HomeMy WebLinkAboutLaurel Links residential development & golf course 11/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'Due A44<Jdate4, 'lite,
Ecological Consultants
40 Hitching Post Lane, Glen Cove, NY 11542
21 Mt. Ponds, Wilmington, VI 05363
516676-7107
802464-3341
LAUREL LINKS
Residential Development
And
Golf Course
Environmental Assessment Form
PART III
NOVEMBER 1998
DEe 11 '\998
.,--':.,
@"t)"" A..",'of.., '}"", 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'Due A~. 'JitC.
Ecological Consultants
40 Hitching Post Lane, Glen Cove, NY 11542
21 Mt. Ponds, Wilmington, VT 05363
516676-7107
802464-3341
Contents
I. Introduction..... .......... .................... ........... ................... ................ ................... .............. ....1
II. Site Environment: Ecological habitats ...........................................................................4
A. Agricultural Fields .................... ............. ................. .............. ........................ ......... ...5
B. Successional Wooded Upland (Maritime) .................................................................6
C. Fauna .......... ......... .................... .................. .............. ............. ................ ....... ........ ......8
D. Wetlands........ ........... ..................... .................. ............ ................... ......... ...... ......... .12
I) Wooded Swamp:...................................................................................................12
2) Emergent Marsh: ..................................................................................................12
III Ecological Impact Assessment .....................................................................................14
A. Geological Resources ...................... .................. ............ ................. ......... ....... ......... .14
I) Surface Geology ...................................................................................................14
2) Topography......... ..................... ................. ............... .............. ............. .......... ........14
B. Water Resources .................. .............. ................... ............ .................... ........... ........ .15
I) Groundwater Quality .............................................................................................15
2) Surface waters. ................... ............. .................... .......... ........................ ........ ....... ..16
C. Ecology ......... .......... ..................... ................ .............. ...................... ............. ........ ....17
IV Mitigation Measures .....................................................................................................19
A. Geology ....................................................................................................................19
B. Water Resources.......................................................................................................19
C. Integrated Turfgrass Management Plan....................................................................25
D. Ecology.... ......... .................. ............. ............... ................ .............. ............. ........... ...26
E. Stormwater Wetland Design.....................................................................................29
--....."'-\
_-,,,IlEr.iY Ot:q'\,
- ~~~""'''' o~ \,
' !r,r. '. ~~
,;-...'Ii'.....CEp....<:>I.
, .. '. ./
1....f.......................':...~
t..~:9.f~1.~hR .~" A.~.~A..~~..~
/ <;,. 0301 ; ---II,
'f ~.... . /.;1' J:
tt%.,;.:..~ERm\\.~....-:}Q ....,
\.-~ ........ ~r,.s J'-
\\,i\lrAL ptlO --
"",.....-
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
14-16-2 (2/87)-7c
617 ,21
Appendix A
State Environmental Quality Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SEQR
Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project
or action may be significant. The Question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent-
ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine
significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technicaliy expert in environmental
analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concernS affecting
the question of significance.
The fuli EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination
process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to aliow introduction of information to fit a project or action.
Full EAF Components: The fuli EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project
data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides
guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered smali to moderate or whether it is a potentialiy-
large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentialiy-Iarge, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the
impact is actualiy important. '
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: 0 Part 1 0 Part 2 0 Part 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting
information, and considering both the magi tude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the
lead agency that:
o A. The project wili not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not
have a ~ignificant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
o B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wili not be a significant
effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required,
therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared,'
o C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact
on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared,
, A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Name of Action
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Title of Responsibie Officer
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)
Date
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\
I
I
I
I
I,
PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in. determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect
on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers to these Questions will be considered
as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve
new studies. research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable. so indicate and specify
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
LCA..Jfe..\ ",Y1\( E""'PE"'T/AL b~v~'-0rr1SA.JI ~ G ef( (o'.Jr....c
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Slreet Address, Municipality and County)
N'1':> 12.-le.. Z':> ",tht..JC { JOv->n ('J Sf"
NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR "'~~~IU."'T" A TI" "-NEe '1:
L..urc_\ l\",\J...S l...T]). (, t> 12. CA<i E..'::>'
ADDRESS 'i 'i 5" (7'.{{, '""'5.' A v c.
C [2." id I" "eI l'-fe" '" iZor,d i vC .
CI /PO
~:Jc.AvY'( '::> <:. rT
NAME OF OWNER (II different)
\ Sc '~H<:' v.... L,..., ~ h~ 0.. "'..S\,-, ~
ADDR S5
C 0 YOllA
CITYIPp--)
V~'{"V) V\U
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Cr",,,~;o.o of <;; I lot" b" ,,,bd,,.,L~c J<<nd Jwj"J,~, 2 2~ ~.-. -., I'
, J T J' L" oJ 0<-1<""::." t-t-...,'(.l'1'1'S
10,..l-tel So.th of "''-{'> /?I, L 5". lo-\-~ \- Z'1 ~,".... ,,, zc'" ~~("'f'~~ fr'~ Z"b, 32 5" ,,,. J 34-,725 "'F
Gte. ~(;) b't.. (l~.,.krui ',.., c~",h..-..d pUrll":'''''' '":J( pr>Jr((~'f '."lc:\. dNdQI'" vJ.H'I rt,dl.tt.J.,l!.o '>l.j/r ~H'''''''''1 ........"I~.
L~l- 30(\57.90ClC,.('CS.\o\tt. \<<:>\-v\-J'(,.\.t..Jt.\<;)Qt.~ ~-\"':>ct.-. \~-\-.~\( N~t"('-.lo"-i'\~{\\ c"{t)\f (...,.J(~"'(~W'\VI -k-V\rH'S
Ct:>-.>('\'7/ f,>lo~\,c..\~Ip''():o.~,,;>~ I ~\.(\.(~'"""J,( c.o........~ ":::>-li''<!.~.;,^\~~u.e.......\- f~~~d.~..'1{c:' r l~+ 31 +;:. k...J........l) -2,'3'1 Q.<"('t.'>
W"..\~ 'q1l."::'~6. \"", ~,....\-e""'(..o.""c..:. -\,,"(.l\\~~~~' 1\,,('~\M'"'l\c.''i ~,Cc5 <toL(t'~ ~+ I~W ';::,.J{~fc.~I...{ lJ,jCA\--t..(" W' \1 \oe..
crc~'rc.O.\ k'€"1.iy'Tl4\d \l.\c...c:..t:.<..:. ~{'e~\~\l""" w.::..",c\.\e",w"'\~"';'\\\;>L('~V\-lIl.C\-('~ -\Q (-t~\f (..;.",(~e...
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
-"75"2{)O
DRural (non-farm)
2
I
I
1Zl0-10% C;~ % 1310-15%
~15% or greater I %
6. Is project substantially contig~ous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National
Registers of Historic Places? DYes oNo N~t (r'"><'~~\1 \("0'""
7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural landmarks?
8. What is the depth, of the water table? iD - Z.:; (in feet)
9. Is site located over a p'rimary, principal, or sole source aquifer? plYes oNo
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project areal DYes
11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?
DYes ~o According to N"l:'>j)f( Nc,f"r<<1 Her;-I<<Jz -r;---,.,rr<',..,
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations)
DYes ~o Describe
DYes
~o
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes:
'-I-
%
I
I
~o
I
I
I
I
13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
DYes ~o If yes, explain
14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community?
DYes ~o f.J ,:> ?~blic Acc<"S -fD Jie...s v. ;-1/.-,.." j>"$".-11
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: /JoJ'?t~
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
I
16.
Lakes. ponds. wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name }J,-/SJ?&,C I1T-Z7. HT-'-f
Is the site served by existing public utilities? 1&Yes oNo
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection?
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection?
b. Size (In acres)
3,c i
I
17.
I
,81Y es
1i!!Y es
oNo
oNo
I
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA,
Section 303 and 304? ~es oNo
19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8
of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6171 DYes ~o
I
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes?
DYes
MNo
I
B. Project Description
I
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor ZZZ.<7iS acres.
b. Project acreage to be developed: _\17,:5 acres initially; 117,-5
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped "15' ,-t acres.
d, Length of project, in miles: tJA- (If appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed ;(]A
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed / S- 'Z.
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour-C 5'" (upon completion of project)?
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units:
One Family Two Family
o 0
'3D 0
acres ultimately.
I
%;
I
I
Multiple Family
o
Condominium
o
o
o
width;
)2=
70'
length.
I
It.
3
I ~
I
I
I
I
I'
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
'i
I:
I
I i
, ,
,
, ,
I ; I
.
i
I
I
I
I
2. How much natural material (i,e" rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? <:) tons/cubic yards
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ~Yes DNo DN/A
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? L"",t\'j<" .\':.6. AI'v", .co, C-,,\~' Ie' 'A,,)({<,
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~Yes DNo
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~es DNo
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? / L/ ' z, 9 acres.
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
DYes f'3.No
f.-J/>'::
months, (including demolition).
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction
7. If multi-phased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated 2- (number),
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 .::J/~N month
c. Approximate completion date of final phase :::JAi'-l month
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? DYes
Will blasting occur during construction? DYes ~o
Number of jobs generated: during construction / DC
Number of jobs eliminatedpv this project ()
Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?
IC1.Cj9
-ZODZ
';glNo
year, (including demolition).
year.
8.
9.
10.
11.
; after project is complete
Sl.~
If yes, explain
~o
DYes
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes ~o
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes DNo Type 'j',rt'j"'- !r;'?"IJ .,\.y...\ ";.zr,,i Ie <;"~I,,",,s
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? DYes SNo
Explain N':J e ;, A-tl' W(c.t..: ~( ..A \,/"wI.t\ I.JI..Cc.'-l'~" ";).....JI!.-.i{( Y'v": ",_:.(;.,{l/ w~t:.c w-\\ b<:. C(~<".)..t(. ..
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? DYes ~o ~,'-ce ~ retiA .MAi>
16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~Yes DNo
a. If yes, what is the amount per month ""6 tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ~es ~No
c. If yes, give name \0 iv. 2.< "<c,~; ~,cI. ; location -t c I.", .l<\-<;'~i~.A b. t.,<< \ cu.c+tr-;.
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? DYes ~o
e. If Yes, explain
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste?
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal?
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life?
DYes ~o
tons/month.
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides?
~es
years.
DNo
gNo
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes
~o
DYes
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels?
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? jifYes DNo
If yes, indicate type(s) wck(, Elcc-\,:( ,-;,-~
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute,
23. Total anticipated water usage per day \ "6, 2>ClD gallons/day.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? DYes ~o
If Yes, explain
4
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
25. Approvals Required:
City, Town, Village Board DYes DNo
City, Town, Village Planning Board l)<IYes DNo
City, Town Zoning Board &:lYes DNo
City, County Health Department 1)fYes DNo
Other Local Agencies DYes DNo
Other Regional Agencies DYes DNo
State Agencies b/l Yes DNo
Federal Agencies DYes ~No
Type
Submittal
Date
S : 1-<.- 1?k.", \ \,;,j-"-- t k...."'c1 c::>
c, ,'r< ?k." 1"-' (\ \0,,,<1 s
.z""'~'J(S.rT',''''\ ,:,,,,.+.0, 1.0^ ')
'Ale..\...::.( \ ~-cy \-~<.... j) ;Sl\J~')
,
d"f'3
(,19<>
,
d'i<d
;h9
tin
,
!-i '..j :7 r-ec
c. Zoning and Planning Information
1, Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? mes DNo
If Yes, indicate decision required:
Ozoning amendment Dzoning variance Dspecial use permit JESubdivision ;e3"site plan
Dnew/revision of master plan Dresource management plan 'Sother "vCto/ i"ff<:pf;cn f.",,~ l GAr
2. What is the zoning c1assification(slof the site? A -c I K-'iC(6i,. (., P. iCe)
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
C e\( (.::;......:.><- -c.. 0 Ac.J"C's.. ?C /1",>1(':> c,,' {ernql.-J/~'c qcrec.{ (,
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? A-C ( jZ-'J0 "(,,J<Y7<<'" \
5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
"Jet....,>::
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? l"IYes DNo
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 114 mile radius of proposed action?
~~.?':~en+'lO. OJc.>iVlt:!>' (it.JltJ(q\ i?-'1u i2-~o 8';;'J>'1c> g ~A'-C
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V. mile? ~es DNo
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? '3 \
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? Leo ,000 ,:>p
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(sl for the formation of sewer or water districts? DYes -gJ"No
11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police,
fire protection)? f!lYes DNo
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~es DNo
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? DYes ~o
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? DYes DNo
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse
impacts associated with your proposal. please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or
avoid them. jee LJftt:.t..:.J.4-c.d J.,j[f.c;(".;..J.<.,os HU.f~jc..r>-l(",t- ;:pt""'lla....., CIo'}J. ~,,'1...:ru~lW\~l'lt<...d A5.6('j;~..l-]ent- .H.T- 3
E. Verification
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
. ~6.t:/V1 )., (i'> I 1 , n.. , T.-
Aflfl),<'.~ fl81";:2.~,:pe. . -LJ\'-...w ,lAA lilt J( ,if/v) ;1/'-.-;
Signature" u.. ~ Title ~.\ Lei....'" t
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding
with this assessment.
Date
!v::l-'j'6
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. Introduction
The proposed Laurel Links Residential Development and Golf Course is located
on the southern side of Main Road (NYS Route 25), west of Bray A venue in the hamlet
of Laurel. The project proposal is to subdivide the site into 31 lots. 29 Lots would be
clustered in the center of the property and developed with single-family residential units.
Lot 30, totaling 157.9 acres would be developed as an 18 hole, Golf Course. Lot 31
totaling 2.39 acres would be developed for golf course maintenance facilities (Figure I).
The development of Laurel Links involves a set of potential environmental impacts, as
outlined in an initial review performed by the Town of Southold. The issues identified
were:
1. The proposed development plan potentially effects one geologic resource at
the site: native soils. The construction ofthe course and the residential development will
be accomplished by a balanced cut and fill, with little orlno material being exported from
the site. Native soils, which were previously disturbed by agriculture, will be used for
establishment of the golf turf;
2. The project site includes some habitat on which wildlife depend, but the
species using the site are typical of those adapted to co-existing with low density human
development. Field research and correspondence with New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation revealed that the wildlife habitats on the property do not
comprise an unusual resource and that the site is not listed as containing any Significant
Fish and Wildlife Habitats and/or species listed as rare or endangered. The wildlife using
the farmland will experience a reduction in their total habitat, but the species, which take
refuge in the less disturbed wooded habitat, will retain quality habitat throughout the
woods preserved on the edges of the property.
3. The project will not adversely effect steep slopes and the potential for erosion
will be fully mitigated; any potential impact from the location of the tennis courts will be
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. Introduction
The proposed Laurel Links Residential Development and Golf Course is located
on the southern side of Main Road (NYS Route 25), west of Bray A venue in the hamlet
of Laurel. The project proposal is to subdivide the site into 31 lots. 29 Lots would be
clustered in the center of the property and developed with single-family residential units.
Lot 30, totaling 157.9 acres would be developed as an 18 hole, Golf Course. Lot 31
totaling 2.39 acres would be developed for golf course maintenance facilities (Figure 1).
The development of Laurel Links involves a set of potential environmental impacts, as
outlined in an initial review performed by the Town of Southold. The issues identified
were:
1. The proposed development plan potentially effects one geologic resource at
the site: native soils. The construction of the course and the residential development will.
be accomplished by a balanced cut and fill, with little or/no material being exported from
the site. Native soils, which were previously disturbed by agriculture, will be used for
establishment of the golf turf;
2. The project site includes some habitat on which wildlife depend, but the
species using the site are typical of those adapted to co-existing with low density human
development. Field research and correspondence with New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation revealed that the wildlife habitats on the property do not
comprise an unusual resource and that the site is not listed as containing any Significant
Fish and Wildlife Habitats and/or species listed as rare or endangered. The wildlife using
the farmland will experience a reduction in their total habitat, but the species, which take
refuge in the less disturbed wooded habitat, will retain quality habitat throughout the
woods preserved on the edges of the property.
3. The project will not adversely effect steep slopes and the potential for erosion
will be fully mitigated; any potential impact from the location of the tennis courts will be
I
I
I
rhe
rOf
to
I ar,
ml
Iwe
me
fully mitigated. Previous farmfield erosion has created historic impacts, particularly in
the southerly wetland, where "sediment bars" have formed from accumulated deposits of
runoff from the farmfields. The project has the opportunity to remedy the cause of these
impacts.
ling
4. The potential impacts to the site's groundwater from the development of a golf
course will be mitigated by implementation of an Integrated Turfgrass Management Plan
(ITMP). The sanitary loading created by low density residential and club house operations
will conform with Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6 through use of single and
separate septic systems. It is anticipated that the Towns Water District will supply
potable water to the site. Existing wells combined with the proposed ponds will supply
irrigation water for the golf course and landscaping. The proposed residences require up
to approximately 18,000 gallons per day. This was calculated from the NYSDEC design
volumes which are 550 gpd/residence based on a 5 bedroom dwelling and includes
consumption for recreational purposes such as car washing and lawn watering.
lo~;
Ir
ICh
'rr;
Ig
101
I te
tp1
I,e
I
1)<
I
I:
1
II
1
I
~ I
5. The potential impact of converting farmland to other uses will be primarily
beneficial to the environment (i.e. habitat characteristics improve and groundwater
impacts could be reduced). No adverse impacts will occur to wetlands or adjacent areas
with the proposed plan and mitigation of the loss of open space will be facilitated by the
creation of wetland pond systems throughout the property. Additional vegetative
enhancement is proposed along the buffer of the wetland system in the northeastern
comer of the site (proposed tennis court location).
Design Principles:
A combination of standard engineering practices and the principles of the project
design team guide the design of the project. The configuration of the project has
followed a prioritized set of criteria:
a. Optimize use of already disturbed lands for new development impacts.
b. Achieve reasonable roadway and golf cart access throughout site;
c. Maximize setback from neighboring residences of new building construction;
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II. Site Environment: Ecological habitats
Its large agricultural fields totaling approximately 165 acres and a fringe of
wooded habitat totaling approximately 50 acres characterize the site. Two wetlands are
located on the property totaling 3.21 acres. The site physiography is typical of
agricultural land, having a relatively flat grade across the property. The site's ecological
diversity is limited because it is dominated by row-crop agricultural land with only a
narrow successional wooded border and two small (relative to the property acreage)
wetland systems. The New York State Natural Heritage Program was contacted for
records of endangered, threatened or species of special concern that may have been
recorded on the site, and their response indicated that no such records. exist. There were
no direct observations made of species listed by the State or Federal agencies as rare or
endangered.
Laurel Links, and its surrounding lands, have been effected by the process of habitat
fragmentation, which effects wildlife by the suburbanizing diversity and abundance. The
ecology of the wildlife in agricultural areas is altered from its historic origins through
such factors as edge-effect, isolation of woodland patches, artificial food sources (i.e.
crops), and interruption of transit corridors. In fact, most of the farm, including the
woodlands, reflect the pervasive influence of edge-effect
Populations of species that forage in farm fields are accustomed to unreliable resources.
Their reproductive dynamics tend to vary with resource availability. Such opportunism
has become a significant feature of rodents and meadow birds on Long Island because the
conversion of farms to other uses has been occurring for over 40 years. In particular,
birds using these areas have adapted to expanding their home range to ensure that they
visit diverse enough areas that provide diverse food resources. At present, there does not
appear to be any substantial amount of bird breeding on the site. One important factor in
this situation is the presence of domestic dogs and cats, which appear to roam the area
and would certainly threaten birds which typically breed in meadows such as grouse and
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
other gallinaceous species. The wildlife data are based on field research conducted over
the past year by Dru Associates Inc. Information is also taken from file research on the
habitats and species expected for such habitats along the north shore of Suffolk County.
The site contains three principle ecological habitats; agricultural fields, successional
wooded upland, freshwater wetlands.
A. Agricultural Fields
Throughout most of the central portion of the site there are 163.8 acres of
cropland vegetation cosisting of com, pumpkins, and potato's. Prior to disturbance, this
zone was probably consistent with the wooded uplands along the perimeter of the
property.
The soils of this area of the property are Plymouth loamy sands (PIA, PIB), Riverhead
sandy loam (RdA), and Haven loam (HaA) with a disturbed upper layer.
Plymouth loamy sand (PIA, PIB), are deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils,
found on outwash plains and undulating to steep moraines. A cross section through the
sample of Plymouth loamy sand showed a very thin topsoil layer (less than 6 inches) of
dark grayish brown loamy sand. The subsoil included a yellowish-brown and brown
friable loose loamy sand. The substratum is yellowish-brown, loose gravelly, coarse sand.
Permeability is rapid and erosion potential is slight. Limitations on development are
moderate.
Another soil type found on the site is comprised of the Riverhead Series (RdA): deep,
well-drained, moderately coarse textured soils, which occur on the glacial moraines and
in the outwash plains. The Riverhead sandy loams found on the project site is 0 to 3
percent slopes (RdA).
A typical section through a sample of Riverhead soil showed a brown sandy loam surface
layer to a depth of approximately 12 inches, followed by a strong-brown friable sandy
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
loam subsurface layer to a depth of 27 inches. The lower subsoil layer is yellowish-
brown, very friable loamy sand about 6 inches thick, followed by a yellowish-brown,
gravelly, loamy sand layer about 3-5 inches thick. The substratum is very pale brown to
brown sand and gravel about 30 inches thick. Generally, Riverhead soils have a moderate
to high moisture capacity with good internal drainage and moderately to highly rapid
permeability. Natural fertility of these soils is low.
The agricultural fields contain large areas of Haven loam (HaA). This is most often
found on outwash plains or on the tops of low-lying morainal hills. A cross section
through a sample of Haven Loam consisted of the following. The undisturbed surface
layer would consist of a thin layer of leaf litter and partly decomposed organic matter
underlain by a light gray to gray sand substrate to 12 inches deep. Root zones extend into
the top part of this layer. The substratum contained dark reddish-brown soils, compact
and very strongly acid. Permeability is rapid, the hazard of erosion is slight and soil
moisture capacity is poor, except during flooding, which is how these soils become
hydric, even though they drain out well seasonally in many locales.
It is not likely that wildlife use the agricultural fields for refuge or breeding habitat. It is a
potential food source for small mammals and birds. Due to the annual disturbance of the
top soil layers from plowing, reptiles and amphibians would generally not inhabit these
areas.
B. Successional Wooded Upland (Maritime)
The project site includes a narrow fringe of successional woods totaling
approximately 50 acres. Almost all of it being second and third growth forest dominated
in the canopy by oaks, beech, sassafras, locust, hickories, and maple, with patches of
evergreens. In the understory the lesser disturbed areas are dominated by greenbrier,
sumac, and an assortment of vines such as rose, Virginia creeper and viburnums. Much
of this area is relatively level, except for the slopes grading towards the two wetland
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
systems. In some areas, there has been such long term canopy coverage or former
clearing that the groundcover is absent in stands of forest.
The soils of these upland woods are distinct Plymouth loamy sands and Riverhead sandy
loam. Plymouth loamy sands (PIA, PIB), are deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured
soils, found on outwash plains and undulating to steep moraines. A cross section through
the sample of Plymouth loamy sand showed a very thin topsoil layer (less than 6 inches)
of dark grayish brown loamy sand. The subsoil included a yellowish-brown and brown
friable loose loamy sand. The substratum is yellowish-brown, loose gravelly, coarse sand.
Permeability is rapid and erosion potential is slight. Limitations on development are
moderate. Another soil type found in the wooded upland is the Riverhead Series (RdA):
deep, well-drained, moderately coarse textured soils, which occur on the glacial moraines
and in the outwash plains. The Riverhead sandy loams found on the project site is 0 to 3
percent slopes (RdA).
A typical section through a sample of Riverhead soil showed a brown sandy loam surface
layer to a depth of approximately 12 inches, followed by a strong-brown friable sandy
loam subsurface layer to a depth of 27 inches. The lower subsoil layer is yellowish-
brown, very friable loamy sand about 6 inches thick, followed by a yellowish-brown,
gravelly, loamy sand layer about 3-5 inches thick. The substratum is very pale brown to
brown sand and gravel about 30 inches thick. Generally, Riverhead soils have a moderate
to high moisture capacity with good internal drainage and moderately to highly rapid
permeability. Natural fertility of these soils is low.
In the northeast comer of the property the Carver Series dominates (Carver and Plymouth
sands CpE). This soil consists of deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils which
occur throughout Suffolk County on the moraines and the adjacent outwash plains. The
available moisture capacity is very low, as is the natural fertility. These soils are mainly
found on rolling moraines, although they are also on the slopes of drainage channels on
the outwash plains. The hazard of erosion is slight to moderate and the soils are dry.
Generally, Carver soils have a low available moisture capacity and a low fertility.
Permeability through such soils is rapid.
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A typical cross section through a sample of Carver soil would find the following strata (of
variable widths). The surface layer would consist of a thin layer of leaf litter and other
organic matter underlain by a thin layer of dark-gray sand. The subsurface layers include
a layer of light-gray to gray loose sand followed by a subsoil layer of loose brown to dark-
brown sand of approximately 14 inches in depth. The substratum (to approximately 60
inches) varies but usually contains loose sand with some gravel of a yellowish brown to
brownish yellow color to the 30 inch depth and a light yellowish brown color below this.
Areas of oak-beech-hickory, as the remnants of the native forest, occur in the wooded
upland fringe extending along the edges of the site into adjacent property. This habitat
includes white oak, black oak, beech, Sassafras and red maple. Most of these trees appear
to be 35-60 years old (<6"-10" DBH). The understory of the oak-beech-hickory
woodland type is low-bush blueberry, witch hazel, greenbrier, virginia creeper, rasberry,
hay-scented fern, roses, goldenrod, violet sp., and viburnum. In some locations the dense
canopy layer has restricted the propagation of a substantial understory.
C. Fauna
a. Mammals
Several mammal species were observed on site. Common species such as the
chipmunk and the cottontail rabbit were not observed or were in very low density.
Evidence (feces and tracks) of white-tail deer were common but not abundant. The
Eastern Mole Sea/opus aquatieus was noted from its burrows. Rodents are present but
not abundant in the fields and edges of the woodlands. Fox and opossum occur in the
general area. Squirrels were observed throughout the woodlands, and nest in the trees or
dense understory.
b. Reptiles and Amphibians
No snakes, turtles, frogs, toads or salamanders were observed in any phase of the
investigations in this section of the site. Some were observed in the immediate upland
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
surrounding the wetland system in the northeastern comer of the site. More than a day
was spent turning over logs and pulling brush piles apart.
The extreme dryness of these Plymouth, Riverhead and Haven sandy [oams may be the
main factor in limiting these forms, The lack of persistent surface water in the vicinity
are other factors. The lack of earthworms (none were found) in either the forest or field
soils and the seemingly low density of insects and other invertebrates are also important.
Turtles, Order Testudines
The Eastern Box Turtle, Terraoene carolince was observed. No other turtles are
expected.
Lizards and snakes. Order Squamata
,The eastern fence Lizard Scelooorus undulatus is a rare possibility. It is reported for
Long Island but with very few sightings.
The five-lined Skink, Eumeces fasciatus is another rare possibility.
Snakes. Suborder Seroentes
The Red-bellied Snake, Storeria occioilomaculata might occur but is severely limited by
dryness.
The Common Garter Snake, Thamnoohis sertalis is the most likely snake present. It is
common throughout Long Island.
The Eastern Ribbon Snake I. sauritus is less likely to occur in the wooded areas because
of the lack of surface water and soil moisture.
The Eastern Hognose Snake, Heterodon olatvrhinos IS possible III the wooded area
immediately above the wetland
The Black Racer Coluber constrictor is another possibility but like the other reptiles, not
an important faunal member.
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Amphibians
The Mole Salamanders, family Ambystoma tidae include 2 possibilities of occurrence.
These are the Spotted Salamander, Ambvstoma maculatum; and the Jefferson
Salamander, A. iefferssonianum. The lack of moisture, distance to surface waters and
low earthworm and insect population densities make these very unlikely.
Frogs and Toads, order Anura, would be limited by the lack of substantail surface water
in the vicinity. Only 2 species of toads seem at all possible
The Eastern Spadefoot Toad, Scaphiopus holbrooki is often found in pine forest with
sandy soils and fowler's toad, Buro woodhousei fowleri is found almost everywhere on
Long Island. Fowlers toad was observed.
The Grey Treefrog, Hvla Versicolor is another possibility but it too is limited by the lack
of persistent surface water. Its call is distinctive but none were heard.
c. Avifauna
In Southold, farming has attracted certain specIes and residential use has
attracted other species to the general area. Details follow on the most abundant or
conspicuous wildlife species, followed by an inventory of the area's species.
Suburban avifauna forage on the site among the wildflowers and shrubs, and some seek
refuge in the woodlands. Sparrows, Doves, Juncos, Blackbirds, Cardinals and
Meadowlarks feed amongst grasses on the seed and associated insects. Perennial
wildflowers such as Goldenrods, Asters and Ragweeds provide seeds for Goldfinches,
Sparrows, Juncos, Titmice, Cardinals, Finches, Robins and Chickadees. Bayberries
provide food for Crows, Chickadees, Flickers, Meadowlarks, Sparrows, Starlings,
Titmice, Woodpeckers, Wrens and Mockingbirds. Most of the birds listed in this
paragraph also feed on the seeds of Poison Ivy, Dogwoods and the various berry shrubs
present on the site
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Field searches were conducted for gallinaceous birds during each site visit. These species
were not abundant, as deduced because they flush easily. Ruffed grouse and American
Woodcock occur in the region, and persist through winter, but were not observed.
In the sections of the site secluded from roads and buildings, in the wooded habitat of the
property, the more common birds observed are migratory songbirds, including the Eastern
Peewee, Great-crested Flycatcher, and Northern Oriole in high canopy habitat, Red-eyed
Vireo and Blue-gray Gnatcatcher in mid-story habitat, and ground nesters such as Hermit
and Wood Thrush. Cavity nesting species like the Hairy and Downy Woodpeckers, and
White-breasted Nuthatch and Black-capped Chickadee would be most abundant in
isolated patches of mature woods.
Mourning Doves and Blue Jays are more common in the oak and mixed hardwood habitat
and in the dense patches of this habitat, Rufous-sided Towhee and Tanager may occur.
The site's bird species richness is not particularly high for the region. The biotic diversity
generally associated with edge-effect, along the southern fringe of the site, results in the
highest number of birds species, including in addition to those listed above, Sparrows,
Warblers, Red-winged Blackbirds and American Goldfinch.
The paucity of birds on the Laurel Links site is in part due to the dryness of the soils and
the lack of substantial surface water, and a real decline in some of the species or the long
agricultural history. For whatever reason the avian community is not a rich one.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D. Wetlands
The site contains two freshwater wetland systems totaling 3.21 acres (State,
Federal, and Town jurisdiction). These wetlands are classified as wooded swamp and
shrub/ Emergent Marsh.
1) Wooded Swamp:
The wooded swamp is located in the northeastern corner of the site. It is a small
portion of the larger system classified by the NYSDEC as Wetland MT-4. The wetland is
impounded by Bray A venue and Rte 25 which has resulted in the ponding situation that
currently exists. This ponding situation is not persistent and has experienced dry periods
which were obserVed. The wetland does appear to receive hydrological input from road
runoff during storm events, which correlates with the ponding situation during wet
.periods and a drying out during summer and early fall. The vegetation is dominated by
assemblages of red maple, hickory, oak, speckled alder, silky dogwood, poison ivy,
greenbrier, and highbush blueberry. The soils in this wetland were formed on the Carver
Plymouth sands (CpE). Due to the presence of some ponding water, the wetland contains
some species of amphibians such as toads and frogs. Reptiles were not observed but
could occur. Deer frequently use this area as a source of drinking water during wet
periods.
2) Emergent Marsh:
The freshwater emergent marsh is an elongated wetland located on the
southcentral portion of the site and extending northward into the property. It is classified
as NYSDEC Wetland MT-27. Dominant vegetation assemblages include species of red
maple, Tree-of-Heaven, black birch, gray birch, shagbark hickory, sassafras, bittersweet,
pussy willow, low juneberry, common greenbrier, wild grape, buckthorn, hawthorn,
woolgrass, cattail, carex sp., and common reed. The soil classification for this wetland is
Tidal Marsh (Tm), and Plymouth gravelly loamy sand (PmB3). Tidal Marsh soils are wet
areas around the borders of tidal creeks. These areas, as is the case with MT-27, are not
subject to daily tidal flow, but could be subject to flooding during abnormal storm tides.
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The soil has an organic mat on the surface that ranges from several inches thick to several
feet overlying a pale-gray or white sand. This wetland has received a substantial amount
of sediment from the farmland which currently drains into it. Two distinct "sediment
bars" have been created from accumulated sediment about midway downgrade from the
top of the wetland. In and around these sediment bars (where vegetation does grow), the
vegetation has taken on a facultative component as opposed to a wetter hydrologic
vegetative regime.
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III Ecological Impact Assessment
A. Geological Resources
1) Surface Geology
The potential for erosion from site grading will require erosion control
planning. Since the soil types are not prone to severe erosion, the potential loss of soil
resources represents a negligible impact. Wherever roadways, buildings etc. are to be
built, localized erosion may occur during construction, requiring controls to prevent
sedimentation at the property boundaries. The potential construction impacts will not
affect geological resources, so that mitigation measures for this action are covered under
standard erosion control practices. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
to be prepared with site plan engineering integrates erosion control measures in the
construction stage. No erosion is expected to occur upon completion of the project
construction, because the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will fully control runoff
and the site will be completely vegetated.
2) Topography
The Applicant anticipates that a balance of cut and fill will be achieved on
the site, thus limiting potential impacts from the exportation or translocation of
substantial quantities of excavated materials.
The golf fairways and features would be mounded and shaped, especially in the existing
farm fields, to provide topographic relief and interest within the course. Parking areas
associated with the clubhouse would be generally level, sloped minimally as required for
drainage.
It is currently proposed to balance cut and fill within the project, so no material is
anticipated to be exported from the site. Topsoil within the farm fields will be stripped
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and stockpiled for future use prior to bulk excavation activities. The stockpiles will be
either covered and/or seeded per procedures outlined in an erosion and sedimentation
control plan that will meet the requirements of the Town of and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation's SPDES General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges from Construction Activities. The stockpiles will also be surrounded by silt
fence to further limit the potential movement of sediment.
B. Water Resources
The local water district will supply the proposed development with potable water
and sanitary disposal will be through single and separate systems for residential dwellings
and the clubhouse. Irrigation water supply will be from either the existing farm wells or
from the ponds to be created on site. There is no expected impact on groundwater
quantity.
1) Groundwater Quality
There are two elements of this project which potentially impact
groundwater quality: sanitary discharge and golf turf management.
The parcel proposed for development of the residences lies at elevations that place it
about 20 feet above the groundwater table. The protection of groundwater quality in
terms of sanitary discharge is implemented through Suffolk County Department of Health
zoning restrictions, which ensure that local populations do not exceed densities which can
be safely supported by, and in tum protective of, the area's water supply. In the case of
this parcel in the density permitted is compatible with that which would be allowed by
Suffolk's Health Department groundwater protection program. Since all stormwater and
sanitary water disposal is regulated by Suffolk Sanitary Code, i.e. contaminant loadings
within Code restrictions, the impacts to groundwater will remain within the incrementally
acceptable standards of the 208 Study and County Code Article 6, deemed sufficient to
protect the aquifer in the Special Groundwater Protection Area. Engineering calculations
for the number and types of structures to be developed will be presented with the Final
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Site Plans, and of course, development cannot proceed unless these calculations meet
Sanitary Code restrictions. During construction, there is a potential for erosion along the
roadside or edge habitat from excavation activities. All runoff of mud and silt will be
intensively managed (see Mitigation).
While the sanitary discharge of nitrates (i.e. the key indicator ofresidential pollution) are
managed by a straightforward engineering exercise, the management of a golf course turf
requires careful planning if groundwater is to be protected from impacts due to fertilizers
and pesticides. There are potential adverse impacts to groundwater quality, and therefore
to human health, from the application of chemicals to turf. These impacts are regulated
through the testing of potable water supplies. The pre-existing groundwater quality in the
area already shows adverse impacts from the area's agricultural history due to excess
nitrates. The ITMP prepared for managing the turf on the proposed golf course
anticipates routine nitrate leaching rates of 0.2-0.3 mgIL, with maximum levels of 1.9-3.8
mg/L, all well below the County Health Department standard of 10 mgIL.
The management of pesticide application also has the potential to impact groundwater
quality. Again, the ITMP prepared for this project evaluates the potential for impacts to
groundwater. An Environmental Risk Assessment was performed to determine the
potential for fungicides, herbicides and insecticides to leach to the site's groundwater. A
wide array of commercially available products were modeled, and a list generated that
shows the range of potentials for impacting groundwater. This analysis was based on
soils samples taken from the project site, and on state-of-the-art geochemistry. For the
Laurel Links site conditions, more than half the available chemicals modeled as low in
terms of potential impact, and so the ITMP presents a turf treatment plan that shows a
low potential for impacting groundwater resources.
2) Surface waters
The project site does not include any surface waters in the work area. The
northeastern corner contains a small wetland that sometimes floods and holds water.
There is a wetland in the south central portion of the property, but it does not act as a
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
surface water. The design measures employed for buffering the northeast wetland will
protect it, and there will be no impact on these wetlands from filling and or excavating
activities.
c. Ecology
The ecological habitats (which provide wildlife functions) of the Laurel Links
land include the, wetlands and remnants of second growth woods. There will be some
loss of woodland and no loss of wetland, and conversion of farm fields to a combination
of golf turf and residential housing. No impacts have been identified to any individual
plant or animal species listed as rare, threatened or endangered by State or Federal Fish
and Wildlife Services. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to physical habitat that
supports any species listed as rare, threatened or endangered. However, if a rare,
threatened or endangered species (i.e. migrating songbird) passes through the site on a
seasonal basis, and this study did not observe such species, then their use of the site is not
intensive, and these species will not be adversely impacted because they will still find the
basic roosting and foraging resources that they seek as they spend a short time on the site.
Wildlife Impacts
On a local ecological scale, there will be a conversion of the agricultural fields
and old field habitat to what is effectively a managed meadow and native meadow
complex (the golf course). There will be some losses of wooded habitat (approx 14.4
acres) as sections of the woodland are opened for golf. However, all of the vegetated
buffer along the southerly wetland will be preserved. Therefore, the net effect on local
wildlife will be an extension of the farmfield impacts to which the site's fauna are already
adapted. It is possible that some disturbance-sensitive species that range across the
woodlands from other lands will be further deterred from using this site. Amongst the
birds that may use the site, some warblers and the tanagers are examples of species that
prefer interior woodland refugia. The numbers of these birds using the site is low, as few
if any have been observed. Nevertheless, reduction in the amount of interior woodland
refugia could potentially reduce these species use of the site.
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rodent populations, already reduced on the site and adjacent farmland, will recover from
short term impacts to their pre-development levels quickly, especially in the newly
vegetated areas located between golf turf areas.
Cumulative biological impact for terrestrial ecosystems is most often assessed using
species-area relationships (Pielou 1977). The small percentage of open-space (or small
fraction of the local species-area curve for the area) represented by the project site does
not represent a situation where vegetation clearing would translate into a significant loss
of biotic diversity within the context of Southold's overall ecology (again in terms of
common species of birds, mammals and insects). Moreover, the surrounding lands are
already modified, except for small patches.
Due to the long-standing agricultural activity in and around this site, disturbance-sensitive
species, with the exception of perhaps one or two species, have been eliminated. A
typical effect on avifauna of habitat alteration is the introduction of parasitic species. The
cowbird and brown creeper are presently absent from the site, and might be expected to
increase after development, although the level of past disturbance has already passed the
threshold that should have encouraged these species.
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IV Mitigation Measures
The potential for impacts to natural or human resources are limited as described
above, and the design of the project sought to avoid such impacts from the outset. The
following section elaborates the description of the potential impacts have been mitigated
in design, or will be mitigated during construction.
A. Geology
The potential for the Laurel Links Golf Course and Residential Development to
impact geological resources through the movement of soil will be fully mitigated by the
grading and drainage design which includes a complete erosion control plan that will be
prepared in the SWPPP for approval as part of the Final Site Plan review process. It is
currently proposed to balance cut and fill within the project, so no material is anticipated
to be exported from the site. Topsoil within the farm fields will be stripped and
stockpiled for future use prior to bulk excavation activities. The stockpiles will be either
covered and/or seeded per procedures outlined in an erosion and sedimentation control
plan that will meet the requirements of the Town and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation's SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from
Construction Activities. The stockpiles will also be surrounded by silt fence to further
limit the potential movement of sediment. There are no plans to irrigate areas of the golf
course outside of the play areas, i.e. the fairways, fringe rough areas, greens and tees.
B. Water Resources
Groundwater
Protection of the region's groundwater requires both design and management
measures to ensure that the water generated by the site, and recharged to the aquifer, does
not exceed the standards necessary to protect groundwater. Accordingly, the project will
remain within the County Sanitary Code Article 6 provisions.
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The "208 Study" (Long Island Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan) was
prepared as a part of Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment
of 1972 and was completed in 1978 by the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board.
The "208 Study" identified hydrogeological zones in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. These
zones comprised both deep recharge and shallow discharge zones in these respective
Counties; sound management of these zones is thought to be essential in maintaining the
quality and quantity of groundwater. The Study furthermore identified non-point sources
of contamination as a major contributor of surface water and groundwater pollution.
According to the 208 Study Management Plan, a project site within Hydrogeologic Zone
IV, i.e., a unique combination of vertical recharge in some places, but on this site, a
tendency to flow towards Peconic Bay. This zone should be protected by adherence to
the 208 recommendations that have been integrated for implementation into Suffolk
County Sanitary Code Article 6. The specific 208 Study recommendations for Zone IV
are to avoid high density residential development, so that the proposed project, which
combines open space (e.g. golf) with clustered, moderate density residential development,
is compatible with groundwater protection. The protection of groundwater quality will be
ensured by adherence to Suffolk County Health Department criteria for the project's
sanitary design, and by application of the Integrated Turfgrass Management Plan,
discussed below.
For construction-related activities, the project will rely upon preparation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan in order to comply with the State's General SPDES Permit,
which is based on the following points pertaining to the surface and ground water systems
as developed in the Federal study:
a) The majority of runoff into recharge basins is derived from rain falling directly onto
impervious surfaces, with the exception of high intensity, high volume or long duration
storms.
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b) The concentrations of inorganic chemicals, with the exception of chloride and lead,
measured in stormwater runoff do not generally have the potential to adversely affect the
groundwater quality.
c) Infiltration through the soil is generally an effective mechanism for reducing lead and
probably chromium from runoff on Long Island. While the NURP findings regarding
chromium are inconclusive, data from an industrial spill at Farmingdale indicate
attenuation. Chloride on the other hand is not attenuated. The effect of infiltration on
Nitrogen is as yet undetermined.
d) Coliform and fecal streptococcal indicator bacteria are removed from stormwater as it
infiltrates through the soil.
e) Further investigations of stormwater runoff as a possible significant source of organic
chemical are essential in view of the need to assure acceptable quality groundwater.
Additionally, the significance of illegal discharges or inorganic chemicals that run off
may carry into storm drains or recharge basins cannot be discounted. From the limited
runoff data, along with the results of a considerable number of organic chemicals and
analyses from ongoing County monitoring programs related to water supply, ambient
groundwater quality and sources of contamination, it is concluded that no change in the
use of recharge basins is necessary.
t) Lead concentration in runoff entering a recharge basin appears to be directly related to
the extent and characteristics of the road network, and the volume and type of traffic in
the drainage area served by the particular basin.
g) The length of time that a recharge basin has been in use (in addition to land use)
appears to affect the concentrations of some pollutants in the basin soil.
h) Plastic-lined basins with overflow to recharge structures and unlined recharge basins
are equally effective in recharging stormwater to the groundwater reservoir and in
attenuating chemical constituents in stormwater.
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i) Removal of basin vegetation is unnecessary, and could decrease the infiltration rate.
j) Awareness of year round presence of chemical constituents is necessary in order to
control them. The use of highway deicing salt in winter explains the high chloride
concentrations found in runoff at this time.
k) Ratios of fecal coliform bacteria to fecal streptococci (FC/FS) were less than 1.0 in the
overwhelming majority of samples analyzed. FC/FS values greater than 4.0 are generally
considered to be of human origin and values less than 0.7 of animal origin. The evidence
accumulated in this study strongly supports the belief that fecal coliform loads are derived
from a non-human source.
I) Current data indicate that, on an area-wide basis, the opportunities for preserving the
quality of currently certified or certifiable waters far exceeds those for improving the
quality of conditionally certified or uncertified waters.
Overall, the Study recommended the continued use of recharge rings where suitable, and
basins and ponds for stormwater systems of larger stormwater flow generators, because
by filtering through natural habitat and soils the water can effectively be cleaned.
Accordingly, for this project, the potential surficial impacts from stormwater will be
handled by the use of on-site stormwater wetland ponds.
The "Non-Point Source Management Handbook" (UPRB 1984), which has been prepared
as part of the USEP A 208 Plan Implementation Program, presents solutions to existing
problems and needed controls for non-point sources of contamination. Various non-point
source impacts on ground and surface waters and on pertinent legislation are discussed.
A series of State, Municipal and non-government actions are recommended for the
control of mitigation of undesirable impacts. The handbook furthermore recommends
numerous regulation measures for the protection of the Long Island groundwater quality.
The major objectives, which underlie these recommendations, are: I. Maximization of the
recharge of high quality groundwater to the aquifers, 2. Minimization of pollutant
loadings from all land uses, and 3. Reductions of the amount of consumptive use of
groundwater, in particular the shoreline areas and other areas where quantities are limited.
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In particular, the ten LIRPB's handbook chapters describe, discuss and provide
recommendations, all of which have been integrated in the planning control over this
project:
I. Land Use - discusses Land Uses as they presently exist on Long Island, their
relationship to the Hydrogeologic Zones and their controls. The Zoning for this project
will follow the recommendations for controls relative to the siting and location of various
land uses in particular areas and zones.
2. Stormwater - discusses stormwater processes and constituents drainage system design
and operation, impacts on ground and surface waters and existing management and
legislation. The project will follow recommendations for appropriate stormwater controls
and development guidelines.
'3. On-site - discusses current siting practices, system functions, maintenance and existing
regulations. The project will follow recommendations by remaining within protective
guidelines from legislation and administrative programs.
4. Highway de-icing - discusses present highway de-icing and salt storage practices and
management. The project will follow recommendations for the control of salt application .
and salt storage.
5. Fertilizer - discusses present practices (both residential and agricultural) as they
pertain to groundwater. This project will not employ routine fertilization in landscaping.
6. Animal wastes - not applicable to project.
7. Well construction and location, use and abandonment - not applicable, as public water
is available.
8. Boat pollution - not applicable to project.
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9. Site plan review - discusses existing site plan review processes, and how it relates to
controlling some of the non-point sources discussed in other chapters. This project will
work closely with the Town to ensure a streamlined and efficient review of all issues.
10. Ordinances - this chapter includes a compilation of existing and proposed ordinances
(currently used on Long Island or in other states). These ordinances are used to illustrate
alternative ways of meeting the water resource protection needs of a particular
municipality. Some of these ordinances may be used in their present form, while others
may need to be tailored to the specific needs of the municipality. These ordinances are
believed by the LIRPB to constitute the best available models for the control of the
impact of a particular non-point source.
The LIRPB recommendations have generally been utilized in Town land-use controls,
design/layout criteria and regulations enacted since the Handbook was issued. Again, the
Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Articles 6, 7 and 12 have been developed to implement
the NURP and Non-Point Source Handbook recommendations for protecting the
environment. The proposed projects sanitary and stormwater disposal design will be in
accordance with the applicable points discussed above.
The depth to groundwater in the area proposed for development ranges from 10 to 25
feet. In order to mitigate potential impacts from stormwater recharge, stormwater
treatment area (SWTA) ponds and natural features taking advantage of the site's sandy
soils will spread recharge across the site and drainage pools will be no less than 10 feet
above groundwater. The stormwater drainage system will be designed to meet the
Statewide standard of on-site retention of a 2" rainfall. The stormwater will be recharged
into the groundwater with effluent concentrations well below the acceptable standards.
Thus, adverse impacts will have been avoided by design criteria.
Regarding wastewater, the single-family residences will be served by conventional single
and separate subsurface disposal systems.
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The site's landscaped areas will employ low volume irrigation and native species to
minimize the need for excessive watering or fertilization, thereby further minimizing the
potential for nitrogen infiltration into the ground.
c. Integrated Turfgrass Management Plan
The most significant groundwater protection Issue for this project IS the
management of the golf turf areas. Maintenance of a reliable, disease-free turf is the best
way to ensure that fertilizers and pesticides are needed in quantities that would threaten
natural resources. This strategy is accomplished in two ways:
1. Preparation of an Integrated Pest Management Plan (ITMP), and;
2. Employment of a Superintendent trained and certified in ITMP technology.
The Laurel Links development has engaged the nation's leading expert, Dr. M.
Petrovic of Cornell University to provide planning and implementation guidance. As a
first step in his long- term involvement with the project, Dr. Petrovic has prepared a site-
specific ITMP. This Plan is based on site-specific soils and groundwater analysis, and
has been developed in conjunction with the planning for the irrigation system. The ITMP
will deliver a precise quantity of only those compounds actually needed by the turf
according to a monitoring program executed by the Superintendent.
Pesticides are applied to golf courses either as a granular solid material or as a liquid
spray. For all areas to be treated with pesticides, the drift of the pesticide spray will be
reduced to near zero by only spraying with a shrouded sprayer that confines the spray to
the turf surface, eliminating drift when wind speeds are less than 15 mph.
The protection of the quality of Long Island's groundwater aquifers is critical. The
fertilization and pest/disease control programs are designed to protect the surface and
groundwater quality on and off site. The application of a pesticide to this golf course will
only occur following the precautions outlined as follows:
25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. All other control measures outlined in the ITMP have been followed and failed to
give adequate control;
2. Weather conditions are still conducive for pest development and plant damage; no
applications will be made within 48 hours (except for Pythium blight due to it's rapid
mortality effect) of a predicted heavy rainfall event;
3. Treatments made to the severely affected areas (spot treatments) to minimize the
amount of pesticide used;
4. Shrouded sprayers will be used to apply spray material at wind speeds greater than 5
mph but less than 15 mph.
Fertilizer applications will follow a similar set of restrictions:
I. Applications of fertilizer will be only to the active play area;
2. Application must be considered necessary based on soil and/or foliar test
recommendations;
3. No applications are to be made within 48 hrs of a predicted heavy rain event.
Finally, the ITMP provides detailed protocols for the golf course Superintendent to follow
in determining when and where to apply treatments to the turf. Such practices as scouting
for pests and weeds are essential, and therefore make it incumbent upon the project
sponsors to engage an experienced and highly trained Superintendent. With this
commitment to the ITMP, the golf turf management at Laurel Links will not adversely
impact the local groundwater.
D. Ecology
The project site's ecological features are the three zones represented by the farm,
the wetlands, and the woodlands. Many years of clearcutting and farming throughout the
site have resulted in some fragmentation of the woodlands, and elimination of natural
ecology from the fields, and to a lesser extent, the woodlands. Impacts from the proposed
development will not amplifY the pattern of local disturbance; it will result in the loss of
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
14.4 acres of woodland, and conversion of farmfields from active row-crop farming to
golf turf, wetland pond systems, and residential housing
The potential impacts to flora and fauna will be mitigated by:
In the design phase, minimization of the amount of golf turf;
1. Minimization of cart paths in woodland area;
2. Preservation of native woodland or planting of native vegetation in farmfields in
areas between golf turf.
3. Protection from pollution of the site's soil, groundwater and native vegetation by the
use of an Integrated Turfgrass Management Plan for controlling turf disease and
pests.
4. Protection from stormwater impacts by the use of stormwater wetland ponds
(SWTA's) containing native emergent and aquatic vegetation for water quality
treatment.
These mitigation measures, particularly with the introduction of wildlife attracting flora
in the stormwater wetlands, will result in the conservation of much of the site's wildlife
benefits. Accordingly, while the site does not routinely support any rare, threatened or
endangered species, the design philosophy of conserving most of the existing woods will
conserve essential wildlife habitat. If a threatened or endangered migratory species
passes through the site on a seasonal basis, then their use of the site will not be adversely
impacted because they will still find the basic roosting and foraging resources that they
seek as they spend a short time on the site.
The golf course and residential design and, the implementation of an Integrated Turfgrass
Management Plan represent the measures recommended for protecting wildlife from golf
course turf management by the Audubon Society in their innovative "Cooperative
Sanctuaries" program. The purpose of the Audubon program is to encourage golf course
managers to follow practices that achieve the objective of maximizing the wildlife
27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
benefits of golf courses. It has long been recognized that the permanent preservation of
open space that can be achieved with golf course development is beneficial to
environmental interests if proper management of water and vegetative resources is
practiced, including optimal care in the application of pesticides. The "Cooperative
Sanctuaries" has provided evidence that, when state-of-the-art conservation is employed,
abundant bird life, as well as mammals and wetland systems, can function well and even
prosper.
While the design team is not part of the program, the design of golf course at Laurel
Links will use, as a model, the same principles applied in the Audubon program.
Accordingly, the wetlands and woodlands preserved by the development design will
support at least as robust a rodent and bird population as exists on the site now. The
invertebrate fauna that relies upon sandy, vegetated surfaces will actually increase
because many acres of land that have been plowed and treated with pesticides will now be
allowed to return to natural habitat, and much of the woodland ground habitat will
remain.
The Laurel Links ecosystem is presently lacking in certain bird and small mammal
species due to the absence of persistent surface water. The creation of stormwater
wetland ponds will provide waterfowl, rodents and amphibians with habitat that does not
now exist, thereby diversifying the site's ecology to a limited extent.
In summary, the salient features of this project, with their mitigation benefits, include:
· Project layout to avoid wetlands: e.g. Fields and housing wrap around and along
wetland and wetland corridors.
· Creation of stormwater capture, retention and treatment swales and basins to
prevent wetland and groundwater impact: e.g. The collection and dispersion
through the existing subwatersheds can be accomplished by a series of treatment areas
in which wetland dynamics are applied to water quality management.
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Farm-land Restoration to encourage ecological restoration: e.g. Thoughout the
farm area, in sections not proposed for playing fields or stormwater treatment, the
lands will be landscaped to restore a "living substrate" where the former farming
activities stripped natural topsoil.
· Integrated Turf Management Plan: e.g. Pesticides are prescribed by a detailed
scientific formula to prevent groundwater or runoff impacts, and to manage both turf
quality and environmental safety over the long term.
E. Stonnwater Wetland Design
All of the surface water runoff from the proposed playing fields (as well as the
residential buildings) will be directed through vegetated swales and dr~ins to both ponds
and Stormwater Treatment Areas (SWTA's) consisting of treatment zones with
emergent/aquatic vegetation, which act as biofiltering zones to protect the site's
groundwater. As grading of the fields is completed, small receiving floodplains will be
created for capture, treatment and recharge of the water. Habitat-types created in this
manner include shallow water marsh (<I feet deep), emergent marsh, transitional
shrub swamp. The plantings in such areas range from rooted aquatics (e.g. wild
celery/rice), to temporarily flooded species (bulrush) to swamp shrubs (i.e. viburnums,
arrowwood, swamp azalea), to wetland grasses (i.e. sedges, rushes).
The upland element of the stormwater management plan is the conveyance and detention
of excess runoff from impervious surfaces (buildings and roadways). The stormwater
treatment system within the site will be designed to meet the dual objectives of handling
volumes while protecting water quality. The settling and detention basins within each
pond will attenuate flow velocity, hold the first flush of a large and allow contaminants to
both settle and be absorbed.
The site's stormwater treatment areas will be designed to incorporate the major removal
mechanisms of sedimentation, adsorption, microbial activity and plant uptake. But
equally important to water quality protection is the placement and creation of new
29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
wetlands and native habitat in the optimum locations for capturing stormwater and
providing biological treatment to remove excess nutrients. This stormwater treatment
system will be designed in detail during site plan review
Sedimentation (gravitational settling) is the major removal mechanism for particulate
pollutants within a stormwater treatment area (SWTA). The placement and physical form
of the vegetation can promote settling of sediment, and appropriate vegetation will grow
over the accumulated sediment. Sheetflow of runoff is attenuated by the physical form of
the plants, resulting in reduced hydrologic velocities and maximum vegetative contact,
which are effective in both the settling of sediment and uptake of excess nutrients.
Adsorption of pollutants to the surfaces of plants within stormwater treatment area
(SWTA)s is the major chemical removal mechanism. A major factor that increases the
rate of adsorption within the pond is the contact time of water with bottom sediments,
vegetation, and detritus. These pond systems have a large surface area to volume ratio
which increases the contact time of water within the system. The dense vegetative
plantings will also increase the contact time, promoting high rates of absorption. Physical
filtration and uptake by vegetation for pollution removal within the stormwater treatment
area (SWT A) and the rate of removal is dependent upon planting density, plant species
selection, and soil substrate. Plant uptake of pollutants occurs within the root zone of the
plant and is influenced by the amount of previously deposited nutrients within the soil
substrate.
In the design of the Laurel Links stormwater treatment system, plant densities and species
will be carefully selected to meet two objectives: establishment of a self-sustaining
ecosystem, and maximum pollution removal efficiency. Plant species selection for long
term survival takes into consideration the use of plants which are able to withstand a wide
range of hydrological conditions. The layout, densities and species selection will also be
aimed at maximizing uptake efficiency by considering contact time (density dependent)
and uptake rate (plant physiology related to nitrification/denitrification and aerobic
decomposition). Microbial removal is also related to contact time, vegetative density, and
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
soil substrate. Microorganisms are established on plant roots and form a symbiotic
relationship with the higher plants. This relationship produces a synergistic effect which
results in increased degradation rates and removal of pollutants surrounding the root
zones. These basins will incorporate all of these elements which will enhance the
pollutant removal efficiency of the stormwater treatment area (SWT A). Expected
removal efficiencies, based upon the featured design elements, ranges from 25% to 45%
for Nitrogen and from 30% to 65% for Phosphorous. These high levels of removal were
observed in cases where the pollution loading was relatively high. The pollution loading
expected for the project is not expected to be relatively high, because the site will have
low levels of input (i.e. low traffic volumes around the residences combined with
turfgrass management).
There are three phases to water quality monitoring: pre-construction (concurrently with
planning and permitting), during construction (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP)) and post-construction.
During the construction and grow-in period of the course and grounds, when areas of
grading and planting are exposed, the site's water quality must be intensively monitored
as a continuous check on erosion and pollutant loading into the ponds and wetlands.
Sampling for chemical parameters likely to result from construction disturbances will be
performed throughout the year. Sampling for field indicators of erosion, sediment
transport and biological degradation will also be done. The chemical parameters will be
tested by samples submitted to an environmental laboratory.
If a significant change in any parameter is observed, a protocol for addressing the
condition will be developed with the permitting agencies. It is proposed that the premise
for corrective action be based on New York State's SPDES General Permit for Storm
Water Discharges From Construction Activities, Permit Number GP-93-06.
31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In this General Permit, there is provision for determination of unacceptable discharges
and for enforcement of violations of the discharge limitations. Moreover, the General
Permit requires that, prior to and throughout construction, the developer maintain a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The preparation of the SWPPP is guided by a
set of principles and practices, outlined in the General Permit and in the publications
"Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development" (NYS DEC,
1992), and "Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control" (NYS Soil & Water
Conservation Committee, 1991). Therefore, after approvals are granted under all of the
relevant regulatory programs, the developer must assemble the SWPPP, and then
routinely update the Plan as the project is constructed. The intent is that the SWPPP be a
dynamic management tool, which begins with the following elements, but which is
updated as field conditions dictate.
Elements of SWPPP:
I. Site grading and drainage Plan.
2. Site erosion control Plan.
3. Erosion control detail plans, including but not limited to specifications for
erosion control barriers (e.g. silt fencing, hay bales), sediment traps, biofilters,
detention ponds, equipment wash areas and water feature bank stabilization.
4. Erosion control inspection schedule and report protocol.
5. Erosion control measure maintenance schedule.
6. Surface water quality monitoring schedule and report protocol.
7. Erosion control and water quality monitoring reports.
8. Erosion control and water quality monitoring response records, including repair
and facility upgrade details.
At the end of construction, the final SWPPP is a compendium of the activities associated
with environmental protection throughout the project. The SWPPP is a record of
compliance with the SPDES General Permit, as well as a record of the extent to which a
project goes in meeting the environmental protection needs. This document is prepared
32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
as part of the submissions to NYS DEC for wetland permits and water quality
certification. It cannot be prepared prematurely because it is linked to the Erosion
Control and Final Engineering designs, details of which often change during site plan
review. The need for, and extent of, post-construction monitoring are to be determined in
negotiation with the Town's consultants during the refinement of the site plan.
33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTEGRATED TURFGRASS
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FOR THE LAUREL LINKS GOLF
COURSE
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
PREPARED BY
A. MARTIN PETROVIC, PH.D
December 4, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT
4
Special Environmental Issues
6
III. PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
7
A. Pest Management Philosophy
7
B. Anticipated Pest Complex
8
C. Pest Management Practices
8
Turfgrass Selection
I. Diseases
2. Disease Control Program
3. Weed Control
4. Insect Control
5. Other Pesticide Issues
6. Example Pesticide Application Schedule
9
10
13
14
16
19
19
IV. FERTILIZATION PROGRAM
21
V. OTHER MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
24
VI. PROPOSED HANDLING AND STORAGE OF PESTICIDE
AND FERTILIZER
24
VII. LITERATURE CITED
VIII. APPENDIX
26
NPURG Description and Rating System
NPURG Evaluation Sheets-Soil Test Results
Pest Scouting Forms
Soil Map showing Soil Sample Location
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. INTRODUCTION
The Laurel Links LTD of Jamesport, New York retained A. Martin Petrovic,
Ph.D. in July of 1998 to develop the Integrated Turfgrass Management Program for the
Proposed Laurel Links Country Club Golf Course, Southold, New York. The Integrated
Turfgrass Management Program (ITMP) contains a program of fertilizer and pest control
options to be used on this golf course. This program, fully endorsed by the Laurel Links
L TD as the operating plan for this golf course, is designed to serve as the maintenance
blueprint for the Laurel Links Country Club Golf Course and when possible, describes
materials used, rates of application, and an expected time of application.
The golf course superintendent will be responsible for implementing this
program. In general, golf course superintendents, as a group of professionals, are.
committed to the preservation of the ecology and the wildlife and share the concern for
the preservation of the sites environmental quality of the golf course. The Laurel Links
L TD has agreed to hire a Golf Course Superintendent Association of America Certified
Golf Course Superintendent, with a proven track record of administering an ITMP of this
nature, to fully implement the ITMP contained in this report.
As with any new or existing golf course, a fertilizer and pest control program
must show flexibility to deal with two very important intangibles: weather and nature.
The initial year(s) or grow-in period, that often lasts up to 2 seasons, will require higher
than annual inputs of fertilizers and limited use at most of pest control materials in order
to promote rapid establislunent and cover which reduces soil erosion and minimizes the
likelihood of weed infestation.
The basic philosophy of this ITMP is to produce a healthy-pest resistance golf-
playing surface that will have little or no impact on the surrounding environmental.
Selection and use of fertilizers and pesticides will be based on producing a healthy plant
while having a low likelihood of contaminating either surface water (via runoff) or
groundwater (via leaching). While there is little or no evidence that golf courses has or
will contaminate surface or groundwater, it is every golf course superintendent's duty to
minimize the risk of contaminating any water body. Thus, the purpose of this report is to
summarize a site specific management practices that meets the goals of a healthy pest-
resistant golf playing surface that poses little or no treat to the environment on or
surrounding this site.
The report presented here was compiled from the following information: site
specific soil properties provided SCS and soil sample results collected during a site visit
(July 7, 1998), review of the cluster plan of Young and Young, Riverhead, NY of June
12, 1998 including the golf course routing plan of Kelly B. Moran-golf course architect,
environmental fate assessment of the currently registered pesticides in the state of New
York for golf course use by model simulation (NPURG), determination of the anticipated
pest complex, and extensive literature search on the environment fate of fertilizers and
pesticides, integrated pest management programs and fertility requirements for golf
course turf. This report provides a basis for development of an environmentally sound
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fertilizer and pest management program to be followed by the golf course management
personnel. Any chemical (fertilizer or pesticide) found by the environmental risk
assessment to pose a risk of either surface or groundwater quality will not be used on the
Laurel Links Country Club Golf Course or will be used if it has been shown that no other
control methods are available and will be only applied under special use conditions
outline later in this report to reduce the risk of either surface or ground water
contamination.
For most pests found to invade this golf course there will be several pesticides
registered for their control. Taking into consideration the need to protect surface and
groundwater from contamination and to reduce the exposure of humans and wildlife to
highly toxic pesticides, pesticides were selected that have a low potential for either
leaching or runoff. The evaluation included determining the potential of each registered
pesticide for contamination of water on a soil by soil basis based on soil properties of this
site.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT
The environmental risk assessment is composed of three parts. First, the surface
and ground water contamination (runoff and leaching) potential of all pesticides
registered for use on golf courses in New York will be evaluated. Second, the pesticides
identified to have either a moderate or a high potential for surface or ground water
contamination will be evaluated for their level of toxicity (drinking water health advisory
limit, HAL). Third, for pesticides that have both a moderate or high potential for either
surface or ground water contamination and have at least a moderate toxicity rating
(HAL< 20 ppb) from any of the soils found on site or imported for greens and tees, will
not be used on this site. This plan recognizes the fact that soil will be moved during the
construction phase. In most cases soil will be moved a short distance to create the desired
golf feature. The Riverhead sandy loam and Haven sandy loam soils will be used on areas
that need fill. There will be at least 6 inches of topsoil on the actively used portions of the
site (greens, tees, fairways and roughs). Soils samples will be taken after rough grading
and will be analyzed for nutrient content and organic matter content. A starter fertilizer
will be applied based on the soil test recommendation (and to provide 2 Ibs. of
nitrogenll,OOO sq.ft.). It was assumed that after establishment, the erosion potential for all
soils were low; thus, a low soil erosion factor (K factor of 0.05) was used during
NPURG analysis. For the determination of the potential impact offertilization on nitrate
contamination of groundwater, the 30 year (1961-1990) average rainfall data from the
Riverhead Research Laboratory (Owenby and Ezell, 1992) was used and at least 1.5
inches of rainfall or irrigation was provided during May through September. Soil samples
were collected from each of the soils found in the active play portion of this site on July
7, 1998. Location of the samples in found in appendix. Sampling consisted of taking 5 to
10 small core samples (I" dia.) from about a 50 foot radius in the sample collection area
to the depth of the A horizon (6-10"). The Cornell University Nutrient Analysis
Laboratory, Ithaca, NY analyzed the samples, for available nutrient levels, soil pH and
organic matter content.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The assessment of the leaching and runoff potential of each registered pesticide
on each soil (see Tables 1 & 2) found on the site was preformed by using the National
Pesticide/soil database and User decision support system for Risk assessment of Ground
and surface water contamination (NPURG). NPURG is a computerized information
delivery system developed by the US Department of Agriculture and the Soil
Conservation Service based on the GLEAMS model (Leonard et aI. 1987). Refer to the
appendix for a complete explanation ofNPURG and other information related to the
pesticides that were evaluated.
This model was developed for row crop agricultural and has not been heavily
evaluated under turfgrass condition, but has been used to reduce the risk of ground and
surface water contamination on over twenty five proposed or existing golf courses
(Petrovic, resume). Based on limited research on the leaching of pesticides applied to
turf grass (Petrovic et aI., 1990), the NPURG simulation was found in most cases to
correctly predict the probability of leaching (I lout of 12 predictions were correct) or in
one case over predict (dicamba as example) the leaching of pesticides applied to
turfgrass. Therefore, when the model predicts a low probability for leaching, then in fact
leaching is highly unlikely. However, when the model predicts a high probability for
leaching (I ranking), in most cases this is real.
It is also very likely that NPURG may grossly over predict the runoff of pesticides
applied to turf grass based on the results of several studies of pesticide runoff from
turfgrass (Watschke et ai, 1989, Harrison et aI., 1993, Linde et aI., 1995 and Gold et ai,
1988). Their results clearly showed that once turfgrass is established there is little water
leaving a turfgrass site (approximately 1-22 % of the water that comes in contact with the
turf) even when irrigated at a 6 inch/hr. NPURG ranks runoff from bare soil which
reflects the erosion potential of a given soil. Once this site has been established with
turf grass, then it is likely that there should not be significant run-off of water that may
contain a pesticide or fertilizer nutrient. It was assumed that erosion would be negligible
from this site once established.
The following are the conditions that the pesticide/soil fate predictions by the
NPURG simulations were determined:
· The pesticide was applied to the surface of a fallow (bare) soil 16,8,4, and 2 days
before and on the day ofthe first major rainfall event.
· A 3.5 inch precipitation event was generated every second day for five events, and
then a 1.0 inch event every other day for at least four times during the half life period of
the pesticide. Total precipitation was 21.5 inches.
· The site had a four per cent slope.
The conditions that these simulations are run under are considered to be the
"worst case scenario". The likelihood of even one 3.5 inch rainfall event per day
(irrigation will be less than I inch per day) is very small, let alone 5 such events over aiD
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
day period. A summary of the pesticide fate as determined by the NPURG analysis for
the soils on greens/tees and fairways are contained in the appendix of this report.
Special Environmental Issues
There are several issues and locations on the Laurel Links Golf Course that have a
special environmental significance. First are the soils to be used on greens and tees. The
greens and tees will be built to US Golf Association Recommended soil physical
properties (sand/peat mixture) to provide a compaction resistant/well drained system to
create a healthy-pest resistant playing surface. Based on the NPURG analysis, greens/tees
will be built with at least 2.6 % organic matter, by weight, to a depth of at least 12 inches
to minimize the potential for pesticide leaching. The Plymouth loamy sand soil was found
by soil testing to be low in organic matter. To protect the groundwater from pesticide
contamination, organic matter during establishment will be added to raise the organic
matter content to at least 2.1 % (18 tons of organic matter per acre) on the small sections
of this golf course with Plymouth soil, on fairways and roughs of holes 3-5,10, II, 13, 15
and 16.
As with most contemporary golf courses, there will be grading done on this site.
The Riverhead and Haven soils will be used as fill soils on this site. The NPURG analysis
was conducted on all soils found on this site and for greens and tee soil profiles.
Pesticides applied to golf courses either as a granular solid material or as a liquid
spray. For all areas to be treated with pesticides, the drift of the pesticide spray will be
reduce to near zero by only spraying with a shrouded sprayer that confines the spray to
the turf surface, eliminating drift when wind speeds are less than 15 mph.
The protection of quality of Long Islands groundwater aquafers and the surface
waters that feed the Great Peconic Bay are critical. The fertilization and pest control
programs are designed to protect the surface and groundwater quality on and off site. The
application of a pesticide to this golf course will only occur following the precautions
outlined as follows: all other control measures outlined in subsequent sections have been
followed and failed to give adequate control and weather conditions are still conducive
for pest development and plant damage; no applications will be made with in 48 hours
(except for Pythium blight due to it's rapidly killing growth habit) of a predicted heavy
rainfall event; only treatments made to the severely affected areas (spot treatments) to
minimize the amount of pesticide used; only shrouded spray will be used to applied spry
material at wind speeds greater than 5 mph but less than 15 mph. Fertilizer applications
will follow a similar set of restrictions: only applying fertilizer to the active play area,
application much be considered necessary based on soil and lor foliar tests
recommendations, and no application within 48 hrs. of a predicted heavy rain event.
Based on the three part risk assessment, the following is a list of pesticides that
had both a medium or high potential for runoff or leaching and a moderate or high
toxicity rating (health advisory limit, HAL, for drinking water of < 20 ppb) for any soil
on site:
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
dicamba, MCPP,and triclopyr
The following pesticides were found to have a moderate or high potential for surface or
ground water contamination from at least one of the soils on site:
Fenamiphos, imadicloprid, bentazon, ethoprop, fenarimol, metalaxyl, and trichlorfon.
This list of pesticides will not be used or only used as a last resort after all other control
options have failed including the use of other pesticides.
III. Pesticide Management Plan
A. Pest Management Philosophy
The basic philosophy of this Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program is to
produce a healthy pest resistant golf-playing surface that will have little or no impact on
the surrounding environment. Every available pest management practice will be utilized
with the goal of using pesticides as a last resort after all other control options have been
followed, including every available biological and cultural control methods. A new golf
course provides the opportunity to construct a system that is less prone to stress, which is
often the main cause of pest damage or invasion of weedy species. This can be
accomplished by: I) establishing grasses that are best adapted for the golf courses and are
pest resistant, 2) by providing a soil system to minimize the stress caused by the golfer,
and 3) reducing moisture plant stress by having "a state of the art" irrigation system that
can provide the necessary amount of water need by the plant (thus reducing over
irrigation which can lead to the potential for ground/surface contamination or more pest
problems). While there is little or no evidence that golf courses have or will contaminate
surface or groundwater, it is every golf course superintendent's duty to minimize the risk
of contaminating any water body. Thus, the purpose of this IPM Program is to summarize
the approach that meets the goals of developing a healthy pest resistant golf-playing
surface that poses little or no threat to the environment on or surrounding this site.
This IPM Program presented here was compiled from the following information:
site specific soil properties and soil test results, review of the site plans, determination of
the anticipated pest complex from a golf course in close proximity to the site (National
Golf Links, Southampton, NY), and extensive literature search on the environment fate of
fertilizers and pesticides, integrated pest management programs and irrigation/fertility
requirements for golf course turf.
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. Anticipated Pest Problems
It is anticipated that the Laurel Links Golf Course will have the following pests
based on pest information from an older golf course in close proximity to this site
(information provide by Mr. Karl Olsen CGCS, superintendent of National Golf Links,
Southampton, NY):
Severity
Greens
Tees Fairwavs
Roughs
Major Pest Problems
(occurs often) --------- Dollar spot ----------
---------- leaf spot -----------
---------- a. bluegrass ---------
--- pink snow mold -----------
------ Hyperodes weevil ------
---- crabgrass ----
----------------- \!Illite grubs ----------------
----- clover ----
-other broadleaf weeds-
pink patch*
red thread *
Infrequent Pest Problems
--------- anthracnose ------------
------------ summer patch ------
-------- Pvthium blight ---------
. Not anticipated to be a major problem on this golf course since fairways will be established to creeping
bentgrass not perennial ryegrass like National Golf Link.
The scientific names and biological information for each pest is contained in the
following section.
C. Pest Management Practices
The components of the pest management program rely heavily on the concept know as
Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The IPM program for this golf course will provide
for good pest control while eliminating unnecessary pesticide applications by integrating
all the options (biological, resistant grass, cultural and pesticidal) available to control a
pest. This IPM program includes: pest biology information, scouting and record keeping
procedures
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It is anticipated that the major pests will occur during the following periods based
on historic pest information:
Pest
Diseases
Dollar spot
Leaf spots
Pink snow mold
Pythiurn blight
Brown patch
Insects
White grubs
Hyperodes
Weeds
Broad leafs
Crabgrass
Annual bluegrass
Month( s) of Pest Occurrence
Jan-Mar Apr Mav June Julv Aug Sept Oct Nov-Dec
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxx
xxxxx
XXXXX
xxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
and control options (biological, cultural, plant resistance, and with pesticides) for each
anticipated pests of this golf course. IPM programs similar to the one shown here have
been developed and successfully used to reduce pesticide use on golf courses in the
northeast by as much as 50%.
Turfgrass Selection: Performance and Pest Resistance
Even though there are over 7,500 species in the grass family, only a
handful of species are used on golf courses. The main reason for such a few species being
used is the relatively short cutting height demands of golf course playing conditions. For
greens, only two species could be used, creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris) and velvet
bentgrass (Agrostis canina). Velvet bentgrass does poorly under even moderate traffic
conditions and is not well suited for this golf course. There are several cultivars of
creeping bentgrass available. The one best suited for the climate and with good resistance
to the major disease problems anticipated at this golf course (Brown patch and Dollar
spot) will be used on this golf course. The highest rated cultivar will be used on this golf
course based on overall performance under putting green conditions and had the best
resistance to both diseases (from the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program-NTEP,
USDA and Cornell University Turfgrass Variety Recommendations).
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Options for grasses on tees/fairways are somewhat broader. Low quality, slower
play golf courses that mow higher than 3/4" can use a mixture of grasses including
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratenses), fine fescue (Festuca spp.) and perennial ryegrass
(Lolium perenne). However, on a golf course of this caliber, tees are limited to creeping
bentgrass and fairways to perennial ryegrass or creeping/colonial bentgrasses. Creeping
bentgrasses proven to be the best-adapted grass for tees/fairways (based on NTEP results)
will be used which have been shown to be superior grasses and have the best resistance to
Brown patch and Dollar spot.
The bentgrass cultivars to be selected just prior to seeding for use on
greens/tees/fairways will also be very dense and are less prone to invasion from annual
bluegrass. New cultivars are being released very frequently and the best one this year
may be replaced with a better one next year. A suggested cultivar to be used on greens
would be A-4 creeping bentgrass (produces a very fast putting surface while resisting
annual bluegrass invasion). At this point in time, bentgrass is not insect resistant.
Roughs are often established with very low maintenance grasses that are mowed
high. This golf course will establish roughs with this in mind using a mixture of fescues
that contain endophytes, perennial rye grass and Kentucky bluegrass. More Kentucky
bluegrass will be used in the primary rough (nearest to the fairway with <25 % perennial
ryegrass) and more fescues used in the secondary rough (sheep and chewings fescue).
Endophytic fescues will be used when possible since they are resistant to surface feeding
insects like chinch bug and sod webworm and also be resistant to the Red thread disease.
1. DISEASES
Three of the anticipated pests to occur most often on this golf course are diseases.
Fungi cause most diseases that attack turf grass. The following are description of each of
the most prevalent diseases and the "state of the art" IPM practices that will be followed
on this golf course:
Major Diseases
Dollar Spot (Sclerotinia homoeocarpa)
Dollar Spot is a foliar disease that is favored by temperatures between 70 and 85
F and too Iowa level of a nitrogen level in the plant tissue. It will likely be most
prevalent disease on this golf courses and should occur on this site from June through
September. Dollar spot is easily recognizable, slow to develop and to cause damage.
Thus, daily scouting should be used to determine the extent of occurrence and range of
this disease on the golf course. Natural organic disease suppressive fertilizers like Ringer
Compost Plus and Greens Restore have been shown to reduce the incidence of Dollar
spot by 45% (Nelson, 1990) and will be used as part of the fertilization program. Tissue
testing can be used to help maintain the nitrogen level in the plant at a level to suppress
disease development.
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Damage from this disease even with these cultural controls may exceed the
acceptable level on this golf course, thus, fungicide applications are very likely to be
needed. Fungicides should be used only when I) an outbreak in indicator sites has been
observed in excess of the threshold (3 spots/sq.yd. for greens/tees and 9 spots/sq. yd. for
fairways), when weather conditions still favor disease development (temperatures 70 to
85 F and humid) and plant nitrogen level is below 4.5% N, by weight.
Leaf Spots
There are several fungi that cause the disease known as leaf spot. The symptoms
of leaf spot are most often observed in the cooler weather of spring and fall. The are
several ways to manage this disease. First, there are cultivars of Kentucky bluegrass and
fescues that are resistant to this disease and these cultivars will be will used to establish
this golf course. Second, the fertilization program is designed not to apply large amounts
of nitrogen fertilizers in the early spring period but rather to always apply small amounts
to match the needs of the turfgrass. Heavy early spring applications of nitrogen fertilizers
have been shown to dramatically increase the damage this disease can cause to tufgrasses.
Weekly scouting during the spring and fall months will be made and if the action
threshold of 10 % on greens and tees and 25 % fairways is exceeded and the weather
forecast calls for cool wet weather to prevail, then a fungicide will be applied to reduce
any further damage to the golf course.
Pink Snow Mold (Microdochium nivale)
Pink snow mold is a fungal disease that is favored by temperatures in the range of
32 to 40 F and wet conditions with or without snow cover. It is likely to occur on this site
in late fall through winter into early spring on the greens/tees/fairways. A voiding heavy
late fall water-soluble nitrogen application can reduce the severity (no late nitrogen
applications will be made). However, fungicides are the only control method available at
this time although there is some disease suppression with the natural organic fertilizers to
be used on this golf course. Scouting is not practical for this disease with snow cover.
During other cool-wet periods without snow cover, scouting should be followed before a
treatment is made. If the threshold of one spot/sq. yd. on greens/tees and two spots/sq.yd.
on fairways is exceeded and short term weather forecasts are calling for cool-wet weather
(32-40 F), then a fungicide application will be made.
Infrequent Diseases
Brown Patch (Rhizoctonia solani)
This disease occurs under conditions of warm (>85 F) and very humid weather as
well in cool wet weather. It is expected that the warm weather Brown patch will occur in
July and August during most years and the cool weather version in April/May and
September/October. Cultural conditions that can reduce the severity of this disease are to
avoid over nitrogen fertilization, to water minimally and provide for good air movement
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and water drainage. All three of these practices will be followed. The fertilization
program (to follow) will provide optimum level of nutrients for plant growth based on
soil tests, grass nutritional requirements and selected tissue testing (nitrogen levels will
be maintained below 5.25% N to reduce the likelihood of Brown Patch). Part of the
fertilization program will also contain disease suppressive, natural organic fertilizers (i.e.
Sustain and Ringer) that have shown to reduce the incidence of Brown patch by 75 %
(Nelson, 1990), thus, reducing the need for fungicides. Irrigation will be provided to
supply only the amount needed to replace the amount used by the plant. The soils
(naturally well drained) and underground drainage systems on green/tees will provide a
well-drained soil environment. Except for a few isolated sites (holes II, 12 and 13), the
open nature of this site provides for excellent air drainage to reduce the likelihood of
many diseases like Brown patch.
There is one direct biological control agent registered for use (a bacterial product,
BioTrec), applied as a granular material, will be used as a first defense if Brown patch is
detected. The presence of Brown patch will be confirmed by laboratory analysis or by
disease detection kits. The golf course superintendent will use one of the diagnostic
techniques to determine the need for additional control, namely fungicides. Daily
scouting during periods of warm to hot weather is highly recommended and treatments
(Bio Trec first and if that falls, fungicides may be applied) made if the threshold is
exceeded (one spot/yd. on greens/tees and two spot/yd. off airways ) and 24-48 hr.
weather forecast indicates conditions are still favorable for disease development.
Pythium Blight/Pythium Root Rot (Pythium spp.)
Pythium blight is the most rapidly developing and devastating disease to attack
golf courses and when it does occur on this golf course it would be in July and August. It
is favored by excessive nitrogen fertilization (fertilization program avoids over-
fertilization) and very wet (90% humidity for 14 hrs.) and hot weather (>85 F and night
temperatures not below 70 F). Poorly drained or over-water areas often show the disease
first.
Death of an entire green, tee or fairway can occur in hours once the pathogen
becomes active. Thus, quite often a preventative fungicide program is utilized to reduce
the risk of catastrophic damage to the golf course. If preventative measures are not taken,
then very frequent scouting of the golf course is required to determine if the disease-
causing organism is active. Weather has a large effect and it is anticipated that Pythium
blight will occur most years on this golf course.
Scouting and weather forecasts will be used to determine an action plan. When
temperatures are above 85 F and humidity levels are also high (>90% for at least 14 hrs.),
an active scouting plan will be followed. Sites that have shown to be prone to Pythium
blight will be scouted first. The more wooded portions of the golf course (holes I I, 12
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and 13) are more prown to this disease and will be careully monitored. If the Pythium
blight organism is found to be actively growing on these indicators sites and the 24 hr.
weather forecast call for hot (>85 F) and humid weather to continue, then a fungicide
application would be recommended at least on the areas showing the first outbreak
(indicator sites). No night watering will be used during this time to reduce the amount of
free water on the leaf surfaces necessary for disease infection. The biocontrol Bio Trec
will be applied first when weather conditions favor disease activity. IfBio Trec does not
provide for adequate control, the a contact fungicides (like etridiazole) are most effective
for curative treatments as proposed here (found to have a low likelihood of
surface/groundwater contamination on all sites on this golf course, see Table I). If
systemic fungicides are to be used then they will have to be applied in advance of the
disease outbreak or in this case when temperature for three days are greater than 85 F and
humidity is high (> 90% for the last 14 hrs.).
The cooler weather Pythium root rot occurs at temperatures from 50 to 70 F,
under wet conditions. Scouting is difficult for this disease since a plant disease diagnostic
laboratory must confirm the presence of this disease. Therefore, if the visual symptoms of
this disease are present and laboratory results confirm the active presence of this
organism, then the biocontrol Bio Trec will be applied first, and if and only if control is
not adequate, then a fungicide application from one of the list above to only portions of
the site showing symptoms will be made.
Gray Snow Mold- Typhula Blight
Typhula blight or Gray snow mold is winter disease that requires snow cover to
develop. During open or winters with low snowfall, Gray snow mold is seldom a
problem. A voiding over nitrogen fertilization in the mid-fall period reduces the severity
ofthis disease. Preventative fungicide program is often used to insure minimal turf
damage from this disease since long-term weather predictions are unreliable.
2. Disease Control Program and ScoutingIMonitoring
It is impossible and environmentally irresponsible to develop a fungicide
application schedule in advance of the building of a golf course. The major premise of an
IPM program to use all options in controlling a pest and when it is necessary to apply a
pesticide it must be applied at the right time for optimal control. Only a preventative
fungicide program could be developed in advance of operating a golf course.
Preventative programs are only necessary for a few turfgrass diseases. It would be very
likely that an all preventative program would lead to applying fungicides when it was not
necessary, increasing the risk of environmental damage and greater likelihood of
developing fungi resistant to fungicides. The best way to reduce the reliance on pesticides
is to follow proper fertilization practices, allow for good surface drainage, control
irrigation to only replace what the plant has used, scout and monitor pest populations to
determine if an economic/aesthetics threshold has been reached so that some action must
be taken and use the most effective-least toxic method available.
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Scouting is one of the most common disease management practices followed by
golf courses superintendents. The extent of how formal the scouting program is varies
widely between superintendents. Many superintendents rely on indicator sites or "hot
spots" as areas where diseases (or other pests) first occur and use these sites as early
warning signs. Many golf courses are now having pest populations mapped during a
scouting visit. In this way a more permanent record of pest pressure is recorded and the
effectiveness of control options evaluated. This golf course will follow an aggressive
scouting program as outlined in the discussion section for each pest. The appendix
contains scouting forms for golf course pests that will be used by this golf course. Under
each pest the frequency of scouting is discussed. The golf superintendent will utilize one
of the several ways to record the scouting trips, he or/she will assign the scouting duties
and will be responsible for full development and implementation of the scouting
program. This will be done in cooperation with the Cornell TurfIPM Program and the
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County. Mapping and hand held mini-
computers with GIS capabilityare two ways to recording pest occurrences. Scouting for
diseases involve either visual identification on site or disease samples analyzed by kits or
sent to a disease diagnostic laboratory (Cornell University Plant Disease Diagnostic
laboratory, Plant Science Building, Ithaca, NY).
Monitoring for pests involves determining the location and number of pests or
area affected by pests. Thresholds for pest occurrence have been developed for many golf
course pests and will be used to determine if a pesticides application is warranted. Table
4 contains action threshold values for some of the pests that are anticipated to occur on
this golf course. If environmental conditions favor continued pest pressure, the action
threshold has been exceeded and other non-pesticidial options have been tried, then a
pesticide will be applied. The threshold values may be changed as pest history on this
golf course warrants modification (i.e. too much or too little pest damage at a given
threshold).
The fungicide selection/application protocol will involve following a program to
reduce the chance of developing a resistance strain of fungicide to a specific fungicide or
class of fungicide. If more than one fungicide is needed to be used to control a disease in
the same year, then a different type/class of fungicide will be used. If a systemic
fungicide is used first (iprodione, propiconazole, thiophanate, vinclozalin) then a contact
fungicide (chlorothalonil, mancozeb, PCNB) would be used next. Classes of fungicides
would also be rotated. For every other systemic fungicide application a benzimidazole
class (thiophanate) fungicide would be used, then followed by one of the dicarboximides
fungicides (iprodione, vinclozalin) or sterol inhibitors (propiconazole and triadimefon).
This mixing of classes/types of fungicides will be also followed for all diseases. Refer to
Table I for selection of a fungicide for a given disease.
3. WEED CONTROL
It is anticipated that after the first year of establishment of this golf course that
weed problems will tend to be minimal. This is a result of sound golf course cultural/pest
control practices that will produce a dense-competitive environment against weed
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
encroachment. Thus, the anticipated weeds on this golf course will be limited to annual
bluegrass (potentially on all sites of the golf course), crabgrass (mostly in tees and
fairways and occasionally broad leaf weeds (limited mostly to fairways and roughs).
Annual Bluegrass
Annual bluegrass (Poa annua spp. Reptans/annua) is a very common weed that
invades golf courses. It is well adapted to short mowing, heavily trafficked sites, soils
high in pH and phosphorus, and wet soil/poorly drained conditions. Thus, the
management program of this golf course is designed to reduce it's competitiveness by: I)
keeping soil pH at 6.5 or below, 2) providing for good drainage where needed, 3)
irrigating to a minimum, 4) using compaction resistant soils (like the sand used on
greens/tees), following a disease/insect management program to maintain a dense
turfgrass stand and 6) following a fertilization program that is optimum for the growth of
the turfgrasses used here but not too high in phosphorus that favors annual bluegrass.
Even after doing all of these measures, annual bluegrass can still invade this golf
course. Thus, it is anticipated that some other control measures will be necessary. There
are experimental biological control agents for annual bluegrass that may some day be
commercially available. Chemical control is limited and generally involves the use of
either plant growth suppressants (paclobutazol) or a traditional herbicide (ethofumesate,
applied in fall).
Each spring and late August the amount of annual bluegrass for all greens, tees
and fairways will be mapped using the weed maps found in the appendix. Mapping will
consist of a visual estimation of location and amount of annual bluegrass on each green,
tee and fairway using a mapping techniques described in the Disease Section.
Paclobutrizol will be applied to tees in late spring and ethofumesate in fairways in
September and again before December if the threshold of I % is exceeded.
The new creeping bentgrass varieties to be used are very competitive against
annual bluegrass encroachment and herbicide applications may not be necessary.
Broadleaf Weeds
Broad leaf weeds (BL W) occasionally occur on established golf course fairways
and roughs and thus, are considered a minor pest problem on these sites. Clover is a
commonly occurring BL W that is favored by soil pH around 7 and by dry soils. Thus, on
this golf course it would be anticipated that clover would be found on most of this golf
course. One of the best ways to reduce broadleafweed problems on golf courses is to
produce a dense-competitive turf grass stand by following the overall turfgrass
management program to be used on this golf course: proper fertilization/irrigation
practices and reducing pest damage that opens the turf to invasion by weeds. However,
broad leaf weeds will most likely still invade this golf course. Weed population and
locations will be scouted and mapped at least twice a year (early June and mid
September). Mapping will consist of making visual estimates of the amount, location and
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
species of broadleaf weeds on each green, tee, fairway and rough. Since broadleaf weeds
may be confined to a small area, pesticide applications will only be made on areas with
weeds present in excess of the threshold; one-weed plants per sq.yd on greens/tees, two
weed plants per sq.yd. on fairways and five per sq.yd. on roughs, thus reducing the
amount of pesticide applied. The herbicides will be used for broadleafweeds, applied in
mid to late September, when thresholds in mid-September scouting exceeds the threshold
limits shown in Table 4, (refer to Table 2 for list of herbicides with a low environmental
risk).
Crabgrass
Crabgrass is an annual grassy weed that invades thin turf. Thus, all the cultural
practices to be used on this golf course will encourage a dense stand of turf, thus, will
reduce the incidence of crabgrass. Practices such as the fertilizing, irrigation and
disease/insect control programs to be used on this golf course will produce a dense turf
that restrict light from reaching the soil surface. Crabgrass seeds require light for
germination. These management practices help significantly, however, when a golfer
takes a divot the soil is exposed to light and crabgrass seeds can germinate and invade the
turf. Crabgrass is considered a major weed problem on the tees and fairways of this golf
course. Mapping will consist of visually estimating the amount and location of crabgrass
on each green, tee, fairway and rough.
There are two herbicidal control programs, preemergence and postemergence.
These terms refer to herbicide applications made before or after the crabgrass seeds
germinate, respectively. The preemergent herbicides must be applied in advance of the
period of germination of crabgrass, usually in April. A problem with this approach is that
you are not sure that crabgrass will be present or not. If it is not present, then the
application has been wasted. Preemergent herbicides will only be used on this golf course
if during the previous year there was a large infestation of crabgrass. The crabgrass
population will be mapped and monitored each fall to identify small areas to treated the
following spring.
Postemergent herbicides are few and require carefully timing for good control.
Mapping the amount and location of young crabgrass plants in early summer will be used
to determine if small areas will need treatment.
There is a natural herbicide com gluten meal, also a slow release fertilizer, will
first be used to control crabgrass then if control is not acceptable then one of the
herbicides listed in Table 2 with a low potential for either surface or ground will be used.
4. INSECT CONTROL
Insect problems anticipated on this golf course are restricted to just a few insects,
which include Hyperodes on greens/tees/fairways and white grubs in fairways/roughs.
There are grasses that contain an endophytic fungi which are resistant to certain surface
feeding insects like cutworm, sod webworm and chinchbug. The grasses that will be used
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in the roughs are endophytic, thus are resistant to the surface feeding insects. Creeping
bentgrasses (used on greens/tees/fairways) at this time does not contain endophytes and
therefore are not resistant to surface feeding insects. Currently there are no turfgrass
resistant to root feeding insects like grubs.
Biocontrol options are available for most of the insect pests anticipated on this
golf course and will be the first line of control. Only after biocontrol options have been
shown to be no-effective will an synthetic insecticide be used.
One of the best practices to follow in an insect control program is to have a
systematic sampling/monitoring scheme. It has been found that insect pests of turf like
cutworms and white grubs do not uniformly cover the entire golf course. In fact it has
been shown that grubs are confined to certain parts of the golf course and even small
section of fairways. Therefore, prior to any insecticide application the sampling protocol
be followed and treatment be confined to only the areas where the insects are found. The
sampling/monitoring maps for insects found in the appendix will be followed and the
procedures discussed under each insect section. Depending on the type of insect, different
scouting techniques will be used, each will be described in detail below. The golf
superintendent will be responsible to develop and implement the scouting procedures. If
available, the Cornell IPM Program in conjunction with the Cornell Cooperative
Extension of Suffolk County will help develop and evaluate the scouting and monitoring
program for all pests.
Cutworms
Black cutworms will occassinally be an insect problems on this golf course. This
insect does not overwinter in NY. Adults each spring fly in from the southeastern U.S.,
usually arriving in late spring-early summer (May-June). The adults lay eggs, which
hatch in two to three weeks as small larvae, the destructive phase of this insect. A second
generation can hatch later in the summer. Cutworm larvae spend their days in the soil,
often in old aerifier holes. At dusk they emerge and feed on the foliage of the grass and
the damage is confined to a small zone surrounding their daytime home.
It is unlikely that the entire golf course at anyone time will contain cutworms in
excess of the thresholds. Therefore, monitoring and sampling of the population is
necessary to substantially reduce the amount of the golf course that will need to be
treated. Scouting for this insect will involve a two step process. In May each year, 10 to
20 black light and/or pheromone trays will be place out on the golf course to
attract/collect adult cutworms as they arrive at this golf course. Every other day the
number of adult black cutworm adults in each trap will be counted. Two weeks after the
adults begin showing up in the traps, the second phase of scouting will commence. This
involves placing an irritant solution (soap or pyrethrum) on sections of each green, tee
and fairway at bi-weekly intervals through June, July and August. If the number of
cutworm larvae exceed one/sq.yd. on greens/tees and five/sq. yd. on fairways, then a
control regime will be followed. The smaller the larvae the easier they are to control, so
the initial scouting is very important. Also, biocontrols are most effective on small larvae.
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The control for cutworms will fIrst rely on a biocontrol method and if this does
not give acceptable control (threshold still above limit after one week), then an
insecticide will be used. A combination of two biocontrol agents will be applied at one
time, the nematode Steinemema carpocapsae (Exhibit) and the bacteria Bacillus
thurgingiensis var. kurstaki (BT). Each takes 2 to 7 seven days to kill the cutworm larvae,
thus, one week after the application the areas will be sampled with the irritant solution to
determine the effectiveness the biocontrols. If populations of cutworm larvae are still in
excess of the threshold, then a traditional insecticide will be applied that has a low
likelihood of runoff/leaching based on NPURG analysis (refer to Table 2). As with the
biocontrols, the effectiveness of the traditional insecticides will be evaluated one week
after application before any additional treatment will be made.
White Grubs
There are several species of insects that have a destructive larval stage known as
white grubs. These include Japanese beetle, Oriental Beetle, Asiatic Garden Beetle and
European Chafer. The most destructive stage of these insects are their grub or larval
stage, third and largest instar which occurs later in the fall into the spring.
The population of these insect grubs will be determined as follows before any
insecticidal treatment will be made. Each hole will be mapped once in late July or early
August each year for the extent, location and species of grub using the maps found in the
appendix. Sampling consists of a crew of 8 to 10 individuals with cup cutters. On
fairways and roughs, taking a sample at 20 yd. spacing will follow a grid sampling
technique. Greens and tees will be sampled at 20 ft. intervals. The sample involves
extracting the turf and top 2-3" of soil and observing the number and species of grubs in
each sample. When the threshold of36 to 48 grubs/sq. yd. is exceeded, then a treatment
will be made. Treatments are most effective in early August when the grubs are very
small. Spot treatments will be made.
The nematode Steinernema carpocapsae will be used fIrst to control white grubs
when found on sites exceeding the threshold. The effectiveness will be determined by
repeat sampling of the treated sites one week after application. An application will only
be made ifthe grubs are near the soil surface and the soils are moist. If the nematode
application has failed to lower the white grub population below the threshold level, than
one of the insecticides listed in Table 2 will be applied to the sites still having populations
above the threshold level that has a low likelihood of contaminating either surface or
ground water. As with the nematode, one week after the traditional insecticide application
the grub population will again be sampled on the treated sites and only if threshold levels
are still exceeded would an additional insecticide application be made.
Other Insect Pests
There is some likelihood that other insects will attack the grasses found on this
golf course. These include Hyperodes weevil (use chlorpyrifos, applied in early spring
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
after sampling indicates thresholds are exceeded), sod webworm and Ataenius beetle
grub. There are biocontrol products (Bt bacteria) available for sod webworm and
Ataenius should be used as the first line of defense. If control is unsuccessful and these
insects are still causing unacceptable damage, then one of the insecticides listed above
will be used.
S. OTHER PESTICIDE ISSUES
Included in this analysis are two pesticides that under certain conditions may be
necessary to apply to the golf course. They are glufosinate and glyphosate, nonselective
herbicides used in a renovation project. Both were found to have a low likelihood for
either leaching or runoff from greens, tees and fairways/roughs and will be used as
needed on a small scale for renovation purposes.
6. Example Pesticide Application Program
The following is an example of a preventative pesticide program for the Laurel
Links Golf Course. This program represents a "worst case scenario" pesticide program
since pesticides would be applied on a calendar date to prevent pests from causing
damage. The actual pesticide use program for this golf course should be at least fifty per
cent less than is shown below since cultural and biological controls will limit the need for
pesticide application.
Pesticide
Date of
Application
Rate of
Application
oz(wt) All
1000 sq.ft
Location Controlled
2,4-D+ &
leaf
2,4-DP
Sept 21 & Oct. 14
F&R*
broad-
weeds
2,4-D
2,4-DP
0.37
0.37
G & T (spot
treat, 20 % of
the area)
(T rimec Bent-
grass Formula)
MCPP+
2,4-D+
dicamba+
0.18
0.06
0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pendimethalin
or
April 15
0.8
F&R
crabgrass
19
I
I
I prodiamine " 0.28 F,R,GT
"
(Barricade)
I or
fenoxaprop-eth June 15 0.012 Spot treat post-
T,F emergent
I crabgrass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCNB^ Feb. 15 6.0 Spot treat only, pink
I & gray
(Tarrac1or) snow mold
I chlorothalonil^ April 15 2.68 Spot treat only,
(Daconil 2787)
dollarspot, brown
I patch, leaf spot
I triadimefon May 15 0.25 " Dolarspot,
(Bayleton 25) August 1 Brown patch
I vinc1ozalin^ Apr. 15 1.0 brown patch
(Vorlan) Sept. I 1.0 " & dollar spot
I
iprodione^ June 14 1.0 DS & brown
I patch
(Chipco 26019) Oct. I 2.0 Pink and Gray
snow
I mold
etridiazole^ June I 1.75 Pythium blight
I (Koban 30) July 7 1.75 "
I fosetyl-al^ June 14 3.2 "
(Aliette T & 0) Aug. 21 3.2 "
I thiophanate^ July 14 1.12 Brown patch,
(3336 F) dollar spot
I
propamocarb^ July 21 1.5 Pythium blight
I
20
I
-------- ------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and
(Banol)
root rot
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
imadicloprid
(Merit)
Aug. I
0.15
G,T,
F&R
white grubs
(spot treat only)
carbaryl July I &
(Chipco Seven 80 WSP) Aug. I
2.94
2.94
G
G
cutworm
"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
paclobutrazole
(Scotts TGR)
May 21
0.12
T
annual
bluegrass
control
ethofumasate
(Pro grass)
Sept. 15
Oct. 7
0.28
0.28
F
F
"
"
· F=fairway, R=roughs, G=greens, T=tees.
^ fungicides to be used on greens, tees and fairways.
+ Pesticides that are considered a high risk.
IV. FERTILIZATION PROGRAM
Unlike pesticide programs, it is possible to develop in advance a fertilization
program-schedule. Factors important in the development of such a program include the
site specific soil properties, clipping management, nutrient requirements of grass
species/cultivar, irrigation plan, desired level of quality, interaction with pest populations
and environmental considerations. The fertilizer nutrients of concern from an
environmental perspective are nitrogen (as nitrate) and phosphorus (phosphates). Nitrate
can cause a reduction in the quality of water in terms of either as a drinking water source
or it's impact on eutrophication of streams, ponds or lakes. Phosphorus is needed in small
amounts by turfgrass and is mostly a concern of surface water eutrophication. This
fertilization program addresses the following concerns: fertilizers contaminating the
surface waters, the wetlands or the groundwater. Fertilizer application will be made only
if the 24-48 hr weather forecast does not predict a significant rain event, which will
further reduce the likelihood of affecting the environment.
/.
.
There has been considerable research on the fate of nitrogen applied to turf grass
(Petrovic, 1990). About half of the applied fertilizer nitrogen is found in the clippings, 30
to 40 % stored in the soil as organic matter, and gaseous loss back to the atmosphere from
o to 40 % of the applied nitrogen. Thus, there is little fertilizer nitrogen available for
either runoff in surface waters or leaching into groundwater. Factors that influence the
degree of nitrate leaching are the source of nitrogen, the rate of application, the timing of
the application and irrigation practices. These factors are inteIjected into the fertilization
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
program to produce a good quality golf course with a low probability of any negative
impact on the surrounding environment.
Phosphorus can be a problem in runoff, but in turf grass situations runoff from turf
seldom occurs due to the high amount of water infiltration into the soil (Harrison et.al.,
1993). Where phosphorus runoff has been a problem is in traditional agricultural
production when erosion has occurred or the application of phosphorus was in excess of
the amount need for plant growth (based on soil tests). On established turf erosion is all
but eliminated. On this golf course phosphorus (potassium, pH modification and other
nutrients other than nitrogen) applications will be based on soil test results to insure that
the proper amounts be applied to provide for acceptable plant health and avoiding
excesses that can lead to contamination of surface water. Soil testing will be done just
prior to establishment to determine the specific amount of phosphorus to apply at
seeding/sodding and three times per year thereafter for maintenance applications. All
greens, tees, fairways and roughs will be sampled. Sampling of the three major soils
found on this site where golf hole are present, indicate that the soils on site are moderate
to high in phosphorus and medium to low in calcium, magnesium and pH. The pH, Ca,
and Mg levels will be modified during establishment. Soils and irrigation water will be
tested just prior to establishment to determine if remedial action may be necessary to
improve the establishment rate.
The fertilization program for the Laurel Links Golf Course is presented in Tables
5 and 6. This program incorporates a balanced approach to fertilization: the amount of
each of the nutrient applied will provide for adequate plant growth, will not over or under
stimulate growth at the expense of disease resistance or weed encroachment, will act in a
disease suppressive manner by the use of natural organic fertilizer (Sustane or Ringer)
and will not lead to the potential for either a significant amount of runoff or leaching by
not having a large pool of water soluble nitrogen available at one time. This program will
avoid several of the major factors that encourage nitrate leaching: there is no late fall
fertilization with highly water soluble sources, the nitrogen sources have not been shown
to leach from golf course type turf (Petrovic, 1990 and Petrovic, 1991) and the rates of
application are low, thus resulting in little soluble nitrogen available for off site transport.
During the establishment year, more nitrogen is needed to enhance establishment than is
required by old turf. Therefore, at establishment an application of a starter fertilizer will
be applied to supply 2lbs. ofnitrogenll,OOO sq-ft mixed into the upper 6 inches of the
soil. Soil test recommendations will be followed to determine the amount of phosphorus,
potassium and other nutrients that will be applied in the starter fertilizer. Tissue testing
will be done bi-weekly on greens, tees and fairways during May-September to assess the
nitrogen content. Nitrogen levels will be maintained between a range of 4.5 to 5.25 % N,
on a dry weight bases, to reduce both Dollar spot and Brown patch disease. Small
amounts of soluble N fertilizer in the irrigation (called fertigation) will be applied ifN
contents drop below 4.5%. IfN contents are above 5.25%, any scheduled N applications
will not be made until further testing indicates the tissue levels drop below 5.25 % N.
The range of reported of nitrate leaching values for field studies from IBDD
fertilization are 0.1 to 0.9 % of the amount of nitrogen applied Petrovic, 1990). Leaching
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
from applications ofthe natural organic-disease suppressive fertilizers (Ringer's and
Sustane) has been shown to be near zero (Petrovic, 1991). Thus, an estimated nitrate
loading rates into groundwater assuming the worst case scenario (10 % leaching) and a
realistic leaching (0.9 % of IBOU) for this golf courses are:
Time % leaching Greens/T ees Fairways Roughs
------ Ibs Nitrate/acre/yr -------
growin 10 34.8 20.7 17.4
growin 0.9 3.1 1.9 1.6
routine 10 17.4 13.2 8.7
routine 0.9 1.6 1.2 0.8
The volume of water recharging groundwater as estimated by the NPURG model
from values shown in appendix for rainfall/irrigation for all sites to be turfed on this golf
is 21 and 28.5 inches of groundwater recharge/yr or 2,115,256 to 2,870,705
liters/acre/yr. The lower more conservative number will be used to estimate the impact of
the fertilization program on nitrate contamination of ground water.
The drinking water standard for nitrate is 10 mglL. Based on research and actual
monitoring of existing golf courses (Petrovic, 1994), nitrate concentration in groundwater
(or research Iysimeters) have been found to be less than 10 mgIL. The 0.9% ofIBOU
leaching is more realistic than the worst case scenario (10%), thus fertilization of the
Laurel Links Golf Course would have the following impact on groundwater quality:
Time
% leaching Greens/tees Fairways Roughs
----------- Nitrate conc. (mglL) ----------
10 7.5 4.4 3.8
0.9 0.7 0.4 0.3
growin
"
routine
"
10
0.9
3.8
0.3
2.8
0.25
1.9
0.2
The values shown in this table are at least doubled of what would be expected to find in
the groundwater since the golf course is only using about half of the land of this site.
Thus, fertilization of the Laurel Links Golf Course would not result in groundwater more
than the drinking water standard (10 mglL) even under the worst-case scenario
conditions.
It is anticipated that there will be a short period (one year or less) of elevated
nitrate levels in groundwater due to the mineralization of organic nitrogen found in the
soils on this site due to disturbance of the soil not from fertilization.
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V. Other Maintenance Practices-Issues
Irrigation
Many other practices involving the maintenance of a golf course can have an
impact on environment. The major practice in this regard is irrigation. The modern-
computer controlled irrigation systems are very flexible to be able to irrigate to the
amount needed for adequate plant growth while not over irrigating. Over-irrigation can
make many disease problems more severe and can lead to a significantly greater
likelihood for either pesticide or nitrate leaching into groundwater and runoff into surface
waters (Petrovic, 1990 and 1994). Thus, this golf course will utilize a method to estimate
plant water use as the bases for determining the amount of irrigation to be applied. This
irrigation systems will have a weather station linked to the controller to estimate plant
water use (or obtain evapotranspiration values from Northeast Climate Center, Ithaca,
NY) and irrigate accordingly. The proper amount of irrigation will be applied to
minimize any environmental impact, reduce the potential for pest problems, reduce the
waste of water from excess irrigation and produce a healthy pest-resistan~ grass.
The quality of water used for irrigation is key to the establishment and basic
health of the golf course turf. Irrigation water will be tested monthly along with soils and
grass tissues to develop a program to facilitate a healthy turfgrass growing environment
that reduces the need for pesticides. Irrigation water with an electrical conductivity (EC)
value less that 3.0 dS/m will be used with out concerns of salinity and reduced infiltration
on soils with a sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) less than 12 . Sodium, chloride, boron and
bicarbonates levels below 70, 355, 2 and 500 mg/L, respectively, are considered safe
levels for irrigation water. If irrigation water and soil exceeds these levels, then remedial
actions will be taken such as to either treat irrigation water to lower the levels of toxic
materials.
Cleaning of Maintenance Equipment
A covered wash pad (to shed rainfall from catch basin) will be used to clean all
maintenance equipment (except for pesticide application equipment). The pad will be
sloped inward and have a grated catch basin with grease, oil, and sediment traps to collect
any grease, oil, fuel, solid debris and clipping from the mowers and other maintenance
equipment. After each piece of equipment is used, it will be washed before being placed
back in the maintenance facility.
VI. Proposed Storage and Handling of Pesticides and
Fertilizers
Pesticide Storage: All pesticides will be mixed, loaded and stored in a chemical
handling/storage building equipped as follows: a small section for record keeping;
mixing/loading area; application equipment washdown area; and pesticide storage space.
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Access to the building will be by the superintendent, assistant superintendent and trained
applicators under the direct supervision of the superintendent. The building will contain
heat detectors, fire extinguisher, first aid kit, two stage ventilation (low level ventilation
at all times and a three times ventilation volume increase when someone enters the
building), explosion proof fixtures, emergency shower/eyewash station and personal
protection gear including disposable coverall/suits, gloves, goggles, respirators and
hearing protection. Hazard communication signage will be placed inside and outside the
building. Material Safety Data Sheets on all pesticides stored/used in building will be
readily available. All personnel using the facility will be trained in safe handing and
operation of application equipment and emergency response procedures and contacts.
Spills in the building will be readily contained by dry absorbent materials and
safely stored until disposed of by a licensed hauler (this also pertains to any sludge/solids
from the equipment wash area). Only the amount of pesticide needed will be loaded in.
the sprayer. All rinseate from containers and from the sprayer equipment will be reused
in the next spray or sprayed in a dilute fashion in the practice range area. All pesticides
will be stored, handled and applied according to the label instructions. All personal
protective measures will be followed.
The building will be constructed of non-combustible walls, with a combustible
roof. With explosion proof fixtures, fire is unlikely. If a fire does occur, the building will
vent heat and smoke through the roof and spraying water on the fire will not be
encouraged. The use of a limited amount of fire fighting water is encouraged to reduce
the likelihood of environmental damage from a large volume of water and to reduce the
amount of contaminated water that will need disposal.
It is anticipated that only small quantities of pesticides will be stored in the
building. A general contact fungicide like tbiram or a specialized fungicide like
etridiazole (for pythium control) will be stored in case of an outbreak of a disease posing
an imminent threat to the Laurel Links golf course requiring immediate action. For insect
and weed control, insecticides and herbicides will be purchased and used on an as needed
base. All empty containers will be handled and disposed of by a licensed hauler.
Fertilizer Storage: fertilizers will be stored in a walled off section of the
maintenance facility. The floor will be seal and will not contain a floor drain. The
concrete for the floor and lowest one foot of the walls will be poured at the same time
with out joints so as not to allow water in or out of the storage area. It will be unheated
unless liquid fertilizers will be stored. Only small amounts of fertilizers will be stored at
anyone time, usually no longer than several days (from the time of delivery until it is
applied).
25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VII. Literature Cited
1. Morton, T.G., AJ. Gold and W.M. Sullivan. 1988. Influence of overwatering and
fertilization on nitrogen losses from home lawns. J.ofEnviron. Qual. 17:124-130.
2. Petrovic, AM. 1990. The fate of nitrogenous fertilizers applied to turf grass. J. of
Environ. Qual. 19:1-14.
3. Petrovic, AM. 1991. Leaching of organics: fertilizers and pesticides. Proc. 62 nd
Intern. GolfConf., Las Vegas. p.75.
4. Nelson, E.B. 1990. The advent of biological controls for turf grass disease
management. Cornell Univ. Turfgrass Times. I (I): I ,4.
5. Watschke, T.L., S. Harrison and G.W.Hamilton. 1989. Does fertilizers/pesticide use on
a golf course put water resources in peril? US Golf Assoc. Greens Sect. Record 27(3)5-8.
6. Petrovic, A M. 1994. Impact of Golf Courses on Groundwater Quality. Proc. 2 nd
World Scient. Congo Golf. St. Andrews, Scotland.
7. Harrison, S.A, T.L. Watschke, R.O. Mumma, A.I. Jarrett and G.W. Hamilton, Jr.
1993. Nutrient and pesticide concentrations in water from chemically treated turfgrass.
In, A Lesie (ed). Pesticides in Urban Environments. Am. Chern. Soc.
8. Gold, AJ., T.G.Morton, W.M.Sullivan and J.McClory.! 988.Leaching of 2,4-D and
dicamba from home lawns. J. Water, Air and Soil Poll. 37:121-129.
9. Leonard, R.A, W.G. Knisel and D.A.Still. 1987. GLEAMS:Ground Water Loading
Effects of Agricultural Management Systems. Trans. ASAE 30:1403-1418.
10. Petrovic, AM., N.C.Roth, D.Lisk and D.A.Haith. 1990. Evaluation of pesticide
leaching models for turf grass. Am. Soc. Agron. Abs.p.180.
11. Linde, D.T., T.L. Watschke, AR. Jarrett and J.A. Borger. 1995. Surface runoff
assessment from creeping bentgrass and perennial ryegrass turf. Agron. J. 87:176-182.
12. Owenby, J.R. and D.S. Ezell. 1992. Monthly stations normals of temperature,
precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days 1961-90, New York. Climatography of
the United States no. 81. US Dept. of Commerce. NOAA, NCDC, Assheville, NC.
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 1. Summary of environmental fate assessment (likelihood of either runoff or
leaching) of pesticides registered for disease control based on NPURG analysis. Any
fungicide found to have a high potential for leaching or runoff from any soil on site
or from greens/tees is listed as a high potential.
Diseases
Pesticide NPURG Rating controlled
Azoxystrobin low PSM,PB
chloroneb low GSM**
chlorothalonil low BP,DS,LS,GSM
cyproconazole low BP
fenarimol high BP,DS,GIPSM
iprodione low BP,DS,LS,P/GSM
mancozeb low BP,LS,
PCNB low BP,P/GSM
propiconazole low BP,DS,P/GSM
thiophanate low BP,DS,PSM
thiram low BP,DS,GSM
triadimefon low BP,DS,P/GSM
vinclozalin low BP,DS,LS,PSM
etridiazole low PB,PRR
fosetyl-Al low PB,PRR
metalaxyl high PB,PRR
orooamocarb low PB.PRR
* Greens/tees having an organic matter content of at least 2.6%, by weight. **
GSM=gray snow mold, BP=brown patch, LS=leaf spot, DS=dollar spot, PSM=pink snow
mold, PB=pythium blight, PRR=pythium root rot. They fungicides can control other
diseases that are of a lesser problem. All applications are assumed to be applied to the
foliage, not injected into the soil or soil surface applied.
27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2. Summary of environmental fate assessment (likelihood of either runoff or
leaching) of pesticides registered for insect and weed control based on NPURG
analysis. Any pesticide that had a high potential for runoff or leaching from any soil
on site or greens/tees is listed as a high potential
2,4-D
dicamba
MCPP
2A-DP
triclopyr
glufosinate
glyphosate
ethofumesate
paclobutazol
bendiocarb
carbaryl
chlorpyrifos
imidacloprid
ethoprop
fenamiphos
isofenphos
trichlorfon
benefin
bensulide
bentazon
dithiopyr
fenoxaprop
pendi-
methalin
prodiamine low CG
oxadiazon low CG
siduron low CG
trifluralin low CG
- Greens/tees having an organic matter content of at least 2.6%, by weight, and for the
Plymouth loam sand soil 2.1 %. -- BL W=broad-Ieafweeds, A W=all weeds,
NT=nutsedge, ABG=annual bluegrass, WG=white grubs, BB=bluegrass billbug,
CW=cutworm, SWW=sod webworm, HW=Hyperodes weevil, TA=Black turfgrass
ataenius. All applications are assumed to applied to the foliage, not injected into the soil
or applied to the soil surface.
Pesticide
NPURG Rating-
Pest
Controlled.-
low
high
high
low
high
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
high
high
high
low
high
low
low
high
low
low
low
BLW
BLW
BLW
BLW
BLW
AW
AW
ABG
ABG
WG
WG,BB,CW,SWW,CB
WG,BB,HW,SWW,CW,CB
WG,BB,HW
WG,SWW,CW
WG
WG,TA,BB,HW,SWW,CWCB
WG,SWW,CW
CG
CG
NS
CG
CG
CG
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3. Soils found on the fairways and roughs for each hole of the Laurel Links
Golf Course (based on course layout and routing plan, June 12, 1998.
Hole
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
Soil T exture*
Haven sandy loam
Haven and Riverhead sandy loam
Plymouth loamy sand
"
"
Riverhead sandy loam
Haven sandy loam
" & Riverhead
Riverhead sandy loam
" & Plymouth
" "
Riverhead sandy loam
" & Plymouth loamy sand
14
15
16
17
18
"
" "
"
" & Haven sandy loam
"
practice fairway
Haven sandy loam
* Based on soil survey map for Suffolk County, NY.
29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4. Action threshold levels for pests anticipated on the Laurel Links Golf
Course.
Pest
Diseases
Dollar spot
Brown Patch
Pink Snow mold
Pythium blight
Leaf spot
Insects
White grubs
cutworm
Ataenius
Weeds
broadleafs
crabgrass
ann. bluegrass
Greens/tees Fairways Roughs
------------------ --- #/sq.yd ---------------------
3
I
1*
UD^
10%**
9
2
2
UD
25%
36-48
I
180-270
36-48
5
180-270
36-48
180
I
I
I
2
I
1%**
5
3
* #/sq.yd. depend on pest. For diseases of Dollar spot and Brown Patch these are the
number of spots/patches per sq.yd. For insects and weeds it is the number of each
organism per sq.yd. ** Per cent of greens, tees or fairways that have annual bluegrass or
leaf spot. ^ UD=Upon Detection.
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5. Recommended fertilization program for the greens/tee at the Laurel Links
Golf Course.
April
May June
July
Aug.
Sept. Oct.-Noy
Yr. Tot.
----------- ------- -------- -------------------- I bs/ I 000 sq. ft. ----------- ----- --------___ ____________ ____
First Year
IBDU.
IBDU Ringer Ringer Ringer IBDU IBDU
or or or
Sustane S ustane Sustane
0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 3.75N
0.8 0.8 0.8 (Sustane) 2.4 of P205
0.32 0.32 0.32 (Ringer) 1.0 "
0.5
-------------- F ertigation ---------------------
0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
2.25
Future years
Ringer Ringer Ringer
or or or
IBDU IBDU Sustane Sustane Sustane IBDU IBDU
0.5 0.25 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.25 0.5 2.7N
Sustane 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0.6 P205
Ringer 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 "
Total N 6.0 (8.0^)
---------------- F ertigation ---------------------
0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
UN
Total N 4Ibs./l,000/yr
· Other slow release nitrogen sources could be substituted: methylene urea (Nutralene,
Scotts), coated urea (sulfur, resin or polymer coated. The phosphorus and potassium
needed could be meet with the addition of SustainlRinger for summer applications as
noted above. Phosphorus rates must not exceed amounts recommended by soil testing. ^
At the time of planting a 1-1-1 ratio fertilizer will be applied at a rate of 2 Ibs. N/I ,000
sq. ft. A lower P and K ratio fertilizer will be used if soil tests recommendations indicate
that less P or K is needed at establishment.
31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6. Recommended fertilization program for fairways and roughs for the
Laurel Links Golf Course.
May June July Aug, Sept. Oct. Yearly Total
-------------------- ------------------- IbsllOOO sq,ft, ----------------------------___________________
Fairways, during establishment
0.75 0,75 0.75 0,75 1.0 0,75 4,75 Nitrogen
(6,75 N)*^
Fairways, following establishment
0,5 0,5 0.5 1.0 0,5 3,0 Nit.^
Roughs
1.0 1.0 2,0 Nitrogen
(4 N)*
,; At the time of seeding a starter fertilizer will be applied at a rate 0 2 Ibs. Nil ,000 sq,ft
as a 1-1-1 ration fertilizer, assuming P and K rates do not exceed soil test
recommendations, The rates of nitrogen are based on clippings being returned to both the
fairways and roughs. Sources to be used include any of the following slow release
sources: IBDU, methylene urea (Nutralene, Scotts), natural organic (Sustane, Ringers,
Milorganite) and coated ureas (sulfur, resin and polymer), ^It is anticipated that about
half the nitrogen applied will be from fertigation.
32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX
ATTACHMENTS
A. NPURG Description and Rating System
B. NPURG Evaluations Sheets - Soil Test Results
C. Pest Scouting Forms
D. Soils map showing location of soil samples
33
I (
,
I j
I "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
WAlER QUALITY/QUANTITY
lECHNICAL REFERENCE NO. 10
REVISED OcrOBER, 1991
National
Pesticide/Soils Database and
User Decision Support System for
Risk Assessment of
Ground and Surface Water Contamination.
A New England Initiative
NPURG 9.5
USER'S MANUAL
NEW YORK
This material is based upon work supported by
USDA-ES under special project 89-EWQI-1-9109
in cooperation with cr, ME, NH, RI, and Yr.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT
The National Pesticide/Soils Database and User Decision Support System for Risk Assessment
of Ground and Surface Water Contamination (NPURG) is an automated version of the Soil
Conservation Service SoiVPesticide Interaction Screening Procedure.
This procedure provides both a leaching potential and a surface loss potential for the
interaction of a given soil and a given pesticide. Soil/pesticide leaching potentials (SPLP) and
soiVpesticide surface loss potentials (SPSLP) are contained in two separate NPURG worksheet
print-outs titled: "Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for Ground and Surface Water Protection",
with "SoiVPecticide Leaching Potential (SPLP) or Soil!Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SSLP)"
or "SoiVPesticide Surface Loss Potential (SSLP)" in the center of the print-outs just above the
rating matrix. The ratings are Potential 1, Potential 2, Potential 3; with Potential 1 being
greater than Potential 2 which is greater than Potential 3.
The individual soil ratings and pesticide ratings that the SPLP and SPSLP are based on, are
available in " Tagged Soil Series Data" and 'Tagged Pesticide Data" print-outs. Soils have Soil
Leaching Potential (SLP) and Soil Surface Loss Potential (SSLP) ratings of High, Intermediate,
and Nominal. Pesticides have Pesticide Leaching Potential (PLP) ratings of Large, Medium,
Small and Nominal, and Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (PSLP) ratings of Large, Medium and
Small.
The screening procedure utilizes two default databases:
1) the SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Selected Properties Database (June 31,1991 SCS
version), which has been peer reviewed by a twenty-two member group including
representatives from NACA, ARS, SCS, ES, EP A, PS, and the agrichemical industry.
2) the Soil Conservation Service State Soil Survey Database.
NPURG can also be used with "User" entered field specific information for both pesticides and
soils. These entries will be identified with a "U _" preceding the pesticide or soil name in all
worksheets. The "U _" designates "User" responsibility for the accuracy of the data.
NPURG evaluations help to indicate the relative need for more comprehensive water quality
risk analysis. Many additional factors must be considered with the NPURG evaluation to
provide a comprehensive analysis of water quality impacts of various management alternatives.
Potential 1:
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
This pesticide applied on this soil has a high probability of leaching below the root zone, as
compared to SPLP's of 2 or 3. Before deciding to use a pesticide which results in a SPLP of 1,
the pesticide should be evaluated for its impact of human health and the environment. If a
pesticide use on this soil is determined to pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the
environment, an alternative pesticide or non-chemical pest management technique should be
selected. See "General Considerations" for additional information.
NY NPURG 9.5 USER'S MANUAL
UAf"!T:'1"!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Consideration of alteIIlative pest management practices should result from the risk assessment
of impacts on the groundwater resource. These include alternative pesticide use practices (Le..
reduced rates, reduced frequency, spot treatment, alternative formulations, modes and timing
of application), alternative pesticides, non-chemical pest management techniques (Le..
biological control, crop rotation, resistant varieties, mechanical control), and combinations
thereof.
SoillPesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP)
Potential 1 :
This pesticide applied on this soil has a high probability of being lost to surface runoff as
compared to SPSLP's of 2 or 3. Before deciding to use a pesticide which results in a SPSLP of
1, the pesticide should be evaluated for its impact on human health and the environment. If a
pesticide use on this soil is determined to pose an umeasonable risk to human health or the
environment, an alternative pesticide or other pest management techniques should be selected.
See the "General Considerations" for additional information.
Potential 2:
This pesticide applied on this soil has the possibility of being lost to surface runoff, however the
possibility of loss is not as great as Potential 1. Because potential 2 is a gray area, overall risk
assessment will be determined by further evaluation of site conditions and pesticide toxicity.
See "General Considerations" for additional information.
In addition, potential 2 guidelines differ from potential 1 in that the pesticide surface loss
potential (PSLP) may be reduced one rank, Le.. high to intermediate, if the pesticide is foliar
applied (significant pesticide interception by foliage), incorporated, or banded under the
surface. This will result in a SPSLP rating of 3, except for pesticide applications on a soil series
with a high surface loss potential.
Potential 3:
This pesticide applied on this soil has a low probability of being lost to surface runoff.
Therefore, this pesticide could be used according to the label instructions with a low probability
of an adverse impact on surface water resources. See "General Considerations" for additional
information.
~ Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP) for soils with a maximum slope 3 percent.
The soil surface loss potential (SSLP) used to determine the Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss
Potential (SPSLP) applies to this soil for slope ranges of 3-8 and 8-15 percent. The soil surface
loss potential may vary with slope ranges as follows:
o - 3 % slope:
3 - 15 % slope:
> 15 % slope:
Reduce the SSLP by one class, i.e. hight to medium
As displayed
Loss may be higher for certain moderately fine and fine textured soils
(Ct, set, SICL, Sc, SIC, C).
NY NPURG 95 USER'S MANUAL
"ill ,............~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachment B: NPURG Ranking Work Sheets and SoillPesticide Information
35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table
. Properties of soil used in the NPURG analysis, Laurel Links CC
NPURG
Tagged Soil Series Data
Soil Series & K_Fact % Organic Layer Hydro Depth SLP SSLP
Texture Class Matter Depth Group to GW
U GREENS/TEES SAND 0.05 2.6- 2.6 12 A > 6 INT NOM
U_HAVEN SANDY LOAM 0.05 1.0- 6.0 19 B > 6 NOM NOM
U_PLYMOUTH LOAM SAND 0.05 2.1- 4.0 10 A > 6 INT NOM
U_RIVERHEAD SANDY LOAM 0.05 1.0- 4.0 12 B > 6 INT NOM
HIGH / INTERMEDIATE / NOMINAL ratings.
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values.
1
I
I
I Pesticide
I
Table
. Properties of pesticides used in the NPURG analysis, Laurel Links GC
NPURG
Tagged Pesticide Data
1/2 Life
(days)
Solubility
(PPM)
KOC
PLP
PSLP
I U_AZOXYSTROBIN
7 6.000
U_CYPROCONAZOLE
11 110
I U_DITHIOPYR 17 1. 380
U_FLUTOLANIL
I U_IMADICLOPRID 160 6.500
61 510
U PACLOBUTRAZOL
I U=PRODIAMINE 210 35.000
69 0.013
I U_TRINEXPAC-ETHYL 1 27500
U_VINCLOZALIN
20 3.000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NOMINAL, SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE ratings, or MISSING
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values.
300 SMA MED
387 SMA MED
1638 SMA LAR
1580 SMA LAR
132 LAR MED
717 MED LAR
12672 SMA LAR
59 SMA SMA
43000 SMA LAR
Data.
I
I 70 8400 50 LAR MED
METHANEARSONIC ACID SODIUM SALT
1000 E 1400000 100000 E SMA LAR
I OXADIAZON
60 0.700 3200 SMA LAR
PCNB
21 0.440 5000 E SMA LAR
I PENDIMETHALIN
90 0.275 5000 SMA LAR
PROPAMOCARB HYDROCHLORIDE
I 30 1000000 1000000 E SMA LAR
PROPICONAZOLE
110 110 1000 E MED LAR
I SIDURON
90 18.000 420 MED LAR
THIOPHANATE-METHYL
10 G 3.500 1830 E SMA MED
I THIRAM
15 30.000 670 SMA MED
TRIADIMEFON
I 26 71.500 300 MED MED
TRICHLORFON
10 120000 10 LAR SMA
TRICLOPYR AMINE SALT
I TRIFLURALIN 46 2100000 20 E LAR SMA
60 0.300 8000 SMA LAR
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NOMINAL, SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE ratings, or MISSING Data.
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2 - 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User: Date: Thu Oct 01 12:00:48 1998
Address: Crop:
Location: Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type ill: % #2: % #3: %
Ave. Slope: % pH: Drained / Undrained.
Water Resource: Ground / Surface Type: Distance:
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Pesticide:
U_GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN U_PLYMOUTH
SAND SANDY LOAM LOAM SAND
Hydro - A Hydro - B Hydro - A
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
1 F 3 1
F 3 3 F 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
----------
--------
U_AZOXYSTROBIN
U_CYPROCONAZOLE
I U_DITHIOPYR
U FLUTOLANIL
I U-IMADICLOPRID
-F - Foliar application
I U PACLOBUTRAZOL
-F - Foliar application
U_PRODIAMINE
IU_TRINEXPAC-ETHYL
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
I G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
I These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I
Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2 - 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
I Pesticide User: Date: Thu Oct 01 12:01:08 1998
I Addre~s: Crop:
Target Pest:
Locat~on:
I % of field for Soil Type #1: % #2: % #3: %
,Ave. Slope:
Water Resource:
% pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
I
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
Pesticide:
I;:;~;~~;~IN
U GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN U_PLYMOUTH
SAND SANDY LOAM LOAM SAND
Hydro - A Hydro - B Hydro - A
3 3 3
,
I
I
I
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
I G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
'These ratings are first tier
They are intended for use by
environmental risk analysis.
I help evaluate these ratings.
relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
I
Planner:
I
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
-
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User: Date: Thu Oct 01 12:01:32 1998
Address: Crop:
Location: Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1: % #2: % #3: %
I Ave. Slope:
Water Resource:
% pH:
Ground / Surface
Type:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
I
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
Pesticide:
Soil/Pesticide Surface
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Loss Potential (SPSLP)
IU_PACLOBUTRAZOL
U_PRODIAMINE
IU_TRINEXPAC-ETHYL
* max slope is >
G (guessed) / E
3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
(estimated) database values used in the computations.
U GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN U_PLYMOUTH
SAND SANDY LOAM LOAM SAND
Hydro - A Hydro - B Hydro - A
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
========
I U_AZOXYSTROBIN
U_CYPROCONAZOLE
I U_DITHIOPYR
U FLUTOLANIL
IU=IMADICLOPRID
I
I These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I
Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I
II Chemical database name: USER2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
II
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
I Address:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:56:05 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
II Location:
% of field
II Ave. Slope:
for Soil Type #1:
% pH:
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
Drained / Undrained.
II Water Resource: Ground I Surface
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
II NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
I Pesticide:
----------
. U_VINCLOZALIN
Type:
Distance:
U RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro - Hydro -
3 *
.
I
II
I
I
I * max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal h~gh water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
I These ratings are first tier
They are intended for use by
I environmental risk analysis.
help evaluate these ratings.
relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I Chemical database name: USER2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
Pesticide User:
I Address:
Location:
USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:55:50 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
I % of field for Soil Type #1:
I Ave. Slope:
Water Resource:
I
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
Pesticide:
I ~=~;~;;~;;OBIN
U_CYPROCONAZOLE
I U_DITHIOPYR
U FLUTOLANIL
I U=IMADICLOPRID
I U_PACLOBUTRAZOL
U_PRODIAMINE
I U_TRINEXPAC-ETHYL
* max slope is >
I G (guessed) / E
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
% pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
Soil/Pesticide Surface
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Loss Potential (SPSLP)
U RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro - Hydro -
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
(estimated) database values used in the computations.
IThese ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
IhelP evaluate these ratings.
I
Planner:
I
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
Chemical database name: USER2 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
,
,
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:55:39 1998
Address:
, Location:
Crop:
Target Pest:
, % of field for Soil Type #1:
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
I Ave. Slope:
Water Resource:
% pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
I
Soil/Pesticide Surface
Soil
Series:
Texture:
U GREENS/TEES
SAND
Hydro - A
Loss Potential (SPSLP)
U_HAVEN
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
Pesticide:
U PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
----------
---------
'U_VINCLOZALIN
3 *
3 *
3 *
I
,
I
I
* max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
, G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
'These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I
Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
-
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User: Date: Mon Sep 28 16:55:28 1998
Address: Crop:
Location: Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1: % #2: % #3: %
I Ave. Slope:
Water Resource:
% pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
I
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
Pesticide:
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
I U_PACLOBUTRAZOL
U_PRODIAMINE
IU_TRINEXPAC-ETHYL
* max slope is >
G (guessed) / E
I
3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
(estimated) database values used in the computations.
U GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN U_PLYMOUTH
SAND SANDY LOAM LOAM SAND
Hydro - A Hydro - B Hydro - A
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
----------
---------
I U_AZOXYSTROBIN
U_CYPROCONAZOLE
I U_DITHIOPYR
U FLUTOLANIL
I U=IMADICLOPRID
IThese ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I
Chemical database name: USER2_03.DBF Date of
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
issue:
Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
Soil database
name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:54:25 1998
I Address:
Location:
Crop:
Target Pest:
I % of field for Soil Type #1:
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
Ave. Slope:
I Water Resource:
% pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
I
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
Pesticide:
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
I
I
I
I
I
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal h~gh water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
U_RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro - Hydro -
3
----------
--------
I U_VINCLOZALIN
IThese ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
Ip1anner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I
Chemical database name: USER2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of
issue:
Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:54:13 1998
I Address:
Location:
Crop:
Target Pest:
I % of field for Soil Type #1:
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
I Ave.
Water
Slope:
%
pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
I
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
Pesticide:
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
---------
---------
U_RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3
3
3
3
1
F 3
3
3
Hydro -
Hydro.-
I U_AZOXYSTROBIN
U_CYPROCONAZOLE
I U_DITHIOPYR
U FLUTOLANIL
IU=IMADICLOPRID
Iu PACLOBUTRAZOL
-F - Foliar application
U PRODIAMINE
IU_TRINEXPAC-ETHYL
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
I
IThese ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
-
-
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
_Chemical
Soil
database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991'
database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
I Pesticide User:
Address:
-Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:45:49 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
I % of field for Soil Type #1:
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
lAve. Slope:
Water Resource:
% pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
I
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)'
Soil
Series:
Texture:
NPURG .9.500
I Database 2.031
Pesticide:
I BENSULIDE
F - Foliar application
BENTAZON SODIUM SALT
I CARBARYL
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
I G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
U RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro -
F 3
3
3
3
3
F 3 E
1
3
Hydro -
----------
---------
12,4-D ACID
F - Foliar application
ACEPHATE
_ BENDIOCARB
IBENEFIN (BENFLURALIN)
BENOMYL
I These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I
Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I
Chemical database name: USER2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User:
Date: Thu Oct 01 12:01:43 1998
Address:
Crop:
Location:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
Ave. Slope:
%
pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
Soil/Pesticide Surface
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Loss Potential (SPSLP)
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
Pesticide:
----------
. ---------
U GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN U PLYMOUTH
SAND SANDY LOAM LOAM SAND
Hydro - A Hydro - B Hydro - A
3 * 3 * 3 *
I U_VINCLOZALIN
I
I
I
I
* max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
I G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
I These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2 - 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User: Date: Thu Oct 01 11:03:55 1998
Address: Crop:
Location: Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1: % #2: % #3: %
Ave. Slope: % pH: Drained / Undrained.
Water Resource: Ground / Surface Type: Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Pesticide:
U GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN
SAND SANDY LOAM
Hydro - A Hydro - B
F 3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
F 3 E 3 E
1 F 3
3 3
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
F 3
3
3
3
3
F 3 E
1
3
----------
--------
2,4-D ACID
F - Foliar application
ACEPHATE
BENDIOCARB
BENEFIN (BENFLURALIN)
BENOMYL
I BENSULIDE
F - Foliar application
BENTAZON SODIUM SALT
IF - Foliar application
CARBARYL
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
I
I These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2 - 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User: Date: Thu Oct 01 11:04:10 1998
Address: Crop:
Location: Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type 1#1: % #2: % #3: %
Ave. Slope: % pH: Drained / Undrained.
Water Resource: Ground / Surface Type: Distance:
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Pesticide:
----------
--------
CHLORONEB
CHLOROTHALONIL
U GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN U_PLYMOUTH
SAND SANDY LOAM LOAM SAND
Hydro - A Hydro - B Hydro - A
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
1 F 3 1
3 E 3 E 3 E
F 3 3 F 3
1 F 3 1
3 G 3 G 3 G
CHLORPYRIFOS
I DICAMBA SALT
F - Foliar application
I DICHLORPROP (2,4-DP) ESTER
ETHOFUMESATE
F - Foliar application
I ETHOPROP (ETHOPROPHOS)
F - Foliar application
ETRIDIAZOLE
I * max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal h~gh water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
I These ratings are first tier
They are intended for use by
I environmental risk analysis.
help evaluate these ratings.
relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User:
Date: Thu Oct 01 11:04:26 1998
I Address:
Location:
Crop:
Target Pest:
I % of field for Soil Type #1:
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
Ave. Slope:
I Water Resource:
% pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
I
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
Pesticide:
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
----------
--------
U GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN U_PLYMOUTH
SAND SANDY LOAM LOAM SAND
Hydro - A Hydro - B Hydro - A
1 E F 3 E 1 E
1 F 3 1
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 E 3 E 3 E
3 E 3 E 3 E
3 3 3
F 3 E 3 E F 3 E
I FENAMIPHOS
F - Foliar application
FENARIMOL
IF - Foliar application
FENOXAPROP-ETHYL
FOSETYL-ALUMINUM
I GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM
I GLYPHOSATE AMINE SALT
IPRODIONE
I ISOFENPHOS
F - Foliar application
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal h1gh water table < 6 ft., + ponded
I G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
IThese ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I
Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2 - 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User: Date: Thu Oct 01 11:04:47 1998
Address: Crop:
Location: Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1: % #2: % #3: %
Ave. Slope: % pH: Drained / Undrained.
Water Resource: Ground / Surface Type: Distance:
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
I PCNB
PENDIMETHALIN
I PROPAMOCARB HYDROCHLORIDE
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal h1gh water
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in
Pesticide:
----------
----------
MANCOZEB
MECOPROP (MCPP) AMINE SALT
IF - Foliar application
METALAXYL
F - Foliar application
METHANEARSONIC ACID SODIUM SALT
I OXADIAZON
I
U_GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN U_PLYMOUTH
SAND SANDY LOAM LOAM SAND
Hydro - A Hydro - B Hydro - A
3 3 3
1 E F 3 E 1 E
1 F 3 1
3 E 3 E 3 E
3 3 3
3 E 3 E 3 E
3 3 3
3 E 3 E 3 E
table < 6 ft., + ponded
the computations.
I These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I Planner:
I
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
I Chemical
Soil
database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
I Pesticide User: Date: Thu Oct 01 11:05:05 1998
IAddress: Crop:
Target Pest:
Location:
1% of field for Soil Type #1: % #2: % #3: %
lAve. Slope:
Water Resource:
% pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
I
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
Pesticide:
U_GREENS/TEES
SAND
Hydro - A
F 3 E
F 3
3 G
3
F 3
1
1 E
3
U_HAVEN
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3 E
3
3 G
3
3
F 3
F 3 E
3
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
F 3 E"
F 3
3 G
3
F 3
1
1 E
3
----------
I ;RO;ICONAZOLE
F - Foliar application
SIDURON
IF - Foliar application
THIOPHANATE-METHYL
THIRAM
I TRIADIMEFON
F - Foliar application
ITRICHLORFON
F - Foliar application
TRICLOPYR AMINE SALT
IF - Foliar application
TRIFLURALIN
I * max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
IThese ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
IhelP evaluate these ratings.
I
Planner:
I
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
issue:
Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of
issue:
Pesticide User:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:49:20 1998
Address:
Crop:
Location:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
Ave. Slope:
%
pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Soil/Pesticide Surface
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Loss Potential (SPSLP)
I TRICLOPYR AMINE
TRIFLURALIN
SALT
U_RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro - Hydro -
3 * G
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 * E
3 *
Pesticide:
----------
--------
THIOPHANATE-METHYL
THIRAM
TRIADIMEFON
TRICHLORFON
I
I
* max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
I These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
I environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: TUe Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Date: Man Sep 28 16:49:08 1998
Crop:
Address:
Location:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope:
%
pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
Drained / Undrained.
Type:
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Soil/Pesticide Surface
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Pesticide:
----------
-------
METALAXYL
METHANEARSONIC ACID SODIUM SALT
OXADIAZON
PCNB
PENDIMETHALIN
PROPAMOCARB HYDROCHLORIDE
PROPICONAZOLE
Loss Potential (SPSLP)
U_RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro - Hydro -
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 * E
3 * E
3 *
SIDURON
I * max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
I These ratings are first tier
They are intended for use by
I environmental risk analysis.
help evaluate these ratings.
relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
I Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Man Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Pesticide User:
I Address:
Date: Man Sep 28 16:48:56 1998
I Location:
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of
I Ave.
field for Soil Type #1:
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
Slope:
%
pH:
Drained / Undrained.
I NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
I Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Type:
Distance:
I ::=~~:~~:~
FENOXAPROP-ETHYL
I FOSETYL-ALUMINUM
GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM
IGLYPHOSATE AMINE SALT
U RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro - Hydro -
3 *
3 *
3 * E
3 * E
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 * E
I IPRODIONE
ISOFENPHOS
I MANCOZEB
MECOPROP (MCPP) AMINE SALT
I * max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal h~gh water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
IThese ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
lenvironmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
I Address:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:48:37 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
I Location:
I
I
I
I
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope:
%
pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
Drained / Undrained.
Type:
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Soil/Pesticide Surface
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Pesticide:
========
Loss Potential (SPSLP)
U RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro - Hydro -
3 *
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 *
3 * G
3 * E
3 *
.
CHLORONEB
I CHLOROTHALONIL
DICHLORPROP (2,4-DP) ESTER
I ETHOFUMESATE
I ETHOPROP (ETHOPROPHOS)
ETRIDIAZOLE
I FENAMIPHOS
FENARIMOL
I * max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal h1gh water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
-These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
I environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Man Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Date: Man Sep 28 16:48:26 1998
Crop:
Address:
Location:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope:
%
pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
Drained / Undrained.
Type:
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Soil/Pesticide Surface
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Pesticide:
----------
--------
2,4-D ACID
I ACEPHATE
BENDIOCARB
I BENEFIN (BENFLURALIN)
Loss Potential (SPSLP)
U_RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro - Hydro -
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 *
I BENOMYL
BENSULIDE
I BENTAZON SODIUM SALT
CARBARYL
I * max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
I These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
'environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
, Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of
issue:
Man Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Date: Man Sep 28 16:48:11 1998
Address:
Crop:
Location:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
Ave. Slope:
%
pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
Soil/Pesticide Surface
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Loss Potential (SPSLP)
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
I TRICLOPYR AMINE
TRIFLURALIN
SALT
U GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN U_PLYMOUTH
SAND SANDY LOAM LOAM SAND
Hydro - A Hydro - B Hydro - A
3 * G 3 * G 3 * G
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * E 3 * E 3 * E
3 * 3 * 3 *
.
Pesticide:
----------
--------
THIOPHANATE-METHYL
I THIRAM
TRIADIMEFON
, TRICHLORFON
I
I * max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal h~gh water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
'These ratings are first tier
They are intended for use by
'environmental risk analysis.
help evaluate these ratings.
relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Man Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Date: Man sep 28 16:47:58 1998
Address:
Crop:
Location:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
Ave. Slope:
%
pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
Soil/Pesticide Surface
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Loss Potential (SPSLP)
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
U GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN
SAND SANDY LOAM
Hydro - A Hydro - B
3 * 3 *
3 * E 3 * E
3 * 3 *
3 * E 3 * E
3 * 3 *
3 * E 3 * E
3 * E 3 * E
3 * 3 *
.
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
----------
--------
METALAXYL
I METHANEARSONIC ACID SODIUM SALT
OXADIAZON
I PCNB
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 * E
I PENDIMETHALIN
PROPAMOCARB HYDROCHLORIDE
3 *
3 * E
I PROPICONAZOLE 3 * E
SIDURON 3 *
, * max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal h~gh water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
'These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
'environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
,
, Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
-
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:47:41 1998
Crop:
Address:
Location:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope:
%
pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
%
'2:
%
'3:
%
Drained / Undrained.
Type:
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Soil/Pesticide Surface
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Pesticide:
----------
----------
FENOXAPROP-ETHYL
FOSETYL-ALUMINUM
GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM
- GLYPHOSATE AMINE SALT
Loss Potential (SPSLP)
U_GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN U_PLYMOUTH
SAND SANDY LOAM LOAM SAND
Hydro - A Hydro - B Hydro - A
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * E 3 * E 3 * E
3 * E 3 * E 3 * E
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * E 3 * E 3 * E
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * E 3 * E 3 * E
I IPRODIONE
ISOFENPHOS
I MANCOZEB
MECOPROP (MCPP) AMINE SALT
I * max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
-These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
I environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
-
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:47:28 1998
Address:
Crop:
Location:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
%
#2:
%
Ave. Slope:
%
pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#3:
%
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Soil/Pesticide Surface
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Loss Potential (SPSLP)
Pesticide:
U GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN
SAND SANDY LOAM
Hydro - A Hydro - B
3 * 3 *
3 * 3 *
3 * E 3 * E
3 * 3 *
3 * 3 *
3 * G 3 * G
3 * E 3 * E
3 * 3 *
----------
---------
CHLORONEB
CHLOROTHALONIL
DICHLORPROP (2,4-DP) ESTER
ETHOFUMESATE
I ETHOPROP (ETHOPROPHOS)
ETRIDIAZOLE
I FENAMIPHOS
FENARIMOL
I
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
3 *
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 *
3 * G
3 * E
3 *
* max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
I These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
I environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:47:17 1998
Address:
I Location:
Crop:
Target Pest:
I % of field for Soil Type #1:
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
Ave. Slope:
I Water Resource:
% pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Ground / Surface
Type:
Distance:
1
NPURG 9.500
1 Database 2.031
Pesticide:
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
I BENSULIDE
BENTAZON SODIUM
1 CARBARYL
* max slope is
G (guessed) /
SALT
U GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN U_PLYMOUTH
SAND SANDY LOAM LOAM SAND
Hydro - A Hydro - B Hydro - A
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * E 3 * E 3 * E
3 * 3 * 3 *
3 * 3 * 3 *
---------
-------
12,4-0 ACID
ACEPHATE
I BENDIOCARB
1 BENEFIN (BENFLURALIN)
BENOMYL
I
> 3%, & depth to seasonal h~gh water table < 6 ft., + ponded
E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
IThese ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
1 Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
-
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User: Date: Mon Sep 28 16:46:56 1998
Address: Crop:
Location: Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1: % #2: % #3: %
Ave. Slope: % pH: Drained / Undrained.
Water Resource: Ground / Surface Type: Distance:
NPURG '9.500
Database 2.031
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP) ,
Soil
Series:
Texture:
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal h1gh water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
U_RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro - Hydro -
3 G
3
F 3
1
1 E
3
Pesticide:
----------
----------
THIOPHANATE-METHYL
THIRAM
TRIADIMEFON
F - Foliar application
TRICHLORFON
TRICLOPYR AMINE SALT
TRIFLURALIN
I These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
I Chemical
soil
database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Man Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
I Pesticide User:
Address:
I Location:
Date: Man Sep 28 16:46:39 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
I % of field for Soil Type #1:
%
#2:
#3:
%
%
% pH:
Drained / Undrained.
I Ave. Slope:
Water Resource:
Ground / Surface
I
Type:
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
Pesticide:
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
Soil
Series:
Texture:
----------
----------
I METALAXYL
METHANEARSONIC ACID SODIUM SALT
I OXADIAZON
PCNB
I PENDIMETHALIN
U_RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro - Hydro -
1
3 E
3
3 E
3
3 E
F 3 E
F 3
I PROPAMOCARB HYDROCHLORIDE
PROPICONAZOLE
F - Foliar application
I SIDURON
F - Foliar application
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water
I G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in
table < 6 ft., + ponded
the computations.
IThese ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I
Planner:
I
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NPURG 9.500
I Database 2.031
I
I
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2 - 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User: Date: Mon Sep 28 16:46:21 1998
Address: Crop:
Location: Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1: % #2: % #3: %
Ave. Slope: % pH: Drained / Undrained.
Water Resource: Ground / Surface Type: Distance:
Soil/Pesticide
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Leaching Potential (SPLP)
Pesticide:
U_RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro - Hydro -
3
3
3 E
3 E
3
F 3 E
3
1 E
----------
----------
FENOXAPROP-ETHYL
FOSETYL-ALUMINUM
GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM
GLYPHOSATE AMINE SALT
IPRODIONE
I ISOFENPHOS
F - Foliar application
MANCOZEB
I MECOPROP (MCPP) AMINE SALT
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal h~gh water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
I
I These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
I
I
I Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
I
I Address:
I Location:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
I Ave. Slope:
I Water Resource: Ground / Surface Type:
I NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
I :::;~:~~:~
CHLORONEB
I CHLOROTHALONIL
I
I ETRIDIAZOLE
I FENAMIPHOS
FENARIMOL
I
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Soil database name:
USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Man Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Date: Man Sep 28 16:46:04 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
%
#2:
%
#3:
%
%
pH:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
Soil/Pesticide
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Leaching Potential (SPLP)
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal h~gh water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
U RIVERHEAD
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro - Hydro -.
3
3
3 E
F 3
1
3 G
1 E
1
DICHLORPROP (2,4-DP) ESTER
ETHOFUMESATE
F - Foliar application
ETHOPROP (ETHOPROPHOS)
I These ratings are first tier
They are intended for use by
I environmental risk analysis.
help evaluate these ratings.
relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
I
I Planner:
Agency:
Phone: (
)
I
09/15/98 11~ 18:57 FAX
141008
I
Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratories
New York State College of Agt'iculeure and Life Sc:iences . A Statutory College of the State University
e04 Bradlield Ba11~ cornell University, Ith~c~. NY 14BGO . Telephone 607J2SS-4540 FAX 607/255-2644
I
4608.27
IDENTIFIC
:~ . ." ":':OlON. .,. ,.
07 27 98 09 16 98
Q N
:.,.", AG'
o
g,'PHQNE" ..'
516 n7-7850
I
'<'>-""'~"':""_"',W^' 'y;'.' ~., m. '-",','."y,'. ... ."~','. 'QN:AGFllT'e "C:""'.w,' c_._',"".
.'........:.'.,......-'.'-..-..,. .'., ..
MARTY PETROVIC CARQlINE KIANG
62 E SENECA RD COOP EXT.EDUCATION CENTER
TRUMANSBURG NY 11.886 246 GRIFFING AVE
R1VERHE.lll NY 11901
ADDREgSES
I
I
B A C KGROUND I N F 0 R M A Tin IJ
""'.'. '_:...w...'.,.,.""".. ,:. .. ......... .'.,~, .....-'.'.'. .. ,'--,',.'.'.,'". .'=ANO:'SllRURS:'. !f.:::.:. M"
..... .. ':'-":""'."-,.,,,,-. "'.<<'.':'.';:'.','" .W "':ow .w.'.'....__...".. ;,,,,",'" ,".'_w",,_,".'. .,,'-,.,..,'.
Env;ronment SUNNY Crop Code: FAR Speci es : RENTGRASg Me/hI/dia: Manure Type~
Drainage EXCEL Variety : Cut Height: < 1/2 loci1tion : "anure~ '1M:
Text:ure SANDY Rllccmnend: PREPLANT Clippin!;$ : REMOVED Top Prune : Corrpost, in:
TopograJlhv PLAIN Month : Irrigation: OCCAS. Tree Type : Lime, '1.';, '
Irr. Rote . Growth . Sulfe-r , M:
I
L
T S T
R
U l T S
I pH 5.1
PHOSPHORUS (P '/A) 82
POTASSIUM (K #/A) '90
MAGNESIUM (M9 '/A) 135
CALCIUM (ea filA) 510
I Ex Acidity (ME/100g): 'Q
Aluoinua (AI filA), 115
'-_h"'M +.:..,";-'
. ...,w,'.','.w",'.,...
"""'-"">,,.,..
::-.,,"
:;-"''fxte
..............
................................................................................
............................................................
....................................................
....
Manganese
Zinc
(Mn filA):
(Zn #/A):
10
3.2
Nitrate
Salts
(N03-N filA):
(mrho/cml:
23
0.170
I 1/'CIllP;;',FURtJ4"Ci,u
.--..... Reccmmendat;onc per a~re ..------
L I H E
. "
FERTILI ..
RECQMMENDAT IONS
---.. Recommendations per 1000 sq ft ..-... ---- ReCommendations per 100 sq ft
I
Lime
(T/A):
4
Lime
(filM):
160
Lime ("IDO SO FT):
Nitrogen (#/100 SO FT):
PhosJlhate ('I'OQ sa FT):
16.1
Nitrogen
(N filA):
45
Nitrogen
(N #/M):
1.0
0.10
I
Phe<Jlhate (P2a5 #fA):
40
PhosJlhate (P205 #/M):
POfa::ft
(1<20 filA]:
4D
Potash
(I:2Q #/M):
0.9
0.9
parastl
(#1100 SO FTl:
0.09
0.09
'ST YEAR. FAIR~AY (FAR)
,- IF AN ANALYSIS RESULT IS NQT REFFERED TO SPECIFICALLY IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR COMMENTS THEN lEVELS ARE CONSIDERED NQRMAL.
2. APPLY N AS A TQPDRESSING AT TIME QF SEEDING. A SECOHD APPLICATlOH SHOUlJ) BE MADE 4 TQ 6 WEEKS AFTER GERMINATION.
3. INCORPORATE PHQSPHORUS TQ A 6 INCH DEPTH
4. TQPDRESS A STARTER FERTILIZER (EG. '8-24'3) AT A RATE OF 1 filM QF NITRQGEN.
5. LIME RATE IS FOR ,oax ENV. TQ CALCULATE ACTUAL RATE: RATE TO USE . RECOMMENDED RATE/ENV (OF LIME SooRCE) X 100.
6. USING SULFER COATED POTASH WILL REDUCE LEACHING AND IMCREASE EFFICIENCY.
7_ INCORPQRATE LIME PREPlANT TO A 6 INCH DEPTH. APPLY LIME IN THE FALL OR EARLY SPRING ~HEN THE SOIL CAN BE UORKED.
8. NITROGEN REC_ENDATlONS IN THE TABLE lROVE ARE FQR THE ENTIRE YEAR.
I Abbreviation key: lb = pound~ #I = pound, T = tOll!f,. A.. acrK~ M:: 10001 N.. nitrogen, and SO FT -;; square feet.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ma,nt;Jln :J good !l.ampling prosram and keep a record of all nutrIent analyses erd recCOJll@f'ldat1ons.
I
09/15/98 TUE 18:57 FAX
141009
I
Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratories
New York St~te COllege of Agriculture and Life Sciences . A Statutory Colleqe of the State University
904 Sradfield Hall. COrnell Univer9i~y. Ithaca. NY 14BSO . Telephone 607/255-1540 ~AX 6Q7/~55-2644
I
',:':::;:?" >:::;;::~S ...;",...,:;"
7 07 98 07 27 98
IDE N
eo"""
8
F I
;;,:OJUN,,
surr
CATION
",.;>>-;
'y',; .
.........'<,.;-.
"S_lE','1
2
OE""
7-7850
o
I
1& " I"l 1:1 E S S E S
.'n.,'., ""tCllP~..nU.,,, /f;jcElolr,,/i w."",,:,_, nnVE""",,;' '.,""-
MARTY PETROVIC CAROL! NE KIANG
62 E SENECA RD COOP EXT . EDUCATION CENTER
TRUHANSSURa NY 14886 246 GRIFFING AVE
RIVERHEAD NY 11901
I
I
cK ROU
Envi rorwent
Dralnage
Texture
Toposraphy
SUNNY
EXCEL
SANDY
PLAIN
",'E,,,,';/'JiJ,i,J/
Crop Code: FIR
Vad ety :
Recommend: PREPLANT
Month
Species
Cut: Heigl'll':
CLippings:
Irrigation:
Ir
NFORMATIO
""""",,,;,,,,";~ 'is
BENTaRASS Age/ht/dio:
< 112 Lcciltion
REMOVED Top Prune
OCCAS. Tree Type
Growt
US"""" ", ,', ,,'
Manure Type:
Manure. #/H:
Compoct, in:
lime, #/M
sul e # =
S;,,' '
,~,~'w._...,<",:,,:
I
S
L
T
E S
L T S
:f ': . '::':::~::::.'::.:::::~:._<~::::~~'::::~:::<:~a~:;::.
':;-;:::'::-f,,::::'
ik'ess:':':':~
'::.~;;:'i~F::::~::::S::::: ".:' .,
I
pH
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
MAGNESIUM
CALCIUM
(P II/A)
(K iliA)
(Mg NtA)
(Co #lA)
5.7
82
210
220
760
....................................................
................................................................................
....................................................................
.........................................................
....
I
E. A<idity (ME/100g):
Al...i""" (Al #JA),
7
76
Mangan... (Mn II/A):
Zinc (In II/A),
5
1.4
Nitrate (N03-N II/A),
Salts (eo/em):
22
0.160
I,:~",,,,.
LI"" 'ND
FE.TJlIZER
RErnMMENOATION"
.,C',:
.~
..... Recammandations per 1000 sq ft ~..... ~_.. Recommendations per 100 sq ft
Recommond~tions per acre ----....
I
Lime
(f/A), 0
(N iliA):
lime
(#1M): 0
(N #1M): 1.0
Lime (11/100 so FT): D
Nitrogen (11/100 so rT): 0.10
Nitrogen
45
40
Nitrogen
I
Ph..phote (P205 II/A),
Pho.phate (P205 111M):
0.9
Ph..phat. (11/100 sa FT):
0.09
Potash
(K20 NtA): 0
Potash
(K20 111M): 0
Potash
(11/100 SO FTI: 0
I
1ST YEAR. FAIRIlAT (FAR)
I. I' AM ANALYS'S RESULT IS NOT REFFERED TO SPECIFICALLY IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR COMMENTS THEN LEVELS ARE CONSIDERED NORMAL.
2. APPLY N AS A TOPDRESSING AT TIME OF SEEDING. A SECOND APPllCATlON SHOULD BE MADE 4 TO 6 IlEEKS AFTER aERMIRATlON.
3. INCORPORATE PHOSPHORUS TO A 6 INCH DEPTH
4. TOPDRE.. A SIARTER FERTilIZER (Ea. 18-24-31 AT A RATE OF 1 111M OF NITROGEN.
S. NITROGEN RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE TABLE ABOVE ARE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR.
I
Abbreviation key: lb ~ pound. ,= pound, T ~ tons, A = acres, M - 1000, N = nitrogen, and SQ FT ~ square feet.
I
I
I
I
I Maintain 0 g.od ....,1 ing program and koep . record of all nutrient analyse. and rec_ti.ns.
1
09/15/98 11~ 18:58 FAX
~010
I
Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratories
Nlilw Yo:rJc. St.ate Colleg@ of Agrieulture and Life. SdcnCC.3 . A Sr.at\ltol'Y College of the State Un1versicy
504 ~r~dfi~ld ~l. Cornell universicy. Ithaca, NY 1~9SO w Telephone 607/25&-4$40 VA! 607J2SS-~Q44
1
IDE N T I F I CAT I a N
I.......,~.~..~. ..~._.".....I.~a..~....IN~~. .~m.~.'"' ~"-;E."'j'" .. -"N-....[ .....A.-="".."".,.,!"..._..E..'Il......f.. .... . '~~~~~"'~.~~'~'o"""'f-
'::':"'.'f:..::....-d;...;!!:::.:',......,..,'----!:!:_' .-.-,",:.,,"'....:........:."::::..:::......~:....:_!!':.:'~, :,'0,'XlJUU 1I~' :--".:.._::..".!!;_~~...,.,:;..;;..;~2~ .:;.'1 ":NO"'.}""" _______ ,
, -2 (Hl 07 07 8 0 98 09 16 98 SUFF 0 3
1
A 0 D R e S S E ~
.. ..?,W,',~.',,,.,'~_.. ,.:,. ,.-" :;~;~:::;:::~. . lak\Mo"'F'" ......, .'.x, ;::~-, 'M",.,,1!EPRESENTATl ,': ';:: -~: ,::: ,:::;;':::- :,~::: - :::~: :~:.~.: , ..
........'"...:v,.:.."w".._.. ", "r,'. .
MARTY PETRCVI C CAllOLl NE KIANG
62 ~ seNECA RD COOP EXT .EDUCATION CENTER
TRUMAIlSBURG Ny 14886 246 GRIFFIN" AVE
RIVER HEAD NY 11901
1
I'
~::-::;::::,....
"d".';,;;,;oS'.,'CJl
Crop Code: FAil
variety :
Recommond; PREPlANT
Month
ACKG INFaRMA ON
Z.;';,,',:;'ruR " ,,,'is.. ..... S', ND'.'S!I U
Spoci os BENTGRASS Age/ht/di.:
Cut Height: < 1/2 location
Cl ippings : REMOVED Top Prune
Irrigation: OCCAS.. Tree Type
at@ ; wth
NO
Envi ronment: SUNNY
Dr8inage EXCEL
Texture SANDY
Topography : PLAIN
Manure Type:
Manure, #/M:
C~st. in:
Lime. #/M:
uLfer 11 H:
1
S I l
T
R E U L
.,.".;.,:;.,-:::,
..,.,:".",.w,.,'r,'"",,,~,,",
"~"",'''..'V' ....-:'.',....;~,:
r, '''' .~,~:~::~~?!:i:;::~::~
"'1' ".
::::'::::jto'::;
""""--',"':''''':':',.''
'::::,::':,:":.""".,,
>::::'i'.::::::.:~.:~::.::;:..
1
pH 5.9
PHOSPHOIlUS (P #/A) 73
POTASSIUM (K II/A) 230
MAGNESIUM (Mg II/A) 180
CAlCIUM (Co II/A) 690
Ex Acidity (MEIlOOg) : 6
AluuinLlll (At "A): 58
....................................................
................................................................................
....................................................................
.......................................................
....
1
Manganese (Hn '/A):
Zinc (Zn II/A):
5
1.1
Nitrate (N03'N II/Al:
Salts (llIIfto/tIIl):
24
O. ISO
1"'..""""''''ATRIlA''''''FA .
...---.. ReeammendBtions per acre --------
l I M E
. " "
FER T I l I 7 . .
RECOM.'UDATIONS
Recomnendations per 1000 sq ft _h_h
.... Recommendations por 100 sq ft ----
1
Lime
(T/A): 0
Lime
(111M): 0
(N'/M):
Lil'M
(11/100 sa FTl: D
(#/100 sa FT); 0.10
Nitrogen
(N '/A):
45
'0
Ni trogen
1.0
Nitrogen
1
Phosphato (P2115 II/A):
Phosphato (P205 '1M):
0.9
PhOSphate ('/100 sa FT)'
0.09
Pota:;h
(K2a '/Al: D
Potash
(1120 '/M), 0
Potash
(#/100 sa FT): 0
I 1ST YEAR. FAIR~AY (FAR)
1. IF AN ANALYSIS RESUlT IS NoT REFFERED TO SPECIFICAllY IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR COMMENTS THEN lEVElS ARE CONSIDERED NORMA".
Z. APPlY N AS A TOPDRESSING AT TIME OF SEEDING. A SECOND APPliCATION SHOUlD BE MADE 4 TO 6 \lEEKS AFTER GER!\INATlOH.
3. INCORPORATE PHOSPHORUS TO A 6 INCH DEPTH
4. TaPDRESS A STARTER FERTILIZER (EG. 18-2'-3) AT A RATE OF 1 'IM OF NITROGEN.
5. NITROGEN RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE TABLE ABOVE ARE FOR THE ENTIRE TEAR.
I
Abbreviation key:
lb = pound. II = pound. T;;; tons, A ~ acr~. M;;; 1000, N.= nitrogen,
and SQ FT ;;; square f@@t_
1
1
1
1
1 "~lnUin a good sBRJIlins pr-cgram and keep a re~ord of all nutrlent anaLyser; aNt reeomnendatlcns4
I
09/15/98 TUE 18:59 FAX
141011
I
Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratories
New York ScaCe College of Agriculture and Life Sdenc:es . A StatutOry College of the Stace University
804 8ra~fl~ld Hall. COrDell university, Itbilc~. NY 148SD . Telephone CO'!25S.4S40 FAX 607/2~~-2G44
'6Q8-30 H
07 07
DENTIFICATIO
I
-,.",.
,.,.. ".".,.,.. ''''''_..w,.",
"."/..,.
w
""'..",.,.:-,
~::::::: ::.:;::.:,;;:;.' .
" 011"'"""
6 727-7850
09 16 98 SUFF
o
4
I
A D n 0 E 5 S E S
"'do., ,. .... .. '::+:;::::::::~:~~:"::0~:~:f~ 'W""-""w,'."': :'~::::~:~:~~:;:, , '''';;'''':+'CllllPERHI .'.",.. "":",:; .. ,<"REPRE .
"""-'W""""'.-",?'M'..". .'.Yo..:."
..w.',"w.....-_.w.',~ ., ....,.,."-.".,.".,,.,. ';'N. ,"'....' .....,.",'" '."
HARTY PETROVI C CAROLl NE ICIANG
62 E SENECA AD COOP EXT .EDUCATION CENTER
TRlJHAHSBURO NY 14886 246 GRIFFING AVE
RIVERHEAll NY 11901
I
I "c.",'c"<""c.
'''''',u., ,,___,...,
':::~::~.y.;::::;::,:::,:-::>"
+C"';c';1;<di:llOi!'"""";
Crap..Code: FAR
Variety :
Rec:_: PREPLANT
Month :
"ACKGROUND ,u n.HATION
S,i'" ;. SS"'''''''~;'~ ..,. ;'~NOi~R_";. ,
species : BENTGRASS Age/ht/di.:
Cut Height: < 1/2 ~ocBtion:
C I i ppi ngs : REMOVED Top Pr.... :
Irrigltion: OCCAS. Tr@e Type :
t rr. Rate : Growth:
Manure Type=
Manure, #IM:
C~st, ;n:
Li.... II/H:
Sui fer II/H:
Env;.........,,, SUNNY
Drainage : EXCEL
Toxtur. : SANDY
Topography : PLAIN
I
:?::F::~;(::[~~;?:;;;:Y~:7::::'::x:>::~:<:;~::::::::~:~~>::~~:::::~h~.~~:;::.<: " w,~.
T EST
R
T S
:':~'::):::::::;~.i:.:'::;:::::;~:':':<~, .~
. "':":':~':::::~?:::::~;:'
:;::::::::::::~::;:'.:;."":~" (.;;~:::
~::;:::;':":': ~.':;~'~:~':""':-::':
"V,"'.w,,'.,", ,'" ~", ~ w.w..
'.,-. """""^" ;::~",::"
I pH 4.0
PHOSPHORUS (P II/AI 14
POTASSIUM (K II/AI 70
MAGNESIUM (Mg IIIAI 70
CALCIUM (C. II/A) 320
I E. Acidity (ME/100g): 14
Aluainun (AI II/A): 163
....
................................................................................
....................
...................................
....
IIangaJ1ese (Mn #/Al:
Zinc (20 II/A):
8
3.1
Nitrate (N03-N II/A),
Salts (llIfito/car):
39
0.240
I
= 'IHE
w,"'>n""...~.
aaaa.... Recommendations per acre ........
A. n
'ERTILIZ'.
.'COHHEND ,TIONS
Rocannendations per 1000 sq ft
._a_ ~ecommendations per 100 sq ft
I
Lime
IT/A):
6
Lime
(I/H):
IN #/H):
280
Li... (11/100 SO FT):
27.6
Nitrogen
(N II/A):
45
40
Nitrogen
1.0
Nitrogon (#/100 50 FT):
Phosphat. (11/100 SO FT):
0.10
0.09
I
Phosph.te (P205 #/A):
Phosphate (PZOS #/H);
Potash
(aD II/A):
eo
Potash
(ao #/H):
0.9
1.8
Potash
(#/100 50 FT):
0.18
1ST YEAR. FAIRWAY (FAR)
1. IF AN ANALYSIS RESULT IS NOT REFFEREO TO SPECIFICAllY IN THE REOOHHENDATIONS OR COHHENTS THEN LEVELS ARE CONSIDERED NORMAL.
2. APPLY N AS A TOPDRESsiNG AT TIME OF SEEDING. A SECONll APPLICATION SHOULD BE HADE 4 TO 6 ~EEKS AFTER GERMINATION.
3. INCORPORATE PHOSPHORUS TO A 6 INCH DEPTH
4. TOPD'ESs A STARTER FERTILIZER (EG. 18-24-3) AT A RATE OF 1 II/H OF NITROGEN.
S. LIHE RATE IS FOR 10DX ENV_ TO CALCULATE ACTUAL RATE: RATE TO USE' RECOMMENDED RATE/ENV (OF LIME SOURCE I X 100.
6. USING SUlFER COATED POTASH ~Ill REDUCE lEACHING AND INCREASE EFFICIENCY.
7. INCORPORATE llHE PREPLANT TO A 6 INCH DEPTH. APPLY LIHE IN THE FAll OR EARLY SPRING ~HEN THE SOIL CAN BE WORKED.
B. NITROGEN RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE TABLE ABOVE ARE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR.
I Abbreviation key: Lb l!l! poLnd. . = poc.n:I, T l!l! tons.. A = acres.. M.: 1000.. N;;; nitrogen. and SO FT ;;; squ.u"e feet.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Malnhin a good sarrpl ing program and keep a record of all nutnent analyses and recOllllllndltions.
1
09/15/98 TUE 18:59 FAX
I4i 012
1
Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratories
Nelli York State College of AeriOllture and. Life Sciences * A Statutory College of tile Star.e University
6D4 Brad!ield Hall. cornell universiev. t~h3~. NY 14Q~O . Telephone 60,j2SS-4S4C FAX 6D7/255-2&44
1
IDENTIFICA
:;-:';:': .;.,,~~~ 'X',"""'_>,,
".'.' AGO'
,~;, moW....
S"PHom;';".....
516 7-7850
09 16 98 SUff
o
5
1
~ D D R E S S E S
;'e,hx+;';;';';6ROWtiE'''~;"";'';;' .. ... .....,,:...:..:,...:.:.:.;.;.., ..~i:. ,"",;it,,'iC:'iocilailEoAJ""'" 0)\' Xy.? .. ". .....-.'.'.,.... """,:..."."...,. :::.:.,:~:'.:
....... ....-. .'N,W.__','
MARTY PETROVIC CAROLINE KIANG
6Z E SENECA AD COOP EXT .EDUCATlON CENTER
TRUMANSBURG NY 1'886 246 GRIFFING AVE
RIVERNEAD NY 11901
1
Erwi ronment:
Drainage
futUi@'
Tapograp/ly
SUNNY
EXCEL
WDY
PLAIN
crop Cede:
Variet)" :
RocOlllllend,
Month
FAR
ACKGROUND RNATION
':: ::~::/~,::{~::~:,IU S :;::::::~:~:;:'::::~:::.":' '~::::;:: . ,_
Speci.. BENTGRASS Age/ht/dia:
Cut Height: < 112 locatlcn
CI ippings : REMOVED Top Pr~
Irrigation: CCCAS. Tiel! Type
. Rate
,.~:,:,;:.::>>
'.-'.' <v>,,,':';
,'C':(':':';':,.__,.
,,,".,;::\Y:::'<~"
I
....-.,'.^'.,.w_".,,',.,
".w
,,<',','..>"0""'.
"""::W':_'~"" .;">,:;:.
PREPLANT
Manure Type~
M:muret #IM:
C~st, in:
Lime. 111M:
Su 11 M,
1
SOl L
RES
L T
:':;:::,;,,':':':",,'m;:::..;.':
.1' .,- "V' '-:-:"::.;.::, N.:.....:,'...
1 pN
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
MAGNESIUM
CALCIUM
1 AlUDinuD
Iron
1 _"....'M .-;,,-,-
(P II/A)
(K iliA)
(MS iliA)
(Ca iliA)
6.2
71
175
365
1160
....................................................
................................................................................
............................................................
...................................................................
.............
(AI I#/A>:
(Fe I#/A):
71
5
Zinc (Zn II/A):
Organic Matter (X):
1.4
1.2
Salts
Solt.
(lIIIi1o/cm):
(( A 100000):
0.270
27
LIMF .un FERTILIZER
RECOHMeNnaTl/"lIolS
RKOIIIftendiltlDnS per BI:r'"e
RocClJ1Tlendations per 1000 .q ft
Potash
(1120 II/A):
45
'0
'0
Nitrogen
(N 111M),
1.0
---- Reeomme~tions per IDO oq ft uu
Lime (#/100 SO FT), 0
Nitrogen (11/100 sa FTl: 0.10
Phosphate (#1100 sa FTl: 0.09
Potash (#/100 SO H>: 0.09
I
Lime
(flA): 0
(N iliA):
Lime
(II/Il): 0
Nitrogen
1
Phosphate (PZOS '/A):
Phosphote (P205 ./Il):
Potash
(K20 "M):
0.9
0.9
1 1ST YEAR. FAIRWAY (FAR)
1. IF AN ANALYSIS RESULT IS NOT REFFERED TO SPECIFiCAlLY IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR COMMENTS THEN LEVELS ARE CCNSIOERED NORMAL.
Z. APPLY N AS A TOPDRESSING AT TIME OF SEEDING. A SECOND APPLICATION SNOULD BE MADE 4 TO 6 WEEKS AFTER GERMINATION.
3. INCQRPORATE PHOSPHORUS TO A 6 INCN DEPTH
,. TOPDRESS A STARTER FERTILIZER (EG. IB-24-3) AT A RATE OF 1 .IM OF NITROGEN.
5. USING SULFER COATED POTASH WILL REDUCE LEACHING AND INCREASE EFFICIENCT.
6. NITRcaEN RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE TABLE ABOVE ARE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR.
1
1
Abbreviat:ion kl!)': lb = po&.nd, #:Ii: pound. T = tcn:;, A:= acres, M:z; 1000, N ~ nitrogen, and SQ FT = square feet.
1
1
1
1
Maintain 8 good !ulltpLin; program and k.ee~ a record Df all nutr1ent analyses and l"'ecarrmendatlcnlO..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Riverhead, NY Laurel Links GC
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer
II Average Monthly Rainfall for: II
II Ri verhead, NY Laurel Links GC II
II JAN 3.96 II
II FEB 3.57 II
II MAR 3.91 II
II APR 4.06 II
II MAY 6.00 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer
II JON 6. 00 llNi trogen Leaching Index (NLI) II
II JUL 6.00 llfor Soil Hydro Group: II
II AUG 6.00 II A 28.5 II
II SEP 6.00 II B 21.0 II
II OCT 3.51 II C 15.5 II
II NOV 4.30 II D 12.3 II
II DEC 4.14 aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeV
aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeV
<ESC> to exit. SPACE bar to re-do.
Riverhead, NY Laurel Links GC
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer
II Average Monthly Rainfall for: II
II Riverhead, NY Laurel Links GC II
II JAN 3.96 II
II FEB 3.57 II
II MAR 3.91 II
II APR 4.06 II
II MAY 6.00 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer
II JON 6.00 llNitrogen Leaching Index (NLI) II
II JUL 6.00 llfor Soil Hydro Group: II
II AUG 6.00 II A 28.5 II
II SEP 6.00 II B 21.0 II
II OCT 3.51 II C 15.5 II
II NOV 4 . 30 II D 12 . 3 II
II DEC 4. 14 aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeev
aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeV
<ESC> to exit. SPACE bar to re-do.
Riverhead, NY Laurel Links GC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pest Monitoring: A Key to
Integrated Pest Management for Turfgrass
Gerard Ferrentino and Jennifer Grant,
Cornell University IPM Program
Joseph Neal, Dept. of Floriculture and Ornamental Horticulture
Cornell University
Monitoring is the foundation of an authentic IPM approach. The primary goal of
monitoring (or scouting) is to identify, locate, and rank pest infestations and turfgrass
abnormalities. Scouting on a regular basis will provide you with information on the
changes in pest populations and turfgrass health. Pest management decisions, timing and
control actions are based on data collected. Regular monitoring is the best method to
check the success or failure of a control strategy.
In order to effectively implement pest monitoring, a person(s) must be assigned
and trained to scout turf. Monitoring should be the preeminent job responsibility of the
scout. Their responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the following:
I) Monitoring the turfgrass or other landscape plants for insects, plant diseases,
and weed infestations on a regular basis;
2) Recording the findings on field data sheets;
3) Diagnosing problems and rating the severity based on diagnosis, priority of
the site, and turf value;
4) Assessing the efficacy of pest management actions that have been taken;
and
5) Communicating the findings to decision makers.
Scouting
After identifying the person who will be responsible for scouting, but prior to
scouting, a few other decisions need to be made. First, divide the turfgrass site into pest
management units (PMU). These PMU's may correspond to treatment or use areas (i.e.
scout athletic fields separately from walking areas). This enables you to follow pest
infestations in make treatment decisions for specific areas.
Second, decide on the approach to scouting each PMU. The common turfgrass
pests do not distribute themselves evenly, therefore, it is imperative that the entire
turfgrass area is scouted in a consistent, uniform pattern. Walking' in a serpentine pattern
through each PMU is usually the most efficient way to scout.
Third, scout the turf areas regularly throughout the season. Ideally, all turf should
be scouted a minimum of once a week. However, more susceptible and high priority
areas can be used as indicators to save time. Conversely, some areas may need to be
scouted more than once a week if an active pest problem is being monitored.
Finally, documenting scouting information is crucial. Record pest identification
and location, and the severity of the infestation. Rate infestations by using simple scales
such as: pest absence or presence, light, medium or heavy infestations, and percentage of
area damaged. If you encounter unknown problems when scouting, collect a sample and
send it to a diagnostic laboratory.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the surface for 5 minutes. Water refills may be necessary. Consider 20 chinch bugs in a
9" diameter cylinder a damage threshold. Be careful not to count the beneficial big eyed
bug as a chinch bug!
Disclosing Solution-A Method for Lepidopteran Detection
One final technique to be discussed is the use of a "disclosing" or "irritant"
solution. Mix I -2 tablespoons of liquid soap in a gallon of water, and pour it over a 1
square meter area of turf. Irritated insects such as webworms, cutworms, armyworms,
and beetles; as well as earthworms will come to the surface within. five minutes. A
threshold of 15 caterpillars per square yard can be used for webworms. The disclosing
solution can be used on both close and high cut turf.
Disease Sampling
Follow general scouting procedures for disease monitoring. Look for
irregularities and differences in the color of the turf and examine these areas for signs
and symptoms of diseases. Search for lesions on turfgrass leaves, and the presence of
mycelia and other fungal growth. Record the type, location and severity of the diseases
found. Pay special attention to areas with a history of disease problems. Use these
locations as indicator sites. Send a sample to a diagnostic lab if you are unable to
identify the problem. Combine the disease scouting information with past and future
weather information to determine when and if control action is required.
Weed Sampling
Scout for weeds in the spring (late April or early May), early summer (mid- to late
June), and again in late summer or fall (mid-August to late September). Record the
species, where they occur, the intensity of the infestation, and if there are patterns of
occurrence (spotty, throughout, etc.).
In the spring look for perennial broad leaf weeds or winter annuals not controlled
in the faiL Decide if a May herbicide application will be necessary. Also, evaluate turf
density. Are there thin areas where summer annual weeds will be a problem? If so,
repair these areas or plan for pre or postemergent summer annual weed controL
In early summer scout for summer annual weeds such as crabgrass, goosegrass,
oxalis, spurge, and prostrate knotweed. Make postemergent applications for these
weeds while they are still young and more easily controlled.
In late-summer or early fall look for summer annuals which escaped control,
perennial dieot weeds, seedling winter annual weeds, and thin spots in the turf. This is
the best time of year to repair thin turf, control perennial and winter annual broadleaf
weeds, and to assess the overall effectiveness of your weed management program.
Monitoring Records
Write it down! Legible, regular records are crucial to the success of your IPM
program. Documentation is an important tool during and after the season. Set up a
clear, concise way of recording all pest information to ease the task of record-keeping.
At Cornell we examined all types of record-keeping methods and found it necessary to
keep three types of records: a field data sheet, weekly summaries, and control
information records.
Field Data Sheets: Field data sheets vary from a sheet of paper with maps drawn
of turf areas (by PMU) to the use of a sophisticated hand held computer. The field data
sheet serves as the tool to record what, where, and how many pests are present during
Cornell University IPM Program
-
.~ 'I(, of.,..in.....d
~P WEED 1.10 11.20 21.50 .>0 P.tlern
BL General Broodleaves
0 Dandelion
CI Ck>vers
PI PlantaulS
R, Red Sonel
Ck Chldlweed
C", Com Speedwell
K, Proslrate Knotweed
Sp Spurge (pl"OSlrate)
O. Oxalis
I SnPdal Broadleaves
VI Veronica lililormis
GI Grouncllvy
Ha Healall
w. Wildviolel
Vw Yarrow
w, Wild slrav.t>env
Mw Muawort
AG Summer Annual Grasses
"" Cr.obornss
'I Foxtaiis
By Bamvardorass
w, Panicums (witchgrass)
a;;- Goosea~ass
N, NUlsedM
P~ Poo annua
Bm Black Medic
81 Birdsf~ lreeloil
PG Perennial orasses
TI Talllescue
Nw Nimbleweed
v, Velvelgrass
~ Ol'cha~rass
i>; Ouac:::kn(ass
R, Ry rass-
OTHER
.
Areas: T:Tee F=Fairwa R= Reu h G = Green
y . 9
Patterns: S: Spotty P= Panern TH = Throughout
designed by Jennllo( Grant
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Turf Scouting Abbreviations
NON-INFECTIOUS
Alg = Algae
BL = Black Layer
Chi = Chlorotic
Camp= Compaction
Dry = Dry Spot
CD = GoUer Damage
Moss = Moss
011 = Oil Damage
Sc = Scalping
DISEASES
$ = Dollar Spot
? = Unknown
AN = Anthracnose
Ill' = Brown Patch
CS: Copper Spot
FP: Foliar Pythium
GSM: Gray Snow Mold
LS: Leaf spoVblight
I'm: Necrotic Ring Spot
PSM: Pink Snow Mold
FP: Root Pythium
RT: Red Thread
TAP: Take All Patch
WBP: Winter (cool season) Brown Patch
't'P: Yellow Patch
WEEDS
?BL: Unknown Broadleaf
?G: Unknown Grass
a: Clover
Crab: Crabgrass
D: Dandelion
<D: Goose Grass
PI: Plantain
PH: Pearlwort
00: Quackgrass
Ver: Veronica
INSECTS
A: Adult
ABW: Annual Bluegrass Weevil (Listronotus, Hyperodes)
Ant: Ants
BTAA: Black Turfgrass Ataenius--Adults
BTAL: Black Turfgrass Ataenius--Larvae
CB: Chinch Bugs
ON: Cutworm
EC: European Chafer
JB: Japaneese Beetle
SWW: Sod Webworms
WG: White grubs
-------------------
PEST CONTROL RECORD
Course
IPM #
-290-
HOLE & PESTlCIDE(S) & EPA TOT. AREA TARGET
DATE SECTION FORMULATION Reg. # RATE TREATED PESTS
1 234567891011 11,000 112
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CR
Tee, Green, Fairway IAcre
1 234567891011 11,000 112
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CR
Tee, Green, Fairway fAcra
1 234567891011 11,000 112
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CR
Tee, Green, Fairway IAcre
1 234567891011 11,000 112
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CR
Tee. Green, Fairway IAcre
1 23456789 10 11 11,000 It2
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CR
Tee, Green, Fairwav fAcre
1 234567891011 11,000 112
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CR
Tee, Green, Fairway IAcre
1234567891011 11,000 112
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CR
Tee, Green, Fairway fACTa
1 234567891011 11,000 112
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CR
Tee, Green, Fairway fAcre
1234567891011 11,000 112
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CR
Tee, Green, Fairwav fAcre
1234567891011 11,000 112
12131415-161718 CR
Tee, Green, Fairway IAcra
1234567891011 11,000 112
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CR
Tee, Grean, Fairway IAcra
123456789 10 11 11,000 112
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CR
Taa, Graen, Fairway IAcra
123456789 10 11 11,000 112
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CR
Tee, Graan, Fairway IAcra
1 23456789 10 11 11,000 112
1213 14 15 16 17 18 CR
Taa, Green, Fairway IAcre
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachment D: Soils Map Showing Location of Soil Samples
37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~,
el