HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application Rose_Part2I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
current copy of all chemicals and pesticides stored in the pesticide storage area. The Material
Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) will be provided for each compound in the storage arr:a. In the case
of minimal discharge, employees will have the necessary protective equipment and clothing
readily available. All hazardous materials will be disposed of through a licensed hazardous waste
disposal firm. Discharge from dry bulk materials stored within the pesticide storage facility will
be recovered by the use ofa broom and dust pan used solely for the purpose ofrecovery ofthese
materials. Any material that is not contaminated and suitable for use will be repackaged with an
original label affixed to the new packaging. It will be used when the appropriate need arises and
for its intended purpose and will not be disposed of unless contaminated. A preliminary outline
of the Rose Ranch Golf Course hazardous waste and spill prevention plan is provided in
Appendix G.
As specified, only pesticides for use on the golf course will be stored in the building. Every
employee will receive training on the proper procedure to fbllow in the event of an accident or
fire. In the event of a fire, the following procedures take effect:
The person discovering a fire will notify the golf course security and the Glenwood
Springs Fire Protection District:
The person will notify the golf course superintendent as officer in charrge. (The fire
department will be provided with the home number of the golf course superintendent);
The golf course superintendent will also be responsible for notifying the appropriate state
and local authorities as prescribed by law;
In the interest of safety. all people will be evacuated from the area;
The fire will be directly supervised by the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District.
Other organizations will be notified if requested by the fire department;
rv- 111
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
T
I
t
T
T
I
t
Any other agency deemed necessary after consultation with the above ag,encies or under
advice from the local government, police or fire departments will be notified;
Following a fire, the area will be secured as recommended by the fire marshall, or fire
department;
The Department of Agriculture and the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality
Control Division will be contacted fbr site clean-up recommendations;
Containment barriers will be installed as deemed appropriate to prrevent further
contamination of the surrounding area;
Upon approval from state and federal agencies and under the advice of approved
consultants licensed in the removal of hazardous waste disposal, the clean up process will
begin; and
The above policy will serve as "all appropriate action" unless otherwise specified or
clarified by regulation.
5. Summary of Posting & Reporting Procedures
Records required by the Department of Agriculture will be maintained by the golf course
superintendent and turfgrass pesticide applicators. Colorado Community Right to Know & EPA
Sara Title III Emergency Planning Program forms will be completed each calendar year and
submitted as required by law. Material Safety Data Sheets will be available for all pesticides
stored on the premise. Requirements regarding Community and Worker lRight-to-Know
Standards, and posting and notification conditions. will also be followed. Employees who apply
pesticides at Rose Ranch will be certified by the Department of Agriculture. Annual usage forms
will be submitted to the Department as required and a record of pesticide usage for a period of
at least 5-10 years will be kept.
IV- 112
I
T
I
I
I
I
6. Maintenance Facility and Pesticide Storage
Rose Ranch has chosen an approximate I .50 acre parcel to construct a state-of-the-art golf course
maintenance facility. Emergency access will be from Highway 82 with direct access to the
maintenance facility from Highway 154 and the Westbank Road entrance.
ETS recommends the maintenance facility contain an office, shop building, equipment storage
facility, soil and trash bins, equipment wash bays. above ground fuel storage, and turfgrass
nursery center. Sufficient parking will be available for approximately 25 employee vehicles. The
maintenance and storage facility will conform to the appropriate Garfield County,building codes
for bulk storage and hazardous waste. The Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District will be
supplied a copy of the floorplan and will be provided a copy of the access security code. The
facility will be landscaped and designed to conform and blend with the rest of the project. An
all-weather access road shall serve the maintenance building and provide emergency and service
vehicle access.
In addition to storing golf course equipment, maintenance facilities are designed, developed, and
installed as comprehensive integrated systems offering safety in the storage and handling of
fertilizer and pesticide materials. Modern golf course facilities prove themselves in several ways,
such as increased employee safety; reduced insurance rate groMh; eliminated or significantly
reduced costs and liability of both storage and disposal of waste residue; and ease and
affordability of maintenance (Haskett, 1995). The facility's design will have a si5lnificant impact
on efficiency, annual maintenance spending and, ultimately, the quality of the golf course.
To ensure that both operational efficiency and regulatory compliance are achieved, course
designers, structural architects and owners should make every effort to bring the golf course
superintendent into the facility design process at its earliest stages. The superintendent is
uniquely qualified to lead the team that designs the facility. By tapping the superintendent's
expertise in the early stages, the ownership can obtain a more realistic understanding of the
rv- 113
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
functions of a modern maintenance facility
lead to inefficient operations or expensive
- and thereby avoid many of the overrsights that often
remodeling (GCSAA, 1993).
:=r,-ejtt
ffi
A more detailed breakdown of square footage requirements is presented in Table 28. Modern
18-hole golf course maintenance facilities average 4-6,500 square feet and requir,e approximately
1.5 - 2.0 acres for circulation. ETS recommends an Enviro-Drain@rM or equivalent sediment trap
system be installed in the maintenance facility. The fuel island and wash apron 'nill be designed
with independent containment filters for fueling equipment and washing turfgrass equipment. The
filtering systems dislodge phytotoxic contaminants such as grass clippings, oil, grease, and
chemicals from the wash water system and provides a secondary back-up that guards against
accidental spills. The system also filters residual concentrations of turfgrass chemicals and non-
phytotoxic materials such as fertilizers. Figure 3 provides an illustration and specifications for
the Enviro-Drain@ * Filter System.
IV- 114
E._-
I
I
t
I
I
I
The pictures presented in this report were taken from the golf course maintenance facility
designed by Rudi Fischer for the Eagle Springs Golf Club in Eagle, Colorado. The complex
includes a separate or stand-alone structure of adequ ate size (Approximately 800 ft2) installed at
the furthermost end away from offices, break room, mechanic area, and employee eating areas.
The structure can be placed in the equipment parking arca andlor located next to the fuel island
and wash pad apron. A back-up overflow system is normally installed to collect potential spills
and divert the rinsate onto the wash pad apron and/or collection system. This r.r,ill reduce the
potential for inadvertent pesticide exposure and drift.
N
I
t
I
rv-115
*1*l.r-*.-,
;iFryL
*
'!t*:
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
Ira!7
ENVIRO,DRAIN@, lNG,
PATENT PENDING
Reduces Pollution Runoff At The Source
FORUSEIN...
Parking Lots
Gas Stations
Golf Courses
Streets
Driveways
Industrial Faciiities
Municipalities
. Affordable
. Effective
. Easy To Install
. Easy To Maintain
. Manufactured By
Disabled Workshops
.:,i..^
.-vri ruli I n:.1 rNrun.ri.r,.u,,
Ltr,1S= CALL: FiCi( DAV|!SC'r
f a18) ?{7-92:,i
Don't wait for pending tegislation, prepare yourselves to do your part to remove surfacewater runoff pollution
before getting fined up to $25,000 per day for non-compliance.
Call now to receive a free estimate.-"
CRYSTAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
(EXCLUSTVE DtSTRTBUTOR)
(206)867 -3069 F^x (206)869-057 4
63I I.I43RD AVE NE, REDMOND, WA 98052
. Anti Clog-eing Design
. Recyclable Filters
. Environmentally Safe Filters
. Absorbs Oil and Gas in'Water
. Neutralizes FertilizerslPr:sticides
. Eliminates Sediments
. Sampling Capabilities (}{PDES)
G:
::
::
:(_
r::l . r-
T
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
ENVIRO.DRAIN@TM Specif ications
Nominal Flow......... .................3-8 gpm Absorbent Wn' and Activated Carbon
Electrical ...None Mechanism .....Gravity Feed Capable
Dimensions2..................................Standard/Custom Sizes of All 'Types of Filter lVledium
Dry Weight................ .................50lbs. Construction ............... l00Vo Stainless Steel
rBascd on Filtcr Fabric used. dercrmincs gallons pcr minute
Thcsc measurcments are based on the standild catch basin desiens. Cutom sizcs also available
When Enviro-Drain stormwater filter is installed in catch basins, contaminated water enters throu-eh the grate and the
water is diverted to enter Enviro-Drain, filtering out sediments, cigarette butts, rocks, Ieaves, and grass clippings in the
top Eay. The second tray is filled wiih Absorbent WrM, a narural cellulose fiber that retains up to 7 times its wei-eht in
oil. The third filter is filled with activated carbon to neutralize fertilizers and pesticicles. Each tray has its own
characteristics and are properly spaced to eliminate clo_egin-e while providing aeration to the water which is needed to
break down organic compounds and provide fish with adequate oxy-sen. By allowing you to use any variety or
combination of filter medium Enviro-Drain stormwater filter is much more versatile and cost effective than other types
of filters. Test results of Enviro-Drain stormwater filter proved to be very successful 'with up to 96Vo.removal of
efficiencies.**Test results can be provided upon request.
DESCRIPTION ....PART #
Storm Water Pollution Filter
18" x24" x 14" d Insert ...................100
16" x24" x 14" d Insert ...................500
18" x 24" x 13" d Bar Rack .............110
16" x24" x 13"dBarRack .............510
18" x24" x 3" d Tray (Empty) ........................101
Filter
Medium
w/Filter
Fabric
,.,:
..:-.i ..1.. ,;..
iC; ;r.i;:-,:.:. .;..: :.-.i.:A;;C\c!-=:S: CALL: il -.-i !.r:7r;9311j13) 3ii;-i2::
16"
18"
16"
18"
16"
DESCRIPTION ....PART #
Storm Water Sediment Filter =
Use same inserts, bar racks, rack screens and
divertrsrs as in 100 & 500 series filters
18"x24"x 15"d ....300-303
11'ARRANT1' AND LI}IITATION OF RE\IEDIES
l. Express Warranty. ENVIRO-DRAIN, INC. expressly warranr this product ro be free from defects in material. workmanship and title.
2. Disclaimer of Implied and Orher Wananties. THE FOREGOING WARRA:{TY IS EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU iOF ALL OTHER lVARRANTIES
IVHE'THER II'RITTEN, IIIIPLIED (INCLUDING IYITHOUT LINTITATION A 11'ARRANTY OF NTERCH,C,NTABILITY OR FIT\ESS FOR
PART'ICULAR PURPOSE).
3. In the r:vent that any product is found to be defectivc in workmanship or marerial. ENVIRO-DL4,IN. INC. agrees to repair or replace such product at its option.
If the producr is to be rcpaircd. Buyer will bear rcsponsibility for rcrumin: such producr ro ENVIRO-DRAIN, INC. If ENVIRO-DRAIN, INC., is unable to effect
such repair or replacement within 30 days (which timc is agreed ro be reasonable). Buyer wilt have the additional remedv of reruming the defective producr to
ENVIIIO-DRAIN. NC. for a full rctund of the purchase price. THESE REI\IEDIES ARE EXCLUSrVE, AND B(n'EIt AGREES THIS SHALL BE THE
LNIM OF ANl'LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRO.DRAIN. II\{C.
-1. Conserluentirl and Incidental Damages Excluded. Buyer assumes ajl responsibilirv for the consequences of use of the product. EN\/IRO-DRAIN. LNC. assumes
no liab,ility for consequential and./or incidental damages of anv kind (includina u.irhour limiration injun' ro the person): under no circumsunces will ENVIRO-
DRAI:{. INC:beliableforsuchdamages. Buyeragreesthelimirationandexclusioninrhisparagraphisindependentof thelimitarionofremediescontainedin
the preceding prrarraph.
t\
I
Rack
I
I
Filter Trav
Catch Basin
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 28. The Rose
l. Shop Area
Secretary/Waiting Reception
General Office (Assist. Super)
Superintendent Office
Computer Room
Mens Restroom w/shower
Womens Restroom w/shower
Lockers
Break Room
Repair Shop
Foreman's Office
Oil Storage
Ranch Proposed Maintenance Facility Program
S.F.
200
r70
170
170
145
145
120
250
1,070
80
100
2.620
S.F.
2.320
640
300
640
80
3.980
6,600
660
7,260
S.F.
6.000
r.024
200
800
400
2.424
S.M.
18.58
15.79
t5.79
15.79
t3.47
13.47
11.15
23.22
99.40
7.43
9.29
243.40
S.M.
215.53
59.46
27.87
59.46
78.43
369.74
613.31
61.31
674.45
S.M.
557.40
95.1 3
18.58
74.32
37.16
225.19
Comments
40 @ 3 s.f.locker
lncludes part storage
Subtotal
2. Equipment Storage Area
Equipment Parking
General & Small Equipment Storage
Hand Tool Storage
Fertilizer & Seed Storage
Chemical Storage Locatr:d in self-
contained structure
outsideSubtotal
Total of Subtotals
107o Circulation, Electrical,
Mechanical. Walls
Total
3. Nursery/Storage/Wash Area (Exterior)
Turfgrass Nursery
Soil Bins
Equipment Washing
Unloading Dock
Trash Enclosure
4@16x16
Subtotal
IV- 119
I
I
I
t
I
I
There are four companies we recommend who specialize in golf course prefabricated pesticide
storage units.
Perma Lock Inc.
P.O. Box 770357
Houston, Texas 7721 5-0357
800-288-8873
Safety Storage, Inc.
2301 Bert Drive
Hollister, Ca 95023
6 1 7-598-8906
RGF Environmental Systems Inc..
3875 Fiscal Court
West Palm Beach. Fl. 33404
407-848-1826
EccoSoil Systems, Inc.
10890 Thornmint Rd
San Diego, CA 921127
800-33 t-8773
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
The entrance should provide adequate ventilation that is actuated by an external ,explosion-proof
light/fan switch. The switch should be protected from vandalism and covered firr security. An
instruction placard indicating proper entrance and lock-out procedures should tre placed in the
doorway entrance. The locality of the exhaust fan must be positioned so that vapors will be
released to the outside of the building.
The facility will be designated and posted as a pesticide storage area (as per lar,r'), with a list of
all chemicals contained in storage on file in the superintendent's oftice. One copy of this list
should be provided to the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District. Additional copies should
be located in the clubhouse or in an appropriate file located away from the p,esticide storage
structure.
State-of-the-art recycling wash systems are being installed at newly constructed golf courses
during the design and construction of the golf course maintenance facility in order to satisfy EPA
requirements to contain contaminants. Existing golf courses are constructing new wash pads or
utilizing a combination of practices and systems to meet this standard. Strict discharge limits
have been set by EPA for oil, greases, solvents, fuels, grinding compounds, heavy metals,
detergents, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and nitrates. Simply washing these materials down
the drain. into the ground or into a waterway is neither legal nor environmentally responsible.
IV- 12 0
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
t
I
Recycling systems for wash water are designed as closed looped systems and address direct
discharge into a sewer or water quality basin. The wash water system functions by utilizing a
three step process.
Grass clippings are removed from the washwater to minimize the release of
hydrocarbons, including potential fertilizer and pesticide residues.
The washwater is recycled continuously, collecting the discharge of the waste
water, oil and solid particles. This process prepares the water for filtration prior
to discharge.
The washwater is filtered with carbon packs prior to discharge into the waste
stream
ETS recommends Rose Ranch install a recycle washwater system for the turfgrass equipment
washpad area. The potential concentration of hazardous waste on a daily basis remains as critical
for this location when compared with all other integrated turfgrass systems. The recycling wash
water system should have the capabilities of capturing grass clippings, oil and g,rease, and trace
organics and separating these waste materials from the sanitary sewer district.
7. Fuel Storage and Waste Oil Dispensing
ETS recommends Rose Ranch install a 500 gallon storage tank for gasoline and a 500 gallon
storage tank for diesel fuel. Both tanks will be dual walled above ground tanks'with monitoring
leak detection systems and vehicle barriers for accident prevention. The tanks shall consist of
a UL listed primary tank, a high density polyethylene secondary compartment., and a six inch
reinforced concrete encasement. The concrete vault which provides thermal and corrosion
protection can be poured on location or shipped precast. The tanks installed willl conform to the
Uniform Fire Code and NFPA-30 regulations for above ground tanks. The tanks will meet or
exceed the above ground regulatory storage requirements for the State of (lolorado. The
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
rv- 121
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
appropriate signs indicating No Smoking with Fuel Safety Warnings will also tre installed. ETS
also recommends a 250 gallon waste oil and solvent storage tank be installed at the golf course
maintenance facility. The specifications for all of these tanks can be found in Appendix H of this
report.
tv-L22
t
t 8. Storage Facility Check List
I The following operating procedure is recommended for the pesticide storage facility located at
- Rose Ranch:I
t
The building is secured and locked at all times;
t :,:::::':::::;:*::;J::ffinis'[ra'1ive
ofnce and in
'lhe
ofnce of
'lhe
gorf course
I Storage of materials is to be on shelves located high enough to permit cleaning of the
I
floor. No material should be stored above 6 ft from the ground;
I
All materials have legible labels attached. Any materials whose packaging has been
damaged must be in containers clearly marked and labeled;
t . Plastic containers are used to store any containers in excess of I gallon or more for
t protection of spillage. A plastic trash barrel with lid is located inside the storage facility
for cleanup;
I . The staff at Rose Ranch must be trained in the operating procedures regarding this
I building;
I Appropriate protective clothing and equipment will be provided for use by those who
handle pesticides;
. Absorbent materials designed to contain accidental spills within the pesticide storage
I
t
I
T
I
facility will be available;
IV -1,23
T
I
T
I
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
l:
lr
lr
ll
Disposal of pesticide containers shall comply u'ith the instructions
with other state and federal regulations. Empty containers will
accumulate or be stored within this building;
on the labeling and
not be allowed to
The building is inspected monthly ata minimum by the golf course superintendent and
a record of each inspection is recorded in the records for pesticide use; and
. Obsolete, excess, and mixtures of pesticides shall be disposed of by a licensed hazardous
waste firm or according to the statutes and regulations established by law.
I. Water Replacement Strateg),
The climate is typical of western Colorado mountainous areas. Winters are long and cold with
an abundance of snow fall. Summers are short and relatively cool. Wind speeds are generally
light, less than l2 mph, with the strongest winds associated with West through Southwesterly
directions. Calm conditions occur around 40%o of the time.
Roaring Fork River is the main flowing surface water source on the property. Hlistorically, it has
provided an excellent source of physical water supply for the property. The maiority of streams
are seasonal and contain water only during intense thunder storm precipitation or heavy snowpack
melt. The small ephemeral streams have drainage basins that are less than 3 acres in size, but
have resulted in an alluvial fan zone. Northeast Dry Park Gulch is also ephe:rneral, but has a
drainage basin of approximately 980 acres. The runoff from this stream has resulted in a large
alluvial fan in the northern portion of Rose Ranch (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechrrical, Inc. 1997).
Zancanella and Associates, an engineering firm of Glenwood Springs, Colorailo, estimated the
golf course irrigation demand at 2.31 acre-feet lacre. The consumptive demands for the golf
course totals 298.4 acre-feet per year. Golf course diversion requirements, at a 70% irrigation
application efficiency, totals 462 acre-feet per year (Zancanella and Associates, 1998).
rv -L24
I
I
I
t
Irrigation water will be applied to the tees, greens. fairways, primary and secondarl' roughs.
Provisions for supplementary water are in place to assist with the re-vegetatiotr of the natural
areas and streambed channels. The project is committed to conserving water and using water
resources in an efficient and effective manner. Supplemental irrigation will be necessary during
the grow-in period of the golf course and to assist with the restoration of the disturbed areas
including the landform, vegetation, tree and shrub planting projects.
Increased irrigation will be necessary during the germination period and to successfully assist with
quality control of the native plant restoration plan. After the establishment period, the proposed
grassing plan will allow for a reasonable reduction in supplemental irrigatitln and provide
excellent playing surfaces even in areas grown under droughty conditions. The rnaximum usage
or peak water demand during the first year of operation is estimated at 8l 8,1 5 I gallons/day (gpd).
l. Water Demand. Supply and Storage Analysis
The replenishment of soil moisture as it is extracted and the leaching of salts thal accumulate are
vital to the creation of a sound root environment. The amount of water requirecl for leaching is
directly proportional to evapotranspiration and the potential concentration of salts in the irrigation
water. This is inversely proportional to the salinity tolerance of the turf and explains why
evapotranspiration should always be used as the main factor when determininp; total irrigation
water requirements.
The water supply for the project will be provided by diversions from the Roaring Fork River
through the Robertson Ditch as-well-as the Posy Pump and Pipeline which will be constructed
by the PUD. The Robertson Ditch and ponds will also be used to regulate diversions into the
raw irrigation system for the development and golf course. The existing ponds located on the
current Westbank Golf Course will be available to meet additional irrigation needs of the golf
course project. Runoff can be diverted into these ponds in order to compensate fcrr losses through
evaporation. Current proposed total water diversion of 0.2 cfs - peak of 2.6 cfs is less than the
lr
lr
l,I
t:
rv -]-25
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
1
I
I
T
I
historic average diversions of the Robertson Ditch for the Rose Ranch and Westbztnk Golf Course
(Zancanella and Associates, I 998).
Table 29 characterizes the average daily water demand, supply and storage analysis for The Rose
Ranch Golf Course. The supplemental irrigation rates projected in this table were used to assist
with the dilution analysis performed in Volume 2 of this report. For maxirnum efficiency,
irrigation of the turfgrass is proposed during the months of April through October. An analysis
of natural rainfall and evapotranspiration has been performed and an estimate of daily and yearly
usage completed. The numbers in Table 29 represent the total water needs for turfgrass in this
climate, on average, including rainfall and irrigation sources. The demand averages in Table 29
reflect the average daily usage of irrigation water for the golf course after the grow-in period.
This represents approximately 50oh of the peak water demand of 818,151 gpd. However, both
the initial request for peak water demand and the average water demand analysis presented,
reflect accurate golf course irrigation and water needs. This table representts 138 acres of
established turfgrass grown under normal growing conditions using 49,144 -359,931 gpd with a
peak average daily demand of 409,075 gpd.
rv-1,26
IIIITIT-I-IIITIT rIII
Table 29. The Rose Ranch Water Demand/Supply and Storage Analysis
Factors Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jutr ]1il ,dug sep.(}ct Nov Dec Total
. Projected Rainfall (in) (a)t.7l t,38 1.55 I,87 l:82 I:7t1 ,2,,,16 2'.32 l:55 I:.10 1.29 t.72 20.Jr
. Evapotranspiration (in) (b)N/A N/A N/A I,.t,6 2,25 i{{,4.:.42 l.&e 2.44 t'.22 N/A N/A 18.91
Assumed Usable Moisture
7, of actual rainlall
NIA N/A N/A 145,0090 55:00%65,00c2;6s.o0%.5,Si0096 45 00%I5:00P/6 N/A N/A
. Assumed Usable Moisture
Rainfall in inches
N/A N/r\N/,\{1.8,I .01 1 .1.1 ,t,.41 t.28 0.?5 0.39 N/A N/A 6.81
Moisture Deficit
Evapo less usable moisture (ln.)
N/A N/.\N/A 0.1r t.24 2.,:.4,1 3;0I 2.61 t.69 0.8-l N/A N/A t2.t0
.Fr
Moisture deficit (Ft.)
N/A N/A N/A 0.03 0.I I 0.t0 0.25 a))0.14 0,07,N/A N/A 1.02
Water Use Types
Turl'- 138.50 Acres
Use
Factor
Acres Jan
Ac Ft
Feh
Ac Ft
Mar
Ac Ft
Apr
Ac Ft
May,,,i
Ac'.,Ft
Jun
.Ac,Ft
Jul:'
Ac Ft
Aug,,
Ac Ft
Sep,:,,:,,
Ar.Ft
0cr
Ac Ft
Nov
Ac Ft
Dec
Ac Ft
Total
Greens (c)r.25 4.00 N/A N/A N/A 0rl5 {.s5 1,00 l2s l.ts 0.?0 0.1s,N/A N/A 5.10
Tees 1.25 4.50 N/A N/A N/A 0.17 0.62 I.l1 1.41 1,24 0.79 0.40 N/A N/A 5.76
Iainvays |.25 40.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.50 s.!0 t0,00 12.5CI I r.00 ?.00 3.50 N/A N/A 51.00
Primary Rough (d)t.00 55.00 N/A NiA N/A I;6!6.0_r I 1,00 r 1.75 t2 t0 7.74 l.E5 N/,\N/A 56.r0
Secondary Rough
Landscape (e)
Native Restoration
Disturbed Areas
0.7 5 20.00 N/A N/A N/.r 0.45 r.65 3,00 3,75 3.3t)2.t0 1.05 N/,\N/A t 5.J0
0.50 15 00 N/A N/,\N/A 0.23 0.81 r50 I.88 1.65 I.05 0.53 N/A N/,\1.67
lrrigation l-ake
Evaporation
1.00 1 5.00 N/A N/A N/A 0.45 1.65 3;00 3r75 1.30 2,r0 t_05 N/.\N/,\t 5.30
Total Acre Feet N/,{N/A N/A 4.60 t 6.85 30 63 38:29 13 6e 2r,44 t0,73 N/A N/A I 56.2J
Total Gallons (325.850)(Million)N/A N/A N/A 1.50 5.49 9.98 12.48 r098 6.99 350 N/A N/A 50.91
Daill' Demand (f)
Average
((iallons)4s.144 I80.or 8 121l39 40q,07s 159,931 77q.O57 114,615
Peak Daily Demand
Average
(Gallons)9&,2E9 360S]?6543?8 8t8.t5t 7 19.861 458; 1,t 3 ??9.2?0 N/,t N/,r J r 2.16
rv - 127
I
I
I
I
t
I
2. Irrigation Water Oualitr-
An irrigation suitability and water quality analysis will be performed to determirqe water quality
pH, total dissolvable solids, chlorides, bicarbonates. electrical conductivity (ECw) and the sodium
adsorption ratio (SAR). During the first year of operation, quarterly testing of the soils prior to
preplant and after the grow-in period should be conducted to maintain adequate levels of soil
calcium, magnesium and potassium. Modification of the soil pH will be directly' proportional to
the levels of calcium in soil and the amount of applied irrigation water.
I
3. Water System Specification and Capabilities
The golf course will install an automatic irrigation system designed to achieve maximum
distribution and uniformity of coverage. The system will be engineered to water the entire golf
course each night and apply a minimum of 1" of water per week without overwatering. The
spacing of sprinklers will be designed to minimize surface runoff and avoid inadvertent drift.
Field controls will be placed for maximum visibility. Valve-in-head sprinklers will be used with
individual control wires installed for each of the irrigation heads back to the field controllers.
Heads on fairways and roughs can be paired at the controller on an average of two heads per
station. Green and tee sprinkler heads will be operated individually. Greens will be irrigated
with full andlor part-circle sprinkler heads to allow the superintendent to irrigate in a more
efficient manner. This reduces disease potential and results in lower usage of pesticides. Quick
coupler snap valves will be necessary near the newly constructed wetland plantings and native
plant restoration areas in order to provide supplemental water for grow-in purposes.
ETS also recommends the installation of an irrigation water injection system to assist with
applying gypsum or acidifying materials designed to manage the level of sodium in soils. The
Bioject@ and/or EcoSoils Solution System@ are easily adapted to the irrigation s;ystem and allow
for maximum distribution of sodium leaching materials in the least amount of time. The injection
system should be included as an optional add-on in the irrigation design bid package.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
IV- 12 8
I
t
T
I
I
T
I
Natural Resource Management Through Improved Waste Management f'ractices
A major component of a well rounded integrated land and lacility management plan encompasses
resource conservation and waste disposal issues. It is important to conceptually necognize waste
materials as by-products of processes and activities that may have tangible or intangible resource
value. Wastes fall into a variety of categories relative to the source. including hazardous/non-
hazardous, toxic/non-toxic, organic, demolition, and solid materials. These by-products can be
managed by implementing a strategy that integrates minimization. reuse, recycling, and proper
disposal activities. Rose Ranch has many opportunities to minimize waste produced and to
recycle various materials resulting in cost savings, environmentally friendly practices, and positive
contributions to community pollution prevention and conservation efforts.
Developing a Waste Management Strategy
Due to the variety of products and services utilized throughout the life of the operation, a multi-
faceted project such as Rose Ranch, is likely to encounter numerous opportunities to minimize
waste produced and to maximize recycling of valuable resources. Each component of the project
will generate some different types of wastes but a large portion of the potential waste generated
will be similar throughout the entire operation. In order for Rose Ranch to create the most
efficient waste management program possible, the potential waste stream requires characterization
and economical and practical optionsialternatives available in the area must be understood.
It can be assumed that the potential wastes generated by the project will either be related to
construction, golf course maintenance, and facility operational activities. Construction wastes
could include woody debris (stumps, logs, branches and limbs. tree roots); vegetation; concrete,
asphalt, bricks and other cement materials; and spools, pallets, tubing, etc. remains. Golf course
management activities can result in the creation of a wide array of waste by-products. These
include equipment maintenance wastes such as petroleum based products, metal materials, and
batteries; green wastes like turfgrass clippings, prunings, annual plantings, and other types of
organic matter; and containers for a variety of goods such as pesticides, f-ertilizers, packaging
materials, and food wastes. The ancillary facilities will have similar wastes as the golf
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I rv -L29
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
maintenance operations but the amounts will differ significantly. Paper products, food wastes.
packaging materials, office equipment wastes (cartridges. toners, etc.) and cleaning materials.
2. Understanding Local Opportunities
Prior to structuring a waste management program for the project it is imperatil'e to understand
local ordinances, readily available services. economic incentives. and political initiatives
concerning this issue. In most situations various agencies and organizations will be actively
involved in deciding upon and implementing waste related projects. Informatiorl sources for the
project include the Garfield County Environmental Health Office, the Ciarfield County
Consolidated Sanitation District. and the State of Colorado Division of Waste Management.
Not unlike many other areas of the country, Glenwood Springs and Carbondale communities are
facing greater challenges with waste management due to rapid growth. competition for land use.
and pressures on natural resources in the area. Although Colorado does have rec;rcling and waste
reduction goals in place, local governments have a great deal of flexibility to address these
objectives. As often is the case, there are some ad hoc volunteer groups, conscie.ntious industries
and citizens, and community leaders that continue to try an progress with waste management
activities. These efforts are hampered by many that remain concerned more w'ith convenience
and habit in their buying, consuming, and disposing behaviors. The Rose Ranch project has the
opportunity to instigate a new trend and make a very big and positive impact on the region
regarding waste management practices.
3. Waste Minimization and Recycling Considerations for Rose Ranch
During the construction phase of the project, there are several areas to consider that facilitate
either a reduction in waste generated or provide recycling opportunities including:
Reduce purchases of packaged goods, if possible, by buying bulk commodities
or certainly by purchasing goods packaged in recyclable materials
IV- 13 0
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
. Separate C & D materials fbr reuse or recycling (shingles; concrete and brick: tree
stumps, pallets. gypsum board, etc.); cardboard and bubble wrap; metal wire and
cable;
. Use piping and tubing materials that enable remnants to be modified and fitted;
. Attempt to minimize removal of vegetation (natural areas, use of natural contours)
compost or chip vegetation that must be removed for use as erosion control or
mulch around new plantings; replant native vegetation subject to removal during
primary construction activities;
. Store or donate some woody materials as firewood for residents, or local
companies that use wood for fuel; and
. Wash and reuse bunker sand; use crushed rubber in high traffic areas on the
course to minimize compaction.
In planning, designing, and managing the various facets of the operation at Rose Ranch, there are
several mechanisms that help to minimize w'aste and maximize recycling.
. Consider that the use of modern technology, computerized tracking and
communications are not only more time efficient, but also minimize the need for
the numerous paper products that are eventually tossed away.
. On-line reservations, subscriptions. faxes and e-mail are resource e1'ficient methods
of sending and receiving information.
. Computerized filing and data management also minimize the number of folders,
documents, and forms that will eventually be discarded.
The use of refillable containers and bulk purchases should be made convenient for
each facility. Simplify the process of source separation of solid and liquid wastes
rv- 131
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
T
I
I
I
for customers and workers alike, including the use color coding, proper signage
and informational notices, and ease of transfer for off-site transport. Such
preliminary planning improves the use of resourceful waste management practices.
. When making investments in equipment consider that highly durable products are
worth the extra expense or that leasing programs for goods that become obsolete
quickly help to minimize disposal decisions.
. Education is the foundation for success. The operations managers should be asked
to provide information on a regular basis to members and investors concerning
waste disposal laws, waste reduction and reuse goals, participation rates, and
options to exchange and/or purchase goods made from recycled materials.
Inform employees and members about recycling opportunities and provide a list of recyclable
materials commonly used throughout the operation that could in fact either be minimized and/or
recycled:
Plastic containers (PET, HDPE #'s I and 2)
Paper and plastic bags
Glass and aluminum cans
Wire, straps, cable
Corrugated cardboard
Wrapping (gift. packaging, etc.)
Air filters, water filters (if used)
Electrical switches, circuit boards and connectors, copper wire
Paper goods (mixed, newsprint, computer, magazines, telephone books)
The golf course can also be creative in the reuse of certain materials and recycle wastes in an
ecological way. Bird boxes, understory cover, perches, etc. can be made fnom woody by-
products. Other materials are useful for creating ponds" pools, and resting spots. Mulches,
recycled plastics and rubber goods can be used as erosion controls, stabilizers, and surfaces in
high utility areas.
rv -].32
I
I
I
t
t
t
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Accomplish energy and water conservation by installing low pressure automatic faucets, and use
energy efficient hand dryers, small strip paper towels or washable hand towels in rest room
facilities. Provide reusable rags whenever possible for use by cleaning crews.
The golf course maintenance operation generates certain hazardous wastes as well as a few unique
materials that require attention. This particular facility probably has the greatest flexibility in the
selection of packaging and container types. Many fertilizers, pesticides, paints, and lubricants can
be purchased in bulk or in refillable containers. There are also fertilizers and pesticides that can
be purchased in a highly concentrated form (less packaging and total volume of product required)
or in a water dispersible bag. These purchase options greatly reduce the total amount of solid
wastes generated by maintenance operations.
Health and safety materials can also be purchased that are washable and reusable, or
biodegradable upon disposal. Spray suits, gloves, goggles, and respirator filters are examples.
Utilizing bulk oils, antifreeze, and lubricants for equipment maintenance activities cuts cost and
waste. Arrange for pick up or delivery to a certified hazardous waste facility that contracts with
firms that will recycle oil filters, oil, antifreeze, and paints. Batteries. straps and belts, pallets,
piping and hoses can also be reused or recycled. Brass and copper materials, bearings and
casings, saw blades, bedknives and reels can also be reused or recycled.
Appropriate contractual relations will assist maintenance crews in efficient resource recovery
efforts and also support the growth of these types of services to the local community. Not unlike
all other facilities, the maintenance area should provide well marked and numerous locations
where wastes can effectively be sorted and temporarily stored.
As was previously discussed, wash pad and maintenance rinse water can also be recycled. The
type of design used and treatment system(s) installed will be dependent on the number of wash
down areas, internal storage design, and fertilizer/pesticide handling scheme developed. The rinse
area should utilize a non-earthen pad such as concrete and properly located surnps. If all of the
maintenance equipment is washed down at the same rinse pad, either a prepackaged or custom
engineered wastewater treatment system should be installed. The design of the rinse area should
rv- 13 3
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
t
t
t
I
provide for separation of the organic materials such as grass clippings, thatch, etr:. that is washed
off of the equipment prior to further chemical or ultra-violet purification. There ere various types
of filtration designs available utilizing sand, charcoal, membrane or paper filters, and oil
skimmers. The materials required will depend on the nature of the chemicals used in
maintenance equipment.
The design of the catchment device should enable maintenance workers to easily remove the
filtration units and transfer the organic debris to the composting areas. If the fertilizer and
pesticide equipment is handled in a self-contained fashion, most of the rinse w.ater can be flushed
back through application equipment and land-applied in a highly diluted form or a small chemical
treatment system can be installed. An example of a package system that has been used effectively
by some golf course operations is manufactured by Eco Soils, Inc. If budgets allow, there are
a variety of specialty cleaning mixtures that degrease equipment or breakdown contaminant
residues. The use of these cleaning agents can also help to localize collection of waste water that
requires special filtration. Bulk mixers with quick-coupler attachments to spray rigs provide a
safe and efficient way to conduct primary and secondary sprayer utilization as lvell as minimize
the frequency of recycling needs.
K. On Site Compostine Plan
The opportunity to conduct effective on-site composting would provide a s;trong means of
conserving and reusing natural resources. The waste materials generated could be used
effectively within the community greenhouse proposed for the golf course pr<rject. There are
several critical considerations that will determine the feasibility of composting yard wastes and
perhaps other compostable organic wastes generated throughout the total operation. A properly
sited, designed, and managed compost operation can provide the golf course community with a
noticeable resource conservation practice and long term cost savings for the operation. The
location of the composting process is dependent on the sources of wastes to be processed, ability
to minimize risks of nuisance, and other potential uses for the parcels of land suitable for
composting use.
rv- 134
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
II
l
If composting seems feasible. the compost operation should be accessible to larger sized
maintenance vehicles, constructed on an area where non-point source pollution risks can be
minimized, and allow for expansion of the operation to occur if deemed necessary. The
composting operation should be sited on the property in a centralized location relative to those
facilities that will be providing feedstocks for processing. For example, if the golf course
operation is going to accept yard wastes from the residents living nearby, the composting area
should be located where it is more convenient for all parties to deliver materials and remove
finished products for utilization. If the golf course will be the only contributor to the composting
operation, the location would then be determined by other factors, such as proximity to
greenhouses, soil amendment storage, front and back nine access, etc.
Although a properly operated composting facility will have minimal odor problems. in a golf
course setting it would be appropriate to keep the operation screened from view and upwind from
the majority of homes and the clubhouse if at all possible. Access roads to and fiom the facility
need to be constructed out of materials that will not prohibit access during wet weather
conditions, such as gravel, recycled rubber. etc.
L. Other Facility Operations
The clubhouse and office facilities management of food and beverage services. locker rooms, rest
rooms, and a pro-shop provide opportunities for reduction and reuse also. In planning the
facilities, product delivery and storage areas should accommodate a codified system of dumpsters
and/or bins for easy source separation activity and bulk storage containers for materials such as
soaps, detergents and other cleaning products. When possible install an energy and water
efficient laundering service center or facilitate a contract with such a service provider. This
enables the operation to reuse towels rather than rely on paper based products for the rest rooms,
cleaning staff, and restaurants. The management can encourage clients to bring tlireir own towels
for locker room use. Low pressure shower heads and low volume toilets should be used in those
facilities requiring such amenities.
rv- 13 5
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
t
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
The food and beverage services must determine what is acceptable to the consumers while
educating the client about the cost and environmental savings associated with waste management
decisions. If possible the upscale areas should also consider using washable napkins and
investigate the feasibility of food scraps composting or co-processing with another compost
operation.
Efforts to purchase condiments and other food goods that are available in larger volume,
recyclable containers is resourceful. Snack food service areas can encourage menrbers and guests
to purchase or even perhaps give them refillable drink containers for use in the club and on the
course. Discounts on prices can be offered to customers that use refillable containers as well. The
club could also encourage purchases of fruits and other non-packaged foods from vendors as
supplies for break-rooms, snack bars. etc. Washable and reusable coffee filters should be used
and coffee grounds composted with other food wastes if an on-site or contracted composting
operation is made available. When making buying decisions, the management can avoid use of
styrofoam carry-out containers as well.
In the pro shop, use of electronic scanners will minimize the need for price tags and other bulky
labels. The use of automated computer tee time schedules and time sheets will minimize the need
for punch cards, desk top paper planners, and other unnecessary paper goods. Golf balls
recovered on the course can be reused by players if they are made available to them at check-in
locations.
Both the clubhouse and office areas have the option to use carpeting and tiling materials made
from recycled materials. Many carpets manufactured in recent years are recyclable, as are a
number of tiling materials. Window and door frames are available that are made from
composites manufactured from a combination of recycled wood chips and plastic, often lower in
cost to produce that those made with more expensive polymers. Andersen Corporation produces
a variety of these types of construction related products. Recycled tires can also be used for walk
ways, parking areas, and in some instances roofing. Shingles are also recyclable and can be put
to good use by various construction firms. Materials that cannot be recycled or avoided should
preferably consist of biodegradable substances, especially trash bags where used.
rv- 13 6
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
Many of the same design and operational planning considerations apply to office areas as with
clubhouse and maintenance facilities. Significant waste reduction in an office environment can
result from better management of paper and beverage products. The use of On-line transmission
and information services helps to control the total amount of hard copy transactions that would
otherwise occur in routine office activities.
Double-sided copying, reuse of 3 ring binders, and reuse of packaging materials
on outbound shipments will also reduce the waste generated.
. Bulk containers, snack foods that are not packaged or in larger reusable containers,
and refillable cups will also minimize the waste generated by oflice personnel.
In addition to these items, office equipment should be purchased that enables both the use of
recycled and recyclable materials (such as recycled paper products, soyink, printer cartridges,
and other white goods). Shelving and desk furniture manufacture using recycled materials can
also be purchased.
Strategic placement of paper and food/beverage related recycling containers makes participation
by employees more convenient. Place paper recycling containers in close proximity to an
individuals desk, frequently used copiers, and supply areas. Several can, plastic, and glass bins
should be located around the office in addition to break rooms and outside smoking areas.
M.Education and Plan for Participation
The success of many programs, including effective waste management. depends on the
participation of the people. Education is a form of promotion. The golf course community can
exercise a number of tools to educate personnel and members alike about the on-going
management activities and the subsequent goals and benefits. The following are areas where
education programs will be beneficial and opportunistic.
rv- 13 7
l:
lr
lrll
I
t
I
l. Waste Management
Information about reduction and recycling can be circulated using bulletin boards, notices in bills
and dues statements, on-line news flashes, and with strategic signs placed around the course and
community' Attempt to make signs and posters out of recycled materials. The golf course can
encourage members and educate them at the same time by employing recycling concepts and
sponsors in golf tournaments.
An efficient and on-going waste accounting practice is one of the most important tools. If the
club management tracks activities in each portion of the operation and shows employees,
members, guests, and residents progress towards reduction/reuse goals along with economic
information, people can begin to see the real value of the program. participants should be
provided incentives, such as discounts on services that are known to potentially reduce waste,
certificates to the pro shop for employees that actively push the program, and bpnus incentives
to managers throughout the operation. It would also be beneficial to appoint different employee
teams to make presentations to schools about their own experiences with recycling and resource
conservation.
Active participation in waste management and water conservation efforts are valuable ways which
golf course communities can maximize resource efficiency. Not unlike many other activities,
once they become 'habit' they become easy, and once benefits are realized the incentive remains
in place' In the initial phase of implementing the program, other businesses and public services
can be contacted to get ideas and shared experiences as well. All of these tools put together will
result in a successful waste management program in the golf course community.
2.Turf and Landscape Maintenance
The course management has the opportunity to further educate local citizens about IpM and
responsible agronomic practices for landscape maintenance. The use of edur:ational signs
throughout the course, in the locker rooms and snack bars, etc. can peak the interest of the public,
enabling them to better understand the operation. Superintendents can arrange to have local
IV- 13 8
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
garden clubs, forester classes for kids, and homeowners alike come to weekend seminars that
demonstrate sprayer calibration, fertilizer and pesticide label interpretation, cultural practices,
scouting and pest identification, etc. This not only lends credence to the staff expertise and
decision making but sends citizens back into the community better prepared to implement IPM
in their daily outdoor activities.
Local schools, agencies such as Fish and Wildlife, and non-profit organizations should be invited
to participate in tours, round-table discussions, and resort promotional programs. This type of
open dialogue and active participation also provides the Rose Ranch management with sources
of creative and acceptable ideas for managing a valuable resource in the community, the land and
the creatures that inhabit it. This comprehensive IGCMP provides a structure within which to
further develop sustainable programs at the Rose Ranch Golf Course.
rv- 13 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
Beard, J.B. 1982. Turf Management for Golf Courses, Prentice Hall Publishing Company.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Page 206.
Beattie, K.H. 1997. Rose Ranch Wildlife Report. Prepared for Roaring Fork Investments.
Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc. September 26, 1997.
Bohmont, B.L. 1990. The Standard Pesticide User's Guide, Prentice Hall Publishing Company.
Englewood Cliff, New Jersey. Pages 361-365.
Bottcher. A.B. and L.B. Baldwin. 1986. General guide for selecting agricultural water quality
practices. Publication SP-15, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl.
Brandenburg, R. L. 1989. Improved turfgrass insect management. part 3. North Carolina
Turfgrass News 7 (2): ll, 13.
Cain, S.L. 1995. Eyes in the Sky: Satellite Imaging Blasts Off. Photonics Spectra October
1995,90-104.
City of Lakewood, 1991. Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Fox Hollow at Lakewood
Golf Course, Lakewood, Colorado. Page 70.
Cohen S.2., S. Nickerson, R. Maxey, A. Dupuy, Jr., and J. Senita. 1990. A ground water
monitoring study for pesticides and nitrates associated with golf courses on Cape Cod. Ground
Water Monitor Review l0:160-173.
Daar, S. 1982. Managing vegetation: Using IPM
IPM Practitioner 4 (9): 3,11.
principals to manage turf without herbicides.
Erusha, K. 1995. IPM Strategies for Golf Course Maintenance. USGA Green Section. Wildlife
Management and Habitat Conservation. GCSAA. Pages 33-37.
GCSAA, 1993. Golf Course Maintenance Facilities. A Guide to Planning & Design. GCSAA
Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Page 2.
Golf & The Environment. Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States, 1996.
Center for Resource Management. Golf Course Superintendents Association. GCSAA.
Hanson & Juska, 1969. Turfgrass Science. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin.
Chapter 13.
Haskett, F. 1995. Containment System Design. Chemical Storage, Mixing and Recycling.
Advanstar Communications, Inc., Cleveland Ohio. Page xi.
High Country Engineering, 1998. Drainage Report for Rose Ranch PUD. Prepared for Roaring
Fork Investments. Sketch Plan Submittal. July 7.1997. Revised February 12, 1998.
rv- 14 0
lt
lr
lr
Ir
lr
lr
l,I
t
I
I
Holtzmann, O.V., W.C. Mitchell, C.L. Murdoch, and R.K. Nishimoto. lg9l. Integrated pest
Management (lPM) Program for Lihi Lani Golf Course.
Landschoot, Dr. 1991. Assistant Professor. Turf Agronomy. PennState University. University
Park, PA. Reprinted from Landscape Management. Advanstar Communications. Cleveland Ohio.Managing Organic Wastes. 1997. GCSAA Seminar presented by Dr. Roch Gaussoin, Univ. ofNebraska-Lincoln
Morison, B. 1998. Personal communication, Eagle Springs Golf Club, Avon, Colorado.
Morton, T'G., A.J' Gold, and W.M. Sullivan. 1988. Influence of overwatering and fertilization
on nitrogen losses from home lawns. Journal of Environmental euality. 17:124-130.
MTI GEO, 1996. Phase I and II Environmental Report for Rose Ranch. Informational Referenceonly.
Nelson, E.B' 1990. The advent of biological controls for turfgrass disease management. CornellUniversity. Turfgrass Times 1(1): 1,4.
Nelson, E.B. 1990. Disease management. 1989-90. Cornell University. Turfgrass ResearchReport. Pages 90-l 18.
Norris Dullea Company, 1997. Tree Inventory & Analysis - Rose Ranch, Garfield County,Colorado. June I 7, 1997.
Petrovic, A.M. 1990. The fate of nitrogenous fertilizer applied to turfgrass. Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 19:l-14.
Petrovic, A.M. 1990. Leaching of natural organics, pesticides, and fertilizers. proceedings ofthe International Golf course Superintendent. Las vegas, Nevada.
Pompei, M. 1996- Personal communication, Lofts Seed, Inc. Somerset, New Jersey.
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. lgg7. Preliminary Geotechnical Study Rose RanchDevelopment county Road 109, Garfield County, colorado. october 29, lgg7.
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 1998. Supplementary Geotechnical Study. Evaluation of
Sinkhole Remediation. Rose Ranch Development-County Road 109. Garfield County, Colorado.February 12, 1998.
Rose Ranch Planned Unit Development and Sketch Plan, Volumes I & 2. 199g. Norris Dullea
Company and High Country Engineering, Inc. February 199g.
Smiley, R.W., P.H. Dernoeden, ancl B.B. Clarke, 1992. Compendium of Turfgrass Diseases.
Pages 5-10, 77.
IV- 141
lt
t:
l:
lr
lr
l,
lr
T
I
I
Snyder, G.H., B.J. Augustine and J.M. Davison, 1984. Moisture sensor-controlled irrigation for
reducing N leaching in Bentgrass turf. Agronomy Journal 76:964-969.
Spotlight 1993. System Probatoire d'Observation de la Terre (SPOT) Image of Toulouse, France
annual newsletter. Reston, VA.
The North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance Manual forthe 1996 Recycling Coordinators Training Course.
The Guide to The Art and Science of Composting. 1991. The JG Press, Inc. Emmaus, pA. 270
pp.
Tolson, D. 1997. Personal communication, Fox Hollow at Lakewood Golf Course. Bear Creek
Lake Park, Lakewood, Colorado.
Turgeon, 1991. Turfgrass Management Third Edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Page 48.
Vittum, P.J. 1986. Secret of controlling white grubs. ALA. November 7 (l l): 34-3g.
Waddinton, D. 1969. Turfgrass Science. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin.
Chapter 4. Soils and Soil Related problems
Ward, 1969. Turfgrass Science. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin. Chapter3. Climate and Adaptation.
Wick, R.L' 1994. Personal Communication. Amherst, Massachusetts. Diagnosis and
Recommendation for Turfgrass Nematology.
Wright Water Engineers, Inc., and Denver Regional Council of Governments. 1996. Guidelinesfor Water Quality Enhancement at Golf Courses Through the Use of Best Management practices.
Prepared for The Colorado Nonpoint Source Task Force.
Zancanella and Associates, Inc. 1998. Water Reports for Rose Ranch. prepared for Roaring Fork
Investments L.L.C. February 20, l9g1.
IV-L42
lt
l:
l:
lr
lr
lr
Ir
lr
l,t
t
I
I
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
abiotic -- Non-living substance, at one time may have been living.
aerification -- A mechanical process used to facilitate soil airlwater relationships of the turfwithout destroying @e integrity of the sod.
''--'' -- Active ingredient. Chemical agent in the product primarily responsible for the pesticidaleffects. Percentage of a. i. is shown on the pesticiae tabel.
annual -- Plant that completes its life cycle from seed in one year or season.
annual bluegrass segregation -- The introduction of annual bluegrass (poa annua) that hasinvaded and persistently remains a major component of irrigated turf. Annual bluegrass becomesthe dominant species under these conditions and the Iirtut program is altered to meet therequirements of this species.
apron -- Fairway area immediately surrounding the collar of the green. Second cut. (see collar).
acervuli -- Plural of acervulus, a microscopic, black structure, embedded in plant lissue, on whichfungal spores are produced.
bacteria -- Microscopic, single celled organisms having
nucleus and incapable of making their own food. all
a cell wall but lacking an organized
plant pathogenic bacteria can livesaprophytically.
biennial -- Plant that completes
produces a vegetative plant and
seed.
its life cycle from seed in two years or seasorrs. First year it
stores food; the second year or season it produc,es flowers and
biocoenosis -- A community of animal and plant life.
biotic -- Living substances.
blight -- Affecting a large portion of the leaves or the whole plant.
broadcast application -- Application over the whore area.
broadleaf weed -- Common term for plants in the dicotyledon group (dandelion, plantain, spurge,
etc.).
broad spectrum pesticide -- Pesticide which is effective against several pests (in contrast witha specific pesticide which controls primarily one pest).
IV- 14 3
lt
l:
t:
lr
lr
lr
!r
It
IT
T
t
t
t
I
I
brushing -- A mechanical process to aid in grain control whereby horizontal stems are lifted sothat they may be cut by the mower.
causal agent -- An infectious (viruses, mycoplasmas, bacteria, fungi. and nematodes) ornoninfectious (mechanical, temperature, water, gases, pollutants, light) biotic substance which isinvolved in causing plant damage.
chlorophyll -- Green pigment found in structures called chloroplast in plant leaves. chlorophyllis the material which enables prants to carry out photosynthesis.
chlorosis -- A process by which plant tissue looses its normal green color and gradually becomesyellowed.
clippings -- Leaves, stems and stolons cut off by mowing.
collar -- Area between the putting area and the apron.
curative pesticide -- A pesticide that can inhibit or eradicate a disease-causing organism afterit has become established in the plant or animal.
fixation -- state of being fixed.
innoxious -- harmless.
insolubility -- incapable of being dissolved.
insecticide -- Any chemical used to manage (control) insects.
internode.-- Part of a stem which lies between two successive nodes.
irrigation -- Applying water to turf.
landing area -- part of the fairway where tee shots usualry rand.
lapping, mower -- Part of the process of sharpening a reel mower.
layering, soil -- Undesirable stratification of different textured material in the soil.
localized dry spot -- Area of the soil which resists wetting,.
mat -- See thatch.
microflora -- Plants invisible to the naked eye, such as diatoms and algae.
IV- 14 4
lt
lr
l:
lllr
lr
lr
t
I
I
I
t
monocotyledon -- Botanicalgroup in which monocotolyledons (one cotyledon or seed leaf) plantsare placed. Leaves are usually longer than broad. Leai veins are paraliel.
mycelium (a) -- Thread-like body of the fungus generally invisible except during periods ofluxuriant growth.
narrow leaf -- Common term for plants in the monocot group (all grasses, sedges, etc.)
necrosis -- Irreversible decline, death of the tissue. Usually yellow to tan or gray. then brown orblack.
nematode -- Microscopic round worm which mainly infects the roots of plants. Most plantparasitic nematodes need to feed on a plant in order to get food required for reproduction.
node -- A stem joint capable of producing buds, leaves and/or roots.
noninfectious -- Incapable of entering a living plant and causing disease.
nonselective -- Herbicide which kills plants irrespective of species. Not selective for controllingweeds without injury to turf
nursery' turf -- Place where replacement sod or vegetative planting materiax is grown forPlanting elsewhere.
obligate parasite -- An organism incapable of completing its life cycle outside a specific hostplant.
osmosis -- The process by which liquid passes through a semipermeable membrane from a lowerconcentration to a higher concentration.
overseeding -- Seeding a semidormant turf with a cool season grass so that a playable turf isavailable in the wintertime.
panicle -- Matty branched flower head with flowers at the end of each branch. Common ingrasses such as annual bluegrass.
parasite -- Any living organism which is capable of deriving its nutrition from another livingorganism but may not necessarily cause diseise in the host organism.
pathogen -- Any parasite capable of causing a disease.
pesticide -- A generic name given to a chemical capable of controlling insects, pathogens and/orweeds.
IV- 14 5
l:
lr
lr
lr
lr
IT
T
T
t
T
T
I
I
perched water table -- an accumulation of water above the soil interface. An interfacebetween a fine-textured soil and an underlying coarse texture. The continuity of water films isdisrupted, slowed, or stopped altogether.
photosynthesis -- Process by which plants containing chlorophyil are capable of producing theirown food (carbohydrates) from carbon dioxide and water in the
physiological -- The functioning of plant processes dependent on biochemical actions.
poling -- using a limber pole to remove the dew from leaves of grass.
postemergence -- After germination and emergence from the soil.
prostrate -- Growth habit of tendency to rie flat on the ground.
reel mower -- Mower that cuts turfgrass by means of a series of curved, rotating blades whichpull the grass into a stationary ueatiire ani cut tt. g.*, in a manner similar tcr a scissor.
renovation -- Improving a turf rvithout completely destroying the turf characteristics. May ormay not include planting new seed or vegetative materiat intJu, existing
--
residue -- That which remains.
;Iffi:r; *[i"tj:lnd stem with nodes and internodes capabre of producins a new prant at
rosette -- A tuft or cluster of closely crowded leaves arising from a very short stem. caused bythe dwarf or compaction of the internodes.
rotary mower -- A mower that cuts the grass by means of a single blade, mounted parallel tothe surface of the turf and sharpened on each end. The blade revolves at a high rate of speed ina horizontal plane and cuts ths reaves of the grass by imfact action.
rough -- Part of the golf course which borders the tee, fairway and greens. Usually mowed ata higher level and maintained less intensively than other parts of the golf course. Does notusually come into play.
scald -- Injury to turf caused by standing water.
scalping -- Excessive removal of the green portion of the turf plant, leaving brown stubbleexposed.
sclerotia -- Propagules composed of hardened masses of mycelium which aid the fungus insurviving periods of adversity. Golden brown to black in color and spherical to irregular in shape.Can be the size of a cabbage seed to microscopic.
IV- 14 6
l:
l:
l:
!rlr
l,
T
I
t
T
t
I
selective -- Type of herbicide which will control one plant species without irrjury to another.Usually indicates that herbicide will kill weeds withoui injuring certain species of turfgrasses.Excessive rates of apprication may reduce or eriminate the serectivity.
semidormant -- Turf which is in a quiescent stage because temperatures are bel:w the optimumfor normal growth.
senescent -- Plant tissue decrining after reaching maturity. old age.
sheepfooting -- A method of compacting soil in putting green construction. This may beperformed by the use of human feet or mechanicaily by a soir compactor.
slicing -- Method of cultivation or aerification in which a blade cuts through the turfintermittently, perpendicular to the surface.
:::,;,tJ;?:::*"r or strips or turf which has some adhering soir. Usuauv produced in a large
sodic soils -- May develop as a result of irrigation. The soil solution contains only small amountsof calcium and magnesium, but larger quantities of sodium. In some cases potassium salts mayalso be present.
soil applied pesticide -- pesticide which
may be taken up by root and translocated
spiking -- Method of cultivation in which
soil.
is applied to the soil where it has its activity. Some
to other parts of the plants.
r a solid tine or pointed blade penetrates the turf and
sporulate -- Process by which a fungus produces spores.
spot spraying -- Application of a pesticide to small areas. Contrasted to broadcast application.
sprig -- a generic term for a vegetative planting material. May include stems. leaves. roots,stolons, rhizomes, etc.
sprigging -- Establishing turf by means of planting sprigs or storons.
stimpmeter -- A device to measure the speed of putting greens.
stringlining -- The art leveling a soil surface with a marked line using a line wittr string or theuse of a piece of square lumber shuffled across the surface.
stolon -- Above ground stem which spreads laterally at the soil surface producing new plants atthe nodes.
tv-747
t
t
I
I
t
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
t
I
T
I
t
t
suboxidation -- A condition in which soil oxygen is severely limited.
surfactant -- Material which reduces the surface tension of a liquid (such as water) and improvesthe spreading of the liquid on a surface. Usually used with pesticides applied to the foliage toimprove coverage. -- --rr--.
syringing -- Applying a small amount of water, usually in the form of fine droplets, to cool theplant, prevent wilt, or remove dew.
systemic -- Pesticide which is absorbed into a plant through the leaves and/or roots andtranslocated throughout the plant.
thatch -- A layer consisting partially of undecomposed organic matter, between the crown of theplant and the soil surface and/or below the soil surface.
transition zone -- An irregular east-west zone consistent with isothermal lines between warmseason grasses are well adapted. Both may be grown in this zone.
translocation -- Movement of materials within the plant from point of entry to other areas. suchas leaves to roots or roots to leaves.
vascular system -- Conducting or transport avenues in plant tissue, such as veins in leaves.
vertical mowing -- Use of a mechanical device with vertical cutting blades to manage grain andthatch.
verticutting -- Using a vertical mower.
viruses -- Submicroscopic entities consisting of a nucleic acid and a protein sheath. All virusesare obligate parasites as they can only multiply in living plant cells.
warm season turfgrasses -- Species of turfgrass which are adapted to the warmer subtropical andtropical regions of the world. Members of thi subfamilies Panicoideae and Eragrostideae. on golfcourses in warm regions of the world, primarily bentgrasses (cynodon spp.).
weak pathogen -- Organism not capabfe of infecting vigorously growing tissue. It generallyattacks tissue under a biological stress from abiotic -or biotic causes. often referred to as a"secondary pathogen", as it usually attacks tissue previously infected by a primary pathogen.
wetting agent -- See surfactant.
wilt -- Drooping of turfgrass Ieaves due to loss of turgor under moisture stress. Wilt may be dueto acute and/or chronic lack of soil moisture, a dysfunction of the root system such as from a rootrot, excessive salts in the soil water, or from suboxidation which limits the uptake of water asoxygen is essential for the process of water uptake.
rv- 14 8
l
I
ll
lr
lr
lr
lr
l:
lr
Ivlanagement Plan and Risk Assessment
for the Rose Ranch Gol{ Course
Par- h Water Q"^lity Risk fusessment
PrePared For
Roaring Fork lnvestments, LLC
Parker, Colorado
PrePared BY
EtivtRoulu{ENTAL & Tunr SeRucps, INc.
11141 Georgia Avenue, Suite 208
July 10, 1998
N. LaJan Bames, M.S., P.G.
Hydrogeologist
Proled lVlanager
Thornas Ourboror
Enviroomental SclenH
ffi
N. LAJAI{ BARI'J[S
ffi#
Study Dlrector Environmental Scientld
s
Wheaton, Maryland 20902. . -;;::
Stuart Z. Coh€fl,
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Roaring Fork lnvestments, L.L.C. (RFl) proposes to expand the nine hole West
Bank golf course into an 18 hole, championship quality golf course. The golf course
will be integrated with a maximum of 292 houses and other recreational facilities.
The golf course would drain either directly or indirectly to the Roaring Fork
River, a world class trout fishery. Thus RFI has hired our firm - Environmental & Turf
Services, lnc. - to help ensure pesticide and fertilizer use will not impact the river and
other aspects of the local environment, although such an assessment has not been
required by the permitting agencies and commissions.
This volume is the second of two volumes, the first being the lntegrated Golf
Course Management Plan (IGCMP). Both volumes embody principles of the document,
'Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States' ('1996), a consensus
document drafted by representatives of 17 trade, environmental activist, and
govemment organizations. The IGCMP identified 69 potentialweed, disease, and
insect pests, but only eight of these are flagged as 'ke/; i.e., most likely to cause
problems and require pesticide treatments. Twenty five pesticides are listed (including
five 'organiC products) for potential use if there are severe pest infestation problems in
the first five years, and the number is reduced to 16 (with five'organic' materials) if the
integrated pest management program we describe has a moderate amount of success.
The basic purpose of this volume is to assess the potential for any water quality
or avian impacts of the proposed golf course, and to recommend management,
engineering, or design measures to mitigate those impacts. Thus the risk assessment
used as its basis the 25 pesticides proposed for the worst case pest infestation
scenario.
i)t,
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
t
METHODS
The risk assessment and mitigation measure work was done in a three step
process.
!n the first step, the site was visited, drainage patterns and vegetation covers
were observed, and soilwas sampled and analyzed for parameters relevant to
pesticide and water retention. Other types of site and pesticide data were gathered
and evaluated; e.g., intense rainstorm recurrence data and pesticide sorption
properties.
The second step was the actual risk assessment. We applied a procedure
called 'dilution calculations' that we developed for the State of Vermont and have
applied successfully to several other states including golf course projects in Pebble
Beach, California, and Grand County, Colorado. For the stormwater runoff risk
assessment, we divided the project area watershed into three drainage basins
consisting of 12 subbasins. The runoff curve number approach was used to estimate
runoff volumes following 2 yr-retum , 24 hr and 10 yr-retum , 24 hr rain events (1.2 in
and 1.6 in, respectively). Pesticide losses ranging from 0.5% to 5.0% were then 'mixed'
into the Roaring Fork River during a low flow period, and potential impacts on aquatic
organisms were estimated.
Two approaches were used for the ground water assessment. The dilution
calculation method assumes 1o/o ol each pesticide leaches and mixes into the top of the
aquifer along with recharge water. The Attenuation Faclor approach is analogous, but
estimates different mass fractions leached for each pesticide based on its
environmental chemistry.
Analogous calculations were done for the nitrate-nitrogen formed by fertilizers.
fi
I
T It is impoftant to note that our calculations constitute highly improbable,
conservative risk scenarios.
I
I .,."":,::il:ffi::'fi[Tff:il:::1".::L1entiar
impacls to the two species
I coNcLUSroNS AND MrrrcATroN
I Pesticide risk ratios - the predicted concentration divided by the level of concern
I - did not exceed 1 for the ground water or the Roaring Fork assessments. Ther potential nitrate-N impact on ground water was also predicted to be minimal, a 0.5 ppm
I increase over the background relative to the 10 ppm drinking water Maximum
Contaminant Level.
I
Although no impacts are predicted for the Roaring Fork River, potential impacts
I on the Robertson Ditch in the worst case scenario indicate the need for the following
mitigation measures. Details are provided in the text.
' Minimize pesticide use, consistent with the integrated pest management
program. Preventative pesticide applications should only be made
infrequently for pests such as snow mold.
. Pesticides should not be applied before a storm event.
I :::;:1:ffi::Til:.i:i1be
done to determine the appropriate
I ' The site should be engineered to minimize the amount of surface flow
I
run-on from steeper areas, especially in managed turf areas that drain to
the Robertson Ditch.
I
I
I
t
iiiI
I f,t
iv
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
t
Wherever feasible, runoff from tees, greens, and fairways should be
routed to densely vegetated or soft-engineered passive treatment areas
on the margins of the golf course.
Wherever feasible, surface runoff from the reconstructed golf course on
the Westbank Ranch parcel should be routed to the created wetlands.
Holes 6 and 7 should be contoured so that runoff is directed away from
the bank of the Roaring Fork River. Although our calculations indicate
minimal risk potential at this location, it would be a small price to pay for
an extra measure of caution.
A qualitative assessment indicates no potential impacts on the heron or the
eagle, from a pesticide risk perspective.
f,t
il.
il1.
lv.
V.
vt.
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
l.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE, AND RISK ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW I-1A. lntroduction and Purpose l-1B. Risk Assessment Overview l-1
f=*=H:il8,?::':l:li:f ::: ::: : :::::: ::::: : :: :: ii:lB. AreaWeather ....11-1C. Soils and Topography . . . ll€1. General Soil Descriptions .....11€2. Site-SpecificSoil Descriptions.. ....11-73. Topography ....11-10D. Regional and Site Specific Geology/Hydrogeology . . . . ll-10E. SurfaceHydrology .....11-12
SPECIAL INTEREST SPECIES AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS . . III-1A. Plant Communities lll-1B. lnvertebrates.. lll-2C. Fish . lll-2D. Birds lll-3E. Mammals lll-5
HYDROLOGIC PATHWAYSAND POTENTIAL RECEPTORS . . . . . . IV.1A. Leaching Transport to Ground Water . . . . . lV-1B. Surface Water Runoff . . lV-1
PROPOSED TURF CHEMICAL USE V-1
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE, HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA, AND AQUATIC
CRITERIA . VI.1
A. Pesticide Chemistry and Environmental Fate Properties . . . . . Vl-2B. Nitrate Chemistry and Environmental Fate Properties . . Vl4
C. Establishing Human Health Criteria and Standards for DrinkingWaterlmpacts ... Vl-s
1. Domestic Water Supply Criteria . . . . Vl-s2. Water Criteria Based on Human Consumption of Water and
Fish. ..... Vl€D. RiskCriteriaforFishandAquaticlnvertebrates .. ..... Vl-7
1. Availability and Significance of Aquatic Toxicity Data for
Fish and lnvertebrates-the Federal Perspective . . . . . Vl-7
2. Development of Acute and Chronic Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Life in Colorado . . . . Vl-9
E. Summary of Pesticide Chemistry and Toxicity . . Vl-11
fi
vilt.
tx.
X.
xt.
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VII. ASSESSMENT OF TURF CHEMICAL AND NUTRIENT TMNSPORT TO
GROUND WATER Ut.1A. Pesticide Transport Vll-11. The Attenuation Factor Method Vll,12. The Dilution Calculation Approach . . . Vll€B. Nutrient Transport Vll-121. Assessment of Nutrient Losses in Turf Leachate Vll-122. Literature Review Vlt-143. Potential Nitrogen Concentrations Leaching to GroundWater Vtt-15C. Discussion of the Results Relative to Potential lmpacts to GroundWater Vtt-16
ASSESSMENT OF TURF CHEMICAL TMNSPORT TO SURFACEWATER . . VIII.1A. The Surface Runoff Dilution Calculation Approach . . . . Vlll-1B. Runoff Prediction and Surface Water Flows . . . . Vlll-21. Surface Runoff to Receiving Streams . . . Vlll-22. Surface Water Flows in the Roaring Fork River Vlll-13C. Potential Turf Chemical Losses to Storm water Runofi . . . . vlll-1g1. Selection of Turf Chemical Runoff Loss Fractions . . . Vllt-1gD. Potential Turf Chemical Concentrations in Surface Runoff andReceivingWaters ... Vlll-27E. Discussion of the Results Relative to Potential lmpacts to SurfaceWaters . . Vlil-331. RiskRatios... Vtlt-332. lmprobable Scenarios Represented in the RiskAssessment . . Vlll-36
COMPARISON OF MODELING RESULTS WITH EMPIRICAL RESULTS . . IX-1A. MonitoringStudies ....1X-1B. Test Plots . tX-2
CONCLUSIONS X-lA. Ground Water X-1B. Surface Water X-1
MITIGATIONMEASURES .... Xt-1A. Ground Water Protection Recommendations . . . . Xl-1B. StormwaterQualityManagementRecommendations . . . . . . . . Xl-11. ManagementMeasures .....X1-22. Design/EngineeringMeasures .....X1-3
s
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
REFERENCES . . Ref-1
APPENDIXA. Table 1 from USDA, SCS, 1984 . A-9
APPENDIX B. Soil Survey Map with Soil Sample Locations B-1
APPENDIX C. Soil Sample Analytical Results C-1
APPENDIX D. Excerpt, Well Borings, and Trench Diagrams D-1
APPENDIX E. Well Construction Logs E-1
APPENDIX F. Attenuation Spreadsheet Data and Results . . . F-1
Table V-1.
Table Vl-1.
Table Vl-2.
Table Vll-1.
Table Vll-2.
Table Vll-3.
Table Vll-4.
Table Vll-5.
Table Vlll-1.
Table Vlll-2.
Table Vlll-3.
Table Vlll-4.
Table VIll-5.
Table Vll1.6.
Table Vlll-7.
Table Vlll€.
Table VIll-9.
LIST OF TABLES
Projected Maximum Pesticide Use for the Rose Ranch Golf Course V-3
Summary of Selecl Pesticide Environmental Fate and ToxicityData. ....V1-13
Data to Support Human Health Criteria Calculations . . Vl-14
Attenuation Factor Results for the Rose Ranch Golf Course . . . . . . Vll-s
Losses to Ground Water Vll-7
Ground Water Dilution Calculation Results for the Rose Ranch GolfCourse Vll-13
Predicted N Concentrations in LeachateAssuming2% Loss .. . .. Vll-16
Predicted lncreases in N Concentrations in Ground Water Mixing
Zone Assuming 2olo Loss Vll-16
Drainage Basin A Runoff Curve Number Selections . . . Vlll-g
Drainage Basin B Runoff Curve Number Selections . . Vlll-10
Drainage Basin C Runoff Curve Number Selections . Vlll-12
Predicted Runoff Depths and Volumes for Each Subbasin . . Vlll-14
Streamflow Data for the Roaring Fork River at GlenwoodSprings . Vlll-20
Observed Runoff Losses of Pesticides from Turf . . . . Vlll-22
Drainage Basin A Pesticide Use and Surface RunoffConcentrations Vlll-2g
Drainage Basin B Pesticide Use and Surface RunoffConcentrations Vlll-30
Drainage Basin C Pesticide Use and Surface RunoffConcentrations Vlll-31
vii
s
I
lr
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
INTRODUCTTON, PURPOSE, AND RISK ASSESSMENT
OVERVIEW
A. lntroduction and purpose
The Roaring Fork lnvestments, L.L.C. (RFl) has submitted an application to the
Board of Garfield County Commissioners to develop the existing Rose Ranch and West
Bank Golf Course property. lt is proposed that the existing nine hole West Bank Golf
Course be expanded and upgraded to an 18 hole championship golf course within the
combined properties according to the Garfield County Zoning and Subdivision
Regulations. The fully developed 533.5 ac community will include housing and
recreational facilities as well as a golf course.
A key component of this development is the 18 hole championship golf course.
Golf courses use pesticides and fertilizers. The golf course site is above shallow
ground water and parts would drain to the Roaring Fork River and its surrounding
riparian habitat. The river is a world-class trout fishery. RFt is committed to protecting
this environmentally sensitive area. Therefore RFI has requested this lntegrated Golf
Course Management Plan and risk assessment to ensure that there are adequate plans
to protect the area's water resources. This work scope, although not required by any
commission or govemmental agency, is being done to fulfill RFl,s voluntary
commitment to the "Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States'
developed by the "Golf & the Environment' consortium of leading golf and
environmental organizations. Mitigation measures will be proposed for any potential
significant risks that are identified.
B. Risk Assessment Overview
The work scope can be briefly summarized as follows. An lntegrated Golf
Course Management Plan (IGCMP) has been developed that is based on the following
principles:
l-1
I
I
I
t
I
I
' one minimizes the need for pesticides by growing in turf quickly and
keeping it healthy; and
. integrated pest management (lPM) is used, whereby a variety of
pesticidal and non-pesticidal techniques can be used to control or
eradicate pests.
The IGCMP describes two pesticide use scenarios, one with judicious pesticide
I use where IPM is successful, and one scenario where IPM fails and pesticide use is
I
heavy. The latter scenario was used for the risk assessment.
I A risk assessment is a process that either measures or estimates the probability
r of harm. This is done by quantifying exposure to particular substances as well as their
I toxicity to humans and/or other organisms. (When using EPA-based or Colorado-
- based standards, a risk assessment is really only an evaluation of the probability of
I exceeding an action level.) Thus neither toxicity alone nor exposure alone determines
whether a pesticide would €use harm to the environment, rather, the two must be
I combined.
I This volume presents a conservative water quality risk assessment for the Rose
Ranch golf course. This conservative approach is a site-specific modification of the
I procedures developed for the State of Vermont by ETS (Barnes, et al., 1993; Leland,
1994), as part of its statewide golf course regulatory program. (Vermont is the only
I state that requires management plans and water quality risk assessments for golf
courses.) The methodology for the surface water assessment is commonly called
I "dilution calculations," but implicit in these calculations is a consideration for pesticide
attenuation as well. One of the ground water assessment methods in this report
I explicitly considers pesticide degradation.
I
t
I
1-2
fi
I
l-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
T
I
Three types of hazard (toxic effects) criteria were determined for each of 26
pesticides: human consumption of drinking water, human consumption of drinking
water + fish, and aquatic organism exposure.
Details about this approach are provided in sections Vll(A) (ground
water/dilution methods) and Vlll(A) (surface runoff methods). Briefly, percolate water
volume and runoff water volume are estimated using standard techniques. Two
methods were used to conservatively estimate potential ground water impacts, the
Attenuation Factor and Vermont-style dilution calculations. Pesticide runoff loss
fractions were assumed to range between 0.5% and 5% of applied mass, based on
conservative estimates following a careful review of the literature as well as detailed
computer modeling experience. The lost pesticide mass was diluted into surface water
or ground water, as appropriate, and compared with conservative risk criteria to flag
potential areas of concern. An analogous approach was used to assess nitrate impact
on ground water. We made a decision not to quantitatively assess nitrate-nitrogen
runoff potential based on a review of nitrate-related runoff studies (section
Vlll(Cxl)(b)), coupled with the knowledge that nitrate tends to be more of a chronic
than an acute problem whereas stormwater runoff creates acute exposures.
s
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
II. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Location
The present 9-hole West Bank Golf Course is located along the Roaring Fork
River and straddles a portion of two sections (Sec. 35, T.6-5, R-89-W and Sec. 2,T-7-
S, R€g-W) between the towns of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale in Garfield
County, Colorado. The proposed expansion to 1B-holes will include the existing West
Bank Golf Course (Figure ll-1) and the expansion area which includes portions of
Sections 1 & 12, T-7-S, R€g-W (Figure ll-2). Access to the site is by County Road
109, approximately 2.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs.
Area Weather
The following discussion was taken from the "Soil Survey of Aspen-Gypsum
Area, Colorado' (USDA, SCS. 1984). The climate in the Glenwood Springs area
ranges from warm or hot summers to cold winters. The average daily maximum
temperature is 62.8"F and the average daily minimum temperature is 31.0"F. The
annual average precipitation for the period of record 1900-1988 is 16.97" (see
Appendix A). Glenwood Springs recorded the highest temperature in the area of 102"F
on June 23, 1954 (USDA, SCS, 1984).
Fifty percent of the total annual precipitation falls between April and September,
v/hich includes the growing season for most crops. ln 2 years out of 10, rainfall during
those months is less than 5 inches in the valleys and less than 7 inches on the middle
slopes (USDA, SCS, 1984). A2 yr 24-hr storm event produces 1.2" of rain and a 10 yr
24-hr storm event produces 1.6" of rain (Wilkes & King, 1980). Glenwood Springs also
recorded the heaviest 1-day rainfall of 3.2 inches during the period of record in 1969.
The number of days of snoMall varies greatly form year to year, however, on average
I
il-1
\ [,,
. , ,",\,'
i
r.l
i.)
\. 1
li \ I
ir
1l
li
I
1
I
.{
ii
i
ci
:
,
+.
-l
,h\
,1r'rlil\,r!l
ri
,:
i'i,
.t'
-dffrc. trbek-.
Ot-
,.47
l'lil"
t.
l\ ,'
viI:'..
F.
1l+
i
.+,1' i 1:.,
tz
NAme: CATTLE CREEK
Date: 6/29198
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Location: 039'28' 06 2" N 1O7" 17' 09.7"
Caption: Existing West Bank Golf Course
a'
l.
I tl
a,
t..
N.'i,',,
.-i
/.-.:- I
.'.1
'!'
';1! '-.-''
.., !
'r. '.,
l.
),o',
I
I
.-.: ]
I
I
_ ?:t --
<f..
--_-6(
\
:T
Iq
1..,'
Il. \...
l
'l
Name: CATTLE CREEK
Date: 6/29198
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Location: 039" 28'08.8" N 107' 17'01.1"
Caption: Rose Ranch Epansion Area
Copynght (C) 1997, Maptech, lnc
"*r)
\.". 'r.)\',. '.
-r'!t I' lt ;
l
\r,
4'
I
l
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
T
I
there is at least 1 inch of snow on the ground 70 days of the year with the average
seasonal snoMall between 50 and 60 inches in the valleys. The highest wind speeds
are recorded in June, prevailing from the east-southeast.
C. Soils and Topography
The discussion of soils at the golf course site and the vicinity is organized into
two subtopics. The first discussion summarizes the Soil Survey of the Aspen-Gypsum
Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties (USDA, 1984) which
provides information regarding the soils on and surrounding the site. The second
discussion summarizes a site-specific investigation conducted by two ETS staff. ln this
investigation, soil samples were collected on May 6 & 7, 1998 and submitted to A&L
Eastem Agricultural Laboratories in Richmond, VA for analysis of certain physical and
chemical properties.
1. General Soil Descriptions
The following discussion of soils is based on information provided in the soil
survey prepared by the USDA, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the
Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station and other federal, state, and local agencies
(usDA, scs, 1984).
There are approximately seven different soil series that comprise the existing
and proposed site. These are the Almy loam, Atencio-Azeltine complex (sandy loam
and gravelly, sandy loam), Cushool-Rentsac complex (loam and channery loam),
Earsman-Rock outcrop complex (very stony, sandy loam), Gypsum land-Gypsiorthids
complex, Redrob loam, and the Urarca, moist-Mergel complex (sandy loam and cobbly,
sandy loam). A large part of the existing golf course is not included in the soil survey
mapping area, therefore we can only assume that the soil type is the same or similar to
the Almy loam and Atencio-Azeltine complex soils that are mapped at the more
fi
il€
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
southern portion of the present golf course (see Appendix B).
The Almy loam, Atencio-Azeltine complex, and Uracca, moist-Mergel complex
soils comprise the majority of the West Bank Ranch and Rose Ranch sites along the
Roaring Fork River.
The Almy loam (mapping units 6 & 7), 1-25% slopes, is the predominant soil on
the southern-most portion of the proposed site and is also found in the upper area (i.e.,
Dry Park Gulch). This soil was formed in alluvium derived from calcareous red bed
sandstones and shale, and it is well drained with moderate permeability.
The Antencio-Azeltine (sandy loam) complex (mapping unit 13), 3€% slopes, is
mapped on the southern portion of the present golf course and is also assumed to
cover the remaining portion of the present golf course. These soils were generally
confirmed by the results of the soil analyses (RR #3 - sandy loam). This soil complex is
found on alluvial fans and terraces derived from sandstone and shale. The soils are
well drained with moderate permeability.
The Uracca, moist-Mergel complex (mapping unit 109), slopes 12-25o/o, is
mapped adjacent to the Almy loam. This complex is found on alluvial fans and valley
side slopes derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic material. This sandy loam
soil is typified by boulders, cobbles, and gravel, and is well drained with moderately
rapid permeability.
Site€pecifi c Soil Descriptions
Twelve soils samples were collected and at the existing West Bank Golf Course
and the proposed expansion site on the Rose Ranch (see Figure ll-3). Eleven of the
il-7
fi
'at{-
ir
u
36
I \-.I oo-
)-
; t'\,
Name: CATTLE CREEK
Dale'.6129198
Scale: 1 inch equals 1739 feet
Location: 039'28'06.2" N 107' 16'45.5" W
Caption: Rose Ranch: Soil Sampling Locations
Copyright (C) 1997. MaPtech, lnc
-I
't
BY
595
--' '.t,aa'i>,__-^-, - /-_,_-.r,tr ,l
(
-.,\
!
5
SS6
.,, ' '.
'- '-*
1l
_-F
1r
ll)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
samples were composited into seven samples. The twelfth sample was collected from
an area on the east side of Highway 82 on the floodplain of Cattle Creek. This soil may
be used as topsoil for areas on the site that are lacking.
The eight soil samples were submitted to A&L Eastern Agricultural Laboratories,
tnc. in Richmond, VA for analyses of soil texture, pH, organic matter, nitrate-nitrogen,
total nitrogen, phosphorus, and various other naturally occurring elements. The
textural analyses results are consistent with the soil survey and indicate that loams and
sandy loams are present across the site. The pH values range from 7.5-8.3 throughout
the 12 to 18 inch sample depths, indicating basic conditions which is consistent with
the calcium rich soils. The organic matter content ranges from 1.8% from soil collected
in the upper part of the site (i.e., Dry Gulch) lo 4.0% in the topsoil from the borrow pit.
The analytical results are provided in Appendix C.
3.Topography
The elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 5940 ft along the
Roaring Fork River to 6480 ft on the upper most ridge. Topography at the site is mostly
flat to gently sloping in the lower areas of the site of the proposed golf course near the
Roaring Fork River and on the site of the existing West Bank Golf Course. There is a
parcel of the site at higher elevations on the west side of County Road 109. Slopes
range dramatically in this area from very gentle to severe. Four holes are proposed on
the gently sloped area in the valley between two high ridges in this parcel. There are
also two holes proposed on the relatively gentle slopes directly adjacent to Route 109
at the base of the steep ridge.
D. Regional and Site Specific Geology/Hydrogeology
The project site is located in a valley along the Roaring Forking River. Although
the site is located in a valley it is positioned along the eroded crest of the Cattle Creek
ll-10
fi
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
Anticline (Kirkham, et al., 1996) which parallels the Roaring Fork River in this area.
The beds of the anticline on the western slope dip to the west away from the river (Fox
& Assoc., 1974). Kirkham, et.al. (1996) describes the geologic sequence of the
anticline, from the Shannon Oil Company Rose no. 1 located at the southern portion of
section 1 of the project site, as 60 ft of alluvial gravel, 2,065 ft of gypsum, anhydrite,
and siltstone, and 935 ft of predominately halite. The well was completed as a dry hole
in the halite and therefore the thickness of the halite is unknown.
This proposed area is typified by colluvial, older alluvial, and interbedded
evaporite deposits overlain by topsoil. Soils that are underlain by evaporite formations
have a tendency to produce depressions on the surface due to leaching. Hepworth-
Pawlak Geotechnical, lnc. (1997) found that most, but not all of the depressions are in
areas that have been flood irrigated and are located within 500 ft of the Roaring Fork
River. These surface depressions have also been observed in the proposed golf
course area. A detailed description of these geologic features is given in the
geotechnical report by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, lnc. (1997) (H-P) and can be
found in part in Appendix D of this report.
Ground water is found in the alluvial deposits at depths less than 20 ft close to
the river and greater than 20 ft further to the west of the river and at depths below 150
ft in the fractured bedrock (Fox & Assoc., 1974). H-P advanced 12 borings in July,
1997 from -6 ft at an elevation of 5926' to 46 ft at 6013' elevation. Only one 15 ft
boring encountered free water (B-10) at approximately 10 ft below the surface. This
boring was located close to the river at an elevation of 5930'. No free water was found
in any of the borings when checked 5 days later. H-P advanced seven more borings in
December, 1997 and January, 1998 from 16 ft to 61 ft. Elevations range from 5912 to
6036 ft. Water levels were checked on February 5, 1998 and free water was found as
shallow as 4 ft below the surface in B-16, at an elevation of 5942 ft (see Appendix D).
fi
il-1 1
I
I Six trenches were dug at the same time as the latter borings to a maximum depth of 15
ft. All the trenches show a silty, sandy clay layer below the topsoil and/or fill. No free
I water was encountered in any of the trenches (see Appendix D).
I Two other wells were drilled within the last year. Both wells are in close
proximity to the river. One is located in the area of the current West Bank Golf Course
t and the other (Rose well #1) is to the south, on the proposed expansion area. Both
I wells encountered shallow ground water at 19 ft and 16 ft below the surface,
I respectively (see Appendix E).
I The ground water elevation map (Appendix E) shows ground water flow toward
I the river in the alluvial deposits. Ground water in the colluvium will also likely flow
r toward Roaring Fork River. However, ground water flow in the deeper fractured
I bedrock west of the site in Dry Park Gulch will be away from the river, since the
- anticlinal beds dip to the west.
t E. surface Hydrotogy
I
There are two main surface water features in the area of the Rose Ranch
I important to this assessment. These are the Roaring Fork River which forms the
eastem boundary of most of the project site and the Robertson Ditch which flows
t through the interior of most of the site. There is a parcel in the southeast corner of the
project site that is on the east side of the Roaring Fork River. lt is on this parcel that
I the great blue heron rookery described later in Seclion lll exists.
I
The Roaring Fork River is regarded as a world-class trout fishery, thus validatedIf with 'gold medal stream' status. This designation is defined by the highest quality
t habitat offering the best chance of catching a quality fish (Dave Langlois, pers comm.).
I The river flows quite rapidly along the edge of the project site. The annual mean daily
I
I
n-12
f,t
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
streamflow at Glenwood Springs is 1,257 cfs, calculated for a25 year period of record
from 1972-1997. This equates to roughly 812 million gallons per day. Of course, flows
vary throughout the year averaging on a daily basis from 483 cfs in February to 4,218
cfs in June (Sullivan, pers. comm.).
Wetland areas exist on the site adjacent to the Roaring Fork River, between the
river and the upper terraces of the river floodplain that make up the majority of the site.
The Robertson Ditch flows mostly parallel to County Road 109 through the
interior of the lower parcel of the Rose Ranch property. The ditch is approximately 10 ft
wide and generally 3-4 ft deep. The ditch crosses under County Road 109 at the
northern-most entrance to the Rose Ranch property and continues through the West
Bank Ranch subdivision where it rejoins the Roaring Fork River near the northem
boundary of the West Bank Golf Course. Many smaller ditches are diverted off of the
Robertson Ditch across the Rose Ranch and West Bank Ranch properties.
A drainage basin encompassing the upper parcel of the site narrows to an
ephemeral drainage channel that flows west to east under County Road 109 and
across the lower parcel of the Rose Ranch, just south of the ranch homestead, and
continues to the Roaring Fork River. The Robertson Ditch is piped over this drainage
channel.
1l-1 3
d3
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
ilt.SPECIAL INTEREST SPECIES AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Following is a discussion of the plant, vertebrate and invertebrate species that
may be present and of special interest on or nearby the proposed golf course site, and
the potential impacts that may arise from pesticide use on the developed golf course.
The comprehensive "Wildlife Report for Rose Ranch'was prepared by Beattie Natural
Resources Consulting, lnc. and information found in the report is the basis of much of
this discussion.
Plant Communities
The plant species of special interest are associated with the wetlands along the
banks of the Roaring Fork River. The vegetation of the wetlands includes willows (Sa/x
spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), thinleaf alder (Alnus tenuifolia),
narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus augustifolra), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia
cespifosa), blue-joint reed grass (Catamagrosfis canadensis), and redtop (Agrosfis
alba). The total area of wetlands comprises approximately 20 acres along the Roaring
Fork River and an additional 0.5 acre associated with the pond near the site entry and
the drainage channel entering the property from the west.
Potential lmpacts to Plants
The primary route of any potential impacts to non-target plants (i.e., the wetland
vegetation noted above)would result from spray drift from the ground application of
herbicides and runoff of pesticides following storm events. The IGCMP (Volume 1 of
this report) describes the implementation of alternative pest control methods as the
primary defense against pest infestations and recommends the use of pesticides only
when these methods fail. ln a worst case scenario of pest infestation, herbicides would
be applied. However, these plants are generally greater than 62 m (200 ft) from
fainrays, greens, or tees, the areas most likely to receive herbicides. Further,
ill-1
f,t
ilt-2
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
herbicides usually do not have to be applied at the maximum label rate in order to be
effective. Therefore the potential for harm to nontarget plants is minimal.
lnvertebrates
There are no known sensitive, endangered, or threatened invertebrate species
at the Rose Ranch site. Species of special interest are found in the Roaring Fork River
as support for the fish populations. lnsects such as caddisflies, midges, mayflies, and
stoneflies are all important food sources for the fish in the Roaring Fork River. The
immature stages of each insect species are aquatic and provide a high percentage of
the fish population diet.
Potential lmpacts to lnvertebrates
The primary potential impacts to terrestrial invertebrates would result from spray
drift from pesticide applications. Runoff of pesticides following storm events may affect
aquatic invertebrates. The IGCMP (Volume 1 of this report) describes the
implementation of alternative pest control methods as the primary defense against pest
infestations and recommends the use of pesticides only when alternative methods fail.
ln a worst case sc€nario of pest infestation, pesticides would be applied. A prime focus
of the surface water risk assessment (section Vlll) is potential impacts on aquatic
invertebrates and recommended measures that may be implemented to minimize any
potential impacts.
There are no sensitive, endangered, or threatened species in the Roaring Fork
River. The river, however, is internationally known to be a distinctive tourist fishing
area. lt boasts'gold medal stream' status which is defined by the highest quality
s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
habitat with the best chance of catching a quality fish (>14"). The cool waters of the
Roaring Fork River provide habitat for several trout species including brown, rainbow,
brook, and cutthroat as well as other species such as whitefish, blue-headed sucker,
flannel mouth sucker, white sucker, and mottled sculpin (Dave Langlois, pers comm.).
Potential lmpacts to Fish
The primary potential impacts to fish include pesticide spray drift and runoff into
the Roaring Fork River following a heavy rain. Any impacts on the fish population
would carry over to recreation and possibly bio-accumulate to birds and mammals in
the area. Potential impacts on fish is also a prime focus of the risk assessment in
section Vlll.
D.Birds
The bald eagle was recently taken off of the Federal Endangered Species List.
There are no known nesting sites on Rose Ranch, but eagles have been observed
roosting near the great blue heron rookery. Other birds of interest include the golden
eagle and the great blue heron.
The great blue heron is of particular local interest because the only active
rookery in the Roaring Fork Valley is located on the eastern side of the Roaring Fork
River on Rose Ranch. lt is in the community's high interest that this rookery be
preserved. The great blue heron's diet consists primarily of fish.
Potential lmpacts to Birds
Pesticide use on the golf course does not pose a threat to these birds through
direct contact. Acute impacts from pesticide contact are unlikely because there will not
ilt-3
f,t
I
I
I
I
I
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
l:
lr
lr
lr
l:
be direcl exposure to or ingestion of the chemicals. Secondary poisoning through
bioaccumulation from consumption of contaminated prey (primarily fish (herons),
meadow voles and small birds (eagles)) is a risk, however minimal because the target
pests of the pesticides used on turf are fungi, weeds, and insects, not mammals and
birds. Furthermore, the TGCMP will limit the use of pesticides and implement best
management practices to minimize potential impacts. Most important, the types of
pesticides likely to cause secondary poisoning to birds are not included in the IGCMP
(Tumer, 1995).
Recently, EPA amended the labels and registrations of pesticide products that
pose the greatest risk to nontarget birds (EPA, 1994). This was part of a
comprehensive initiative to evaluate and reduce the risks from granular insecticides,
the insecticides most likely to be consumed directly by birds. Thus avian granular risks
from pesticide exposure at this site should be minimal.
The EPA views vertebrate control agents, which are not recommended for use
on the golf course, as the major concern in raptor bioaccumulation. Although many
past studies have shown that eggshell thinning, reproductive failure, and death have
occurred from the use of organochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT, dieldrin, chlordane),
these pesticides have been banned and may not be used on the golf course. The
pesticides proposed for the golf course do not possess the same persistent,
bioaccumulative characteristics and do not pose this threat.
A potential risk might result from a decrease in the prey base. As previously
mentioned, this risk is minimal because the target pests are weeds and insects, not
mammals and birds. Certain species such as small birds and voles which are able to
live close to human populations may still use the area of the golf course. ln particular,
meadow voles are highly adaptable species that are found in a wide range of habitats
and feed on plant material such as grass, seeds, roots and bark (Whitfield, 1985).
s
ilt4
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
t
I
I
I
IV. HYDROLOGIC PATHWAYS AND POTENTIAL RECEPTORS
One important part of any risk assessment is the exposure assessment. The
first step in an exposure assessment involves identifying the potential paths of
exposure to sensitive organisms. Two potential sources are 1) leaching to ground
water and movement of the ground water to the Roaring Fork River and/or domestic
wells and 2) surface runoff to Roaring Fork River and Robertson Ditch.
Leaching Transport to Ground Water
Turf chemicals applied to the golf course reach ground water if transported in
solution (i.e., dissolved in water). Dissolved chemicals may reach ground water by
leaching through permeable layers of soil ancUor rock with water applied from irrigation,
rain, and/or water content from snow.
Drinking Water Supplies
The existing drinking water supply in this area is from two sources: Roaring
Fork River and ground water wells. The West Bank subdivision and the West Bank
Mesa subdivision each have their own community water system supplied by ground
water wells. There are also wells on Rose Ranch proper.
All water supply for the proposed development will come from the Roaring Fork
River via the Robertson Ditch to a water treatment plant for potable use or to ponds for
irrigation of the golf course.
B. Surface Water Runoff
The use of turf chemicals on the golf course would present no risk to non-target
organisms if there is no exposure to them. The primary potential route of exposure of
lv-1
fi
I
I
I
I
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
l:
t:
lr
lr
l:
turf-applied chemicals to aquatic organisms would be through transport in surface
runoff. This may occur due to heavy rainfall or snowmelt occurring at a rate exceeding
the soil and turfls ability to absorb and infiltrate the water.
Surface runoff will likely occur from the golf course turf as sheet flow and then
concentrated flow that will follow the topography to some natural or engineered channel
or basin. The channels may then convey the runoff to the Roaring Fork River or the
Robertson Ditch. There is a prominent drainage channel that conveys snowmelt and
stormwater runoff from the 'Dry Park Basin' that includes the upper parcel through a
long narrow gulch, under County Road 109, and then across the lower parcel to the
Roaring Fork River. Runoff will more likely occur from the fairways, since the tees and
greens will be designed and constructed to optimize infiltration and drainage and the
roughs will have higher grass and potentially more thatch. Some additional runoff from
the golf course will be expected to occur from impervious areas like cart paths and
roofed shelters. Other non-golf areas that drain to the receiving waters (woods, sage,
open space, etc.) will also contribute runoff water, diluting any chemicals that may be
transported from turf areas in solution or adsorbed to eroded soil or organic matter.
There may also be some contribution to runoff via subsurface flow. When steep
slopes and deeper soil layers restrict the free downward movement of water, then some
lateral subsurface flow may occur. The subsurface flow (interflow) may return to the
surface at some downgradient location on the slope, in the drainage channel, or at the
receiving waters.
There will not be any direct surface runoff from the golf course to the Roaring
Fork River, since the holes are proposed to be no closer than 200 ft to its banks. This
provides opportunities to capture and/or treat surface runoff from golf course playing
areas before it is discharged to channels.
tv-2
fi
I
I
t
I
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
t:
l:
lr
lr
l:
V. PROPOSED TURF CHEMICAL USE
Turf chemicals that may be necessary to control various weed, insect, and
disease pests on the golf course are given in the lntegrated Golf Course Management
Plan (IGCMP) prepared for the Rose Ranch Golf Course, volume 1 of this report. The
IGCMP actively encourages a healthy, agronomically sound turf environment through
the implementation of alternative pest control methods as the primary defense against
pest infestations. lf these methods fail, pesticide applications will be necessary to
prevent unarceptable damage to the turf.
There are a total of 26 pesticides proposed for the golf course in a highly
improbable (worst-case) pest infestation scenario: 5 herbicides, 7 insecticides, 12
fungicides, and 2 plant growth regulators. This list is meant to serve the golf course for
its first five years of operation. Four "biorational' products are proposed. One of the
insecticides is a biological product (Exhibito - parasitic nematodes), one is a natural
product (Scott's Turplexo - azadirachtin, derived from the Neem tree), one is a
pesticidal soap (M-Pedeo), and one fungicide is a biological product (Bio-Treko1. Two
products are pending EPA registration and therefore are considered tentative. Only a
small fraction of the 26 pesticides would likely be used in any one year. The variety of
aclive ingredients allow for flexibility in managing turf pests and avoiding the potential
for the pests to acquire tolerances to individual products.*
Table V-1 lists the proposed pesticide aclive ingredients, trade names,
recommended maximum application rates, and anticipated use periods (in a reasonable
worst case scenario). This table is a copy of Table 25 in volume 1 (the IGCMP). This
r lt is important to note that a more likely pesticide use scenario is depicted in
Table 27 of the IGCMP. ln this scenario IPM is reasonably successful, and 16
pesticides (including 3 biological products) are projected to be needed in the first five
years of operation.
v-1
s
T
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
use information has been incorporated into the modeling assessment described in later
sections.
The use schedule described in the table represents what would be a worst case
scenario for pest infestation. The assumption of this use schedule, for the sake of a
conservative risk assessment, is that pest pressures are extreme, and cultural and
biological controls have not been successful. Thus, intense pesticide use becomes
necessary to prevent severe turf damage or failure. This scenario is not realistically
anticipated within the scope of the IGCMP.
A turf fertility program is discussed in Section lV.B of the IGCMP. lnorganic and
organic fertilizers will be used to provide the necessary levels of nitrogen, phosphorus,
and potassium. Table 4 in Section lV.B of the IGCMP lists the likely quick-release and
slow-release fertilizers that will be used on the Rose Ranch Golf Course. The greens
and tees will receive more fertilizers and nitrogen than the fairways and roughs. ln
general, greens and tees will receive more frequent applications of fertilizer at lower
application rates of nitrogen than the fainvays and roughs. The quick-release fertilizers
will be applied typically between April and October at low rates when the turf is actively
growing and rainfall is less frequent. The slow-release fertilizers will be applied at
other times to provide a sustained supply of nutrients to the turf while reducing the risk
of nitrogen leaching below the active root zone.
s
v-2
CHEMICAL TRADE rtrAME Aoolic Rate
tl6i aUacre)
Spring Sunmer Fall
Glufmincate-ammonium (H)
Finale@ 0.81 Jun sep
Pendlmethalln (H)Scctts Weedorass Control
6OWP
1.5 May
2,+O (H)W-A. CleorVs MCPP-2.+D
ISK Turf Cfue@ Herbbiile
1 Jun sep
Trimec0 Classb 1.23 Oct
MCPP (H)Trimec@ Classic 0.65 Oct
WA. Cleary's MCPP-2.+D
ISK Turf CSre@ Herbicide
0.48 Jun SeP
Dbamba (H)Trlmec@ Classic 012 Oct
Banvel@ 0.5 sep
Azadirachtin (l)Scotts Turplex@ Biolnsecticide 0.7 Jun Auo
Chhrpwifos (l)Dursban@WSP Jul
lmldadoprid (l)Merit@ 75 WSP 0.3 May Oct
Halofenozide (l)Mach ll 1.50 Jul Sep
ParasiticNematodes (l)Exhibit@ 1 B/ac May Sep
ksium Salts of FattyAeirls |ll M-Pede@ 1.35 Jun S€P
Spinosad 0)Conserve@ 0.3 Jul
Chloroneb (F)Sccts Funoicide X-
Tenaneb SF
8.15 Oct
Fenarirnol (F)Rubhan@ SOWP 1.36 May Jul
Azqrsfobin (F)Heritaqe@ SOWG 5 Jun Sep
lprodlone (R Chipc@ brand 2@19 FLO 2.72 May Jun, Jul
M€tahxyl (F)SuMu@ 1.36 Jul, Auq
Ivlvclobutanll (F)Eaql@ 0.65 Jun, Aug
PCNB (F)Sc.tE FFll, Turfcideo 10%,
TerracloflO 75% WP
21 .34 Oct
Proplconazole (F)Banner@ 1.1 May Jul sep
Thlophanate+rnfhy't (F)Scots Funoicide lX
clFarvso 3A?6 /Kn'l 2.72 Apr, May Aug ssp
Tdadlmefm (F)Bayleton@ 25 (ursp)5.5 MaV Jul, Aug
Trlchodenna Hazianum (F)BloTrel@ 22 G 0.75 Jun, Jul, Aug Sep
Vtrclrzolh (F)Curlart@ 3 Jul, Aug
Cinpffirb (GR)Prim@ 0.25 Jun
Prclobdrazol (GR)Sccds TGR@ 0.53 Jul
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
Table V-1. Projected Maximum Pesticide Use for the Rose Ranch Golf Course
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
v-3 s
vl.
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE, HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA, AND
AQUATIC CRITERIA
Protection of the surface and ground water resources is a priority for the Roaring
Fork lnvestments, L.L.C. Consequently, this surface water and ground water risk
assessment was requested to support the turf chemical recommendations of the
IGCMP.
A risk assessment is a process that either measures or estimates the
probability of harm, or (in this context) the probability of exceeding some
guidance/action level. This is done by quantifying exposure to particular substances as
well as their toxicity to humans and/or other organisms. (When using EPA-based
standards, a risk assessment is really only an evaluation of the probability of exceeding
an action level.) Thus neither toxicity alone nor exposure alone determines whether a
pesticide would cause harm to the environment, rather, the two must be combined.
ln this report, we evaluate the human and aquatic toxicity of the pesticides and
assess their exposure potential in ground water and surface water by comparing
estimated environmental concentrations to risk criteria (toxicity values). This
assessment was done for the pesticides identified in the IGCMP that may be needed in
an improbable, severe pest infestation scenario. The methods used to determine
estimated environmental concentrations in ground water and surface water are
discussed in sections Vll and Vlll, respectively. The remainder of this section
discusses how the toxicity was assessed and guidance/action levels derived for human
health (C) and aquatic biota (D). Key characteristics of all chemicals are listed in Table
Vl-1 at the end of this section.
s
vl-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
Pesticide Chemistry and Environmental Fate Properties
A pesticide's chemistry and environmental fate properties play a key role in the
determination of its toxicity. The following technical terms are used frequently in this
section: half-life (t%),1<o(soil/water distribution coefficient), & (the ( for organic
carbon in soil), ADI (acceptable daily intake), and HAL (chronic drinking water Health
Advisory Level). lt is importrnifor the reader to review these definitions before
proceeding further.
Half Life (t%l - The time required for half (50%) of the original pesticide to transform to
chemicals that are non-toxic or have significantly lower toxicity. For example, the
herbicide 2,4-O is degraded rapidly, typically with a 6day half life in turf-soil systems,
depending on the climate. Modeling requires the use of rate constants, k, which are
related lo tiA and the rate law for first order decay as follows:
k = 0.693/t%,
decay rate = k[P],
where [P] = concentration of the parent pesticide.
tQ - soil/water distribution coefficient. The higher the (, the more tightly bound the
chemical is to soils. This varies for each pesticide from soil to soil. Pesticides with (
values less than the 1 to 5 range are very mobile in soils and can leach to ground water
if they are persistent.
Ko. - the lt divided by the organic carbon fraction of the soil. This is supposed to be
constant among different soils for each pesticide that is neutral. The t( should be
calculated from the water solubility of the pesticide if experimental data are not
available.
s
I
I ADI - Acceptable Daily lntake for humans in milligrams/kilogram body weighUday.
Usually referred to as the reference dose (RfD)when it represents an EPA-wide
I consensus. ADls are also determined by the World Health Organization.
I HAL - Health Advisory Level, an acceptable concentration level in drinking water based
on the ADI and Q'. Standard assumptions for lifetime exposure to most chemicals are:
t 70 kg person consuming 2 liters of water per day lor TOyears. Standard assumptions
I for childhood exposure to neurotoxins are: 10 kg child consuming 1 liter of water per
I day. ln our calculations, an additional S-fold safety factor was applied to HALs of
I pesticides with significant food uses, to allow for the possibility of additional exposure
I through the diet. This methodology is generally consistent with Colorado procedures
I
(Policy 96-2; see section C below).
I LC* or EG* - The LC* is the concentration in water of a substance which is lethal to
I 50% of the test population in a carefully controlled study environment. The EC* is
I similar to the LC* except that the endpoint is some effect other than death. For
example, a pesticide with an LC* < 0.1 ppm is considered very highly toxic, i.e., a very
I low dose is potentially tethal to the test organism.
I NOEC or NOEL - The No Observed fffect Concentration or Level is the highest
concentration of a chemical in a toxicity test that does not result in any effects that are
I statistically different from the controls.
I Q' - Carcinogenic potency factor. This is multiplied times the dose, or intake, to
produce the carcinogenic risk for group B carcinogens (probable human carcinogens).
I (However, no such pesticides have been proposed by us for this project.)
t
I
I
I
vt-3
s
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. Nitrate Chemistry and Environmental Fate Properties
Nitrate is a naturally occurring inorganic ion that makes up part of the nitrogen
cycle. lncreased levels of nitrate may occur in ground water and surface water as a
result of excessive fertilizer use on the golf course, among other sources. Nitrate can
arise either from direct application (rare) or from oxidation of fertilizers such as urea
and IBDU. These increased levels raise two potential concerns to humans and water
quality - eutrophication and methemoglobinemia. Nitrate may be lost during storm
events when it runs off of the soil to surface waters. Leaching through the soil to
ground water can also occur during recharge. These excess nitrates in surface water,
along with other nutrients, can lead to eutrophication - an accelerated groMh of algae
that results in poor water quality. Additionally, elevated nitrate concentrations in
surface or ground water drinking resources can be toxic to humans and are known to
cause infant methemoglobinemia when reduced to nitrite in the human gastrointestinal
tract. Nitrate is highly mobile in soil. This environmental characteristic usually makes
increased nitrate concentrations more of a concern in ground water than in surface
water.
The EPA has established a nitrate-nitrogen MCL for domestic drinking water of
10 ppm. This risk assessment evaluated the potential impacts of nitrate by comparing
estimated environmental concentrations in ground water to the MCL of 10 ppm. Refer
to Section Vll.C and Section Vlll.C of this report for a discussion of the estimated
concentrations and potential concerns.
Recommendations to minimize the potential increased concentrations of nitrate
are described in section lV.B of the IGCMP. ln general the greens and tees will receive
the most fertilizers with more frequent applications of fertilizers at lower application
rates of nitrogen than the fairways and roughs. The quick release fertilizers will be
applied typically between April and October at low rates when the turf is actively
s
vt4
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
growing and rainfall is less frequent. The slow release fertilizers will be applied at
other times to provide a sustained supply of nutrients to the turf while reducing the risk
of nitrogen leaching below the active root zone.
C. Establishing Human Health Criteria and Standards for Drinking Water
lmpacts
Human risk potential in this report is evaluated, in part, using the guidelines
presented in the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) policy
statement 96-2, "Human Health-Based Water Quality Criteria and Standards". This
policy document addresses the WQCC methodology and rationale for establishing
human health based water quality criteria and standards for Colorado surface and
ground waters. ln accordance with these guidelines, the values derived for this risk
assessment are intended to protect against chronic exposures to consumption of
drinking water and contaminated fish. lf information necessary to calculate a health
based standard was unavailable, federal MCLs (if available) were used. ln the event
an MCL for a chemicalwas more stringent than the health based criteria, the more
stringent of the two was selected.
1. Domestic Water Supply Griteria
The procedures for calculating the lifetime drinking Health Advisory Levels
(HALs) in Table Vl-1 (located at the end of this section) are the same as those
specified by the WQCC (96-2), with two minor exceptions. (See also the definition of
HAL in seclion A above.) For neurotoxins, we use a more protective methodology to
protect toddlers. Also, the RSC (relative source contribution) was only set to 0.2 if
there is a potential for anything more significant than very minor food consumption.
Othenvise, it was set to 1.0 (Table Vl-2) (located at the end of this section).
s
vt-5
I
I 2. Water Criteria Based on Human Consumption of Water and Fish
I We computed criteria for the pesticides based on potential exposure via
consumption of drinking water and fish (Table Vl-1). We used the methodology
t described in WQCC Policy 96-2, which is based on the U.S. EPA's approach for
establishing water quality criteria under section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act.I
I
The formula for computing water + fish criteria is as follows:
r water + fish criterion (ppb) = RfD x 70 kg x 1000 rzglmo
I 2lldaY + (0.0065 kg/daY x BCF),
where:
I RfD = reference dose (formerly ADI) in mg/kg body wt./day,
I li::;=":il::::xg *,,",consump,ion,I :::'::1"1;::::ffi:':il::T:: "
I (Policy 96-2 provides a separate methodology for "carcinogens". We did not use this
I because our pesticide list does not contain any category B or A carcinogens (probable
r human carcinogens or proven human carcinogens, respectively).
I The underlying data we used can be found in Table Vl-2. These data mostly
I came from EPA files and the lRlS database. For those chemicals lacking BCF data, we
estimated BCF values by using the following equation (Kenaga and Goring, 1980;
I rabte 6):
log BCF(0 = -1.495 + 0.935 (log K*);I
I
I
t
vl€
fi
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
BCF(0 = bioconcentration factor for flowing water systems, and
l(* = octanol/water partition coefficient.
The correlation coefficient for this equation was 0.87 (significant at less than the 1
percent level) with n=26 chemicals, many or most of which were pesticides.
D. Risk Criteria for Fish and Aquatic lnvertebrates
Listed below are five classifications that the EPA uses to qualitatively describe
certain ranges of aquatic toxicity of substances to fish and invertebrates based on the
LC* or EC* (Craven, Sept. 1990). These classifications are used in this report to make
general assumptions about how the toxicity of the pesticides may potentially impact
organisms of concern in receiving waters. The development of quantitative water
quality criteria is described in subsection 2 below.
Aquatic Toxicity Categories Based on Pesticide Toxicity Data
Cateqory
Very highly toxic
Highly toxic
Moderately toxic
Slightly toxic
Practically non toxic
LCro or EC*
= <0.1 ppm
= 0.1 ppm to 1.0 ppm
= 1.0 ppm to 10.0 ppm
= 10.0 ppm to 100.0 ppm
= >100.0 ppm
1. Availability and Significance of Aquatic Toxicity Data for Fish and
lnvertebrates - the Federal Perspective
Aquatic toxicity data are available from numerous sources including the chemical
manufacturers, the United States Environmental Protection Agenry (USEPA), and the
vl-7
fi
I
I
t
I
I
T
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USEPA and the USFWS have
compiled and published extensive data bases of acute toxicity of chemicals to aquatic
organisms (Johnson and Finley, 1980; Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986; and Mayer, 1987).
As extensive as these data bases are, there are many organisms and chemicals that
have not been comprehensively evaluated largely due to time and cost constraints.
The available data are generally provided for certain indicator species, as
recommended by the EPA Office of Pesticides Programs guidance document: "Hazard
Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation Procedure, Ecological Risk Assessment."
lndicator species are selected based on criteria such as demonstrated sensitivities to
toxic chemicals and ecological significance in widespread habitats (EPA-OPP/HED,
1986). These data allow for assumptions and extrapolations to be made in assessing
risk of chemicals to other organisms (Mayer, et al., 1987).
Mayer and Ellersieck (1986) and (Mayer, et al., 1987) conducted statistical
analyses of acute toxicity data and found that there are correlations for toxicity to
aquatic organisms and that toxicity of chemicals to one species could be predicted from
toxicity to another species Correlations are best within the same families of fishes and
conelations are generally better from fish to fish than from fish to invertebrates. For
example, two species of fish common to the Roaring Fork River - brown trout and brook
trout - have interspecies correlation coefficients for acute static test values with rainbow
trout of 0.98 and 0.99, respectively (Mayer, et al., 1987).
There are also good correlations among invertebrates of the same families
(Mayer, et al., 1987). Good correlations do not mean that each species would be
equally sensitive to a particular chemical, but a range of sensitivities can be predicted
for one species with little or no data based on the known sensitivities of other species
with data. Estimated environmental concentrations can be compared with at least the
low end of the sensitivities for species more taxonomically distant from the test species
and compared more closely to the test values for species within the same family.
vl€
f,t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
T
I
Devetopment of Acute and Chronic Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Life in Colorado
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality
Control Commission has established specific aquatic life criteria and standards for
selected chemical constituents in'The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface
Water 3.1.0 (5 CCR 1002€) (CDH, WQCC, 1996)". These criteria are descriptive
and numerical standards that define the conditions necessary to attain and maintain the
beneficial use water classifications. The Basic Standards do not define formal
guidelines for deriving numericalwater quality criteria for aquatic life in surface waters,
in the absence of specific published numerical values. Therefore, a procedure to
develop numerical values was established by consulting 'The Basic Standards" and
several EPA guidance documents, notably, "EPA Guidelines for Deriving Numerical
National Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life and its Uses" (Stephan, et al., 1985),
"Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation Procedure, Ecological Risk
Assessment" (EPA-OPP/HED, 1986), and staff of the Water Quality Commission
(Anderson, 1997). This procedure is depicted in Figure Vl-'l and can be briefly
described as follows. Acute and chronic toxicity values were established by using data
for fish and invertebrate test species that occur in cold, freshwater environments -
primarily trout species and daphnia magna. Acute data are required under FIFRA Tier I
testing to register pesticides and were available for all pesticides evaluated. Chronic
data are not as readily available; therefore, when chronic data were unavailable,
numbers were determined by an acute/chronic ratio, described below. To establish
acute values, either the NOEL or the average LC* (geometric mean) for the most
sensitive species was calculated. The NOEL or one-tenth of the LC* value was
compared to the estimated environmental concentrations at the end of the risk
assessment. To establish chronic values, the chronic NOEL of the most sensitive
species of daphnia, fathead minnow or trout was used when available.
n
vl-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure Vl-{. Flow Chart to Determine Aquatic Toxicity Values
-N
LE
Use l/10 LC,
of the most
rensitivc
ryocies
D
Divide vzlue
by 4.o7
(acut{chronic
ratio) to
establish ,in.l
chronic value
Colorado or
EPA
rteaderd
NOEL dete
availablc for
frestrwater
Are acutc
datz
avzilable for
freshwater
h acutc
NOEt
ayailable
Ulr valur lf
mora
rtrlnt.nt
thrn acutc
t/I0 LC |.
l-L
I When chronic data were not available, they were estimated by dividing the acute
value by an acute/chronic ratio. This ratio was developed by selecting the median of
I 18 acute/chronic ratios for 16 chemicals that had acute and chronic data available
(4.07; range=1 .1 I - 17.8, mean-5.90). Data for several of these chemicals were
T
vl-10I
I f,t
o
o
o
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
published in'The Basic Standards" (CO DPHE, 1997) and others are commonly used
on golf courses. Eleven of the chemicals are pesticides. The other five are industrial
chemicals, most or all of which are "Priority Pollutants" under the Clean Water Act.
Struclural classes represented include organophosphates, phenols, benzanilides,
triazoles, polynuclear aromatics, and other classes.
The acute and chronic values were compared to the estimated environmental
concentrations in surface runoff and are presented in Table Vl-1.
Summary of Pesticide Chemistry and Toxicity
The environmental fate and human toxicity of the 20 synthetic chemical
pesticides described in the Management Plan volume of this report and listed in
Section IV were evaluated. (The three organic-based producls, potassium salts of fatty
acids (pesticidal soaps), parasitic nematodes, and neem extract (azadirachtin) were not
evaluated due to their inherent safety. The two new products halofenozide and
spinosad were also not evaluated because toxicity data is not available.) The
principles for evaluation of environmentalfate were described in part by Cohen, et al.
(1984). The principles for human and aquatic toxicity evaluation were described in part
above.
The evaluations of all pesticides are summarized in Table Vl-1. lt would be
impractical to cite in the table all references that were used. However, the following list
of key references contains much of the data that were evaluated.
USDA/ARS Pesticide Properties Database
Rao, et al., 1985
Racke,1993
Willis and McDowell, 1987
vt-11
f,t
:..i::t:i::-l:l:l::::'
r'.r- r: rrn.l rlrrrrri:
::.,1lj,'!\6:::::::::::
ii.iiiii.,iffiliiii.i.
.ill,.ill.i,il.l, .:..
'.,:..,.,:.,:'..:,,,,' ,,.' ', , ,,'.:.. : ji::::,.:: :.,,:::.:::::,'i::'.::::
,,.,". HumaCI Toxicity IIAL.(ppb) ..
ri::t:::j:::i:tr::::i:::jr::::r:r:r:::::::
,i .'.,..',...i ,,[Eci,:l,.'.
,.,:,.,.1..,.,Watef :::
:::::: ::::::oolv:
.:::,,:.:.,::.:..:,.':.:,,::, :.:'.,::..:
:::Water:+rFish,,.,.
iiirliiii]::i:.i.i:i.ttti:i].,::ii.:i::j::i.::]i:i;]:]:i;i|:i
i. r:l::::l::::::::::1
.,.,",, .,.,.,,..,.,
,..l .
{ppaj.....,.......
Glufosinate-
ammonium (H)
1,370,000 +t++7-14 350 735 32,000 7,8621
Pendimettralin (II)0.5 6,390 t2 280 52 13.8 6.3
2,,1-D (II)900 20 6 70 70 400 98.31
MCPPGD 620 130 t2 35 35 I 1.100 2.727t
Dcamba (II)4,500 35 8 200 1,050 100,000 24,5701
Chlomyrifos (T)1.4 9.000 l0 105 20 0.083t 0.041t
Ilalofenozide (t)12.3 149-
360
###360 88t
Tmideclonrid /T\580 319 7 399 2-000 8.300 1.200
Azo:cvstrobin (F)6 1230 2t 6,300 3,U0 44
Chloroneb (F)8.0 1,300 130 9l 452 370 9tt
Fenarimol (F)t4 2,000 120 4200 r5,400 2,989 430
Iprodione (F)14 l,ocl 30 280 1,t20 231 56.81
Metataxvl (F)7.100 35 l6 420 2.100 5,821 l2m
Myclobutanil (F)t42 519 20(est)t75 832 420 l03t
PCNB TF)0 .44 26,600 150 2l 66 4 r.9 l3
Propiconazole (F)ll0 r.323 73 9l 422 208 100
Thiophaoat+ methyl
(TIVO rF)
268 1,830 I 560 2,800 540 1 33t
MBC (TM metab.)8 I,390 35(est)90 (est)9l
Triadimefon (F)7l 2t3 12 2t0 954 338 70
Vinclozalin (F)2.6 2,580 28 r75 651 365 e0t
Cimectacsrb (GR)20,000 59 l(est)8.750 8,580 6_570 410
Paclobuhazol (GR)35 400 49 460 427 2,780 6831
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table Vl-l. Summary of Select Pesticide Environmental Fate and Toxicity Data
H=herbicide, I=insecticide, F=firngicide, GR=g'owth regulator.
'The'organic" or *biorational" pesticides azadirachtin & trichoderma hauianunr, pesticidal soap, and parasitic nanatodes are not listed
here due to their inhereat safety.
|flhe concept ofK* is not entirely appropriate for this pesticide due to the fact that it is not neutral, i.e., it is charge4 at ambient pll
tchrmic value estimated with acutey'chronic ratio of 4.07
|Colorado Aquatic Life Bas€d StsndBrd
# data not available or higfly variable (new EPA regisfation)
vt-13
i)t,
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table Vl-2. Data to Support Human Health Criteria Calculations
:::::l::: ::; ._::::.::::l::::. ll:lll :
ij.i..iosc*.i.j.i
Glufosinat+ammonium
(H)
0.021(est)<0.1 <1 1
Pendimethalin (H)0.0125 5.2 2,300 .2
2,+D (H)0.003/0.002 0.27 <1 .2
MCPP (H)0.001 1.2+1
Dicamba (H)0.03 0.54 <1 ,2
Chlorpvrifos (l 0.003 4.7 1.280t ,2
lmidacloprid (0.057 0.57 <1 1
Azoxystrobin (F)0.18 225tt 1
Chloroneb (F)0.013 1.9 1.9 .2
Fenarimol (F)0.6 3.4 1 13+.2
lprodione (F)0.04 3.1 76+.2
Metalaxyl(F)0.06 1.6 1+.2
Mvclobutanil(F)0.025 2.9 16 .2
PCNB (F)0.003 5.4 1 85t .2
Propiconazole (F)0.0'13 2.8 24+.2
Thiophanat+ methyl (TM)
(F)
0.08 1.5 <1 .2
MBC (TM metab.)0.0026 (est)<1 (est).2
Triadimefon (F)0.03 3.2 31 .2
Vinclozalin (F)0.025 3.0 106t ,2
Cimectacarb (GR)0.25 2.4 6.1 1
Paclobutrazol (GR)0.013 3.2 20*1
'Estimated from the Kow (octanollwater partition) coefficient unless noted otherwise.*RSC=relative source contribution. An RSC of 1 indicates no significant food uses of the chemical.
fBCF data (in order of preference) for edible tissue, muscle, or whole organisms from EPA files.
S$Estimated from water solubility (Kenaga and Goring, 1980).
s
vl-14
I
I
I
I ur. ASSESSMENT oF TURF cHEMTcAL AND NUTRTENT
TRANSPORT TO GROUND WATER
t A. Pesticide Transport
1. The Attenuation Factor Method
The following is a description of one of the two methods we used to estimate
I pesticide leaching potential, input selection, and the results of the calculations.
I Model Descriotion. The following discussion was taken from a paper by Cohen, et al.
I (1995). Rao, et al. (1985) proposed a quantitative index for screening the potential for
I pesticides to leach to ground water. The index is called the Attenuation Factor (AF).
I AF incorporates considerations for pesticide decay and travel time. The latter factor
I incorporates pesticide retention by soils and water flux through soils. The value of AF
r is a fraction, the fraction of pesticide lost below root zone. The equation takes the form:I
I -ff*:
exP(-B) = M/Mo'
I M, = mass lost below the root zone,
I Mo = amount of pesticide applied to the soil surface,
t := i:Xllo",,on rate constant, and
I 6 = pesticide travel time in the vadose zone.
I The travel time tr is calculated by the following equation:
11 = (L)(RF)(FC)/q,
I where:
L = the depth for calculation,
I
I
T
vil-1
f,t
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
RF = retardation factor (1 + pl(o/FC),
p = soil bulk density,
FC = field capacity, and
g = net recharge rate.
[RF can include a volatilization term as well.]
Rao, et al. (1985) evaluated their ranking scheme relative to others and applied it
to 41 pesticides. They determined that several nematicides and herbicides .. EDB,
DBCP, aldicarb, carbofuran, bromacil, terbacil, simazine, and cyanazine -. were ranked
as having high potential to leach to ground water in Florida.
Kleveno et al. (1992) indicated that AF predictions of mass loss reasonably
approximate those of the more complex Pesticide Root Zone Model.
Therefore, the AF is a valid, screening-level assessment technique. Following are
the results of the AF calculations for the Rose Ranch Golf Course.
Assumptions and lnput Selection. The Attenuation Factor was calculated for all
pesticides listed in Table Vl-1. Following is a description of the input parameters.
o Depth. Ground water is found in the alluvial deposits at depths less than 20 ft
close to the river and greater than 20 ft further to the west of the river and at
depths below 150 ft in the fractured bedrock (Fox & Assoc., 1974). Nineteen
borings were advanced as stated above in Section ll(D). One boring
encountered free water at approximately 4 ft below the surface. This boring was
located close to the river at an elevation ol 5942 ft. AF calculations are
designed to be conservative by using a shallow depth to ground water. Although
depth to ground water was encountered at least 4 ft from the surface in one
vfi-z
s
I
t
t
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
boring, a depth of only 12" (30.48 cm) was chosen to be conservative. This
choice assumes no further attenuation as the pesticides leave that depth and
migrate to ground water.
o Recharqe. A value of 15o/o for ground water recharge to the aquifer was used in
the AF calculations using the annual average precipitation and supplemental
irrigation. This assumption is based on personal communication with the State
Engineers Office, Dick Wolfe (1998). Mr. Wolfe stated that typical ground water
recharge for lawn irrigation in this area is 15-20o/o and that golf courses have
very little return flow as recharge, <15o/o, because they are very well managed.
Both are affected by depth to ground water. He also stated that irrigated
meadows next to the creek are well flooded and have a high water table mainly
during irrigation periods and that a high percent of precipitation is consumed by
the meadow plants. Therefore a conseryative assumption of 15o/o recharge was
chosen for the calculations.
The average annual precipitation for the weather station at Glenwood Springs is
16.97 in/year for the period of record 1900 to 1988 (USDA, SCS, 1984). The
average annual irrigation that will likely supplement precipitation was estimated
at a rate of approximately 12.2 inlyr (31.0 cn/yr). However, the peak irrigation
demand for the golf course was estimated at a rate of approximately 24.41 inlyr
(61.98 cm/yr). The estimated peak demand was used in the calculations to be
conservative. The result yields a 15% recharge rate for the Rose Ranch site of
approximately 2.55 in/yr (6.48 cn/yr)for precipitation and 3.66 in/yr (9.30 cm/yr)
for irrigation. Therefore a total recharge of 6.21 inlyr (15.78 cm/yr)was used in
the calculations.
Oroanic Carbon Content. The organic carbon fraction for the soil series was
determined to be 0.0153 (1.53%) based on the average organic matter content
f,t
vil-3
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
from the soil sampling results for the 0-12" depth (see Appendix C). (O.M.oZo *
1.724 = O.C.%.)
o Soils/G and t(. Soils were sampled in May, 1998 to verify the soil survey for
this area. (0" values were obtained from individual pesticide information and
based on the use for Colorado. The organic carbon fraction multiplied by the K*
values listed in Table Vl-1 generate t( (soil/water distribution coefficient) values.
( values are used to calculate retardation factors.
o Soil Half-Life. Values were obtained from individual pesticide information and
based on the use for Colorado. Values are listed on Table Vl-1 and are used in
Appendix F calculations.
AF Results. AF values and results are listed in Appendix F. The AF results were used
to calculate a concentration in ground water as follows. The mass fraction to be
leached (predicted leach fraction " pesticide mass applied) was mixed (diluted) into
reclrarge water and ground water. The volume of ground water can be calculated from
the proposed treated area of the golf course (103.5 ac, managed areas), the thickness
of the aquifer (10 ft), and the effective porosity (34.9%) of the aquifer. The product of
the total annual pesticide applied (in pg units) and the AF results (dimensionless units)
divided by the ground water volume (4.454 "108 l) yields the concentration results (in
;tg/l). Table Vll-1 shows the results. These results show that ground water
concentrations do not exceed HALs and that there is no presumption of risk to human
health. Presumption of risk is explained further in section Vll.C.
f,t
vil-4
Pesticlde Total Pesticide
Applied in One
Year
Attenuation
Faclor*
Ground
Water
Conct
Health
Advisory
Level
Risk Ratio
lbs ug *ppb ppb
Herbicides
glufosinate 0.62 2.81e+8 4.37e-58 2.75e-58 350 0.00
2,4-D 96.9 4.40e+10 4.95e-27 4.89e-25 70 0.00
dicamba 7.9 3.59e+09 5.08e-26 4.09e-25 200 0.00
MCPP 48.3 2.1 9e+1 0 1.79e€9 8.80e-59 35 0.00
Pendimethalin 67.5 3.06e+10 0.00 0.00 280 0.00
lnsecticides
chlorpyrifos 3.5 1.59 e+9 0.00 0.00 105 0.00
imidacloprid 11.1 5.Me+9 0.00 0.00 399 0.00
Fungicides
azoxvstrobin 285 1.29e+11 0.00 0.00 6300 0.00
chloroneb 232.3 1.05e+11 1.35e-52 3.18e-50 91 0.00
fenarimol 50.3 2.28e+10 7.55e47 3.86e€5 4200 0.00
iprodione 310.1 1.41e+1 1 0.00 0.00 280 0.00
metalaxyl 23.1 1.05e+10 4.25e-15 1.13e-13 420 0.00
myclobutanil 37.1 1.68e+10 0.00 0.00 175 0.00
PCNB 181.4 8.24e+1O 0.00 0.00 21 0.00
propiconazole 94.1 4.27e+10 1.12e-94 1.07e-92 9.2
thiophanate-
methyl
201.3 9.1 4e+1 0 0.00 0.00 560 0.00
MBC+50o/o 4.57e10 0.00 0.00 90 (est.)0.00
triadimefon 305.3 1.39e+11 6.25e-96 1.95e-93 210 0.00
vinclozolin 171.0 7.76e+10 0.00 0.00 175 0.00
Growth Regulators
cimectacarb 20.0 9.08e+9 0.00 0.00 8750 0.00
paclobutrazol 21.2 9.62e+9 7.60e44 1.64e42 460 0.00
I
I Table Vll-l. Attenuation Factor Resutts for the Rose Ranch Golf Course
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'values less than 1e-100 are considered equal to zero.
-units dimensionless
t g. w. conc. - total annual pesticide applied ' AF * g.w. volume (4.454 ' 1 08 l)t metabolite of thiophanat+'mehy,l, assumes 50% tinsformation of applied parent material
vll-s
i)t,
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
2. The Dilution Calculation Approach
This is an alternative ground water risk assessment method that is based on an
approach we developed for the State of Vermont (Barnes, et al., 1gg3).
Leaching Calculations
A pesticide mass loss of 1% was calculated based on previous pesticide
leaching studies. The following is a more detailed explanation of the leaching
methodology.
The work of Boesten (1987), summarized the results of 25 agricultural pesticide
leaching studies and found that the fraction leached below the shallow sampling depth
was always less than 6% and usually less than 1%. The dense root system of turf
compared with agricultural crops tends to enhance pesticide dissipation via
degradation by microbes, plant uptake, and sorption to thatch and root zone organic
matter.
To determine the appropriate leachate fraction, the literature was reviewed, and
leading researchers were contacted (Branham at Michigan State (presently at U.
lllinois), Gold at U. Rhode lsland, and Smith at U. Georgia). The results are outlined in
Table Vll-2.
The field and modeling study results were averaged, with the following
exceptions. The Boesten review was not included because it focused on agricultural
and fallow ground scenarios. The Niemczyk and Krueger results were not included
because their measurement methods did not allow them to estimate leaching loss more
precise than less than 5%. Branham has advised against using his results for this
purpose due to the shallow sampling depth. For example, he has found no leaching of
isazofos in field plots after approximately two years of study (Branham, et al., 1994).
Ivil€
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Table Vll-2. Losses to Ground Water
Pedlclde Stndy Type Site Characieristics Depth of Measurement Leachirq Loss Reference Remarts
2.+O modelinq Maul. Semiarid. Permeable clays.14m 0.04%ETS (1992)
rnarrcozeb 0'%
ETU (marrcozeb metabolite)2.3'10{%
[recoDrop 6.2'1d%
mdalaryl 1.1%
melribruzln 0.013%
trbhlorfon 1.5'10{%
bazofos greenhouse/ leld cool season gmsses bottom of rmt zone <5%Niemcay,k & kueger
(1987)
atrazlne, bentazon, dicamba,
2,4D, aM terbacll
inigated field varied agricultural corn, fallor, citrus 0.96m, typlcally 1.0m 0.007-5%, average
= 1.05 r 'l .7%
(n=1 1 )
Boesten (1984 Only data from table 2 $/ere
used, wtrlch reflected rainfall +
lnloation
2,+O freld plots bluegrass and fetcue. Sandy loam.
2% OM. 2-3% slope. l-2 cm thatch
Hlgh & k ,v lnlgation regimes.
20 cm 0.4%Gold et al. (1988)Probably the best example of
this group that is relet/ant to
Vermont
dlcamba 't.0%
lsazofm + metabolile (CGA
171s3)
model ecosystems in
groivth chambers
total mass balance sy6tem. Sandy
loan wtth Kentrcky bluegrass.
5cm 9%Branham, et al. (1S3)Very.shallow sampling depth
(7)
dac{hal (DCPA) metabolites total ma6s balarrce system. SH
soinhatcMrrioatlon scenarios.
p = 11 t 9%
chlorpyrlfos lieH plcd on golf course
falrwav
Annual bluegrass orerlying sandy
loam Msparse thatch
3.5 crn <'l%
(assume 0.5%)
Sears and Chapman
(1S79)
Very shallorv sampling depth
(1')
benornyl greenhouse lGntucky bluegrass.
Silt loam.
4ln (10 cm)<0.1%
(assume 0.05%)
Rhodes and Long (1 974)Mass % losl based on r'C.
frt
vl!-7
-
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Table Vll-2. (cont'd)
Pesticide Study Type Site Characteristics Depth of
Measurement
Leaching Loss Reference Remarks
chlorothalonil field and greenhouse greenhouse lysimeters
wood boxes with steel bottoms
40 x 40 x 15 cm deep
w/inigation; field plots used
steel drainage lysimeters 55
cm diameter by 52.5 cm deep;
both field and green house
plots planted to bentgrass and
bermudagrass
15 cm O.O4% + 0.14o/o
as metabolite
Smith and Bridges
(1 994)
soil profiles
representative of
greens built to USGA
spec. Both field and
greenhouse sites were
protected from natural
rainfall and received
inigation
(n=7)
chlorpyrifos not detected
(assume 0.05%)
dithiopyr <0.35%
(assume 0.18%)
f,
2,4-D <0.5%-1.16%
(assume 0.58%)
dicamba ND-o.13%
(assume 0.06%)
MCPP 0.08-0.2%
(assume 0.14o/o\
tt
{)rt
VII-B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
t
T
I
I
The average leaching loss of the remaining results is 0.24% t 0.34o/o ( *1 std.
dev.), n=18. The upper 95% confidence limit of this estimate is:
0.24o/o + (1.7 40 * 0.34%1,/1 8) = 0.38%,
where,
1.740 = t value 'for 17 degrees of freedom (n-1) at a 0.05 level of
significance for a one-tailed test.
We rounded 0.38% up to 1oh lo be more protective/conservative.
Recent data provide semiquantitative confirmation of these low percentages.
US Golf Association grantees recently completed three years of research on the
environmental fate of pesticides applied to turf. Leaching losses were typically less
than 0.5%. Pesticide losses exceeding 2% only occurred in sandy soil test plots less
than two years old.
Smith and Bridges (1996a and 1996b) found that less than 0.9% of applied 2,4-
D, dicamba, and MCPP leached through simulated bentgrass and bermudagrass
greens. Cisar and Snyder (1996) examined the environmental fate and transport of
organophosphate (OP) pesticides on a bermudagrass green built to USGA
specifications. Over a period of two applications (3-5 mos.) less than 0.1% of the
amounts applied of the OP pesticides chlorpyrifos, isazofos, isofenphos, and ethoprop
were recovered in percolate water.
It is important to remember that these calculations are based on masses lost
below very shallow depths, typically much less than 1 m. Thus additional degradation
or dispersion in the subsurface is ignored, and the actual mass that reaches ground
water will likely be much less.
vil-9
fi
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
The pesticide mass is assumed to leach via recharge water through the turf root
zone and continue to ground water. These assumptions do not consider the specific
environmental fate properties of the individual pesticides. The concentration in the
ground water mixing zone is equal to the leached pesticide mass (1o/o of the surface
residue) divided by the total ground water mixing (dilution) volume. The total ground
water mixing (dilution) volume = the total volume of the recharge (from precipitation and
irrigation) plus ground water dilution volume (i.e., that portion of the aquifer directly
under the site).
The potential for the proposed pesticides to leach to ground water is addressed
in the following paragraphs with the understanding that this is a conservative
evaluation and does not thoroughly address the complex environmental processes that
affect the movement of chemicals through soil, especially at this site where clayey soils
restrict recharge as well as the movement of pesticides. But for our calculations it is
assumed that the soils will be a sandy loam and loam consistency (based on the
average texture from the soil analysis, see Appendix C) and that there is no clay layer
that will restrict recharge or pesticide movement to ground water. lt is a conservative
dilution calculation of a portion of the proposed applications of pesticides into the
aquifer recharge across the area of the golf course and subsequent dilution into the
alluvium water table aquifer.
b. Calculations of Potential Concentrations in Ground Water
The dilution calculation approach also assumes a 15% average annual recharge
for the golf course. Annual average precipitation for the period of record 1980 to 1988
from the Glenwood Springs weather station is 16.97 in/yr (USDA, SCS, 1984). The
average annual irrigation that will likely supplement precipitation was estimated at a
rate of approximately 1 2.2 inlyr (31 .0 cm/yr) to provide healthy turf. However, the peak
inigation demand for the golf course was estimated at a rate of approximately 24.4
I
vll-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
T
t
I
I
I
in/yr (61.98 cm/yr). The estimated peak demand was used in the calculations to be
conservative.
The average annual recharge based on precipitation alone is 2.55 inches (6.48
cm). This yields a total precipitation recharge volume of 139.8 million liters (36.93
million gallons/yr) for the total development area (533.5 ac). The estimate peak
inigation water necessary to supplement precipitation is 347.5 million liters/yr (91.82
million gallons/yr). The proportion of irrigation water recharge to irrigation is assumed
to be equal to the proportion of precipitation recharge to precipitation (i.e., 15% ot
annual precipitation and or irrigation moves downward to ground water as recharge).
Thus we assume that 15o/o of the 347.5 mitlion liters/yr (91.82 million gallons/yr) of peak
inigation water also recharges ground water. lrrigation will be applied at rate that will
not produce runoff and is included in the calculations to be conseryative. The
contribution of irrigation recharge to the dilution calculations is 52.13 million liters/yr
(13.77 million gallons/yr). The total recharge volume over the total development area
(533.5 ac) including the irrigation water recharge (52.13 million liters) and the
precipitation recharge (139.8 million liters) is 191 .93 million liters/yr (50.70 million
gallons/yr).
It is assumed that shallow ground water resides everywhere across the site.
This assumption simplifies the analysis. The thickness of the alluvium determined by
Shannon Oil Co. Rose no. '1 was 60 ft. Although this log shows 60 ft of alluvium in the
southern portion of the site, only 10 ft of the shallow ground water is used in the dilution
calculations to be conservative. The mean effective porosity can be derived from the
difference between saturation water content and residual water content for respective
soil textures (Mullins, et.al., 1993). A mean average value ol34.9o/o was chosen to
represent effective porosity for a sandy loam and loam texture in this area based on the
average texture of the soils from the soil sampling analysis (see Appendix C). A high
porosity is a very conseryative assumption. The volume of the grcund water can be
fi
vll-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
B.
1.
calculated from the treated area of the golf course (103.5 ac), the thickness of the
aquifer (10 ft), and the porosity (34.9olo). The final dilution mixing volume is given by
the following equation, assuming that the pesticides that leach from the root zone mix
into the thickness of the colluvium/alluvium (10 ft) recharged by ground water:
total recharge volums + ground water volume = total dilution (mixing) volume
(1.919 * 108 liters) +(4.454 * 108 litersl =6.373 * 108 liters
The results are shown in Table Vll-3. The potential risk implications of these
results are discussed in section C below.
Nutrient Transport
Assessment of Nutrient Losses in Turf Leachate
The prime nutrient of concern for potential ground water quality impacts is
nitrogen. Phosphorus tends to form insoluble complexes under certain conditions, and
also binds to clays and organic matter. Therefore it does not tend to percolate to
ground water under normal turf management conditions. Potassium is mobile but non-
toxic. lt is not usually a nutrient of concern in ecological assessments, including
sensitive wetlands sites.
Nitrogen, however, can cause excessive topgroMh of vegetation, algal blooms,
etc. Therefore it is necessary to predict nitrogen losses to the environment. There are
no readily available, validated percolating models that can simulate the transformation
and transport of nitrogen fertilizers. Therefore an approach was used in this
assessment that is similar to the approach used above for the pesticides: average
nitrogen (N) loss rates from the soil profile were estimated from test plot data published
in the scientific literature, and the percolated mass was mixed into ground water.
i)t,
vil-12
I
I Table Vll-3.
3:"#:j
Water Dilution Calcutation Results for the Rose Ranch Golf
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
Pesticide Total Pesticide
Applied in One
Year
Mass
Leached
(total " 1%)
Ground
Water
Concr
Health
Advisory
Level
Risk Ratio*
@1%
leaching
rate
lbs ttg ug ppb ppb
Herbicides
olufosinate 0.62 2.81e+8 2.81e+6 4.41e-3 350 0.00
2,4-D 96.9 4.49s+10 4.40e+8 0.69 70 0.01
dicamba 7.9 3.59e+09 3.59e+7 0.06 200 0.00
MCPP 48.3 2.19e+10 2.19e+8 0.34 35 0.01
Pendimethalin 67.5 3.06e+10 3.06e+8 0.48 280 0.00
lnsecticides
chlorpyrifos 3.5 1.59 e+9 1.59e+7 0.02 105 0.00
imidacloprid 11.1 5.04e+9 5.04e+7 0.08 399 0.00
Funqicides
azoxvstrobin 285 1.29e+11 1.29e+9 2.02 6300 0.00
chloroneb 232.3 1.05e+11 1.05e+9 1.65 9'l 0.o2
fenarimol 50.3 2.28e+10 2.28e+8 0.36 2100 0.00
iprodione 310.1 1.41e+11 1.41e+9 2.21 280 0.01
metalaxyl 23.1 1.05e+10 1.05e+B 0.16 420 0.00
mvclobutanil 37.1 1.68e+10 1.68e+8 o.26 175 0.00
PCNB 181.4 8.24e+10 8.24e+8 1.29 21 0.06
orooiconazole 94.1 4.27e+1O 4.27e+8 0.67 9.2 0.07
thiophanate-
methvl
201.3 9.14e+10 9.14e+8 1.43 560 0.00
MBC'50o/o 4.57e10 4.57e+8 0.72 90 (est.)0.01
triadimefon 305.3 1.39e+11 1.39e+9 2.18 210 0.01
vinclozolin 171.0 7.76e+10 7.76e+B 1.22 175 0.01
Growth Requlators
cimectacarb 20.0 9.08e+9 9.08e+7 0.14 8750 0.00
paclobutrazol 21.2 9.62e+9 9.62e+7 0.15 460 0.00
+ion mixino volume (6.373 -rl".''-!f on mixing volume (6.373 . 1081)I ' metabolite of thiophanate.methyl, assumes 50% tansformation of applied parent material
I
t
tRist Ratio = gr,v conc + HAL.
vll-13
f,t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
2. Literature Review
Petrovic (1990) reviewed the literature on nitrogen losses from turf. He
evaluated N uptake by turf and loss in runoff, percolate, and volatilization. Data from
approximately 40 papers were reviewed. He concluded that N leaching losses ". . .
generally were far less than 10%."
Three papers are available that quantify N-leachate losses in cool season
turfgrasses, similar to what might be encountered at the Rose Ranch Golf Course.
Sheard et al. (1985; cited in Petrovic, 1990) observed 1.2o/o and 2.0o/o of the applied N
(293 kg N/ha/yr) was collected as nitrate in the drainage water for an entire year on
greens fertilized with sulfur-coated urea or urea, respectively. They studied creeping
bentgrass sand greens.
Branham et al. (1994) studied the fate of N on a turf ecosystem. Two
applications (spring and fall) of water-soluble N (196 kg N/ha) were applied in a two
year test. Two years after the spring application, 0.005 or 0.01% of the N were
recovered in the lysimeter effluent from the fall and spring applications, respectively.
Brauen et al. (1994) observed that annual applications of N (391 kg ha-1 yr1) to
creeping bentgrass plots resulted in 1% leaching of total applied N after 1 year and
0.02o/o leaching after 2 years. These results refer to the modified sand rootzone
medium (88% sand, 10% peat, 2% silt loam) and a combination of slow-release and
quick-release N.
An average of 0.69% (with $.89% standard deviation) was calculated based on
the leaching studies cited above. Adding one standard deviation to the average yields
a value of 1.51%. Therefore the high value from the cited leaching rates of 2o/o was
used in our risk assessment.
fi
vil-14
I
I
I
I
I
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
t:
t:
The results of a recent study by Miltner, et al. (1996) confirm the conservative
nature of this assumption. The fate of urea (LFN) applied to Kentucky bluegrass over a
fine sandy loam was examined over a two year period. Total leachate recovery was
less than 0.23% and the authors concluded that "a well-maintained turf intercepts and
immobilizes LFN quickly making leaching an unlikely avenue of N loss from a turf
system."
3. Potential Nitrogen Concentrations Leaching to Ground Water
The calculations below were done using lhe 2o/o N-leaching rate described
above. Thus the N mass in the 2% leachate rate was determined simply by multiplying
0.02 times the maximum total N likely to be applied. This was based on the total
annual application supplied by the IGCMP and the following areas of managed irrigated
turf:
tees and greens 370,260 ft2 1e.5 acl
fairways and roughs 4,138,200 ft2 1S5 ac1.
The proposed annual nitrogen application is 8-10 lbs/1000 ft2 for greens/tees
and 6-8 lbs/1000 ft2 for fairways/rough (O'Connor, 1998). The calculations are shown
for the actual annual usage.
The nitrogen load (that which is available to percolate) is divided by the total
annual recharge (precipitation and irrigation, 1 .919 . 108 11 to determine if the
concentration will exceed the U.S. EPA recommended 10 ppm (mg/l) MCL. Nitrogen
mass moving to ground water, assuming a 2o/o leaching rate, was divided by the annual
recharge to ground water as shown in Table Vll-4. Table Vl14 shows that the nitrogen
concentration does not exceed the 10 ppm recommended concentration for the actual
annual usage.
vll-15
s
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
Table Vll4. Predicted N Concentrations in Leachate Assuming 2% Loss
Amount N mass
(mg)
(annual)
Recharge (l)
(annual)
N conc. in
percolate
(ppmXms/l)
minimum 2.53 * 108 1.919 * 10E 1.3
maximum 3.34 * 108 1.919 * 106 1.7
The same method used to determine potential pesticide concentrations in
leachate and mixing in ground water will be used to determine potential nutrient
concentration in ground water. The total dilution (mixing) volume is 6.373 * 10E
liters. Table Vll-5 shows that nitrogen mixing in ground water further dilutes the
nitrogen concentration well below the 10 ppm MCL.
Table Vll-s. Predicted lncreases in N Concentrations in Ground Water Mixing
Zone Assuming 2% Loss
Discussion of the Results Relative to Potential lmpacts to Ground Water
The assessment of health risks to humans from pesticide applications on the golf
course has focused in part on potential leaching of the pesticides to ground water.
Once again, risk is based on two governing factors: toxicity and exposure.
Conservative dilution calculations were computed for each pesticide to produce worst
case concentrations in ground water. Comparisons of the conservatively derived
n
Amount N rnass (mg)
(annuar)
Ground waterdilution vol.
(liters)
N conc. increase'
(mg/l;ppm)
MCL
(ppm)
minimum 2.53 " 108 6.373 " 108 0.40 10
maxtmum 3.342" 10E 6.373 " 10E o.52 10
'Ground water mixing zone.
vil-16
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
ground water concentrations for each of the pesticides with their respective HALs
allows one to make decisions concerning potential risks of the use of those pesticides
on the golf course. A risk ratio was computed for each pesticide to indicate whether or
not the use of the pesticide should warrant concern for human health based on the
assumptions of the assessment. The risk ratio for ground water is the ground water
concentration divided by the HAL. Values greater than or equal to 1 indicate that there
should be a presumption of risk with the use of the pesticide as defined in the
calculations. A value less than 1 suggests that the use of the pesticide would not
present a risk to human health. Pesticides with a risk ratio greater than '1 indicate that
they could leach in amounts sufficient to reach concentrations in ground water in
excess of the HALs, based on the worst case assumptions of this assessment.
Table Vll-1 presents the Attenuation Factor comparison of ground water
concentration to their respective HALs, conservatively assuming high porosity, shallow
depth to ground water, no clay impeding flow, and estimated peak irrigation demand for
recharge. Table Vll-3 presents the comparison of ground water concentrations of the
pesticides to their respective HALs, conservatively assuming 1% of the applied active
ingredient of each pesticide leaches to ground water. A risk ratio was computed for
each pesticide to indicate whether or not the use of the pesticide should warrant
concern for human health based on the assumptions of the assessment. There are no
pesticides that exhibit a risk ratio greater than 1 for the 1% leaching scenario from the
dilution calculations or from the Attenuation Factor method.
The nitrogen concentration in the ground water mixing zone assuming a 2% loss
is significantly well below the MCL (10 ppm) for the average annual usage. Nitrogen at
a2o/o loss to ground water does not pose a health risk at the levels calculated in the
ground water mixing zone. These calculations were based on very conservative
assumptions for the physical characteristics of the site as described above.
vil-17
s
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VIII. ASSESSMENT OF TURF CHEMICAL TRANSPORT TO SURFACE
WATER
This section describes the methods used for the diffuse surface runoff dilution
calculations and discusses the analysis results and their significance. The analysis
presented here is based on the worst case pesticide use scenarios described in the
IGCMP (Volume I of this report).
A. The Surface Runoff Dilution Calculation Approach
An overview of this conservative risk assessment process was presented in
Section l. Briefly, the dilution calculation approach we developed for the State of
Vermont was used to determine essentially the upper limits of potential pesticide
impacts on surface water, and two methods were used to assess potential ground water
impacis (Barnes, et al., 1993). The approach was refined to make it more specific to
this Colorado site.
The surface runoff assessment is explained more thoroughly in the remainder of
this section and can be summarized as follows:
determine the mass amount of each turf chemical that would potentially
run off from the application site due to heavy rains, based on an very
conseryative interpretation of literature data, and assuming the pesticides
are applied immediately before the rain starts;
calculate the depth and volume of surface runoff generated from heavy
rainfall using the Runoff Curve Number procedure (TR-55);
determine the concentrations of pesticides in the runoff water by dividing
the amount of chemical lost by the runoff volume;
determine the concentrations of pesticides in the receiving waters by
diluting the amount of chemical lost into the runoff water and the receiving
waters assuming low flow conditions; and
i)t,
vilt-1
B.
1.
t
I
t
t
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
assess the concentrations relative to potential water quality concerns
involving aquatic organisms and human health.
It is important to understand that this risk assessment is based on a series of
assumptions that have a very low probability of occurring together, i.e., intense, locally
isolated rain storms follow within 0-2 days of applications of pesticides made to the
largest aerial extent anticipated on the golf course, while at the same time the receiving
waters exhibit extreme low flow conditions.
Runoff Prediction and Surface Water Flows
Surface Runoff to Receiving Streams
Runoff Prediction Using the NRGS Curve Number Method
The TR-55 procedure (USDA, SCS, 1986), developed by the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) was used to predict the
volume of diffuse runoff produced from 24 hour duration rainfall events. This procedure
is also called the Runoff Curve Number method because an empirically derived runoff
curve number (CN) is used to convert rainfall amounts into runoff. The CN is derived
based on soils, plant cover, amount of impervious area, plant interception, and surface
storage. The runoff equation follows:
1P -1,)2v=-- (P-l,) +S
Q = runoff (inches);
P = rainfall (inches);
S = the potential maximum retention after runoff begins (inches); and
l.= the initial abstraction (inches).
,1)t,
vill-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
The initial abstraction value accounts for all losses before runoff begins and is
approximated by l"=0.2*S. The parameter S is related to soil and cover conditions and
incorporates the CN as follows:
s_ 1000 _10
CN
Assumptions for the Selection of Representative Runoff Curve Numbers
Three distinct drainage basins were delineated that comprise the site of the
proposed golf course. These three drainage basins all terminate at the Roaring Fork
River. ETS considered, for surface runoff calculations, only those parts of the Roaring
Fork watershed that encompass the golf course site. That is, the potential runoff
contribution from the remainder of the Roaring Fork River valley was not included in
this assessment. By doing so, we made a very conservative assumption for this
assessment that a storm cell might pass over the project site and nearby adjacent lands
and stall for a full day without significantly encompassing the entire watershed of the
Roaring Fork. This is one of many conservative assumptions used in the risk
assessment. The drainage basins for the golf course are shown on Figure Vlll-1.
Soils and land use assumptions were made based on reviews of data available
in the Soil Survey of Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado (USDA, SCS, 1984), a site specific
soil investigation and observations made by ETS during a site visit on May 12-14,
1998, a drainage report prepared by High Country Engineering (HCE, February 12,
1998), and the February 1998 Rose Ranch Sketch Plan prepared by the Rose Ranch
PUD development team.
Soils. The soils throughout the site and adjacent, upgradient areas are primarily
classified by the NRCS as hydrologic soil group (HSG) B and D soils. (Soils percolate
increasingly better in the order HSG D<HSG C<HSG B<HSG A.) These include the
s
vllt-3
,l
)i
\\
\I'
GB'. 1
I (I ir:.i
r' {A
N
.: - \'{
Location: O39" 27'54.0" N 107" 17'37.3" W
Caption: Rose Ranch
)
:i. 't
I
IL
(
-*.\-,-+-
Name: CATTLE CREEK
Date: 5/19198
Scale: 1 inch equals 22?2 feet
(C) 1997. Maplech lnc
l
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Almy (B), Atencio-Azeltine (B,B), Dahlquist, Southace (B,B), Earsman, Rock Outcrop
(D), Gypsum Land, Gypsiorthids (D), and Uracca, Mergel (B,B) series soils. There are
also some smaller areas of HSG C soils, including the Arle, Ansari, Rock Outcrop (C,
D), Cushool, Rentsac (C, D), and Redrob (C) series soils. The majority of the site
where the golf course is proposed to be routed lies on hydrologic soil group B soils.
Land CoverA/eqetation. There are essentially ten land cover categories that we used
to describe the proposed conditions of the area considered in this runoff assessment:
the golf course - greens and tees established in dense turf and mowed close to
the ground, fainvays and primary roughs also established in dense turf, mowed
at higher heights than greens and tees. Greens and tees will be built with
imported sandy soils. The greens will be equipped with underdrains to improve
water drainage. Fainrays and roughs will be established on soils originating at
the site or imported from nearby. The golf course turf will be irrigated and treated
occasionally with turf chemicals to improve groMh and reduce pest pressures;
undisturbed, natural areas dominated by sagebrush with sparce grass ground
cover;
undisturbed, wooded areas that are primarily coniferous, juniper and pine, and
range in stand thickness from fairly thin to rather dense;
impervious areas - roads, rooftops, parking areas, etc. associated with
residential sites, the golf course clubhouse, cartpaths, maintenance yard, and
other facilities;
lawns and landscaping also associated with the residential sites, clubhouse, and
other facilities;
common areas, primarily grassy in nature, associated with the residential
community and the golf course, outside of individual lawns or playing surfaces,
mowed less frequently and at higher heights than residential lawns, fairways and
primary roughs, and maintained with little to no irrigation and turf chemical
inputs;
I
vilt€
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' open space areas, associated more with the golf course that would tend to be
comprised of native grasses and sage and minimally maintained;
' isolated wooded riparian zones/wettands on the floodplain of the Roaring Fork
River;
' ponds and other open waters, such as the Robertson Ditch; and
' bare rock and soil on steep slopes.
Curve numbers for individual land use and soils combinations were selected
from tables in USDA, SCS (1986) and Wilkes and King (1980), based on the following
assumptions.
Golf Course Turf: Open space (lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.), in good
condition (grass cover >750/o).
Undisturbed Areas Dominated bv Saoe: Sagebrush with grass understory, in various
conditions of cover ranging from poor (ground cover <30%) to fair (ground cover 3O%-
7lYo).
Undisturbed Wooded Areas: Pinyon, juniper, or both with grass understory, in various
conditions of cover from poor (ground cover <300/o) to fair (ground cover 3Oo/o-7Oo/o).
lmoervious Surfaces: Roofs, driveways, paved roads, parking lots with curbs and storm
sewers.
Lawns and Landscaoino: Open space (lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.), in
fair condition (grass cover S0o/o-7|o/o).
Grassv Common Areas: Equivalent to 'meado# comprised of continuous grass,
occasional ly harvested.
s
vilr-7
T
I Natural Ooen Space Areas: Sagebrush with grass understory in fair condition (ground
cover 305-70%).
I
Riparian Woods: Woods - isolated groves on farms and ranches - in fair condition
I (moderate understory).
I Ponds: Open waters with aesthetic value as the primary funclion that will be kept at full
capacity most of the time.I
Bare Rock/Soil: Bare soil and sparce herbaceous plants (<10o/o ground cover) on HSGI ,'"*
t Table Vlll-1 shows the land cover distributions in each of the three drainage
I basins (subdivided into subareas) and the resulting composite runof[ curye numbers.
f The curve numbers are used in the next section to calculate the amount of runoff
r expected to occur due to various design rainfall events.I
I
c. Surface Runoff Volume Calculations
I The weighted average curve numbers selected for each subbasin were used to
predict the runoff depths occurring from 2-year and 1O-year, 24-hour return storm
I events using the equations given in the previous subsection Vlll.B.(1)a. lt has been
our experience in modeling the fate and transport of pesticides from golf courses that
t the 2-yr and 1O-yr storms tend to produce the highest pesticide runoff concentrations.
Smaller storms do not often produce enough runoff to remove any of the pesticide from
I the turf. Larger storms produce so much runoff water that the pesticides lost to runoff
are diluted to very low concentrations. Further, it would be very unlikely that any storm
I greater than the 1O-year storm would impact just the project site and not the entire
watershed of the Roaring Fork River. Additional runoff from land surfaces throughout
I the watershed would increase streamflow substantially and further dilute and reduce in-
I vilr€
I fi
I
I Tabte Vtll-l. Drainage Basin A Runoff Curve Number Setections
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
HSG o/o of Area CN
Golf Course.l B 6.4 61
B,D 47.4 51,79
D 10.7 79
D 34.8 94
B 0.7 82
Basin Ai Weiqhted Averaoe CN
HSG o/o of Atea CN
., Golf CoUrsg,,,,,,,',,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,B 9.7 61
B 12.3 98
B 42.4 69:,,,,,,,,,,,
Open Space-ltlatuial ' :B 19.3 51
B 14.6 60
PondslOpen Water 1.7 98
Basin A2 Weiqhted Averaqe CN
'.' ;i.:i':i:. ..:rra':'.:r':':" :.::::.:.rr bO:.::::| ::.:.: .i::.::: : :.i:::l
i[and Uae
i,,.'ili :.,,,:,:::,,],:,:,:,i:i:',.li:,ll,l:li::i
HSG o/o of Area CN
B 15.4 6'l
B 10.9 98
B 50.2 69
B 2.3 78
B 13.4 51
B 5.9 60
1.9 98
Basin A3 Weiqhted Averaqe CN
vilt-9
s
I
I Table Vlll-2. Drainage Basin B Runoff Curve Number SelectionsI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
HSG oh of Area CN
c.D 12.4 71, 84
B,C,D 87.6 58, 79, 88
SubBasin Bl Weiqhted Averaqe CN
SubBasin,:82,
HSG % of Area CN
Golf CoUiie.,..,1,',''','.,,i,,.,.B 0.1 61
B,C 80.E 68
B,D 19.1 85
SubBasin 82 Weiqhted Averaqe CN :. . ,/a.::j::::::::::::::::::::.: : :::::':.: r.. l:j::.:.:.:r:j:.:.:::.r:..::t :..
HSG % of Area CN
B,D 6.3 61,80
B,C,D 40.9 51,71,84
Juhiper D 52.8 u
SubBasin 83 Weiqhted Averaqe CN
HSG % of Area CN
sase D 2.2 84
JUhiper C,D 85.6 79, 88
Bare Roildsoil' , .,-,,D 11.1 94
D 1.1 98
SubBasin 84 Weiqhted Averaqe CN
vilt-10
fi
T
I Tabte Vttt-2 (cont,d)
t
T
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t s
HSG % of Area CN
B 8.6 61
D 1.6 E4
D 63.7 68
o 25.5 94
,, Kegtonal l ratl' 'B 0,6 82
SubBasin 85 Weighted Averase CN
HSG % of Area CN
B 32.0 61
B 6.4 98
B 15.1 69
4.7 98
B 33.1 51
,:,r,Draihaoe,:Ch-- neli B 8.7 80
SubBasin 86 Weiqhted Averaqe CN
vilt-11
HSG o/o ol Area CN
B,D 64.5 51, 84
B,D 24.4 58, 88
lmpefViOtis.,,i.,,,.,i..',...,,:,.:,:,:i,:.:iti.ir,iii,:.r,i.'ii.,i:.:.:.,,i.,:i:,i,t.l D 2.1 98
B 9.0 69
SubBasin Cl Weighted Average CN
HSG o/o of Area CN
B 't6.8 61
B 1s.3 98
B 52.0 69
Open Sbace+.latu12l' r, : ,,, ,B 15.9 51
SubBasin C2 Weiqhted Averaqe CN .
^ ^.":
: : :': : ::j : :'::::'l::':'::: :: OO .::1::i::::::.:::: :::::::.::r:
HSG o/o of Area CN
B 20.2 61
B 8.8 98
B 32.2 69
B 38.1 58
B 0.7 74
SubBasin C3 Weiqhted Averaqe CN
::rr:::,i.::.:r:.r.:..:.:::.:.i..:l.r.ji: .^,: ,::j:: ,,1: ,,::::ll
bb.:. ::... ::1: ::: ::.::
t
t Table Vlll-3. Drainage Basin C Runoff Curve Number Selections
I
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t s
vfil-12
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
t
stream turf chemical concentrations. The same may be true for these two storms, but
we choose to evaluate the risks of turf chemical use on the golf course from a very
conservative perspective.
The rainfall amounts corresponding with a2-yearreturn or 1O-year:,24-hour
duration storm event occur are approximately 1.2 inches and 1.6 inches, respectively.
This is based on review of isopluvial maps of Colorado (Miller, et al. 1973).
Runoff volumes were then calculated based on the acreage comprised in each
of the subbasins. The final runoff volume reaching the Roaring Fork River is the sum of
runoff from all three drainage basins (12 subbasins). This volume was then used in the
calculations of potential in-stream concentrations of turf chemicals in the Roaring Fork
River adjacent to the property. The results of the subbasin storm event runoff
calculations are listed in Table Vll14.
2. Surface Water Flows in the Roaring Fork River
What happens when surface runoff, potentially carrying turf chemicals removed
from the site(s) of application to the golf course, reaches the receiving waters? To
anslver this question, it is necessary to describe the flow conditions of the receiving
waters during the storm event. That is the next step in our conservative dilution model.
It is assumed for this assessment that the storm event o@urs when the streams are
flowing at significantly low levels. This reduces the dilution effect in-stream and
ultimately renders very conservative in-stream concentrations of the turf chemical
residues transported to the stream in runoff.
Figures Vlll-2 and Vlll-3 clearly demonstrate that streamflow in the Roaring Fork
River exhibits drastic seasonal changes. These figures were obtained from a website
maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey. Therefore, to examine the potential impact
vilt-13
s
t
t Table Vlll4. Predicted Runoff Depths and Volumes for Each Subbasin
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
T
I
I f,t
:,.,r,yr.iitu;,.,2+ nr aril .to#,
:::::':' ::.:':...:::l:::.::::..::, .,,;,., . .,,., ., :,,:.,:. - :
' ',' ,i,,,":raihralt:1.2 in i
t o,.vi.retaini..e*.' rt;...uutrn,.itoi*:.,..
: ,: , -::.. :, ; ,.,.r.. : :::. rt.,:,. : .:,
'ralnfall,= 1.6 in' , ,.::':,- :::
0.13 4.414e5 0.31 1 .051e6
0.01 '1.332e5 0.06 8.014e5
0.02 2.467e5 0.09 1.1 10e6
8.213e5 2.962e6
0.20 2.568e6 0.41 5.266eG
0.04 1.205e6 0.13 3.914eG
0.09 3.393e6 0.23 8.673e6
0.42 1.942eG 0.71 3.282e6
0.35 2.266e0 0.62 4.0'13e6
0.00 0.00 0.05 8.754e4
1.137e7 2.524e7
, Subbasin Ct,' , , '0.01 3.452e4 0.06 2.034e5
1,,5- - '-0.02 3.514e5 0.10 1.757eG
0.01 2.861e5 0.06 1.720e6
6.720e5 3.680e6
Roiring EAil Hiraii,
. ..., ,
...,,,...,,
.
.,,
, ....,.,.
,
,,
..,,.,j.,.,..,
Total Runoff Volume 1.286e7 3.188e7
vilr-14
IIIIIIIIIIITIIIIIII
Graph(s) of Historic data for station: 09085000 -- Roaring Fork
PROVISIONAL DATA SUBJECT TO REVISION -- 09/30/1997 tO 06/30/1998
River at Glenwood Springs, Co.
15000
10000
0aLe
Mai ntai ned by : WebMaster@maildcolka. cr. u s-es. gov
Hydrol ogi c Informati on : co. data@maildcolka. cr. usgs. gov
Historic water page URL: http://nwis-colo.cr.usgs.gov/nwis/historic.html
7/L
1994
=t SGS ogog5ooo -- Roaring Fork River at Grenr,roo, ilIill
n
hilq4
llr
fi,'Ji fl l.
\,.*l fl
I
\
jr ll I I
l
I
j
"/
1'
oo
&,u1
Lo4
IJ
c)l!
o
!
c
,o
t
IEo
U)
co
0)
=J'-t
o
1/1
1 989
l/l
t99A
l/l
1991
1/l
1992
L/1
1993
l/l
1995
L/1
I 996
L/7 L/l199? 1998
_ ['in6f [3f,6
-
Provisional DaLa
IIIIIIIITIIIIIIIIII
L5000
!
(.)
0)
OJ
f)
d)
0)
o..tE
(J
3
hto
0)
(,
trot)E
t
..1
IE
c3
7/l
1 98S
1/L
1981
1/7 l/!l/l
1 984
L/l
1985
l/l
1986
t/7
1987
l/l
1988
-
Final 0aLa
Maintained by: WebMaster@maildcolka.cr.usgs.gov
Hydrologic Information: co.data@maildcolka. cr.usgs.gov
Historic Water page LIRL: http://nwis-colo.cr.usgs.gov/nwis/historic.html
Please direct cpesliotts or comnrettls lo:
Graph(s) of Historic data for station: 09085000 -- Roaring Fork
River at Glenwood Springs, Co.
L0000
5000
l/1
r919
U ffiG,S O90B5OOO -- Roaring Fork River at Glenr.rood Springs- Eo.
il l'['1
,q
I
11
f,il
lll,il
L l'\Jt
il
,/ [JL lr jr il
J lI /L l
DaLe
c.
1.
a.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
I
runoff transport of turf chemicals from the golf course may have on the river, it is
necessary to consider the seasonal fluctuations in our calculations. We obtained a
record of 50 years of daily mean streamflow data (July 1 , 1948 to June 30, 1998) for
the Roaring Fork River at Glenwood Springs from the Colorado River Decision Support
System interactive website. Using the QuattroPro 7 spreadsheet packager we
determined the g0% exceedance low flows for each month of the 50 year data set.
That is, in each month of the year, the average daily streamflow would exceed the
value selected greater than or equal to 90% of the time.
Table Vlll-5 lists the monthly low flows and the corresponding flow volumes
calculated for a 24 hour period. Also listed, for the sake of comparison, are average
daily rates of flow and minimum rates of flow for the Roaring Fork River at Glenwood
Springs for each month. These data represent a 25 year period of record (1972-1997)
and were obtained from Joe Sullivan of the U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division in Grand Junction, CO. We elected to use 90% exceedance flows rather than
minimum flows to represent a conservative, but reasonable worst case scenario.
Potential Turf Chemical Losses to Storm Water Runoff
Selection of Turf Chemical Runoff Loss Fractions
Pesticides
A very conservative assumption was made in the Vermont golf course review
process that a 5% mass loss represents an upper limit of surface runoff transport of turf
pesticides. This number was suggested initially to the Vermont Pesticide Advisory
Committee by the senior author of this report (SZC) based in part on a limited data set
available in 1989.
vlll-19
I
I
I Table Vlll-s. Streamflow Data for the Roaring Fork River at Gtenwood Springs
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
331 312 311 409 792 2090
8.093e8 7.629e8 7.604e8 1.000e9 1.937e9 5.110e9
fflstoriC:M nl,l.l..;1:.,t,.,,.
F!Offi:,, :, rr::,,,,,',,, .,,,. ,
I
(?5,,.Vrs,.of,,0ata),,,,,, :
:::: ::]:::::i:::l:::::] :i]:].:: :| ::|:::::::]::,
flow,(cf,s),rr:,,,514 496 694 1172 3414 6456
1.257e9 1 .2'13e9 1.697e9 2.866e9 8.348e9 1.579e10
ftoWi..(o!371 315 298 352 593 1 139
9.071e8 7.702e8 7.286e8 8.607e8 1.450e9 2.785e9
Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec
90% Exceedance
ro* nowt carcci'
(5O.,Yrs,.of . Data)rr:i''.....,
770 469 400 433 457 375
1.883e9 1.147e9 9.7E0e8 1.059e9 1.117e9 9.169e8
2602 1 591 1 148 883 700 570
6.362e9 3.890e9 2.807e9 2.159e9 1.712e9 1.394e9
422 316 363 384 411 382
vOlume(t)1.032e9 7.727e8 8.876e8 9.389e8 1.005e9 9.340e8
,t)t,
vilt-20
t
I
I
t
t
Wauchope (1978) reviewed over 60 runoff studies and found that a majority of
total pesticide runoff lost from agricultural lands in various studies was 0.5% or less of
the applied mass. ln the agricultural scenario most prone to runoff and pesticide loss -
soil-surface applied wettable powder formulations - the values were generally less
than 5%. However, runoff from turf is considerably less than runoff from agriculture, as
indicated by the differences in runoff curve numbers and a limited amount of empirical
data. For example, runoff from Rhode lsland turf plots with sandy loam soils and 2%-
3% slopes orcurred only twice in 2 years, once by rainfall on frozen ground (Morton, et
al. 1988). Harrison (1989) likewise demonstrated that extreme rainfall conditions were
needed to generate runoff from turf.
This 5% runoff loss assumption was recently reevaluated. The literature was
reviewed with a focus on turf chemical runoff studies. The few peer-reviewed studies
that could be found where the runotf loss has been quantified are summarized in Table
Vlll€. The data from all studies except the one by Hall, et al. (1987) were statistically
analyzed. The latter study was excluded for three reasons. 1) The 31% slope was
much steeper than is ever encountered on golf course playing areas, where almost all
pesticides are applied. 2) The time span over which the 0.86" of water was applied
was not specified, but it was probably a matter of minutes. 3) The drainage properties
of the soil are completely unknown.
The average runoff loss of the remaining results is 0.55% + 0.61 o/o, n=11. (The
means of the sulfometuron-methyl and cyanazine results were used.) The upper 95%
confidence limit of this estimate is:
0.55% +( 1 .$l/ +0.61%ol /-t t1=g.ggo,
where 1 .812 = t value for 10 degrees of freedom (n-1 ) at a 0.05 level of significance for
a one-tailed test.
s
vllr-21
!
Table vlll{. observed Runoff Losses of Pesticides from Turf
:::::::::::::::::::::i::::lj::::::i:r
wet.i.sd,'strifu:frt,,stte,CHinciadstlbi h'i n
:,.: : :,|: :1'|'.|| |:.::
iRiinoff 'UtEs.:.:
',,,i',,::::i, :.,,t,,,,,,,,
,. : : .:'.' :-:' i.r':':'::':::...:r:"::'J-..r:rr:.:. :::::i.,::::
le a*S 'i.,".,i',:.::::'::::::.::::.::,':::::':::,:.'.:,:::::j :;:::,:i':"'
::.i,lii:,':1,i4:r s1,4%,slop_e-;,,,,, ;l,
sodded:and s ed
t<entuctty,Utrc
,:ky soif, otledying .
<arst limestone.. ,.,
6i in,,one,hclJr 096
,,,'i,:,:,,,:,i
,,:,1i.',
Sanison (1QQ9);
rnd Harrisrrn et,,
rl (1993)
High percolation rateo.: No : :
sedinfent runoff. Meaured &7 :: :jays anO 2$46 days after t: '',
lreatncnt. ' . . '., j...
1,696i 0.896,1,;1%
riEfiiiirfi;th;ilh :0;sli::,i,,.,','::l:1,::::::::::rOS
4ffl.?4c:-aSoer
qs:erB::: rr'.':::: :r: ::'99Q;:rf:3{.9?$;016,ri
:::::.:::::: j..Ilel(l::i:: :,::rt:ii,O.4J.j4%:','.
0gx,(m9a41
,Valichopg et alr
i199O);,: ,,,, 1, ,'
tlct vrell managed {rrrf. Bare plc{s',
'equired 1/3 less rain to prodrice
he same amou ol mff afld, ,.,,
lieHed 2 sediment of grassy ,
rlots.
,::.,:,::.,117:{:.:r::lr,t:
t.:.:.::l:;:.:.:::,:t:t:::.:.:.:.:.:
hb; ,g
,,,,,,,.,,:., hous+,,,,,,,,,
:':l:::]:,:]]]:]::::]:::::::::::.:l::::]:::::::::::l::]]:
Std, ,.,.lll.:iii
rith :, 8ilt lgif ! (b,fl q,:i
roiU: or, Ke0tqclqii::,::::
ltu€grass:s0d;::::.$96:
ihne fol6;".*15,.
rnd124%,shp9 foe ;;,;urJ, :::: . r :::: :r:: , :: ::
]:::: ' ::' .],]:::,: ,:::.]l: :
,,,,,, OIi. from tUrf ,,,,,
phtsr0i36J6.Ffonl
i j. jisatt.Pb"t";i1i;ii.ii.ii'
:.: ::.: :.:.:.r.1.:,:::.::li.:.:::.lt:i: r:ri :
:i:..::.:.:.:.:::::::::::::r:...t:r-t.:t ri::.:.:jRt ,arrd LonO
t19741, , ,r ,' :
iiililiii:iiiiiliiiiiiijiiij:iiillli,lj.:iiii:iii:iii:iii:i,:::.:].il: ::1:r.r:.:: r:.r : : :r:... r:.
14D,'amlnd,i :,,, r,,,,:,:,:,:;:r,3t% slopei.ii pe4t,
soil: vgqmiculite, ;1,r :
(1 ;1,r ! ),,, ; Kenbtclcy
blueorass:::: |:::: ::: ::,::::::::
i0;8d,,
:: :, '
31%Hall, et aL (1987)ryE::\!l::a!.:i,rl
..,...: :.:..,-,-.-BllJ:rr:.,..,r.,
nost managed turf/go{f areas.
)rainage propertics of sot
rnknown. .' -, ,,
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
Thus it would seem that 0.88% is a more valid runoff loss number than 5%. But
this number has not been submitted for peer review, and is not based on an extensive
data set. Further, we have obtained pesticide runoff results from detailed computer
simulation modeling of other sites throughout the country that significantly exceeded
0.88% of what was applied. ln addition, our general philosophy on dilution calculations
is to add an extra level of conservatism to compensate for an approach that does not
take into account pesticide-specific environmental chemistry parameters. Therefore we
have retained 5% as a conservative pesticide runoft loss rate, even though it is likely
much too high. We assume this to be representative of the pesticide loss that may
vfit-22
,t)t,
t
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
occur during a very rare, intense storm event such as a 10 year return, 24 hour
duration storm event.
[lt is worth noting that this 5% mass loss number, and similar numbers described
below, are not site-specific but rather meant to be used generally as conservative
nationwide rules-of-thumb. They are based on field or greenhouse test plot studies
conducted at a variety of sites and climates around the country. ln addition, a high
degree of conservatism is built into the numbers.l
We have considered a subset of the data that is the basis of the conservative
5% loss assumption. A review of the water solubility data in Table V-1 compared with
the various research study results discussed earlier indicates that low-water solubility
pesticides generally have a much lower runoff loss rate than more water soluble
pesticides. Specifically, pesticides with a water solubility less than 30 ppm have an
average runoff loss rate of 0.07 + 0.16% (n=5). Pesticides with a greater water
solubility have an average runoff loss rate of 1.2 + 0.3% (n=5). But, once again, the
data set is not extensive. Therefore we have erred on the side of conservatism and
chosen a2o/o runoff loss rate for those pesticides with a water solubility less than 30
ppm. These include: pendimethalin, chlorpyrifos, azoxystrobin, chloroneb, fenarimol,
iprodione, PCNB, and vinclozalin.
We feel that for this site, the 2% and 5% pesticide runoff loss scenarios are
representative of rare, intense storms such as a 10 year return, 24 hour duration
rainfall event. This is based primarily on the severe irrigation regimes exhibited in the
research studies relative to the type of rainfall indicative of this Colorado site. We
conducted a very intensive and conservative computer simulation modeling study of the
potential for turf chemicals to run off a golf course proposed for a rugged site on the
coast of California. From the preliminary results of the modeling, we were able to
estimate potential losses in stormwater runoff to nearshore coastal waters for each
vilt-23
fi
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
pesticide anticipated to be applied to the golf course. The losses averaged 1.2% t
2.3o/o and 6.6% t 8.5% of the amounts applied for the less soluble pesticides, during a
10 yr and 100 yr rainfall event, respectively. The losses for the more water soluble
pesticides averaged 3.5% t 4.5o/o and 11.8% *,12.7% of applied, during a l0 yr and
100 yr rainfall event, respectively. There were a number of circumstances associated
with the modeling that rendered these estimates very conservative. For example, we
assumed that intense storm events occurred on the day following each application of
the pesticides and we forced the soil moisture level to be high prior to the applications.
No pesticide degradation or transmission losses into drainage channels were
considered after the runoff left the golf course. We assumed that there was no
retention of runoff on the golf course. The model did not simulate the removal of
pesticides by mowing, which is done frequently (in many cases daily) on a golf course.
Maximum pesticide use rates and maximum use scenarios were rnodeled. Further the
10 year return rainfall at that site is more than 50% greater than at Glenwood Springs.
The results of that study, and others, tend to support the assumpiions applied to this
assessment.
Fclr more frequent storms, which we will represent in this assessment using a 2
year return,24 hour duration rainfall, we recognize that the 2o/o ?fid 5% pesticide runoff
loss assumptions are likely much too conservative. We have selected loss values
more consistent with the data generated in the research studies discussed above, yet
still very conservative: 0.5% for pesticides that have water solubilities < 30 ppm and 2o/o
for pesticides that have water solubilities > 30 ppm.
The pesticide mass loss rates derived for use on this site can be summarized as
follows.
fi
vfit-24
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
b. Nitrogen
The lntegrated Golf Course Management Plan prepared for the Rose Ranch
Golf Course (Volume I of this report) outlines a carefully considered fertility
management program. Fertilizers will be applied according to the needs of the turf,
thereby avoiding excess nitrogen and phosphorus that may be available to run off.
Further, nitrogen and phosphorus impacls would only likely be realized due to
sustained input of high levels to the receiving waters, a chronic condition. Should there
be an unlikely event of nutrient loss via runoff from the golf course, we expect that it
would be of relatively short duration and would occur only episodically due to heavy
rains.
Many factors influence the potential for nitrogen to be transported in runoff.
Some of the important considerations include the timing of the application relative to
the first runoff event, the application rate and formulation, and the intensity of the
rainfall event. Walker and Branham (1992) summarized several studies addressing
runoff losses of fertilizers on different vegetation and soils. A Louisiana study
published in 1976 examined fertilizer runoff from millet and ryegrass plots. Low
intensity storms produced runoff losses of 1.8-2.7o/o of total applied nitrogen annually.
The largest loss generated in this study was 9.5% of the applied nitrogen following a
heavy rain. An Oklahoma study published in 1975 and later in 1980 was done on
cropland and rangeland plots. Fertilizer N runoff losses did not exceed 5% of the most
s
vlll-25
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
recent applications, A different study in Oklahoma in 1987 reported total N losses of
3% and 9o/o of applied N in runoff from wheat and rotation crops, respectively. An
lndiana study of fallow and sod plots published in 1967 recorded its highest N runoff
loss of 15% of applied N following a 5 inch rainfall. Morton, et al. (1988) evaluated
fertilizer treatments on home lawns in Rhode lsland. Only two runoff events were
recorded in the two years of the study. The total annual inorganic N loss for runoff was
less than 7% of any inorganic N treatment. A heavy irrigation regime was implemented
throughout the study and one of the rain events was 5 in (5 yr return for Rhode lsland).
Linde (1996) examined runoff water and nutrient losses on perennial ryegrass and
creeping bentgrass plots maintained at fairway conditions in a stucly in Pennsylvania.
He found, on the average, lhat2% of applied N was lost to runoff, even though the
plots were subject to very high irrigation rates, i.e., 6'7hr.
A recent study of golf course monitoring programs throughout the U.S. is
summarized in Section lX. lt was found that the average concentration of nitrate-N in
surface waters on golf courses was 0.5 ppm. This is considerably lower than the 10
ppm drinking water standard.
Zancanella and Associates, lnc. (May 4, 1998) researched water quality of the
Roaring Fork River. They summarized data for nitrate-nitrite nitrogen, and other
parameters, for two stations on the Roaring Fork, one below Aspen and one at
Glenwood Springs. The nitrate-nitrite nitrogen concentrations over the past 30 years
have averaged 0.12 * 0.36 mg/L and 0.03 r O.1O mg/L for the river at Aspen and
Glenwood Springs, respectively. These data suggest that nitrate-N is not historically a
problem in the Roaring Fork and any small concentrations that may run off the golf
course during storm events would likely disappear in the 'noise' of the river's ambient
nitrate levels.
We are aware of no means to model nitrate-N loadings to surface water from
surface runoff transport on a long-term basis using a screening level or semi-
fi
vilt-26
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
T
I
T
quantitative approach like that presented here for acute exposures. Annual
precipitation averages only about 17 inches and any potential nitrogen loss to receiving
surface waters would only occur due to storm events. Given the following:
fertilizer use on the golf course will be governed by a carefully managed
program that specifies nutrient applications based on turf needs and available
soil sources;
nitrogen impacts tend to be more of a chronic than acute problem; and
our review (above) of monitoring studies on golf courses identified few concerns
for nitrate impacts;
we feel that a rigorous, quantitative assessment of long-term nitrate loadings to surface
waters is unwarranted and that fertilizer use on the golf course will not pose significant
impacts on receiving water at this site. Perhaps the most convincing argument is the
fact that neither the test plot or golf-course-scale studies noted above indicated a
c€ruse for concern.
D. Potential Turf Chemical Concentrations in Surface Runoff and Receiving
Waters
Our assumptions for the potential pesticide and nitrogen mass loadings into
surface runoff were just discussed in the previous subsection. Table V-1 listed the
pesticides proposed in the heavy use scenario of the IGCMP (Volume I of this report),
the projected use rates for each application on the golf course, and the anticipated
timing of use for each pesticide. Tables Vlll-7 through Vlll-g break down the pesticide
use in each of the three drainage basins according to greens, tees, fairways, and
intermediate-primary roughs. The percent mass loss assumptions are listed for each
pesticide and the resulting mass losses, in micrograms (pg), are then given for each of
the 2- and 1O-year return, Z4-hour duration storms. The final two columns in these
tables list the pesticide concentrations when the pesticide losses are diluted into the
vilt-27
fi
I I I I r I r I r I I r rIIrI I r
Table Vlll-7, Dralnage Basln A P€ticlde Uso and Surface Runoff Concentraflons
b*F,,'i!,El'tF'b$l'tntii}nir.
trrl,
.-i
frt
vilt-29
I r I I I I I s r I I I I I I r I r
Table Vlll{. Drainage Basln B Pesticide Uso and Surfaco Runotf Concontrations
o., Drr
.;
qrd
tun
..,n!{,
I
frq{
vilt-30
I I I I I I I I I r r I I I I I I I I
Tabls Vlll-g. Dralnage Basln C Pestlclds Use and Surface Runofi Concentratons
ld$'Et'4
kb+iditnclr!-Hu$ti+hrnd,ir|
rnFk
frq.{
vilt-31
N
CO
a839 q c ? ,-urtuutUdj(li $B 3 E E fiodr<iFN
C)6E $ S 5 Euluut!r1,u,E $g H f; E $
;;o;ridod
5 5 $ I 69: UJ t! t! til rU rijtE I R s- E=>FN6^ets d d fl t:
3 6 E q 6 6EulluuJu,uJ{=3 P 3 N NFg: e q q ci
-oo66
EqE ?9qi BHU uuuI exj EgIo."ii:.iF9-
6qF 666UUUJUUUi ^.P 388i. 8Eq rrc
NFO-IO?
q 566 E gE E!UUrlluuJUUU[ $ sEE ; EH Eo;;ri.i;voi
a E q6q E 66 EUUUUUUUUI H Egfi fl Es E
nia-6F6
sqEEqq-lllt!uUJUUr38 0 F . a I5(i,i 6 E i *
oFxN;ot;
f
s$qqqqluuruuuui8 g E 8 E EQiqi@Fn
i'dNoodN
6 S 56 E6Fi H E HH EHH
'9FiF;dici;= q s qs qEEujuuuuuJlui P I 8g 8R8l!q.!n9qq(ONOOFNo
8
iuli.!on
e
E
E
o
aIcof
:
€!
6oiII
Eog
6
oo
E
9
o
.E
-I
o
E!u)
o
g,nd?i
Oi !+,Nosrca.3
Lo_BOE
LEoioatrsLGTotLA
-lU?;
-6L,B
!.iLos
oti
vS-l-oo:ILTsr4 cL
LoGdo6'd,:
-dEFtJi
J
=5Or.cll65r-E
ao(
I
I
t
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
t
I
I
I
t
5865$S5q588555585885$6
i 3r s s Hx ss e Ell lgxi r: rerHH
,t q E E 6 s q s q q E 6 q 6qE E 6 E6Eq 6i ig g E 5H B:g}Hgfi PHi3I:3!iI
6U3s
E
.s
s,$ $ E i Efggs i{ti* iii i i i
f,t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
E.
1.
concentration obtained for each pesticide for each storm event. These values are the
basis of the remaining discussion of water quality risks.
Discussion of the Results Relative to Potential lmpacts to Surface Waters
Risk Ratios
Below we make comparisons of the predicted concentrations of turf chemicals
lost to runoff during intense, heavy rainfall events and mixed into the local receiving
waters with the aquatic risk criteria introduced in Section Vl. The comparisons are
made in terms of Risk Ratios. The Risk Ratio is the predicted concentration divided by
the aquatic risk criteria. tf the Risk Ratio is greater than 1, then there is a presumption
of risk related to the prescribed use of the pesticide on the golf course.
The results of the comparison of predicted in-stream concentrations with the
aquatic risk criteria are shown in Table Vlll-11. The EEC column refers to the
maximum concentrations for each pesticide, as listed in the final two columns in Table
Vlll-10. EEC refers to the estimated environmental concentration, an ecological risk
assessment term borrowed from the U.S. EPA's former Hazard Evaluation Division of
the Office of Pesticide Programs.
Table Vtll-11 shows that none of the pesticides were predicted to mix into the
Roaring Fork River in concentrations exceeding their corresponding surface water risk
criteria.
vill-33
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
Table Vlll-l1. Comparison of Predicted ln-stream Turf Chemical Concentrations
with Surface Water Risk Criteria
t Aqudic risk criteria for surfaco water consider protecthn of aquatic life and consumption of water and/or fish by humans
' The high€6{ rdtlo within each pair of storm ev€nE - 2yr aN 10 yr retum interyals - is presented.
: .: E E t . i ::..::::::ri:.::. l- l-\l::. :::::::::::::: ::
i:i:::::,UUL.lil]li:,l::]l]l:i]l,:;li
.l.i.':,,i.l..ji.l.i.lReti6ji,
70 0.78 0.01 no
35 0.89 0.03 no
1 050 o.47 0.00 no
Fehdimethalih 6.3 0.37 0.06 no
0.041 0.017 0.41 no
1200 0.13 0.00 no
44 1.39 0.03 no
91 2.25 0.02 no
;:: .:.:. . ...1:..: ." - . .::::.:::::: .: :::.::.:.'': ::..:::. .': :. ..::
Fgnanmol,,,,,,:',::,,,,,,,,,,, :, i,',,,,,:r,,,,:,430 0.13 0.00 no
57 0.65 0.01 no
1200 0.22 0.00 no
103 o.41 0.00 no
13 1.52 0.12 no
Propiconazolei 100 o.B2 0.01 no
133 1.27 0.01 no
Triadimefon 70 2.09 0.03 no
VinClozalin 90 0.71 0.01 no
410 0.054 0.00 no
427 0.29 0.00 no
vill-34
i)t,
]
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. lmprobable scenarios Represented in the Risk Assessment
It is relevant and important to estimate the probabilities of these scenarios. As
an illustration, event probabilities are calculated for the insecticide and the fungicide
with the highest risk ratios in Table Vlll-11, chlorpyrifos and PCNB, respectively.
The 0.41 and 0.12 risk ratios for chlorpyrifos and PCNB, respectively, were
derived from calculations for the 10 yr return storm events. (The calculated
concentrations for the 2 yr events were approximalely 75% lower.) lf we assume that
there is only a six month window every year when a 10 yr return rain event can occur,
then the probability of the event occurring on any one of those days (P,.,n) is 1/10 x 180
= 1/1800.
Chlorpyrifos could be used on any of those dates, although it is more likely to be
used in the summer. lt could be applied to a specific area up to twice in a growing
season, giving a probabilily of 21180. This probability expands four fold if we assume
that significant dissipation does not occur until after four days, giving a probability of
significant pesticide residues being on the ground (P**) of 2x4t180 = 8/180. The
combined probability of significant chlorpyrifos runoff due to a 10 yr return storm event
is then P.in X P6u = 1/1800 x 8/180 = 1140,500, an exceedingly low probability.
PCNB would only likely be applied in late October or early November, in a
window that would have minimal overlap with intense rain events. See, for example,
Table ll-1 which shows that there is an average of only 0.7 and 0.2 days with
thunderstorms in October and November, respectively. Thus the P,u,n for this narrow
window would be much less than the 1/1,800 P,"in estimated above, possibly smalter
than 1/200,000, indicating that the overall probability of the significant runoff event
occuning might be less than 1/1,000,000.
vilt-3s
i)t,
tx.COMPARISON OF MODELING RESULTS WITH EMPIRICAL
RESULTS
The results of the Attenuation Factor, Ground Water Dilution, and Runoff
Dilution calculations should not be considered in a vacuum, no matter how carefully the
modeling is done. Therefore, a brief review of experimental data is provided here.
This summary shows that the results of this prospective risk assessment are generally
conservative, and sometimes consistent in comparison with the limited results available
from field and test plot studies.
A.Monitoring Studies
ETS has completed a comprehensive review of water quality monitoring results
from 36 golf courses around the country. A preliminary paper on the study results has
been published (Cohen et al., 1997).
The golf courses are located in 10 states plus one Canadian province. A
database containing 16,700 entries was constructed. (One analytical result for one
chemical in one water sample equals one "database entry.") Surface water and ground
water results include analyses for pesticides and nitrates.
The average concentrations of nitrate-N in surface water and ground water were
0,5 ppm and 1.6 ppm, respectively, well below the 10 ppm drinking water MCL. Most of
the well results were influenced by a past agricultural land use.
There were 12,214 database entries of pesticides in ground water; 160 of these
were detections (1.3o/o), and only 0.07o/o (nine entries) exceeded a drinking water HAL
or MCL. These findings are similar to the ground water impact calculations for this
project presented in section Vl.
tx-1
I
I
I
I
I J1)t,
I
There v/ere 2,731 database entries of pesticides in surface water; 141 of these
(5.2o/r) were detections, and only 0.7% (19 entries) exceeded an aquatic MAC. These
findings are qualitatively similar to the conservative surface runoff calculation results
presented in section Vll.
B.Test Plots
A turf plot lysimeter study demonstrated that turf degrades the insecticide
isazofos much quicker than bare soil (Branham, 1992). At 28 days after treatment, the
sandy and sandy loam soils had 50% less isazofos remaining than the soils without
turf.
ln a more recent study, Horst, et al. (1996) studied the dissipation of four
pesticides in cool season turf. Alt four of these - chlorpyrifos, isazofos, metalaxyl, and
pendimethalin - are recommended for use in volume 1 of this report. The researchers
found that the field dissipation half lives of the pesticides in turf were three to almost
eight times shorter than is usually assumed for agriculture.
Gold, et al. (1988), found that 0.4% of 2,4-D was lost in the leachate at the
bottom of a turf lysimeter root zone. The 0.55{.88 ppb concentrations were
approximately 1/100th the 70 ppb health advisory level (HAL). These lysimeter
leachite concentrations do not take into consideration attenuation resulting from
migration through dozens of feet of overburden, into the aquifer, and into wells. lf
these processes were allowed to occur, further reduction of pesticide concentrations
would be expected.
Duble, et al. (1978), demonstrated that inorganic arsenic from calcium arsenate
was lost in the runoff and root zone leachate of a turf lysimeter (turf block) at
toxicologically significant concentrations. However, this compouncl's use on turf has
been cancelled, and it is more mobile and persistent than other turf pesticides.
fi
tx-z
I
I x. coNcLUStoNS
I A. Ground Water
t There is no cause for concern regarding ground water contamination by
I pesticides. The highest risk ratios determined by the dilution approach (i.e., based on
t 1olo leaching) and the Attenuation Factor approach were 0.07 and 0.00, respectively,
I well below the threshold for concern of 1.0. (The risk ratio is the estimated/calculated
I concentration divided by the health or ecological guideline.) tn addition, these results
I are qualitatively similar to a recent review of golf course water quality monitoring
r studies from around the country, where only O.O7o/o of the individual pesticide analyses
I exceeded an HAL or MCL (Cohen, et al., 1997).
I There was also no concern for nitrogen leaching potential. An increase in
nitrate-N of 0.40 to 0.52 ppm in the top 10 ft of the aquifer was predicted, far below the
I 10 ppm McL.
I B. Surface Water
I The results of our conservative surface water risk assessment indicate that no
negative water quality impacts to the Roaring Fork River are expected in association
I with the implementation of the turf chemical use scenarios as prescribed in the
lntegrated Golf Course Management Plan that is Volume I of this report. However, the
I concentrations of severat of the pesticides in surface runoff water alone, with no further
I mixing, were estimated to exceed risk criteria determined for the protection of aquatic
I life and human consumption. Therefore, measures to prevent untreated surface runoff
r from the golf course entering the Robertson Ditch will be needed.I
I
I
T
x-1
i)t,
T
t xt. MtTtcATtoN MEASURES
t A. Ground Water Protection Recommendations
I We have found no cause for concern regarding ground water contamination by
fertilizers or pesticides used on the golf course according to the lntegrated Golf Course
I Management Plan. We do recommend adherence to some fundamental golf course
management concepts that will provide further assurances that ground water resourcesII will be protected. Since these also apply to the protection of surface water resources,
I
they are listed in the next subsection under the heading of Management Measures.
t
B. Stormwater Quality Management Recommendations
I We conclude that the results of our conservative surface water risk assessment
r indicate that no negative water quality impacts to the Roaring Fork River are expected
I in association with the implementation of the turf chemical use scenarios as prescribed
I in the lntegrated Golf Course Management Plan (Volume I of this report). One of these
I scenarios is highly improbable, what some may call worst case. t-iowever, impacts on
water quality in the Robertson Ditch is possible. Therefore we offer the following
I recommendations to provide further assurance that surface water resources will be
protected. This extra step is entirely consistent with the commitment Roaring Fork
t lnvestments has made to following the "Golf & the Environment" Consortium's
"Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States."
1. Management Measures
The mitigation measures described in this subsection, and most of Volume
I I of this report, are consistent with principtes 1-8, Section D, and Section B #8 of
r the "Environmental Principles."I
xl-1
I
I
I
I i)t,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
t
I
Pesticide use should be kept to a minimum, consistent with the lntegrated Golf
Course Management Plan. Pesticide applications should only be made when other
means of pest control have been attempted and were not successful. Preventative use
of pesticides should only be used for specific pests, such as snow mold, where it is
known that curative measures are rarely successful and the infestation that may occur
without preventative control will likely result in increased pesticide use later on or
severe turf damage or loss.
The golf course superintendent will need to be very cautious with turf chemical
applications relative to weather conditions. lf rainfall is predicted to occur within a few
days of a potential pesticide application date, then the application should be delayed
until a window of drier weather.occurs. Under no circumstances should rainfall be
considered as a means to water-in a pesticide. Watering-in must be done in a
controlled manner using the irrigation system or by syringing.
Nitrogen and phosphorus should be applied to the golf course only in amounts
that are required to establish and maintain healthy vegetation. Thus, prior to grow-in,
the soil should be tested initially for phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) levels, relative to
what is optimum for plant establishment growth. Subsequent to turf establishment,
plant tissue testing and soil analyses should be used to govern decisions regarding the
selection and application of fertilizers according to plant needs.
Design/Engineering Measures
The mitigation measures described in this subsection are consistent with
parts of principle 5, section B, of the "Environmental Principles."
Risk ratios calculated for in-stream concentrations in the Roaring Fork River
were less than 1.0 for all pesticides, demonstrating that even under highly improbable,
xt-2
fi
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
T
t
worst case conditions there would be no presumption of risk to aquatic organisms in the
river or to humans for consumption of the water or fish taken from the river. However,
the concentrations of several of the pesticides in surface runoff water alone, with no
further mixing, were estimated to exceed risk criteria determined for the protection of
aquatic life and human consumption. The Robertson Ditch is proposed to be a source
of drinking water for the Rose Ranch Golf Course facilities and the residences. tt is
therefore important to design and implement runotf controls to avoid the direct
discharge of untreated surface runoff from the golf course into the Robertson Ditch.
This is already a commitment made for other aspects of the Rose Ranch pUD,
particularly the residential areas.
The potential for erosion of soil from the golf course can be minimized by
preventing surface flow run-on from steep areas onto the golf course playing surfaces.
This applies particularly to the parcel west of County Road 10g including holes 11 , 12,
and 15-18. lt is our understanding that this is already part of the stormwater design
concept for much or all of the project.
Throughout the golf course, to the maximum extent possible, runoff from the
greens, tees, and fairways should be routed to densely vegetated or soft-engineered
passive treatment areas on the margins of the golf course. These treatment areas
could be stands of tall native grasses and other vegetation, minimally maintained, to
provide biological and mechanicalfiltration and flow velocity control. They can be
berms ancl/or swales to divert and convey runoff water along long vegetated pathways
before discharge to storm drains ancUor to the Roaring Fork River. The densely
vegetated swales should be somewhat undulating or winding to check flow velocities
and create small pockets of retention that can hold water for infiltration and/or
evaporation. The passive treatment could be in the form of numerous shallow
depressions that will retain runoff water for infiltration or evaporation. Care should be
exercised in the design and maintenance of these low areas that they do not hold water
xt-3
t1)t,
t
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
so long that the vegetation dies. tt will also be necessary to carefully consider the
design and placement of runoff control features that detain or retain water relative to
the evaporitic nature of the soils and geologic formations throughout much of the site.
It will be important to avoid situations where subsidence may occur along road surfaces
and walk paths.
Surface runoff from the reconstructed golf course on the Westbank Ranch parc€{
should be routed to the man-made wetlands to the extent possible. lt would be
beneficial to enhance the water treatment function of these wetlands (that are presenfly
on the existing golf course) through renovation and prantings.
Holes 6 and 7 should be contoured so that runoff is directed away from the bank
of the Roaring Fork River. lf possible, a vegetated swale should be established along
the southern sides of these holes, preferably in the far rough, to convey runoff water
over a long vegetated path prior to discharge to the Roaring Fork River and to intercep
any runoff from upgradient areas to the south. This would be done to avoid run-on to
the playing surfaces and to provide treatment of runoff water to remove eroded
organics/sediments and turf chemicals.
s
xt4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
Anderson, D. May 1, 1997. Personal communication; Water Quality Commission, Dept.
Health & Envt., Denver.
Barnes, N.L., T.E. Durborow, s.z. cohen, A.J. svrjcek, and M.J. o'connor. 1993.
Conservative Ground Water and Surface Water Risk Assessments for Golf Courses in
Vermont, in Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Eastern Regional Ground Water
lssues, September2T-29,1993, Burlington, vT, Ground water Management, Book 16
of the series, National Ground water Association, Dublin, oH, pp s31-548.
Beattie, K. H. 1997. Unpublished Report. Rose Ranch Wildlife Report. Beattie
Natural Resources Consulting, lnc.
Boesten, J.J.T.l. 1987. Leaching of Herbicides to Ground Water. A Review of
lmportant Faclors and of Available Measurements, Proceedings of the 1987 British
Crop Protection Conference-Weeds, 559-568.
Branham, B. 1992. Pesticide Fate Studies in Turf Using Model Ecosystems and Field
lnstalled Lysimeters. Abstract #AGRO 131, presented at the 2O3rd American Chemical
Society National Meeting, San Francisco.
Branham, 8.E., D.R. Smitley, and E.D. Miltner. 1993. Pesticide Fate in Turf, Studies
Using Model Ecosystems, Chapter 14 in K.D. Racke and A.R. Leslie, eds. Pesticides
in Urban Environments Fate and Significance. ACS Series 522, American Chemical
Society, Washington, D.C., pp 156-167.
Branham,8., E.Miltner, P. Rieke, E. Paul, B. Ellisand M. zabik. March, 1994.
Groundwater Contamination Potentiat of Pesticides and Fertilizers Used on the Golf
Course. Michigan State University.
Brauen, S.E., G.K. Stahnke, W.J. Johnston, E. Chapman, C. Cogger and G.
Chastagner, March 25, 1994. Quantification and Fate of Nitrogen from Amended and
Trafficked Sand Putting Green/Tee Profiles. Washington State University. Rough
Draft Final Report.
Cisar, J.L. and G.H. Snyder. 1996. Mobility and Persistence of Pesticides Applied to a
USGA Green. lll: Organophosphate Recovery in Clippings, Thatch, Soil, and Percolate.
Crop Science, 36:1 433-1 438.
CDH, WQCC. 1996. Human Health Based Water Quality Criteria and Standards.
Policy 96-2. Adopted May 13, 1996. Colorado Dept. of Health, Water Quality Control
Commission, Denver, CO.
s
Ref-1
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
CO DPHE. 1997. The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water 3.1.0. (s
gcR 1002€) January 21, 1991 . colorado Department ot puotic Health and
Environment, water Quality control commission, Denver, colorado.
cohen, s.2., A. svrjeck, T. Durborow, and N.L. Barnes. November 1997. water
Pollution Minimal from Monitored Courses, Golf Course Management, 65(11):54$8.
cohen, s.2., R.D. wauchope, A.w. Klein, R. Graney and c.V. Eadsforth. 1ggs.
Offsite Transport of Pesticides in Water - Mathematical Models of Pesticide Leaching
and Runoff. Journal of Pure & Applied chemistry,6T(12):2109-2149.
Cohen, S.2., S.M. Creeger, R.F. Carsel, and C.G. Enfield. 1984. Potential for Pesticide
Contamirtation of Ground Water Resulting from Agricultural Use, in Treatment and
Disposal of Pesticide Wastes, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 2Sg, R.F.
Krueger and J.N. Seiber, eds., 297-325, Washington, D.C., 19g4.
Craven, H. September 1990. Personal Communication. Ofiice of Pesticide Programs,
U.S. EPA. Washington, D.C.
Davis, F.M., R.A. Leonard and W.G. lfuisel. 1990. GLEAMS Use/s Manual, Version
1.8.55. USDA-ARS southeast watershed Research Laboratory, Tifton, GA, and
Coastal Plain Experiment Station, University of Georgia, Tifton, Georgia. pp.1-3g.
Duble, R.L., J.c. Thomas, and K.w. Brown. 1978. Arsenic poilution From
Underdrainage and Runoff From Golf Greens. Agronomy JournalTo:71-74.
EPA. January, 1989. Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories. Office of
Drinking Water, EPA. Washington, D.C.
EPA/O P P/H ED ( Environmental P rotection Agency/Office of P esticide Programs/H azard
Evaluation Division). June, 1986. Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation
Procedure, Ecological RiskAssessment. NTIS #PBB6-247657, Office of Pesticide
Programs, EPA. Washington, D.C.
ETS (Environmental & Turf Services, lnc.) 1992. Environmental Risk Assessment and
lntegrated Golf Course Management Plan for the Proposed Golf Courses at Maui
Wailea 670. Environmental & Turf Services, lnc., Wheaton, MD.
FCH' 1995. Farm Chemicals Handbook. MeisterPublishing Company, Willoughby,
Ohio.
Fox, F.M., & Assoc. 1974. Environmental Geology No. 8. Roaring Fork and Crystal
Valleys an Environmental and Engineering Geology Study. Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison
fi
Ref-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
and Pitkin Counties, Colorado. Prepared for the Colorado Geological Survey and The
Colorado Division of planning.
Gold, A.J., T.G. Morton, w.M. sullivan, and J. Mcclory. 1gBB. Leaching of 2,4-D and
Dicamba from Home Lawns, water, Air, and soil pollution,3l:121-129.
Green, R.E. and S.W. Karickhoff. 1985. Estimating Pesticide Sorption Coefficients for
Soils and Sediments. in Small Watershed Model (SWAM) for Water, Sediment, and
Chemical Movement, Supporting Documentation. United States Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, ARS€0. pp. 1-18.
Hall, J.C., C.S. Bowhey, and G.R. Stephenson. 1987. Lateral Movement of 2,4-D from
Grassy lnclines, 1987 British Crop Protection Conference-Weeds 2:593-599.
Harrison, S.A. 1989. Effects of Turfgrass Establishment Method and Management on
the Quantity and Nutrient and Pesticide Content of Runoff and Leachate. Master of
Science Thesis in Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Pennsylvania State University.
Harrison, s.A., T.L. watschke, R.o. Mumma, A.R. Jarrett, and G.w. Hamilton, Jr.
1993. Nutrient and Pesticide Concentrations in Water from Chemically Treated
Turfgrass. Chapter 17 in K.D. Racke and A.R. Leslie, (Eds), Pesticides in Urban
Environments, Fate and Significance, ACS Symposium Series 522. American Chemical
Society, Washington, D.C.
HCE. February 12, 1998. Drainage Report for Rose Ranch P.U.D., Garfield County,
Colorado. Prepared for Roaring Fork lnvestments, LLC by High Country Engineering,
Glenwood Springs, CO.
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, lnc. October, 29, 1997. Preliminary Geotechnical
Study Rose Ranch Development County Road 109 Garfield County, Colorado.
Prepared for the Rose Ranch Limited Partnership. Found in Planned Unit
Development and Sketch Plan, Volume l, Section 3.D.
Horst, G.L., P.J. Shea, N. Christians, D.R. Miller, C. Stuefer-Powell, and S. K.. Starrett.
1996. Pesticide Dissipation under Golf Course Fairway Conditions. Crop Sci. 36:362-
370.
Hurto, K.A. and M.G. Prinster. 1993. Dissipation of Foliar Dislodgeable Residues of
Chlorpyrifos, DCPA, Diazinon, lsofenphos, and Pendimethalin, in Fate and Significance
of Pesticides in Urban Environments, K. Racke, ed.; American Chemical Society,
Washington, D.C.
fi
Ref-3
I
I Johnson, W.W. and M.T. Finley. 1980. Handbook of Acute Toxicity of Chemicals toI Fish and Aquatic lnvertebrates. Resource Publication 137. U.S., Dept. of the lnterior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
I Jury, W.A., D.D. Focht, and W.J. Farmer. 1987. Evaluation of Pesticide Ground Water
Pollution Potential from Standard lndices of Soil-Chemical Adsorption and
I Biodegradation. Journal of Environmental Quality, 16:422428.
- Kenaga, E.E. and C.A.l. Goring. 1980. Relationship Between Water Solubility, Soilr iJi.li3u,]iTrlff$[1?r|llns' and concentration or chemicars in Biota Aquatic
I Kirkham, Robert M., Randall K. Streufert, H. Thomas Hemborg, and Peter L. Stelling,
1996. Open-File Report 96-1. Geologic Map of the Cattle Creek Quadrangle, Garfieldr County, Colorado, Description of Map Units,I
Kleveno, J.J., K. Loague, and R. E. Green. 1992. Evaluation of a Pesticide Mobility
I il!;l#pact of Recharge Variation and Soil Profile Heterogeneity. J. Environ. Qual.,
I Langlois, Dave. Senior Biologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Personalr communication May 7,1998.
I h,"j;[l iJl#"r.n s, 1se4. Letter to S. Cohen. Dept. of Agriculture, Food & Markets,
I Linde, D.T. 1996. Runoff, Erosion, and Nutrient Transport From Creeping Bentgrassr and Perennial Ryegrass Turfs. Thesis submission at Pennsylvania State University
I
Department of Agronomy.
r Mayer, F.L. 1987. Acute Toxicity of Chemicals to Estuarine Organisms. EPA/600 8-
t
871017, EPA, ERL, Gulf Breeze, FL.
I Mayer, Jr., F.L., C.H. Deans and A.G. Smith. 1987. lnter-Taxa Correlations for Toxicity
I to Aquatic Organisms, EPA/600/X€7/332 September 1987. Ecological Risk
I Assessment Program, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, pp. 1 -59.
I Mayer, F.L. and M.R. Ellersieck. 1986. Manual of Acute Toxicity; interpretation and
Database for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of Freshwater Animals. Resource
I fitl;?l?LlB:.: . Department or the rnterior, Fish and wirdrire service
t
I
I i)t,
Ref-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
Miller, J.F., R.H. Frederick, and R.J. Tracey. 1973. NOM Atlas 2: Precipitation-
Frequency Atlas of the Western United States. Volume Xl - California. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, NOM, Washington, D.C.
Miltner, E.D., B.E. Branham, E.A. Paul and P.E. Rieke. 1996. Leaching and Mass
Balance of 1sN-Labeled Urea Applied to a Kentucky Bluegrass Turf. Crop Science,
36:1427-1433.
Morton, T., A. Gold and W.M. Sullivan. 1988. Influence of Overwatering and
Fertilization on Nitrogen Losses from Home Lawns. Journal of Environmental Quality
17:124-130.
Mullins, J.A., R.F. Carpel, J.E. Scarbrough, and A.M. lvery. March 1993. PMM-2, A
Modelfor Predicting Pesticide Fate in the Crop Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones:
Users Manualfor Release2.0 Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA. Athens,
GA.
Niemczyk, H.D. and H.R. Krueger. 1987. Persistence and Mobility of lsazofos in
Turfgrass Thatch and Soil, J. Econ. Entomol. 80(4):950-952.
O'Connor, M. 1998. tntegrated Golf Course Management Plan for Rose Ranch Golf
Course, Glenwood Springs, CO. Unpublished.
Petrovic, A.M. 1990. The Fate of Nitrogenous Fertilizer Applied to Turfgrass. Journal
of Environmental Quality, 19 1 -1 4.
Racke, K. 1993. Environmental Fate of Chlorpyrifos, in Reviews of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. G.W. Ware [Ed.], Springer-Verlag, NewYork, NY., Vol
131 :1 -154.
Rao, P.S.C. and J.M. Davidson. 1980. Estimation of Pesticide Retention and
Transformation Parameters Required in Nonpoint Source Pollution Models, in
Environmental lmpact of Nonpoint Source Pollution, M.R. Overcash and J.M. Davidson,
[Eds.], Ann Arbor Science Publishers. Ann Arbor, Ml. pp. 2366.
Rao, P.S.C., A.G. Hornsby, and R.E. Jessup. 1985. lndices for Ranking the Potential
for Pesticide Contamination of Ground Water. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. Florida Proc.Mj{..
Rhodes, R.C. and J.D. Long. 1974. Runoff and Mobility Studies on Benomyl in Soils
and Turf, Bull. Env. Cont. and Tox., 12(4):385-393.
Ref-5
i)t,
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
Sears, M.K. and R.A. Chapman. 1979. Persistence and Movement of Four lnsecticides
Applied to Turfgrass. J. Econ. Entomol. 72:272-214.
Smith, A.E. and D.C. Bridges. 1994. Evaluation of the Potential Movement of
Pesticides Following Application to Golf Courses. USGA Environmental Research
Program, 1991-1993 Summary. Submitted to USGA, Greens Section Research
Committee.
Smith, A.E. and D.C. Bridges. 1996a. Movement of Certain Herbicides Following
Application to Simulated Golf Course Greens and Fairways. Crop Science, 36:1439-
1445.
Smith, A.E. and D.C. Bridges. 1996b. Potential Movement of Certain Pesticides
Following Application to Golf Courses. 1996 Turfgrass and Environmental Research
Summary, U.S. Golf Association, Far Hills, NJ. pp. 72-75.
State of Colorado Homepage: http://www. state. co. us/col orado. htm I
Steinmann, D. 1997. Unpublished Report. Report on Wetlands Delineation,
Endangered Species, and Cultural Resources for the Rose Ranch. Professional
Wetlands Consulting, lnc.
Stephan, C.E., D.l. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman, and W.A. Brungs.
1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
Tumer, L. 1995. Personal Communication. July 10, 1995. Chief, Endangered
Species Protection Program, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA, Washington, DC.
USDA, SCS. November, 1988. l-5 Pesticide Data Base in Water Quality Workshop:
lntegrating Water Quality and Quantity into Conservation Planning, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
USDA, SCS. 1986. Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds, 2nd Edition. Technical
Release Number 55, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, D.C.
USDA, SCS. 1984. Soil Survey of Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle,
Garfield, and Pitkin Counties. ln cooperation with the United States Department of
lnterior, Bureau of Land Management, and the Colorado Agricultural Experiment
Station.
s
Ref€
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
Walker, W.J. and B. Branham. 1992. Environmental lmpacts of Turfgrass Fertilization,
Chapter 3 in J.C. Balogh and w.J. walker. [eds] Golf course Management
Environmental lssues. spectrum Research, lnc., Duluth, MN and u.s. Golf
Association, Far Hills, NJ.
Wauchope, R.D. 1978. The Pesticide Content of Surface Water Drainage from
Agricultural Fields - a Review. Journal of Environmental Quality 7(4):459472.
Wauchope, R.D., R.G. Williams, and L.R. Marti. 1990. Runoff of Sulfometuron-Methyl
and Cyanazine from Small Plots: Effects of Formulation and Grass Cover, J. Environ.
Qual., 19(1):119-125.
Whitfield, P. 1985. MacMillan tllustrated Animal Encyclopedia. MacMillan Publishing,
Co., New York.
Wilkes, S.G. and E.C. King. 1980. Procedures for Determining Peak Flows in Colorado,
lncorporates and Supplements Technical Release No. 55 Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Willis, G.H. and L.L. McDowell. 1987. Pesticide Persistence on Foliagg. Review of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 6 (1 00):23-73.
Wolfe, Dick. 1998. Professional Engineer, Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of
Water Resources, State Engineers Office. Personal communication June 6, 1998.
Anderson, D. May 1, 1997. Personal communication; Water Quality Commission, Dept.
Health & Envt., Denver.
WSSA (Weed Science Society of America). 1989. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed
Science Society of America, 6th ed. Champaign, lllinois.
Zancanella and Assoc. May 4, 1998. Letter to Roaring Forks lnvestments, LLC, c/o
Ronald Heggemeier, Re: Rose Ranch P.U.D. - Roaring Fork River Water Quality.
I
Ref-7
146 Soil Su
I
TABLS L.--TEPPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION
I Temperacure Precl-picacion
ltttlttt
Mooth I Average I Average I Average I
I maximum I minimum IltrItl
2 years in
10 will have--
ll
I Average I
lnumber oflAveragel
9rowrng
deg re e
days r
I 2 years in 10 I
I will have-- |
I I Average
Less I More Inumber of
t han-- I Ehan-- I days w!g6
I 10.10 inch
I I or more
ldaily ldaily ldaily I l,laximum I llinimum
i ce.nperaLu.re i E emoeracure
I higher I lower
I chan-- I t.han--
ll
InlInl
lololololo
lFlFlFlil
llltl
Units In
I Recorceci in che perioci i900-88 aE. Glenwood Springs
I
January---- I
Fecruary--- |
March------ |
Aprj.l------ |May-------- |
June------- |JuIy------- I
August ----- I
September-- |
Occobe r---- |
November--- |
December--- I
I
Yearly: i
Average-- |
Excreme-- |ToLal---- |
I
0.55, 2.L1i
.46: 2.51 I
.57; 2.24
.16i 2.4it
.5]- r 2.01 i
.42t 1.771
. 60 I 1.94 I
.821 2.L7 |
.57t 2.361
.57 i 2.L1 i
. 51 , I . 6E :
.54 | 1.94 l
il
35.9n) \
50 .8
6r.4
?1.9
82 .4
88.4
85.0
lo ,
66 .4
50.c
10 ,
11.0
t5.2
23 .9
30 .9
38 .0
43. ?
50 .3
49 .2
24.0
29 .3
37.4
54 .9
bJ.U
59.3
51 .6
59.8
49.I
JO.U
,q a
-i6
-\2
1
;i
1:
38
3?
2i
-t,
0
5
54
2A6
462
6E4
893
845
5)2
285
1(
2
q, Uoo
l.q/
t.53
1.48
I .55
I .l8
l. L3
r.3c
1.54
r il
L .12
l.L
1 ic
4i.
1l
22.
13.
I
60 I
7L l
5U I
88 !
96 I
99 I
9ii
92 1
8i 1
69
55I
I 62.8 ; li.C
Ic2.0 i -38.c
---i
---i---l
ii.C6l ':9.61 r 48| \6.91
iI
I
I
January---- I
February--- |
March------ |
ApriI------ |
May-------- |
Tr!Fa---- --- I
Ju Iy------- |
Augusc----- |
Sepcember-- I
Occober---- |
November--- I
December--- I
YearIy:
Average--
Ext. reme - -
ToEaI----
ll
0.88 | 0.261
.5? I .29 I
.82 | .401
.?9 I .3Cl
.85 t' .3Ll-.88 | .22 1
1.19 i .57t
:,.06 | .52
t.i0 i .37i
.93 i .351
.?1 I .35i
.91 | .381
llrl
---l---l
---l---l
10.69 I 6.821rl
34.1
40.0
47.4
<o 1
59.0
79.9
86.0
ol 1
l( o
63 .9
45.9
35 .4
3.0
8.5
18.5
)\ A
33.I
19.3
46.0
44.3
15.6
)q d
15.l
5.0
25.0
-51.0
58
5A
1T
85
93
95
94
9i
8i-
66
55
vb
-1a
-23
-7
i
i3
26
l4
l:,
20
3
-:3
-24
-JJ
t
I
I6
ll3
145
587
805
?3?
tttl
I la
t3
I
3 ,2'10
1.38
.oz
1 lQ
l.2l
1.l0
t .40
1- .12
1.53
!.71
!.50
l. c2
1.35
13.36
I
2
z
2
2
3
3
l
2
2
2
26
60 .0
'l_l
See fooEnote a! end of cabIe.
!
I
I
I
n
l
l
I
o2_1
Seccriec i:::ie pe:tcc -9C8-Eg ac 3agle
l
!
n
!
n
---l
N
o
I
t
,l3s \
30
I I I I I I I I
AGRICU LTU RAL LABORATOHIES, INC.
Road . Richmond, Virginia 23237' (804) 743-9401
Fax No. (804) 271-6446
I I I I IIIII
REPoRT Ni,rMeen
R1 3 I -024
DATE OF REPORT a5 t zal 98
I I
A&L EASTERN
7621 WhitePine HYElucnrvED HAY z i i000
E HVIRONHE NT At T 'I UR F
$ERVICESz INC./SIE 208
1 1 141 GEO RGIA I VE
hHEATON I.I D 2090?
PAGE
GROWER: ROSE RANCH
98-88-C
GLEN lr,00D SPR ING
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
sAMPLES ACCT # 257"1
SUBMITTED
BY: THOilAS DURBO ROI{
DATE RECEIVED A5118.198
DATE OF ANALYSTS A5 119198
SAMPLE
NUMBER
LAB
NUMBER
OBGANIC MATTER PHOSPHOBUS POTASSIUM MAGNESIUM CALCIUM SOOIUM pH ACIDITY C.E.C.
% ENFI
lbs./A
BRAY P1
ppm RATE
BBAY P2
ppm RATE
K
ppm RATE
MG
ppm RATE
CA
ppm RATE
NA
ppm RATE
SOIL
pH
BUFFER
INDEX
H
meq/1009 meq/1
R Rf1
R Rfz
R RfJ
R Ri4
R R'5
c1973
a1e74
019'7 5
L 1976
a1977
1-8 6tL
2.1 Ell
2-4 ?6[
't -t 791
2 .4 7 4l
11 L
12L
1vt
2.VL
zvL
59 H
75 VH
20 L
4VL
4vL
132 I'l
146 H
156 H
1f 0 trt
16? rr
268 VH
?59 VH
195 n
101 L
542 VH
3540 VH
1900 H
?.720 VH
3000 vH
2800 H
16 VL
?$ vL
15 VL
BVL
91 L
8.0
7.5
8.1
8.3
8.1
0.0
0-0
0-0
0. {J
0.0
20. I
I
12.
1 5.'
16.,
1 9.:
SAMPLE
NUMBEH
PERCENT BASE SATURATION NITRATE
NO3-N
ppm RATE
SULFU R ztNc MANGANESE IRON COPPER BORON SOLUBLE
SALTS
CHLORIOE MOLYB.
DENUM M'
ppm RAT
so4-s
ppm RATE
ZN
ppm RATE
MN
ppm RATE
FE
ppm RATE
CU
ppm RATE
B
ppm BATE
CL
ppm RATEKMgCaNaHns/cm RATE
R Rfl
RR*2
R Rf J
R Rf4
R Rf5
1.7
5.1
2.5
?-1
?.1
11.0
17-8
10.{
5.2
23.rt
87. Ol
I
78-4
66.7
92.5
7.2.4
t.l
t.7
t.4
c-2
2-0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7L
4L
4L
2L
5.9
2.0
0.2
0.1
H
L
vl
v
3fH
39H
33H
12 t't
16 H
5r:
1L
1L
1.2 fi
0-7 t{
il-1 L
0.1 L
<.3 VL
0-3 vt
0.3 vl
<.-1. Vl
7..9 Vt
Values on this report represent the plant available nutrients in the soil'
Explanation of symbols: Values are expressed as % (percent), ppm (pads per million), or ltls/A (pounds per acre)'
nating after each value: VL (Very Low), L (Low), M (Medium), H (High), VH (Very High)'
ENR - Estimated Nitrogen Release. c.E.c. - cation Exchange capacity.
To convert to lbs/A, multiply the results in ppm by 2'
See tlre back of this report for conversiort factors and more detailed information.
This reporl applies lo lhe sample(s) lssled. Samples are relaine(
maximum ol lhirty days a,ter lesling. Soll Analysis prepa(ed by:
SEND
TO:
I I IIIIIIIIIIIIII II
REPORT NUMBER
R1 59 -024
A&L EASTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES, INC.
7621 whitepine Road. Richmond, Virginia 23237. (g04) 748_g4o1
Fax No. (804) 271-6446 HYIA
SENDro: tNVIRONItENTAt & tURF
S ERVICESZ INC . / ST E 20 811741 GEOR6L AV[
IiHEATON lt D ZggA?
GRowER: ROSE RANCH 6. C.
98"8 ts- G
GLf N t,IOOD S PR ING
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
SAMPLES
SUEMITTED
BY:
ACCT # 25721
Tf{OHAS DURtsOROIJ
DArE oF REPoBT a5 t 2at g s PAGE DATE RECETVED A5I18I gS
SAMPLE
NUMBEH
LAB
NUMBER
ORGANIC MATTER
DA E OF A}IALYSIS 05 1gt q*
MAGNESIUM CALCIUM SODIUM pH% ENR
tbs./A
BRAY P1ppm RATE
BHAY P2ppm BATE
K
ppm HATE
84 VL
404 vH
111 L
ACIDITY c.E.c.
MG
ppm HATE
CA
ppm RATE
NA
ppm RATE
SOIL
pH
BUFFEB
INDEX
H
meq/1009 meq/100(
R R#6
R Rf7
R Rf8
c1976
0197e
t1980
2.1 6 BL
3.1 ESI
4.1 1C6t{
2vL
4vL
8VL
4vL
67 VH
59 H
1'l4
250
392
VL
VH
VH
6634
30 70
1210
VH
VH
VH
11
1s
107
VL
VL
L
7.9
8.1
7.7
0.0
0.{)
0.0
54./
1 8.:
25-'
SAMPLE
NUMBER
PERCENT BASE SATURATION NITFATE SULFUR zrNc MANGANESE IBON COPPER BORON SOLUBLE
SALTS
CHLORIDE MOLYB-
DENUM M(
K Mg Ca
%
Na H N03-N
ppm HATE
so{-s
ppm HATE
ZN
ppm RATE
MN
ppm RATE
FEppm RATE
CU
ppm RATE
B
ppm RATE
CL
ppm RATE
R Rf6
R RiST
R RfS
u.6
5.6
1.1
z.g
11.2
1 5.0
96.5
EZ.E
t4.0
[-1
(-4
1-9
0.0
0-0
0.0
ns/cm RATE RA
5L 3.1 lr 64V 12H o.z L
4.0 vl
0.8 L
3.2 vl
Values on this report represent the available
PIIUSPHOBUS POTASSIUM
This rbport.applies to th€ sample(s) testod. Samples are rslainedmaxrmum ot lhtrly days alter testing. Soil Analysis prepared by:
AJh\ EASTERN AGntcuLruBAL lf oRAroRtEs, tNc.",ulMM,.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Rl 59 -024
REPORT
A & L EASTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES, INC., TG2l whitepine Road ;j ilyiJtl)tJ;EtXfsz37
' (804) 743-e401
E I I I
HYIA
NUMBEFI
ENVIRONf{ENTAL 8 lURF
SERVICESz INC.ISlE 2QB
11141 6EORGII AVT
Ti HEATON TI D : 2C 9O Z
c5l20l9B 1
R0SE RAt\CH G.C.
?8'88-G
6LEN l,,,0OD SPRING
ACCT # 257?1
THOIIIAS DURBOROtd
DATE RECEIVED 05118198
DATE OF AI{ALYSIS 'J5I19I9B
RRTl
RR#3
RR #4
RR# 5
RRT6
R R#7
RR#8
01e73
01975
01976
019?7
01e?8
01979
01e80
C.E.C . Ml Y :BE 0VE R ESTIT'IATED
C.E-C. FtAY ]BE OVER ESTIK{ATED
C.E.C. HIY BT OVER ESTII{ATED
C.E.C. I'I,Y'tsI OVER ESTIHATED
C.E.C. HIYIBI OVER ESTII{ATED
C.E.C. }1AY }Bt OVTR ESTII4ATED
C. E. C . HI Y .BT OV E R ES TII{A TED
EXCESSIVE LIllEz HIGH CA
EXCESSIVE LIitEr HIGH cA
EXCESSM LIllEz HIGH cA
E Xc ES SIVE LII{Ez HIGH C A
EXc ESSM LII(Er HIGH CA
E XC ESSIVE LIfiEz HIGH CA
EXCESSM LIltEr HIGH CA
DUE TO
DUE TO
DUE TO
IiU E TO
DUE TO
DUE TO
DUE TO
Our reporls and leilers are lor the excltrsive and conlidential use of our clients, and ntay nol be reproduced in whole or in parl. nor may any relerence be nlade to tlre
..' TIORH"AN J ONSS
li i :39-.(iErr
REPORT NUMBER
5El'lD -l-t-r:
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
A&LEASTERNAGRICULTURALLABoRAToRIES,INc'-t
7621 Whitepine Road . Richmond, virginia 23237 ' (804) 743-9401
Fax No. (804) 271-6446 eYu
Ef{V]. RDI.,IT{ET-IT/iI_ &. TI.JFIF
SE.llVICE$, IN(l" /51'8. [t){:i
1 1 1. 41 EEtJtl:GIA AVE
tdl-lEAl'oN l'1D ;1(]9i)il
DATE Cri5/e{t/98 Fl\tiE t
LlAt'1F LE l-AF-j
it)l.lul,lBE.li
FrF'F([.1:'hl I F,l:: l::il-'[1N T F'E.i:i:i-:H t.l'T l-E. X T L]11/-'r1...
tlli(Ji{l::l:i :
F(Li5E FiAll'll-:l-l {:i" il"
ci,:l_ [ilii_ [:i
t]l_ E hihlt]t]I) $i:rti: t. t.lL:j
:,1. l_ r
gl.lErPi t. 1 l'E ).) Er.,r :
!-l-:t-rf1f-ii:; t t lliL::(-'l;;tl14
i-|..i:li:ii:l J. l: .1. iiA t I ill.'lri /i hlt)r:l.. iiY
Fi[r+ 1
Fili#,E:
Fln#3
RF::,H,4
F(ti#5
RFi:+li
F:Rfl,7
Ij.:FiH,Fl
(:.)tg'73
t)1 <?"/ tr
r-t'L?'7ij
i.-tI9"/L
Ltl+'7'7
()19'7E)
t'-)Lt?"7n
0198(l
.:.,7. (tr
49" Ci
5'.J" h
45i. /^'
:i5" 5
fl. - t. ci
C:,J. .:1
ilT" i:
llrl,, (-)
',ii_),, (l
i:1il, tJ
i.tti., (J
/1 /1,, (-)
:rif:,, (.)
r{.ii. (-!
::i4,, ()
;i,5., 4
;_'i 1,, /i
1 []" rr
'I ('., tt
;:l(1" ir
t-:. f.. ,, !i
8.1,,. Lt
t_.t-r6\r,l
1.. []ril'1
5At{DY l- rlr:il1
L..[!rrif'1
t_ {1tr\l"l
5I l-.-l l-.(Jr:\i"l
t jl..r:)rY l_ l.lf:'r11
t-fiAl.1
ourrcoonsandrole.arslDrrheorcrusivoandconridonlialus6orou.clien.",andm'vnotbe'opdd*dlnwlEle"orinpan ,..,,y,'y^:,*',W*'MA
- Jit,,.oiil",E!tcfiirs!Fi".!i?,".r r r r r -c'ii^-o*cGtdE:"'lEaofi!
I I t4l Georgia Avenue, Suite 208, Wheaton, MD 20902
ph (301) 933-4700 fax (301) 933-4101
General Remarks
€ Prcservative Used
(L$+ y t'i {56.v- el rtr>J
v.Je gkBr*'k Qa-*'L (^'C '
Specific Remarks or Sample l-ocation
Project Name:
Project Number: tlfl -gB - G
Site Name: GLf*uno
Sampler(s) Name(s):'fi
Le*)6-* Br-..*
Signature(s):
$A o( d# ('C*.,r,clpfer $A o( *'*t (t*',p ?tr)i g) 0 -ltl "
RR*r ir (J19i
A n'zl ll ! 3'r t- LeJ ru^'A,,e tsil -[r1.*
.\rnr,fP ln'"r0(l 19'75
Lo-,-({-....hrR gooJ (Pir19 o'/S"
Lo.;(;- l. Cr,"'1, P iql,'f ) O '/3-
$(, n(l 1q'
Luw r;- LPrq *) o-lz"*1 0Ll 1g''/:
f5orrri u Qi-,t klg su,
speclal Instructions "@Aprl
oho' u*L c c€ L'
,Jf le;utr5Jte -r' 6r- RGI'L i PR+3
Received by: (si gnature)2. Relinquished by: (signature)
roins Carrier Shipper Tracking Number..t,€F YoS23413SSzl
ived for Lab by: (sigiature)
White - Return to by Lab (P PLrk - R"trm by LaU lCtient Services) Gold - Retain by Sampler
#\,
):
,(,n
t\)
aa
Received by: (si grature)
Fe,{9.p
File)
I IIIIIIIII
A&L EASTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES, INC.
702 1 w h i te p i n e *"ro;j'
i,[l lJrl,gi tX
23237 . (804) 7 43-e 40 1
RECEI y[D JiJi,] I tggg
I IIII I
IIEPON T NUMT]EN
R1 39-024
ADDITION BYIA
sE l.l{ )
to ENVIRONMENTAL & TURF
SERVICES, INC /STE 2OB
III4I GEORGiA AVE
I,'IHEATON, MD 20902
05 / 29 /98 pA(i{:
(irowr:il RosE RANCH G. C.
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
Magnesium I SooiumMslN,
mdks I ,dks
SAN4PI-ES
StJBlvllTTIt)
IJ \':
THOMAS DURBOROl,l
T)ATE OF t]EIT{IR'T
SAMPLE
IDENT.
RR#2
RR#3
RR#4
RR#5
RR#B
0
0
0
0
0
Our reports and lelters are lor the exclusive and contldential use ol our clienls, and may nol be reproduced in whole or in part, nor may any relerence be made
to lhe work, the resulls, or the company in any advertising, news release, or other public announcemenls withoul oblaining our plior wlilten aulhorizalion.
LAB
NO.
Nitrogen
N
mEkg
Phos-
phorus
P
mgfts
Potassium
K
mgftg
Sullur
S
ms&g
Calcium
Ca
mgkg
)97 4
197 5
197 6
197 7
I 980
I 300
I 000
900
I 000
I 500
admiur
Cd
mdkg
Chromium
Cr
mdkg
Nickel
Ni
mEkg
Lead
Pb
mdkg
Arsenic
As
mEks
Mercury
Hg
mgts
Selenlum
Se
mElg
lron
Fe
mdks
Aluminum
AI
myks
Manganese
Mn
mgts
Copper
Cu
mdks
Zinc
7n
mdks
Ammonla
Nitrogen
mdks
Nitrate
Nitrogen
mYks
LAB
NO.
Organic
Nitrogen
mdks
pH
Total
c.E.c.
(medl0og)
This reporLsDplies only to lhe sample(s) lesle4-Farnples are
(etained ry&n?cflrQl lhirlydays aller leslingy
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
')-
(Kirkham and Others, 1996). The anticiine is a second-order, regional strucn:'re between
the first-order Grand Hogback lvlonocline to the southwest and the White River Uptift to
the northeast. These regional stnrctural feafures developed as a resuit of compressional
stresses during the Laramide Orogeny about 40 to 70 million yeals ago' in additional to
Laramide compressional stresses the cattie creek Anticline is also beiieved to be
associated with ground deformations related to evaporite diapirism, hydration expansion,
and dissolution in the Eagie valley Evaporite which forms the core of the anticline' The
evaporite d.eformation in the region is younger than the 3'0 to 22'4 million yeal old basait
flows present in the uplands to the east and west of the Roaring Fork Valiey (Kirkham
and Widmann , lggl). The evaporite deformation has affected Pleistocene (10'000 to 1'8
million year old) deposits and landforms and possibly Holocene (less than l0'000 year
oid) deposits and iandforms in the region. Along the a.xis of the canle creek anticline it
appears that the Late Pleistocene and older river terraces have been tilted away from the
river in places (Kirkham and Others' 1996)'
PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY
our interpretation of the geologic conditions in the project area is shown on Fig'
1. Formation rock in the area is the Eagie Valley Evaporite and Eagle Valley Formation'
The rock is usually covered by surFrcial soii deposits that consist of coiluvium' alluvial
fans, river alluvium and loess. Major fauits are not known to be present in the project
area (Tweto and others, 1978, and Kirkham and others, 1996)' The principle geologic
features in the project area are described below'
EAGLE VALLEY EVAPOzuTE AND FOfu\IATION
Prominent outcrops of the Eagle valley Evaporite (Pee) are plesent along the
bluffs to the west of county Road 109. Elsewhere the formation rock is usually covered
by surficial soil deposits and outcrops are limited' To the west' the Eagle Valley
Evaporite grades into the Eagie valley Formation (Pe) along the limb of the Grand
Hogback Monocline. These two formations were deposited during the Middle
Pennsylvanian (about 300 million years ago) in the interior of the Eagle Basin' The Eagle
I
I
H-P GEOTECH
ll
lr
lr
lr
l:
l:
.4-
Valley Formation is the transitional interval between the Eagle Valiey Evaporite and the
red-beds of the Maroon Formation.
Eagle valley Evaporite: The Eagie vailey Evaporite (Pee) is made up of gray and tan'
gypsum, anhydrite, and haiite with interbedded siltstone, claystone' shale, and 'dolomite'
The gypsum, anhydrite and halite are soluble in fresh water. The siltstone, claystone' and
shale varies from cemented and hard to non-cemented but firm. The dolomite is
cemented and hard. The bedding structule at most places is convoluted because of flow
deformation in the plastic gypsum, anhydrite, and halite. Joints are cornmonly present in
the cemented beds. The gypsum, anhydrite, and halite are massive because of their
plasticir.v and do not contain joints. Subsurface voids and related sinkholes are sometimes
present in areas underiain by the Eagie Valley Evaporite throughout western Colorado
because of the solubiliry of the gypsum. anhydrite and haiite.
Eagle Valley Formafion: The Eagle Valiey Formation (Pe) is made up of reddish-
brown, gray, and redd.ish-gray siltstone, shaie, claystone, fine-grained sandstone,
carbonate rock, and local lenses of gypsum. The rock varies from non-cemented but frrm
to cemented and hard. Joints are common in the cemented beds' Subsurface voids and
related sinkholes are sometimes present in areas underlain by the Eagie Vailey Formation
because of ihe solubility of the locai gypsum lenses'
COLLWiUIvI
Colluvium (Qc) usually covers the formation rock on the hillside-s and other
upiand areas. The colluvium is a poorly stratified deposit of anguiar rock fragments from
gravel to boulder size in a soil matrix. The soil matrix varies from a silty and clayey sand
to sandy siit and ciay. The rock fragments are usually supported by the soil matrix with
little fragment to fragment contact. The soii matrix typicaliy exhibits a collapse potential
when werted. The depth of the colluvium is expected to vary from less than 1 foot to over
10 feet in places.
H-P Georecn
I
I
lr
lr
lr
l:
l:
l:
5-
ALLWIAL FANS
Alluvial fans (Qaf-1 and Qaf-2) form an alluvial apron aiong the base of the bluff
in the eastern part of the project area. A large alluvial fan (Qaf-1) is present at the mouth
of Northeast Dry Park Gulch. The slope of the Northeast Dry Park Gulch fan is about
80% near the fan head and decreases to about 4o/o aloog the lower parts of the fan' Small
basin aiiuvial fans (Qaf-2) have developed at the mouths of the numerous small drainage
basins on the bluff to the north and south of the Northeast Dry Park Gulch fan' In their
lower parts these small basin alluvial fans coalesce to form the a continuous ailuvial
apron. Near the fan head the smali basin alluvial fans have siopes between 30% ard 40%'
In most places the slope aiong the lorver part of the alluvial apron is about 4o/o' Fan
channeis are poorly defined and there are several abandoned channels on all of the fans'
The aliuvial fans result from sediment deposition associated with debris floods
and viscous debris flows caused by unusually intense thunderstorm prectpttation or
unusually heavy snowpack melt. Parts of the alluvial fans have covered all but the
ybungest river terrace (Qt-1). This indicates that the fans at the site are geologically
young and are probably still active geomorphic features. Srudies of simiiar fans to the
south in the Carbondale area suggest debris flow recurrence intervals berween 100 and
340 years (Kirkham and Widmann,1997).
The ailuvial fans consist of both mauix supported. and clast supported deposits'
The matrix supported deposits consist of anguiar to rounded gravel, cobbles and boulders'
Boulders from i to 2 feet ale cornmon in the upper parts of the fans' The soil man-ix
varies from a silty and clayey sand to sandy silt and clay. Incontrast, the clast supported
deposits consist of a sand.y siit with angular to rounded', gravel, cobbles-and occasional
boulders. The exploratory borings show'that the fan deposits are relativeiy deep in their
upper and middle parts. The fan deposits at Boring 2 were Q- feet deep, and the fan
deposits at Borings 4, 8 and 9 are over 3l feet deep. The natural relatively dry fan
deposits qvpically exhibit a collapse potential when wetted.
NORTHEAST DRY PARK GULCH ALLWITIM
The channel floor of Northeast Dry Park Guich and its larger tributaries are
underlain by alluvium (Qadp-|). Oider aiiuvium (Qadp-2) is also present in places in the
Northeast Dry Park drainage. The older alluvium consists of fans and stream channel
H-P GeorecH