB FORM METHANOL MAN1113J)IIIIANE; MANZATU: MANPX ..... MCPA (METHYLCHLOROPHPNOXYXCETtC SWAB WATER SOIL FORM METIIANOL WEEDONE. 43 MPCOPROP@ MCPP SWAB WATER SOIL MeOHIP"I"ERfACID TRIM13C(MC*.PP+24D+D�C.AMBA)-.CMPP ril 2-8 25 M11RCAPTODIME"lUR SWAB MrTHANOI4W.R MESUROL jil 3-5 102 MPTALAXYL SWAB MV'n-IANOF SUBDUP P; RIDOMM: APRON 12 MPIHAMIDOP"OS SWAB WATER SOIL ACETONE MONITOR; ACENIAT11, MPT rill 4-6 234 MPTHANE ARSONIC ACID (MAA) AAfK',P ARSENIC. 2.5 MPTHIOCARR SWAB WATER SOIL MCOHIMCC12/1'CT MESUROL 26 METHOMYL (LANNATE) SWAB METHANOL [ANNATP@ Ntrr)RIN ril 4-6 32 ME711OXYCIfLOR SWAB WATER SOIL 14EXANE MARLATP fit 3-6 6 METHYL PARATITION SWAB AVATFR SOIL FORM HV.XANN`McC,12 PENNCAP-M 45 ME701-ACIILOR SWAB '@ATPR. SOIL MPTHANOL nlCEP';DUAI.@Pr-NNANT Fit 5-7 58 METRIBLIZIN SWAB WATER SOIL MFTIIANOL' SENCOR: LEXON174 SAUTTE' Fit 5-8 107 MEVINPHOS SWAB HEXANP, PIIOSDRIN ril 2-5 308 MGK 264 SWAB WATER SOIL IIEXANF a-OCTYL I)ICYCI.01112FIrPNPDICARF)OXIMIDP, .241 MONURON SWAB WATER SOIL MPTSIANOL/MeCI2 VROX 242 NALED SWAB WATER SOIL IIPXANEtMeCL2 DIBROM 308 n - OCTYLBICYCLOtIEPTEN PD ICA R13OXI M It) P. SWAB WATPR SOIL IIEXANE MOK 264 123 OIL(DORMANTOIL) FORM ISOOCTANE SCALECIDE: DORMANT OIL 50 ORYZALIN SWAB WATER SOIL ACETON!TRILE SVRFl-AN-,XL-2Q ROLTT 53 OXADIAZON SWAB WATER SOIL HEXANE RONSTAR ril 4-8 24 OXAMYL SWAB WATER SOIL METHANOL VYDATE;TIIIOXAMYL rAl 3..... 16 OXYDEPROFOS SWAB IIEXANR MPTASYSTOX-S 90 PARAOUAT WATER FORM Solid Pbose Pitrielloo GRAMOXONM PARAQUAT [413-6 3 PARA@MION (ETHYL) SWAB WATER -70 -IT HEXANE (A011A)PHosm; PPNNCAP-E rif 3-6 6 PARATH110N-METHYL SWAB WATER SOIL HEXANP PENNCAP-M rit 5-6 31 PENDIMPT"AUN SWAB HEXANE/AC.ETONP- PROWL: HERBADOX; STOMP 93 PPNTACRLOROPHENOL (PCP) SWAB WATER SOIL HEXANE/Mle(12 PCP 36 PERMET11RIN SWAB WATER HEXANP TOR PPDO;DRAGNET;POUNCP;AMBt]Sl I rill 5-6. R ---1lFXANE I PROLATV; IMIDAN rol 1-6 to PHOSMET SWAB WATP 0 34 PIPPRONYL 8trrOXME (Pno) SWAB rORM IIFXANE PIJQ R(rrACtDV 4f 2-9 56 PROMIRTONI .1 SOIL METHANOL' PRAMMOL, OR7140 TRIOX ri 6-7 1 W -co 4 PROPPITAMPHOS SWAB WATER SOIL AIR IIFXANE SAFROTIN 01.5-6 20 PROPOXUR SWAB WATER SOIL MUTMANOL DAYGON r413-7 33 PYRETHRIN SWAB IlFXANP CIIRYSANTIIPMAIPS(l)@PYREIIIRA'rPS(II) rol 5-6 133 QUATERNARY AMMONIUM (01.IAT) FORM '97RATION 1) - ALGA' t-1: 'QUAT* SOP APPENDIX NIDEPE LABORATORY ROUTINE CAPABILITY FOR PESTICIDE ANALYSIS UPDAT`ED 8/1/92 (PCPn`EAWAMW) 9 IAIPL .... .. d, A ON CODE CommosCLeakslNofte 3"fb Water son Air 01heir SOLV04T TRADIEN STAICIB pit P-4JkOR 37 RESMETHRIN SWAB WATER SOIL NEXANE VECTRIN, SYNTURIN rAI 5-6 272' RONNEI, SWAB WATER SOIL HEXANE KORLAN.. Disr-'D BY DOW 100 ROTENONE SWAB ACETONrrRILE NOXFISIJ-. ROTACIDE, CIIEMPIS" 67 SIDURON SWAB WATER SOIL METHANOI./McCI2 TUPPRSAN 59 SIMAZINE SWAB METHANOL* AOtIAZINE:PRINCEP;PRIMAML S ril 6-7 97 STRYCHNINE SULFATE (ALKALOID) SWAB STOM. BUFFER NUX VOMICA 11113 131 SVLFOMETITRON METHYL SOIL HEXANE OUST rd[7-9 68 72811THIURON SWAB METHANOL SPIKE ral 6-8 is TEMEPHOS SWAB HEXANE AHATE rif 6-8 TETRADIFON WATER SOIL METHANOL 287 TETRAMET"RIN FORM 14EXANE NEO-PYNAMIN 7.5 rtfIRAM SWAB METHANOL SPOTRETE-F-. SLUG-GETA: POLYRAM ...... 52 TRIFLIVRALIN SWAB WATER SOIL FORM MeOll:[IEXIACPTONE TREFLAN:TRILIN:TVAM':SALt"* ril 3-8 81 WARFARIN FORM IIPXANE/ACETONP WARFARIN so ZINEB FORM M121HANOI. DITIIANP Z 78 ...... ----------- - Pesticide Stability Water Sample Stable pH Range Marked with Indicates that the Pesticide may be Unstable or Labile Started Pestf'cides Are Considered Unstable or Labile; They Should Be Analyzed On a Priority Basis ***'*E&A - EXTrIACT AND ANALYZE AS SOON AS POSSIBLEI @A,A ICP - Analysis Requires Atomic Absorption (Flame or Graphite Furnace AA) or Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Spectroscopy Appendix E. I 0 1992 Supplement to the 1990 NATIONAL STANDARD PLUMBING CODE Published By The National Association of Plumb in g- Heating-Cooli ng Contractors Chapter 13 -Storm Drains p. 13-1 Amend Section 13.1.5 - Subsoil Drains to read *13.1.5 Subsoil Drains. a. Subsoil Drains. Subsoil drains shall be provided around the Perim- eter of all buildings having basements. cellars. or crawl spaces or floors below grade. Such subsoil drains may be positioned inside or outside of the footings. and shall be of perforated. or open joint approved drain tile or pipe not less than 3- in diameter. and be laid in gravel. slag. crushed rock. approved 34" crushed-recycled glass aggregate or other approved porous material with a minimum of 4" surrounding the pipe on all side. b. Sub-soil drains shall be piped to a storm drain. or to an approved water course. or to the front street curb or gunter. or to the alley. or the discharge from the sub-soul drains shall be conveyed to the alley bv a concrete gunter. Where a continuous flowing spring or ground water is encountered. sub-soil dra.ins shall be piped to a storm drain or an approved water course. c. VVhere it is not possible to convey the drainage by gravity. sub-soil drains shall discharge to an accessible sump pit provided with an ap- proved automatic electric pump. Sump pit shall be at least 15" in diam- eter. 18" in depth. and provided with a fined cover. The sump pump shall have an adequate capacity to discharge all water coming into the sump as it accumulates to the required discharge point. and in no event shall the capacity of the pump be lessthan 15 gallons 2 minute. The discharge from the sump pump shall be a minimum of 1/4". d. For separate dwellings. not serving continuous flowing springs or ground water. the sump pipe shall discharge onto a concrete splash block with a minimum length of 24". This discharge pipe shall be within 4- of the spiash biock and positioned to Direct the flow parallel to the recessed line of the splash block. c. Sub-scil drains subject to backflow when discharging into a storm drain shall be provided with a back-water valve in the drain line so located as to be accessible for inspection and maintenance. f. Nothing in this regulation shall prevent the discharge of drains serving sub-soil drains. or areaways of detached buildings. which do not serve continuous flowing springs or ground water. from discharging to a properly graded open area. provided the point of discharge is at least ten (10) feet from any property line. where it is impracticable to discharge the drain or drains to the street gutter or curb. a storm drain. an approved water course. or to an alley. 34 Distribution of Submer ed Aquatic Vegetation SAV Present NI 0 5 1 0 15 20 25 30 M I LES 10 NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 1 3 6668 14112025 5