Why is water quality important??

1. Impact of Golf Course Turfgrass Management on Water Quality of Streams in the Chesapeake Bay WatershedChantel Wilson, MS, Virginia Tech Primary Investigators: Erik Ervin, PhD, Virginia TechStephen Schoenholtz, PhD, Virginia Tech

2. Why is water quality important??

3. Water is Essential for Life! • Drinking water, agriculture, washing, cleaning • Supply is finite • Unevenly distributed worldwide (quantity and quality) • Only 0.007% of Earth’s water is easily accessible freshwater • Degrading the quality of water much faster than withdrawal/consumption

4. What are some factors affecting water quality?

5. Contaminants and Pollutants • Industrial Chemicals • Household Chemicals • Poisons/Metals • Arsenic • Lead • Mercury • Pesticides • Insecticides • Herbicides • Fungicides • Pharmaceuticals • Microorganisms • Bacteria • Viruses • Protozoa • Helminthes • Nutrients • Nitrate • Nitrite • Phosphate

6. Eutrophication • The accumulation of nutrients in aquatic ecosystems • Natural: a process that occurs as a lake or river ages (hundreds of thousands of years) • Anthropogenic: occurs when humans release excessive amounts of nutrients into a water body (shortens aging to decades)

7. Brings about changes in water chemistry • pH • Dissolved Oxygen • Ammonia • Nitrates/Nitrites • Phosphates • Bad taste/odor

9. The Dead Zone

10. Impaired Waters • Waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states • All waters must be fishable/swimmable according to the Clean Water Act legislation from the Environmental Protection Agency

11. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) • A calculation of the maximum amount of pollutant a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards • Designed in response to water body impairment • Impaired water bodies are placed on a priority list by the state for TMDL development

15. So… what does this have to do with golf courses?

16. Turfgrass systems are some of the most intensively managed land uses in the United States (King, 2001). • The turf industry and golf courses are generally viewed to be a significant contributor to nonpoint source water pollution (Kohler, 2004). • Pesticides, water, and fertilizers are used to maintain high- quality turf.

17. Turf management is often viewed as detrimental to water quality; concern with water quality of streams in the vicinity of golf courses has been a rapidly growing area of interest. • There are >37,000 acres of golf course turf managed in Virginia (VGCSAA, 2012). • Much of this land is directly adjacent to streams, which are ultimately part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

19. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters from golf courses has not been quantified and therefore has not been subject to regulation by the EPA. • However, golf courses have been identified as a possible contributor to nonpoint source pollution • The Commonwealth of Virginia is requiring development of nutrient management plans for golf courses before 2017 • VA can revise plans as necessary in order to meet TMDL criteria and golf courses may be subject to future regulation.

20. Goal of this project is to quantify the impact of golf course turf management on water quality of local streams in the context of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. • Improvement or degradation of water quality as a result of turf management and to what extent (related to maximum daily loads of the watershed). • The effectiveness of some turf Best Management Practices will also be investigated

21. Water quality data from at least six golf courses in the James River watershed will be generated to assess the impact • Quarterly grab samples taken at all sites and analyzed for total phosphorus, phosphate, total nitrogen, nitrate, and ammonium concentrations • Selected sites will be assessed for temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and pH values using a Hydrolab meter.

23. Samples will be taken with respect to upstream (ins) and downstream (outs) and compared to ascertain whether water quality changes are occurring by the time the water is leaving the course as a result of contact with adjacent turfgrass management sites.

25. To date, we have not seen any significant trends of impairment with respect to dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, temperature, or pH on eight monitored stream sites. Do we still need to be concerned with nutrients?

26. Yes! Every downstream area will accumulate nutrients, and excesses will eventually end up in the Chesapeake

27. Average of eight quarterly samples (2 years) Drainage from wash pad (no “in”) Stream levels of NO3 (nitrate) were well below the EPA established level of 10 ppm for drinking water. No established guidelines for freshwater streams in VA, although <1 ppm is considered “good” and 1-10 ppm “fair” water quality (Janke et al, 2006). Non-significant increases observed at 4 of 11 sites

28. Average of eight quarterly samples (2 years) Ammonium increased at five of the sites (on 4courses), but these increases of ammonium found in water leaving the golf course were not significant. Not a concern for water quality.

29. Average of eight quarterly samples (2 years) In, draining from urban area Phosphate increases were observed at two downstream sites and most decreased or remained zero. The phosphate levels in waters leaving the course were below the EPA recommendation of 0.05 ppm.

30. Discussion • Golf courses do not appear to be significantly degrading water quality of adjacent streams • Why might this be happening?

31. Ecological services • Wetland/grassed drainage areas allow for microbial denitrification and sequesters nutrients, plant uptake • Best management practices • Buffer strips of non-managed turf adjacent to streams • Avoidance of phosphorus application in high risk areas (slopes) or where it is not needed (soil testing) • Avoidance of depositing grass clippings in streams • Utilization of integrated pest management • Less pesticides, fertilizer • Balance pesticide and fertilizer amounts to use less of both • Improved turf cultivars • Less inputs, disease resistance

32. Still work to do… • Continuing study, adding bioassessment to further determine impact, as well as collection of total N and total P for comparison to Chesapeake Bay TMDL • Evaluate effectiveness of new Best Management Practices at improving water quality of adjacent streams • Clearing mowers of grass clipping debris using air blowers prior to entry on the wash pad. • Water quality of streams adjacent to an area of high management (mowed stream banks) will be compared to an area of lower management (non-mowed buffer strip).

33. Does this BMP appear to be working?

34. Metadata water quality database generation and of golf courses in the entire Virginia Chesapeake Bay Watershed • Collection of water quality data submitted by golf course managers to independent testing labs • Estimate the impact of golf courses on an individual Chesapeake Bay segmentshed through relation to EPA TMDL • Using concentrations of nutrients found and those from historical data: estimate contribution to TMDL

35. Thank you! • Ervin and Schoenholtzlabs • Virginia Water Resources Research Center • Participating golf courses and superintendents • Funding Sources: • GCSAA/Environmental Institute for Golf • Virginia GCSA

36. References • Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sediment. 2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/FinalBayTMDL/CBayFinalTMDLExecSumSection1through3_final.pdf • Commonwealth of Virginia Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan. 2012. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. www.dcr.virginia.gov/vabaytmdl/documents/baytmdlp2wip.pdf • Environmental Best Management Practices for Virginia’s Golf Courses. 2012. Virginia Golf Course Superintendents Association. • Janke, R., R. Moscou, and M. Powell. 2006. Citizen Science Water Quality Testing Series, PK-13 W-4 Nitrogen, Kansas State University. • King, K.W., R.D. Harmel, H.A. Torbert, and J.C. Balogh. 2001. Impact of a turfgrass system on nutrient loadings to surface water. J. of the American Water Resources Association. 37:3 pp. 629-640. • Kohler, E.A., V.L. Poole, Z.J. Reicher, and R.F. Turco. 2004. Nutrient, metal, and pesticide removal during storm and nonstorm events by a constructed wetland on an urban golf course. Ecological Engineering. 23: pp 285-298.