New York Superintedents: How to Create Your Own Facility BMP

Golf course superintendents in New York State can now create their own facility-specific Best Management Practices plan using the 2nd edition of the Best Management Practices for New York State Golf Courses template. This 2nd edition, a revised, updated version of the first edition published in 2014, is incorporated into the GCSAA’s state BMP on-line tool.

Using the on-line tool, New York superintendents with a GCSAA log in can clone the state’s BMP plan and then use the editing features to modify as needed to create their own site-specific BMP plan. GCSAA has a pre-recorded webinar that provides information on the features of the tool and how to use them to create a facility BMP.

The New York Golf Course Foundation will be hosting workshops to assist superintendents in these efforts, with one tentatively planned for February in central New York, and workshops in several locations next winter, depending upon the availability of funding. These workshops will be announced on this website and NYGCF’s Twitter feed.

Stormwater Management: a Win-Win Effort at Brae Burn

Guest blog post by Blake Halderman, CGCS, Brae Burn Country Club in Purchase, NY

When evaluating your property, don’t just focus on the grass. It’s important to think about all areas of your property that might be affecting the results you are trying to achieve!

ISSUE –  Runoff from Highway 684 caused flooding of the 7th fairway on a regular basis, bringing along with it dirt, other debris, and contaminated water.

RESOLUTION – Create a “retention area” to capture the first flush of rainfall as to not overtax the piping system on the golf course until most of the water can subside after rainfall events. This area has been recently seeded as well to act as a filtering device in the future. We installed an overflow device (elevated pipe with top 1 foot below the ridge of the burn) with low flow holes  which allow the water to enter the pipe in a controlled manner. If water goes above the holes, it will enter the top of the pipe. If the volume of water is greater still, then we have installed a rock swale with two additional drains to hopefully capture the water before it reaches the fairway surface.

RESULTS –  The retention area alone holds enough water so that it barely enters the lowest holes 99% of the time. Eventually, the water infiltrates into the ground before the next rainfall event. As a result of these efforts, the fairway is much more playable. In addition, the runoff originating from the highway (oils, salts, etc.) is filtered in the retention area, and the decrease in stormwater runoff volume across the fairway reduces the potential for the runoff to pickup nutrients and pesticides from the turf surface and transport them to surface waters.

TOTAL COST – Less than $500. Material costs included a couple pieces of 12” pipe, 1 piece of 18”pipe for the risers and 3 grates.

Late Season Nutrient BMP: Timing is Everything

Supplemental nutrient use is a critical aspect of a golf course Best Management Practice Program and embodied in the BMP Statement:

Supplement soil with appropriate rate and source of nutrients to maintain optimum availability and minimize off-site movement.

Specifically, the application of high rates (>0.5 lbs. actual Nitrogen per 1000 Square feet) soluble-Nitrogen (N) during cooler periods with less active growth conditions pose a significant risk to groundwater quality.

In the Northeast, Guillard and Kopp (2004) from the University of Connecticut collected leachate under turf plots over three years where 1 lb of N per thousand square feet as ammonium nitrate or polymer coated urea was applied annually at four different times (Figure 1).

Figure 1

First, the data demonstrate that leaching of applied N occurs primarily in late-fall to early spring in southern New England and applications of soluble N later in the season result in greater leaching. Polymer coated N had less than 2% in leachate over three years. However, there is no question that late season soluble nitrogen applications to cool season golf turf have well-established benefits:

  • stimulating growth during cooler conditions
  • aids in recovery from summer stress
  • prepares the plants for maximum winter-hardiness

Of course, the latter benefit is critical to good spring golfing conditions, especially when spring golf traffic requires active growth as temperatures allow.

To quantify active growth use clipping volume as a measure of growth and the Growth Potential Model, as described thoroughly by Dr. Micah Woods in the 2013 article Using Temperature to Predict Turfgrass Growth Potential
(GP) and to Estimate Turfgrass Nitrogen Use
. This model simply provides an overview for the amount of growth that could occur compared to maximum growth potential and can assist with moderating N applications throughout the season.

Specific turfgrass research conducted by Professor Doug Soldat in Wisconsin over a three-year period concluded that applications of soluble N made in late October and November resulted in significantly less N in the plant tissue (roots and shoots) (Figure 2). Clearly if you are applying fertilizer when growth potential is less than 20% the risk of N loss increases.

Figure 2

To conclude, the following are good, better and best practices for sand-based soils (higher risk):

A good practice is continue to spoon-feed (generally rates at or below 0.2 lbs N per thousand square feet) soluble nitrogen sources into the fall. Gradually reduce nitrogen rate as evapotranspiration rate declines. Final application should be made from early to late October depending on your location.

A better practice is to monitor growth potential and clipping volume and spoon-feed (generally rates at or below 0.2 lbs N per thousand square feet) soluble nitrogen sources into the fall. Gradually reduce nitrogen rate as evapotranspiration rate declines. Final application should be made from early to late October depending on your location.

The best practice is monitor the aforementioned parameters and evapotranspiration levels and occasionally monitor plant tissue uptake and spoon-feed (generally rates at or below 0.2 lbs N per thousand square feet) soluble nitrogen sources into the fall. Gradually reduce nitrogen rate as evapotranspiration rate declines. Final application should be made from early to late October depending on your location.

For native soils or for alternatives to spoon-feeding consider the use of slow release N sources in mid-September at 0.5 to 1.0 lbs per thousand square feet. Products should have at least 50% slow release nitrogen or less. Applications made too late will risk leaching or lingering in the soil and promoting excessive spring growth that could reduce summer stress tolerance.

 

Pollinator BMPs: Updates!

Our stand alone publication, Best Management Practices for Pollinators on New York State Golf Courses, has been revised and republished, now available for on-line reading as a flip book: http://nysgolfbmp.cals.cornell.edu/nys_pollinator_bmps_2019/.

Over 400 wild species of pollinators inhabit New York State. Golf courses, especially in developed areas, can provide significant areas of habitat to support these species and domesticated honey bees as well. This publication contains the information superintendents need to protect pollinators while responsibly using  pesticides to meet their needs and guidance on providing habitat to support healthy pollinator populations.

What Good is the EIQ?

Pest management is a critical component of maintaining a playable and functional golf course. A fully implemented best management practices program demands the highest level of progressive Integrated Pest Management (IPM).

Progressive IPM observes and records pest pressure, uses predictive approaches to assessing injury risk, considers intervention with lowest environmental impact, and assesses performance of intervention for integration in pest management programs. This summer, when you consider intervention to control pests that includes the use of pesticides, consider products with the lowest environmental impact. This idea is identified in the two BMP statements:

Determine least toxic pest control programs including preventive approaches.

Recognize environmental fate of pesticides and select pesticides using a selection strategy that includes an evaluation of pesticide characteristics and potential for nontarget effects.

When pesticide use is warranted, the selection of pesticide should include an evaluation of economics, efficacy, and the environment. An additional factor such as application method should be considered as well in those cases where liquid spray is more effective than granular products or has a lower environmental impact.

A simple method to assess the reduction in environmental impact can be performed by simply calculating the pounds of active ingredients of products used and striving each year to reduce those totals. However, this simple method neglects any potential variability in toxicity, which could be accounted for by using a percentage of reduced risk or biological products for pest control.

A number of pesticide risk assessment models are available from a variety of government, university and private sources to use for more precise environmental impact estimations. These models utilize toxicity, exposure, and persistence data to provide a numerical value that integrates a number of human health and environmental impacts. For example, the Quebec Pesticide Risk Indicator (QPRI) has different assessment models for human health (QPRI-Health) and a separate number for environmental impacts (QPRI-Environment). These measure various factors and provide the user information for product selection and cumulative environmental impact during a season.

The Cornell Turfgrass Program uses the Environmental Impact Quotient developed by the NYS IPM Program and adapted for use in turfgrass systems. Like the QPRI, the EIQ assesses the toxicity for the applicator and golfer as well as environmental fate and persistence characteristics. A numerical value is determined for a product, then adjusted for field use rate and finally the treated acreage.

Both these approaches have limitations; however, over time, regardless of the tool used, it is critical to attempt to measure and monitor the risk associated with pest management programs.

An excellent example of the risk assessment approach is available in the Case Studies section of this website, in the Reducing the Environmental Impact of Pest Management case study at Soaring Eagles Golf Course. The golf course management staff at Soaring Eagles Golf Course implemented the EIQ approach over a five-year period to target reducing risk associated with pest management and specifically with dollar spot control.  The case study concluded the following:

“Soaring Eagles quickly adapted the chemical substitutions of lower FUEIQ products with the same or improved efficacies, still considering resistance management. Strategic equipment investment created opportunity for specific cultural operations that directly reduced pest pressure and improve plant vigor. Five years later, there is a 28 percent reduction in the overall FUEIQ –Acres. More significantly, the course has reduced the use of higher FUEIQ-value chemicals by 57%.”

The spectrum of good, better, and best practices for reducing risk associated with pest management program are as follows:

The good pest management program:

  • Establishes non-resource limiting (light, air, drainage, etc.) growing environments as a preventative cultural management strategy.
  • Practices good recordkeeping of historical pest populations and impact of pest pressure that notes injury.
  • Monitors existing pest pressure and impact of current and forecasted weather conditions to determine predict risk level and degree of intervention required to maintain visual and functional quality.
  • Implements an intervention strategy with an understanding of the environmental impact (EPA label) and the potential disruption due to damage associated with pest pressure.
  • Assesses results of intervention and annually reviews practices and products.

The better pest management program:

  • Minimizes pest importation by maintaining clean planting material (sod, seed, topsoil, etc.)
  • Establishes non-resource limiting (light, air, drainage, etc.) growing environments as preventative cultural management strategy
  • Adapts cultural practices to manage abiotic (temperature, moisture and traffic) stress
  • Practices good recordkeeping of properly diagnosed historical pest populations and images of impact of pest pressure that notes injury, damage, and objectionable reduction in visual or functional quality
  • Monitors existing pest pressure and impact of current and forecasted weather conditions to determine degree of intervention required to maintain visual and functional quality
  • Implements intervention strategy with full understanding of the environmental impact as determined by two sources (EPA, EIQ, QPRI, etc.) and commensurate with the expected level of disruption due to damage associated with pest pressure.
  • Assesses results of intervention and records a detailed a review of the practices and products.

The best pest management program:

  • Minimizes pest importation by maintaining clean planting material (sod, seed, topsoil, etc.).
  • Establishes non-resource limiting (light, air, drainage, etc.) growing environments as preventative cultural management strategy.
  • Adapts cultural practices to manage abiotic (temperature, moisture and traffic) stress.
  • Practices GIS-based recordkeeping of properly diagnosed historical pest populations and GIS-based images of impact of pest pressure that notes injury, damage, and objectionable reduction in visual or functional quality.
  • Monitors existing pest pressure and in combination with weather-based published predictive models, on-line pest population ecology, to determine degree of intervention required to maintain visual and functional quality.
  • Implements intervention strategy with full understanding of the environmental impact as determined by three sources (EPA, EIQ, QPRI, etc.) and commensurate with the expected level of disruption due to damage associated with pest pressure and impact on revenue from documented said conditions.
  • Assesses results of intervention and records a detailed a review of the practices and products including an economic cost analysis that recognizes labor, energy, and facility revenue impacts.

Facility BMPs: We need your review!

New York State’s golf course BMPs were first published in 2014. Now five years later, we are updating the BMPs, in some cases adding new and updated information, including incorporating the pollinator BMPs (published in 2017). We have also incorporated discrete BMP statements to complement the BMP principles we identified in the first edition.

The draft final version of the Facility BMPs is available for download here: NYS_FacilityBMP_DraftFinal_05222019

To provide comments, please download the comment form here:
NYS Facility BMP_DraftFinalReview_CommentsForm

As part of the process of revising and updating, we are seeking input from superintendents across the state and the state’s regulatory agencies to review the draft final version and provide comments to NYGCF. Any superintendent or asst. superintendent in NYS is invited to participate in the review process. Superintendent reviewers should consider the content at three levels: the overall document, chapters, and page-by-page. The following are a few questions you may want to consider when reviewing:

  • Are these BMPs something that can be implemented at your facility? How about facilities of varying sizes/budgets?
  • Are there any topics that have not been covered in this document that you think should be addressed?
  • Are there any topics that are covered, but may need additional detail?
  • Is there any information presented that you think needs clarification?

Written comments submitted on or before July 16th to our project manager using the comment spreadsheet to submit comments. Please note: there are two pages in the spreadsheet – one each for specific comments and one for chapter comments. The superintendents on the NYGCF board and Cornell University scientists will review each comment and document how each comment is addressed in the final version.

NYGCF has undertaken the effort to create a facility BMP template to further implement BMPs across the state and to provide superintendents a process to make this process easy. Besides contributing to natural resources stewardship, additional incentives for golf courses in New York State to create a facility BMP plan and implement BMPs include the following:

  • potential for more efficiently allocating resources by identifying management zones
  • cost savings associated with applying less fertilizer and pesticide
  • cost savings associated with more efficient irrigation and other water conservation efforts
  • improving stormwater management efforts as storms in the area become more intense
  • improved community relations`
  • recognition by club members and the community at large as environmental stewards

We look forward to the input of superintendents across the state in this effort.

Lower DU Can Lead to More Uniform Soil Moisture

The golfing season in northern climates includes managing cool-season turf playing surfaces through stressful summer months (e.g. high temperature, low moisture). To prepare for summer stress, use opportunities in the spring during dry periods to apply strategic moisture stress to your playing surfaces by purposefully withholding water from the plant. Allowing soils to dry and create stress in this way often results in increased rooting and improved drought stress tolerance that will pay off in the summer.

In addition, you should assess your irrigation system’s ability to produce uniform soil moisture before summer stresses occur. The application of supplemental irrigation water to maintain uniform soil moisture is critical for maximum playability and stress tolerance during dry periods. Increased accuracy in applying water through a well-designed in-ground irrigation system also allows for significant water conservation. These concepts are promoted in the following two BMP statements:

  • Design and maintain irrigation systems to uniformly apply water to the intended area of management.
  • Assess system efficiency through regular audits of application rate and uniformity.

However, the application efficiency of an irrigation system, measured as Distribution Uniformity (DU), may not always be the most effective measurement of system application that results in uniform soil moisture. This is especially true for undulating surfaces, with higher elevations often too dry and lower elevations too wet.

Applied water sheds rapidly, internally and externally, in a progressive fashion from higher elevations, and along the surface, down to the lower elevations. Research investigating sloped greens conducted at Michigan State University suggests building variable soil profile depths to address the uniquely inconsistent water holding properties found on sloped terrain when constructing new putting surfaces. This will insure shallower depth of rootzone profiles in the higher elevations that will hold more water and deeper rootzone profiles in the low areas to expedite drainage.

The only option to address the disparity in soil moisture on existing undulating surfaces, when adding drainage is not an option, is to alter the DU. In fact, research from the University of Wisconsin-Madison has demonstrated that irrigating a putting surface with a one percent slope required a change in DU from 80 percent to 17 percent to apply the correct amount of water for uniform soil moisture as measured by a time-domain reflectometer (TDR) probe (Spectrum 300).

Therefore, the BEST irrigation practice includes measuring soil moisture to assess system uniformity—not traditional catch-can tests. This will insure that plants have the moisture they need to provide firm playing conditions.

Managing Surface Organic Matter

Golf turf playability and performance lies at the heart of golf course Best Management Practices that protect and preserve water quality. Optimizing playability demands a well-drained, firm playing surface able to withstand traffic and demonstrate resiliency during normal play. The key to achieving these goals lies in the management of surface organic matter.

Turf is a perennial plant system that increases surface organic matter as a result of turf growth and management (Figure 1). Organic matter accumulates at the surface from the development and deposition of plant parts such as leaves, stems, and roots. Underground plant parts, such as stems (rhizomes) and roots, cycle as living, dead, and decomposing organic matter.

The accumulation of organic matter in the top 3 to 6 inches of a turf system increases over time and provides nutrients and water holding capacity, as well as Increasing the resiliency and traffic tolerance required of playing surfaces. However, when too much organic matter accumulates at the surface, it can restrict infiltration of water and when wet does not dry easily into a playable surface. This can reduce the effectiveness of fertilizer and pesticides and increase runoff volumes from the turf surface. The following NYS BMP statement is based on this premise:

Manage the surface accumulation of organic matter to maintain a permeable system that minimizes runoff and maximizes subsurface retention.

Turfgrass species, fertilization, and soil properties influence turf growth and organic matter accumulation. Assuming proper growth is maintained, organic matter accumulation in grasses could be managed through less invasive cultivation and light applications of sand throughout the season. A light application (0.1 to 0.2 inches) of material applied and integrated into the surface of the turf dilutes the organic matter and creates a physical matrix that functions as a soil.

Topdressing is often performed in conjunction with some form of cultivation that simply makes a hole. Research at the University of Nebraska by Professor Roch Gaussoin shows clearly that topdressing frequency (even when compared to use with cultivation) had the greatest influence on organic matter accumulation. (Figure 2). Less invasive cultivation with solid tines provides minor disruption to create space for topdressing to serve the purpose of dilution and creation of a pseudo-soil matrix. Some research suggests the amount of topdressing sand that might be needed over a growing season increases. However, many opportunities to reduce organic matter accumulation exist via more precise N applications and more regular use of plant growth regulators. Ultimately, the goal of proper dilution is to ensure adequate infiltration while preserving sufficient retention of the turf system to prevent leaching.

To summarize the good, better best practices for managing organic matter accumulation are as follows:

  • A good organic matter management program utilizes a calendar-based approach to N fertilization and plant growth regulator use and maintains a light/frequent topdressing program in combination with some form of cultivation.
  • A better organic matter management program casually monitors turf growth rate, applies N based on growth potential (demand driven), applies plant growth regulators on a regular basis, and maintains a light/frequent topdressing program with less invasive cultivation applied during the season.
  • A best organic matter management program measures clipping volume through the season, applies N based on growth potential (demand driven), applies growth regulators on a growing degree day formula, and strives to apply topdressing at a rate that carefully matches growth, finally utilizing cultivation to maintain surface infiltration.