HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Carlsbad municipal Golf Course; Hole 13 Drainage Issues Carlsbad Golf Course; 2000-02-11HOLE 13 DRAINAGE ISSUES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GOLF COURSE
Prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, Califorma 92008
Contact: Mr. John Cahill
Prepared by:
P&D Environmental Services
401 West A Street, Suite 2500
San Diego, Califomia 92101
Contact: Ms. Betty Dehoney
February 11,2000
February 11, 2000
P&D Consultants
planners/Engineers/Architects
401 WEST "A" STREET
SUITE 2500
SAN DIECO, CALIFORNIA 92101
619/232-4466
619/234-3022 FAX
www.pdconsu Hants,com
Mr. John Cahill
CITY OF CARLSBAD - FARADAY CENTER
Community Development Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92009
SUBJECT: City of Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course project - Summary of impacts to the
existing Cannon Road mitigation area
Dear John,
At your request and in response to the issues and concerns raised by the various permitting
agencies, we have evaluated the possible impacts to the existing Cannon Road mitigation
area due to the City of Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course project (specifically hole number 13).
In general, we have analyzed the following:
• Hydrology
• Water Quality
• Design alternative to the depollutant basin
• Maintenance of the depollutant basin
A more detailed explanation of the analysis and the conclusions reached are included in the
attached study. We hope you find this information useful in you discussions with the
permitting agencies. As always, please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any
questions or need additionai information.
Sincerely,
P&D CONSULTANTS, INC.
5l A. Lee, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Betty Dehor>ey
Director, Environmental
C: USFWS (1 set of maps, 2 reports) to Julie Vanderwier/ Nancy Gilbert
CDFG (1 set of maps, 2 reports) to Tamara Spear/ Bill Tippets
Don Rideout (1 set of maps, 1 report)
City of Carlsbad Golf Course Hole 13 Drainage Issues
Hole 13 Drainage Issues
HYDROLOGY
Existing Condition
The existing condition for the drainage basin contributing to the existing Carmon Road
mitigation area is predominately characterized by rolling hills with grassland vegetation. The
exception is the Faraday Avenue road-way project currently under construction by the City of
Carlsbad. The overall drainage basin includes areas north, south, and east of the mitigation
area. Ho^wever, an analysis of the flow entering the mitigation area is limited to the portion
of the basin that flows from the north into the mitigation area, as this area will flow into the
proposed depollutant basin. The areas of the drainage basin east and south of the mitigation
area are excluded, as these areas will not flow into the proposed depollutant basin. The
northerly portion of the overall drainage basin is divided into two sub-areas, one north and
one south of Faraday Avenue. The portion of the drainage basin north of Faraday Avenue
flows south and enters pipe culverts under Faraday Avenue that outlet south of the road
grading. A small portion of the basin north of Faraday Avenue is part of the Faraday Avenue
alignment itself. The drainage from this area enters a storm drain pipe in the roadway and
outfalls on the south side of the roadway. The drainage from the area north of the roadway
as well as the roadway itself, then flows south to the existing mitigation area. The total
100-year storm event flow (QlOO) entering the Cannon Road mitigation area is anticipated to
be approximately 99.5 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Current Proposed Condition
The current proposed condition is the grading as shovm on the City of Carlsbad Municipal
Golf Course project including the depollutant basin located adjacent to the northerly side of
the existing Cannon Road mitigation area. The condition of the proposed drainage basin
contributing to the existing Cannon Road mitigation area is a combination of rolling hills
with grassland vegetation, a graded golf course, and the constructed Faraday Avenue. The
analysis of the flow entering the mitigation area in the current proposed condition is limited
to the area north of the mitigation area. This approach is the same as the existing condition
(i.e., the analysis is for the same pre- and post-developed drainage basin). The northerly
portion of the overall drainage basin is generally divided into two sub-areas, one north and
one south of Faraday Avenue. The portion of the drainage basin north of Faraday Avenue
flows south and enters pipe culverts under Faraday Avenue. A small portion of the basin
north of Faraday Avenue is part of the Faraday Avenue alignment itself. The proposed storm
drain pipes from the golf course project connect to the out-fall of the Faraday Avenue pipe
culverts and convey the runoff under the golf course areas to the proposed depollutant basin.
Some drainage from the golf course grading design is intercepted in smaller storm drain
pipes. These smaller storm drain pipes connect to the larger storm drain pipes conveying
runoff from the outfalls at Faraday Avenue to the depollutant basin. Finally, the flows exit
the proposed depollutant basin via separate storm drain systems that outfall into the Cannon
Road mitigation area. The total 100-year storm event flow (QlOO) entering the depollutant
0 P&D Environmental Pagel
I
City of Carlsbad Golf Course Hole 13 Drainage Issues
basin is anticipated to be approximately 115.8 cfs. The total lOO-year storm event flow
(QlOO) exiting the depollutant basin and entering the existing Carmon Road mitigation area
is anticipated to be approximately 122.5 cfs. The increase in flow from (i.e., 122.5 cfs vs.
115.8 cfs) is due to the area of the mitigation area itself. The depollutant basin is not
specifically designed as a detention basin. The design of the depollutant will detain flows
fi'om small storm events. This runoff will be absorbed into the ground over time. Finally,
the bottom of the depollutant basin is proposed to be unlined thus allowing for groundwater
recharge.
Water Quality
P&D has attempted to obtain specific water quality data regarding the quality of nuisance
water, stormwater, or other drainage. Requests for data from the Califomia Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) was unsuccessful; however, P&D is also attempting to
collect unpublished data from sources analyzing runoff on some Califomia courses. If those
data are obtained (there is an issue of client confidentiality that we are attempting to address),
we will supplement this analysis. The following information has been excerpted from
materials collected from the intemet. Quantification of water quality of mnoff from the golf
course is limited based upon our research to date.
Adequate buffering and routing of surface waters, healthy turf, and careful selection of
materials for use on golf courses serves to protect associated basins or waters from chemical
loading. Concem with surface runoff is critical during constmction and during the "grow-in"
period when the bare soil and thin turf cover makes the site most vulnerable.
Golf course clearing should include installation of extensive erosion control barriers between
the areas being cleared for fairways and the natural areas. These will remain in place after
turf buffer strips are established and until all cleared areas have adequate turf cover to
prevent erosion. Turf buffer strips of at least 15 feet have been shovm to improve water
quality in runoff (Audubon Intemational, 1997). The effectiveness of turf as a buffer is
related to the fibrous nature of the turf root system and the architecture of the turf canopy.
Buffer strips should be fully established with a one-inch height of cut before removal of
erosion barriers. As the turf matures, potential mnoff problems will diminish (Audubon
Intemational, 1997).
Care needs to be taken during the grow-in phase with irrigation management to prevent
runoff and sediment movement into wetland areas and/or basins, and allow the buffer areas
to adequately filter any possible surface nutrient/sediment movement. Controls put in place
during golf course clearing should remain in place after turf buffer strips are established and
until all cleared areas have adequate turf cover to prevent erosion. Turf buffer strips are an
integral part of mainteriance of surface water quality (Audubon Intemational, 1997).
Any runoff from turf areas will be directed into a buffer area or vegetated swale for filtration
before entering any water body. Swales involve the edge contours of roughs or fairways
which maximize travel distance of water, providing an additional natural filtration system
S P&D Environmental Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Carlsbad Golf Course Hole 13 Drainage Issues
(Audubon Intemational, 1997). Negative impacts on water quality in the wetland areas will
be minimized.
Relevant Studies
Studies at the University of Maryland of surface runoff from turf evaluated the effects of
rainfall intensity and turf seeding rate (density) on runoff initiation time, runoff rate, and
sediment loss (including total movement of nitrogen and phosphates). "The research showed
that surface runoff, sediment loss, and total nitrogen and phosphate movement were
dramatically lower than agricultural uses" (Muirhead & Rando, 1994).
Other studies at Pennsylvania State University investigated surface runoff on managed turf
and concluded that managed turf grasses do not display a high potential for movement of
pesticides or fertilizers (Muirhead & Rando, 1994). Measurable runoff on test sites could not
be induced until test slopes were irrigated at more than twice the intensity of a 100- to
125-year storm (6 inches per hour). Even at that level, the average concentration of nutrients
was well below the standard for public drinking water (Muirhead & Rando, 1994).
A study on compacted clay in Georgia (Appendix A) indicated that there was some mnoff in
certain conditions. As a result, Michigan State University Extension suggests to "water-in"
the treatment on sensitive sites (compacted, sloping soils adjacent to surface waters). It is
essential to water the application area after treatment to avoid a possible high intensity
rainfall that could increase runoff, along with the possibility of carrying some fertilizer and
pesticide with it (MSU Extension, 1999). -
The GCSAA Foundation (Appendix B) funded a review of several golf course monitoring
programs and found that no golf courses in the study produced widespread or repeated toxic
effects in groundwater or surface water. Only 0.29 percent of review readings for pesticides
in surface water samples were in excess of health advisory levels or maximum contaminant
levels (eight courses out of 2,731). No readings indicated nitrate-nitrogen in excess of the
maximum contaminant level (10 parts per million [ppm]) (GCSAA, 1997).
GCSAA included 17 studies, involving 36 golf courses into the following analysis, in an
effort to determme runoff contamination. The average concentration of pesticides in surface
water was 0.07 to 6.8 parts per billion (ppb). In the same study, maximum allowable
concentrations for aquatic organisms were exceeded in less than 1 percent (0.9 percent) of
reports. Five pesticides and one metabolite exceeded their respective enforceable drinking
water standards (maximum contaminant level) or their lifetime drinking water health
advisory levels (HAL) at least once (GCSAA, 1997).
ALTERNATIVES
P&D looked at three altematives regarding the depollutant basins:
• Eliminate the basin and replace with a minimal capacity graded "swale;"
B P&D Environmental Page 3
City of Carlsbad Golf Course Hole 13 Drainage Issues
• Retaining the basins as currently designed; and
• Mechanical.
The following is a discussion of the engineering and environmental feasibility of each
altemative.
Minimal Depollutant "Swale"
This altemative would relocate and reduce the size of the depollutant basin. Generally, a
swale would be constmcted southerly of Hole 13, generally in the 50-foot setback from the
rough. This swale can be revegetated with a Type A mix (non-playable). This swale would
intercept nuisance runoff from the course and a portion of the first flush. The capacity ofthis
swale is less than the 0.5-inch rainfall event that is generally characterized in San Diego
County as "first flush." The proposed mitigation would then be constmcted "at grade" with
the Cannon Road mitigation site and would be "hydrologically" connected with the creek.
Three issues will be discussed: engineering, enviroimiental, and regulatory constraints.
Engineering. This swale would be designed to convey low flow runoff from the north along
the north side of the Cannon Road mitigation area and out-fall at the dovmstream end of the
existing mitigation area. The capacity of the graded unlined low flow swale would be
significantly less than the currently proposed depollutant basin and storm drain pipes.
However, the graded unlined low flow swale would allow for trash and debris to be
intercepted during small storm events (Q2 or less). The 100-year storm event is anticipated
to "top" the low flow swale and enter directly into the existing Cannon Road mitigation area;
The total 100-year storm event flow (QlOO) entering the Cannon Road mitigation area is
anticipated to be approximately 122.5 cfs. Finally, the bottom of the swale is proposed to be
unlined thus allowing for groundwater recharge.
Environmentai From an environmental perspective, this depollutant swale would
accomplish the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's goal of creating a buffer adjacent to the new
and expanded mitigation site. It does not widen the riparian corridor to the maximum extent
that could occur under the original proposal. It is likely that, dependent upon the quantity of
water and final grade ofthe bottom of the swale, wetland species may invade the bottom of
the swale under any event. From an environmental perspective, the only negative is-that the
swale is only sized to meet a minimal rainfall. Larger rainfall events will overflow directly
into the creek not meeting the objectives of the NPDES program.
Regulatory. There are two regulatory issues associated with this altemative. One is that the
Section 401 waiver has been obtained and the second is the requirements for the NPDES
permit. An initial conversation with Stacey Baczkowski ofthe CRWQCB has indicated that
as long as the water flowed through a vegetated area, it did not appear to be a problem with
0 P&D Environmental Page 4
I
City of Carlsbad Golf Course Hole 13 Drainage Issues
the 401 certification; however, P&D has been unsuccessful in obtaining this concurrence
with Greig Peters ofthe CRWQCB at this time.
From another regulatory program, the City has an established NPDES program that requires
that the first flush rainfall event be contained in a depollutant basis. The original basin was
sized to accommodate this volume of water. The feasibility of dovmsizing the depollutant
basin is uncertain from a regulatory procedural standpoint. P&D is still investigating this
issue.
Maintain Depollutant Basin
Engineering. P&D has designed the depollutant basins to meet the NPDES criteria of
containing the first flush rainfall. As discussed in the hydrology section, it is not anticipated
that this basin will result in any impact to the Cannon Road mitigation site. Much of the
mitigation was proposed to be hydrologically disconnected from the creek due to dual
functioning as a depollutant basin.
Environmental. If fhe project incorporates a 50 foot buffer from the playable area, there will
be an approximate 0.75-acre reduction in available mitigation on-site. If wetlands created in
any of the depollutant basins are eliminated from credit, there will be a total of 3.5 acres lost
as mitigation credits, requiring additional compensation to occur off-site.
Regulatory. This altemative results in the minimal conflicts with the existing Section 401
certification or NPDES permits. Additionally, concems related to opposition by the USEPA
and Califomia Coastal Commission related to stormwater issues are also minimized under
this scenario.
Mechanical
Mechanical devices include filtering systems that may include absorption "pillows" and
associated holding tanks. The mechanical filtering devices would consist of fossil filter
blankets incorporated into the storm drain inlets constmcted upstream of the Carmon Road
mitigation area. The storm drain inlets requiring the fossil filter blankets would include the
Faraday Avenue and golf course inlets. The filtering devices would have an impact on the
capacity of each inlet. However, the total 100-year flow entering the storm drain systems
and eventually entering the Cannon Road mitigation area would be the same as the current
proposed design and the graded unlined low flow swale. The negatives associated with these
devices are constant maintenance and/or replacement of these filtering systems and
accommodating access to the devices. Therefore, P&D does not recommend that these
devices will meet the long term objectives for this site.
There is no maintenance proposed for either the current proposed design or the unlined low
flow swale altemative. The filtering devices would require regular maintenance.
^ P&D Environmental Page 5
I
City of Carlsbad Golf Course Hole 13 Drainage Issues
REFERENCES
Audubon Intemational
1997 Natural Resources Management Plan, Forest Dunes Golf Club, Grayling,
Michigan. April.
GCSAA
1997 Golf Course Management. November.
Michigan State University Extension (MSU)
1999 Effect of Turf Management on Water Quality. November.
Muirhead, Desmond & Rando, Guy L.
1994 Golf Course Development and Real Estate
0 p&D Environmental Page 6
APPENDIXA
•feet of Turf Management on Water Quality http://^www.msue.msu.edii/msue/inip/modcl/42994004.html
Michigan State University Extension
1994-98 Landscape CAT Alerts - 42994004
09/01/99
Effect of Turf Management on Water Quality Paul Rieke, Crop & Soil Sciences
A study of the effect of turfs maintained adjacent to the
Mitchell Creek on water quality in the creek has been
underway since October 1992. Mitchell Creek is a small
stream which empties into the east bay of Grand Traverse
Bay. This is a cooperative project with the Grand Traverse
County Drainage Commissioner's office, MSU Extension,,MSU
turf specialists and the owners of four turf sites in the
watershed. The turf sites are Ehnbrook Golf Course,
Mitchell Creek Golf Course, Traverse City East Junior High
School and Ball World (a softball complex). The main
emphasis in this project is on effects of fertilization,
particularly with nitrogen and phosphorus. Data to date
mdicate there are very low levels of nitrates and
phosphorus in the stream as it passes through the golf
courses with no increase of either nutrient. Soil tests
for these nutrients suggest there is no appreciable
downward movement of either nutrient in the soil profile.
Nitrates have been tested in the 0-6, 6-12 and 12-18 inch
depths on greens and fairways.
Phosphorus soil tests have been taken in the 0-3, 3-6 and
6-9 inch depths. The greens tend to test high for
phosphorus in the 0-3 inch depth with intermediate levels
in the 3-6 inch depth and very low levels at the 6-9 inch
depth. At the two golf courses, there is a layer of 2-3
inches of topdressing sand applied over the past several
years. Some of the higher level of phosphorus at the 3-6
inch depth likely occurs because that was the original top
layer which had received phosphorus fertilization before
the sand topdressing program began.
Suction lysimeters placed adjacent to three fairways on
each course yielded soil water samples which had very low
levels of both nitrates and phosphorus.
The bottom line is that there little to no effect of the
fertilizer programs on these turf sites on the water
quality in Mitchell Creek. The one recommendation made for
change in their fertilization programs was for the turfs
which had high phosphorus soil tests, use of a fertilizer
which contains no phosphorus is recommended. This limits
the choices available for the turf manager as only a few
fertilizers contain no phosphorus. Turf managers need to
work with their fertilizer dealers to fmd the appropriate
fertilizers.
The results of this project to date are consistent with
reports from other parts of the country. The U. S. Golf
Association has been supporting environmentally-oriented
lof 3, ' 2/9/00 4:17 PM
ffect of Turf Management on Water Quality
research at several universities for the past three years.
Reports on this research were made a week ago. For
established turfs with good fertility programs there was •
very little nitrate found in drainage water. These studies
utilized lysimeters so all drainage water could be
collected. The first year of study on sites where soils
were disturbed there was some nitrate leached, but after
that there was little problem.
A study at Penn State mdicated there was essentially no
pesticide or fertilizer runoff from their turf site.
/Another study in Georgia on a compacted clay suggested
there was some runoff under certain conditions. As a
result, we suggest that on sensitive sites (compacted,
sloping soils adjacent to surface waters) it is best to
"water-in" the freatment after application. This means
right after a fertilizer application. Do not wait for a
potential rainfall to accomplish this as a high intensity
rain could cause runoff and increase the probability of
carrying some fertilizer or pesticide with it.
For herbicide freatments, wait until 6-8 hours of sunlight
before irrigating. This water application will tend to
move the chemical into the thatch and rootzone so there
will be little potential for movement with any runoff
water. There was some leaching of dicamba detected in some
studies and very small amounts of 2,4-D in one study. We
have known dicamba is quite water soluble. So on sensitive •
sites with shallow water tables, it may be best to find an
altemative to dicamba.
So the bottom line seems to be that with established turfs
there is little problem with turf maintenance on water
quality if reasonable practices are followed. Turf
managers must be aware of the unique conditions which exist
on a turf site that should be considered in planning a
chemical management program. This applies not only to golf
course superintendents, but also to lawn care company
operators and other grounds rhanagers.
More next week on guidelines for maintaining turf adjacent
to surface waters.
http://virww.msue.msu.edu/msue/imp/modcl/42994004.html
Go To Top of File Michigan State Universitv Extension Home Page Main Page for this Data Base
Landscape CAT Home Page
This information is for educational purposes only. References to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by MSU
Extension or bias against those not mentioned. Tbis information becomes piiblic property upon publication and may be printed verbatim with
credit to MSU Extension. Reprinting cannot be used to endorse or advertiseja commercial product or company. This file was generated from data
base Cl on 11/02/99. Data base Cl was last revised on 09/01/99. For more information about this data base or its contents please contact
catalerKaHnsue.msu.edii . Please read our disclaimer for important information about using our site.
2 of 3 2/9/00 4:17 PM
APPENDIX B
CM November 1997 - Water pollution minimal from monitored courses http://w-ww.gcsaa.Org/gcm/gcm_archive/1997/nov97/l lwater.html
Water pollution minimal from monitored courses
GCS AA's Golf Course Water Quality Sttidy
finds little chemical pollution from monitored courses.
Stuart Cohen, Ph.D., Ameha Svrjcek, Tom Durborow and N. LaJan Barnes
Golf courses are regarded by some as potential sources of
water pollution, and many have been closely monitored since
the late 1980s. These monitoring studies rarely receive
publicity, however, nor are they usually compared in order to
identify trends in water quality as it is affected by golf courses.
To better understand the potential environmental effects of golf
courses. The GCSAA Foundation funded a review of several
golf course monitoring programs. Minimal water contamination
was found in GCSAA's golf
course water quality study, a
review of several monitored
courses, including Pebble
Beach Golf Links, (Photo
courtesy of Pebble Beach Co,)
or surface water during
This review revealed that none of the golf courses in the study
produced widespread or repeated toxic effects in groundwater
the periods studied:
Just 0.07 percent of readings for pesticides in groundwater samples were in
excess of health advisory levels or maximum contaminant levels (nine out of
12,101).
Only 0.29 percent of readings for pesticides in surface water samples were in
excess of health advisory levels or maximum contaminant levels (eight out of
2,731).
In surface water samples, there were no readings of nitrate-nitrogen in excess of
the maximum contaminant level (10 ppm).
Thirty-one of 849 (3.6 percent) groundwater samples exceeded 10 ppm of
nitrate-nitrogen.
History of monitoring
U.S. researchers, regulators and pesticide companies began to
focus on agricultural pesticides in surface water and
groundwater in the late 1970s and early '80s (16,38,41,48,49,52). Since then, studies,
papers and reports have proliferated. In 1992, the EPA released a compilation of 150
studies of pesticides in groundwater (18). A recent book (2) summarizes more than 300
groundwater studies. There has also been intensive interest recently in agricultural
pesticides iii surface water (42,45).
1 of 9 2/9/00 4:49 PM
CM November 1997 - Water pollution minimal from monitored courses http;//www.gcsaa.org/gcna/gcm_archive/1997/nov97/l lwater.html
It's usually not appropriate to extrapolate results from agricultural
monitoring studies to golf courses because ofthe different management
practices, plant canopies, surface mat (thatch) and f obt densities
involved. In addition, the volume of runoff water from managed turf is
usually less, and eroded sediments are significantly reduced in turf
compared with row crop agriculture (51).
A groundwater monitoring study of four golf courses on Cape Cod
found several pesticide and nitrate detections but no significant impacts
(14,15).. In a 1987-1990 national survey of drinking wells, the EPA
found greater amounts of tetrachlorophthalic acids (metabolites of the
herbicide dacthal) in multistate regions where there were many golf
courses. But a smaller-scale correlation analysis linking those results to
golf course use was not possible.
C5CSAA Iras
rec.eiyeid
niimefousvf;
requests for
ihfQrination
;oh:the.,5:-^;?-:''"?v
'Impactpfl'if
golf courses
.oH'^vateri-v'/V'^
qual ity 2jThe -
assbciatioh's
need ifdir .i^
.:siLicHi:ii,^%..:^
ihfbrifnationv,
prompted ,
TheGiCSAAt
^uhdaltibn; r
to ifund^thiis • Many golf courses around the country built since the late '80s have been
required to monitor groundwater and surface -water quality as a result of
permit conditions. These studies are rarely published in peer-reviewed literature, and
they are usually not publicized at all.
GCSAA has received numerous requests for information on the impact of golf courses
on water quality. The association's need for such information prompted The GCSAA
Foundation to fund this study.
Discovery and review of field studies
Results of surface water and groundwater studies conducted on golf courses throughout
the United States were solicited in an effort tO' gather a broad range of coverage and
minimize biased conclusions. Information was publicly requested, and was followed by
articles in GCSAA's Newsline. In addition, requests went to all 50 state environmental
water quality regulatory agencies and several EPA regional offices. As part ofthis
study, information about 13 studies obtained in a preliminary review of this subject (13)
was updated. .
Each study underwent a preliminary review for specific acceptance criteria. We
contacted authorities to ensure that adequate quality control measures were followed by
the participating laboratories. All numerical data from the accepted studies were then
entered into a database, and approximately 10 to 20 percent of the data were checked
for completeness and accuracy in an in-house quality-control review.
The United States was divided into broad regions based on hydrology, hydrogeology
and climate to help organize the data collection. There are 20 surface water resource
regions of the United States, as classified by the U.S. Water Resources Council (46); 12
major turfgrass climatic zones (5,47); and 13 groundwater regions (29). We classified
the monitoring studies according to these geographic references.
We reviewed 19 studies, involving 40 golf courses, for this paper. Seventeen studies
(36 golf courses) passed the review criteria and were included in the statistical analyses.
All but one of the 36 courses were located in the United States. (One study was done on
Prince Edward Island, Canada.) Data from the other two studies ~ in Guam and Japan
~ were not added to the database.
We assembled a list of the 134 pesticides, metabolites and solvents that were analyzed
in one or more of the studies. We attempted to exclude pesticides that would
theoretically never be used at a golf course either on turf, in ponds or in related areas.
However, when in doubt, the pesticide was included. This is because pesticide
registrations are constantly changing. For example, most people would associate past
use of the insecticide chlordane with field crops and with termite control in buildings —
before its use on golf courses. However, chlordane was used to control mole crickets
2 of 9 2/9/00 4:49 PM
|CM November 1997 - Water pollution minunal from monitored coiirses ' http://-www.gcsaa.org/gcm/gcm_archive/r997/nov97/l lwater.html
and crabgrass at golf courses in the early '70s. Further, when pesticide regisfrations are
canceled, use of existing stocks may continue for several years.
Statistical analyses
After the preliminary review, data were entered into Paradox database soflware
(Borland, version 5.0). All data underwent a quality-control check for accuracy in
which 10 to 20 percent of data entries in each database were reviewed after entry.
Statistical analyses were conducted in Paradox and StatMost software. Since studies
were collected from a variety of sources, methods for reporting the data and conducting
statistical analyses varied and were not subject to our initial acceptance criteria. This
complicated the selection of appropriate statistical procedures to apply. For example,
attempts were made to obtain information for each individual sampling event. In three
reports, however, mean values for pesticides or nitrate-nitrogen were reported. In those
cases, the mean values were used.
There were limitations of the data. First, the study areas were not selected with
randomization, whereby ali golf courses in the country or in a region have equal
probability of being selected for a monitoring study. Therefore, the number and type of
valid statistical analyses and extrapolations that could be done were also limited. These
results reflect only the conditions at the golf courses studied and are not meant to be
national estimates for golf course impacts on water quality.
The second limitation is more of a problem in data interpretation. A large fraction of the
data entries are "non-detects" (NDs), which means the substance analyzed was not
detected. But it is not clear how these data should be entered when calculations are
done. Should non-detect equal zero? Should it equal the detection limit? Should it equal
a value between zero and the detection limit?
The EPA stated in recent guidance (17) that "substitution methods" are suitable for data
sets in which less than 15 percent of the values are non-detects (ND). In this approach, a
specific number is substituted for each non-detect. The standard practice, which the
EPA endorses, is to substitute half the detection limit for all non-detect values. We have
adopted the EPA approach for the nitrate-nitrogen in groundwater data set, where the
non-detect rate was less than 15 percent.
We could find no practical guidance for characterizing a data set in which,more than 90
percent of the entries are non-detects, which is the case for the surface water database
and groundwater database entries for pesticides and related chemicals. Therefore, we
present a range of means: the lower end of the range assumes non-detect equals zero,
and the upper end of the range assumes non-detect equals the detection limit. By doing
this, we are stating that we do not know the tme answer, but we know it lies somewhere
witiiin the stated range.
jM , Overview of results
viiBiMi^SiS The database includes 16,587 entries. Each entry is one analysis for a
S B B S ^ t single chemical in one sample. Results from groundwater studies
dominate the database. The studies we evaluated spanned 12
groundwater/climate-zone combinations and 10 surface water/climate-zone
combinations.
It is important to note that 13 pesticide and volatile organic entries were deleted from
the database because they were almost certainly not used in association with golf
courses. They include aldicarb, alachlor, pentachlorophenol, dinoseb, bromoform and •
chloromethane. This had the net effect of decreasing the database by more than 100
entries.
Surface water ~ pesticides •Few pesticides detected - siirface water
Of the 31 pesticides and metabolites detected
3 of 9 2/9/00 4:49 PM
I;M November 1997 - Water pollution minimal from monitored coiirses http://'www.gcsaa.org/gcm/gcm_archive/1997/nov97/l lwater.html
in surface water, nine chemicals exceeded maximum allowable concentrations (MACs)
for aquatic organisms for one or more samplings. Maximum allowable concentrations
were calculated for all but three pesticides that had available EPA ambient water quality
criteria. Thirteen (including two metabolites) were maximum allowable concenfrations
calculated or estimated by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation as
part of its toxic discharge control sttategy. These maximum allowable concenttations
are primarily based on methodologies developed by the EPA to derive numerical water
quality criteria for aquatic species when large amounts of data are available.
The remaining 15 pesticide MACs were calculated using 1/10 the LC50 or EC50 of the
most sensitive freshwater invertebrate or fish species. The toxicity data reviewed were
taken from EPA pesticide fact sheets and the EPA pesticide ecotoxicity database, as
well as other resources (22). The LC50 (lethal concentration) is the concenttation in
water of a substance that is lethal to 50 percent ofthe test population in a carefully
controlled study environment. The EC50 is similar to the LC50 except that the endpoint
is some effect other than death.
Such values describe a chemical's toxicity. For example, a pesticide with an LC50 less
than 100 ppb is considered very highly toxic, and therefore a very low dose is
potentially lethal to the test organism. Aquatic toxicity categories for LC50 or EC50
values were established by the EPA and can be used to qualitatively describe ranges of,
aquatic toxicity.
The nine pesticides that were reported in excess of maximum allowable concentrations
for aquatic organisms were chlorothalonil (one report), chlorpyrifos (nine reports),
diazinon (eight reports), ethoprop (one report), fenamiphos sulfone (one report),
fenamiphos sulfoxide (two reports), isofenphos (one report), malathion (one report) and
simazine (one report).
All nine chlorpyrifos detections (0.1 to 0.3 ppb) were from one small-scale study that
measured mnoff from a golf course following an application of chlorpyrifos and
irrigation, and they reflect several storm events. It should be noted that diazinon use on
golf courses has been banned since the 1988-1990 time period; therefore most of the
diazinon detections may be due to nearby lawn use.
Overall, maximum allowable concentrations for aquatic organisms were exceeded in
less than 1 percent (0.9 percent) of reports - or 0.6 percent if the diazinon results are
excluded. Five pesticides and one metabolite exceeded their respective enforceable
drinking water standards (maximum contaminant level) or their lifetime drinking water
health advisory level (HAL) at least once.
The average concentration of pesticides in surface water was 0.07 to 6.8 parts per
billion. As explained, the lower end of the range assumes a non-detect equals zero, and
the upper end of the range assumes non-detect equals the detection limit, whatever it
may be, for the particular pesticide in the particular study.
Surface water - nitrates
There were only 201 non-detects in a surface water database of 906 entries for nitrates.
The winsorized mean was 0.3 ± 0.3 parts per million, and the upper 90th percentile was
0.72 ppm in the winsorized analysis and 1.47 ppm when all data were used. The median
• was 0.21 ppm when the data were winsorized and 0.38 ppm (very similar) when all data
were used.
There were no detections exceeding the 10 ppm legal maximum contaminant level in
any of the surface water samples.
Groundwater ~ pesticides •Few pesticides detected - ground water
There were 103 monitoring points (wells,
lof 9 2/9/00 4:49 PM
CM November 1997 - Water pollution minimal from monitored courses http://www.gcsaa.Org/gcm/gcm_archive/1997/nov97/l lwater.html
lysimeters, imderdrains) in these studies, and 52 of them had at least one pesticide
detection. Most, if not all, monitoring points were sampled more than once, and most
studies lasted more than one year.
The organics/groimdwater database includes analyses for approximately 115 chemicals
as part of a 12,101-entry database in this category. No volatile organic compounds were
detected in the studies. There were 21 pesticides/ metabolites detected among 160 total
detections (1.3 percent of the database entries). Only nine detections ~ 0.07 percent ~
exceeded a "maximum contaminant level" (MCL) or "health advisory level" (HAL).
Most of the excesses were from studies in Florida.
The average concentration of pesticides in groundwater was 0.09 to 3.6 ppb, depending
on whether non-detects were defined as zero or as the detection limits. The 95th
percentile concentration was between zero ppb and 10 ppb.
Groundwater - nitrates
Only 81 of 849 database entries were non-detects for nitrates, therefore the substitution
approach was used whereby each non-detect was substituted by one-half of the
nitrate-nitrogen detection limit for the particular study. The average nitrate-nitrogen
concentration was 1.6 ppm and 0.3 ppm when computed with the raw data and the
log-transformed data, respectively. The median was 0.45 ppm.
Impacts and trends
It is important to note that none of the reports we reviewed concluded that turf
management was causing significant impacts on groundwater quality. Most researchers
concluded that no significant impacts were observed. A few stated, however, that more
data are needed before definitive conclusions could be reached.
A comparison of pesticides in surface water with pesticides in groundwater produced a
different conclusion than we had expected. We expected higher detection frequencies in
the surface water database, but detection frequencies between surface and groundwater
were similar.
Specifically, the frequencies of monitoring points with at least one detection was 50
percent and 54 percent for groundwater and surface water studies, respectively. Also, 6
percent of surface water monitoring sites and 7 percent of groundwater sites had at least
one report of a pesticide or metabolite in excess of a HAL or MCL. The percent of
database entries that exceeded HALs or MCLs for groundwater and surface water were
0.07 percent and 0.29 percent, respectively.
However, the use of chronic HALs or MCLs to evaluate short-term surface water
concentrations is an overly conservative risk assessment practice. This is because the
HALs and MCLs assume daily exposure to contaminated water for a lifetime. Surface
water contamination by pesticides, ifit occurs, is sporadic.
Maximum allowable concentrations were exceeded in 0.9 percent of surface water
samples (0.6 percent if diazinon is excluded). Only 1.3 percent (160 out of 12,101) of
the groundwater organics database had detections, whereas the detection rate in the
surface water organics database was 5.2 percent (141 out of 2,731).
Impact of other land uses
Some chemical detections in the database may be the result of nearby or prior land uses.
For example:
• Eight readings in excess of maximum allowable concentrations were due to
diazinon. Diazinon use on golf courses was phased out between 1988 and 1990.
Its field dissipation half-Ufe is approximately one month, depending on the site.
Most of these studies were done between 1990 and 1995, long after most
of 9 2/9/00 4:49 PM
!:;M November 1997 - Water pollution minimal from monitored courses http://www.gcsaa.Org/gcm/gcm_archive/1997/nov97/l lwater.html
diazinon residues would have degraded. The probability is low that these results
are caused by golf course use. However, home la-wn use is still allowed, and golf
courses are frequently part of housing developments. Thus it is likely that at least
some of these results, if not all of them, can be attributed to home lavm use.
• Similarly, 2,4-D has been detected at two of the golf courses in this study —
Caves Valley and Bayberry Hills ~ at time periods prior to any application to the
golf courses. This herbicide is used widely in agriculture, on home lavms, and in
rights-of-way applications.
• When the Queenstown golf course was constmcted, several of the groundwater
samples exceeded the federally mandated 10 ppm nitrate-nitrogen maximum
contaminant level. These concenttations have declined over time. The site had
been farmland, and nearby land is also farmed, so much of the nitrate probably
originated from agriculture.
• Finally, the authors of this report have seen golf courses on Long Island and
elsewhere blamed for frequent detections ofthe principal metabolite of dacthal.
Dacthal was used on golf courses, but it has also had major agriculture and home
lav/n uses. Golf course turf area is less than 1 percent of harvested cropland area
(12). Thus most of the country's dacthal metabolite detections probably
originated from sources other than golf courses.
It should not automatically be assumed that any pesticide or nitrate detected at golf
course sites was caused by golf course management. It is important to consider prior
and adjacent land use and pesticide use, as well as surface water and ground-water
hydrology, as part of an appropriate analysis.
Comparisons with other studies
Pesticides in groundwater
The EPA has conducted two comprehensive national studies of pesticides in
groundwater. Its statistically based national pesticide survey is not directly relevant
because it was a true national study with representative wells from all 50 states (19).
More relevant to this study was the EPA's compilation of resuhs from 150 studies of
pesticides in groundwater (18). The studies focused mostly on agricultural pesticides.
The number of wells with detections was 24 percent in the EPA study and 50 percent in
the GCSAA study. However, wells with detections exceeding health advisory levels or
federally mandated maximum contaminant levels were 14 percent in the EPA review
and only 7 percent in this review.
It should be noted that most of the wells monitored in the current study were shallow
wells or underdrains installed in or adjacent to managed turf areas. The EPA database
contains a significant fraction of deeper drinking water wells that may be more distant
from the treatment areas than the 0 to 40 feet typical of the golf course studies.
Nitrates in groundwater
In a 1993 review of approximately 90 papers relevant to groundwater contamination by
nitrates (40), breaches of "maximum contaminant levels" from 13 large-scale surveys
ranged from 3 percent to 36 percent, and most exceeded 10 percent. As reported above,
only 4 percent (30 out of 849) of the groundwater database entries in the GCSAA
review exceeded the 10 ppm MCL for nitrate in drinking water. Ten percent (seven out
of 72) of the groundwater sampling locations had at least one reading in excess ofthe
mandated maximum contaminant level. However, most of the nitrate excesses appeared
to be the result of prior agricultural use.
Pesticides in surface water
Agricultural herbicide monitoring in the Midwest typically has a 50 to 100 percent
detection rate, and readings in excess of federally mandated lifetime maximum
contaminant levels are often greater than 20 percent (45,11). The results of our review
compare favorably with these detection frequencies. Just 5.2 percent of database entries
"6 of 9 2/9/00 4:49 PM
;M November 1997 - Water pollution minimal from monitored courses http://www.gcsaa.Org/gcm/gcm_archive/1997/nov97/l lwater.html
indicated the presence of pesticides. Fifty-four percent of surface water sampling sites
had pesticides present at some time, but just 0.29 percent of the samples analyzed for
pesticides exceeded lifetime health advisory levels or maximum contaminant levels.
Nitrates in surface water
Although no comparable database could be found for nitrate levels in surface water, it is
the experience of the senior author that the concentrations and detection frequencies
seen in this review are similar to results from general surface water quality monitoring
at sites with a variety of land uses.
Conclusions
This detailed review of 17 water quality studies of 36 golf courses, separately and
together, indicates that widespread or repeated water quality impacts by golf courses are
not occurring in the areas studied. None ofthe authors of the individual studies
concluded that toxicologically significant impacts were observed.
The percent of individual pesticide database entries that exceeded health advisory levels
or maximum contaminant levels for groundwater and surface water were 0.07 percent
and 0.29 percent, respectively.
In surface water samples, there were no readings of nitrate-nitrogen in excess ofthe
maximum contaminant level (10 ppm) and only 31 of 849 (3.6 percent) groundwater
samples exceeded 10 ppm of nitrate-nitrogen.
These results indicate that although nitrates and pesticides were detected in surface
water and groundwater samples from the golf courses in this study, their infrequency
and low concentration pose a very limited threat of environmental pollution.
Literature cited
1. Apogee Research, Horseley Witten Hegemann Inc. 1996. Water Quality Report No. 21 ~
Queenstown, Maryland. Apogee Research, Bethesda, Md. and Horseley Witten Hegemann Inc.,
Washington, D.C,
2. Barbash, J.E., and E.A. Resek. 1996. Pesticides in groundwater, Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Mich.
3. Barten, J., Hennepin Parks and Minnesota GCSA. 1992. Baker National Golf Course leachate study.
Suburban Hennepin Regional Park Disfrict, Plymouth, Minn.
4. Barten, J., and Hennepin Parks. 1994. Quantity and quality of runoff from four golf courses in the
Twin Cities metropolitan area. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Plymouth, Minn.
5. Beard, J.B. 1979. How to have a beautiful lawn. Beard Books, College Station, Texas.
6. Beard, J.B. 1982. Turf management for golf courses, The Macmillan Co., New York.
7. Brock, R., and A. Kam. 1994. Waikoloa anchialine pond program. University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
8. Camp Dresser, and McKee. 1992. Sarasota Bay national estuary program and non-point source
loading assessment. CDM, Sarasota, Fla.
9. Carpenter, P., and J. Toal. 1996. Storm water monitoring of watersheds including golf courses on the
Monterey Peninsula. Kiiuietic Laboratories Inc., Santa Cruz, Calif
10. Chesapeake Environmental Management. 1996. Environmental monitoring program for Caves
Valley Golf Club, CEM, Belair, Md.
11. Cohen, B., R. Wiles and E. Bondoc. 1995. Weed killer by the glass: A citizen's tap water monitormg
project in 29 cities. Environmental Working Group, Washington, D.C.
12. Cohen, S.Z. 1995. Agriculture and the golf course industry: An exploration of pesticide use. Golf
Course Management 63(5):96-104.
13. Cohen, S.Z., and T.E. Durborow. 1994. Watershed findings: pesticides test well. Golf Course News
5(2)1,24-27.
14. Cohen, S.Z., S. Nickerson, R. Maxey, A. Dupuy and J.A. Senita. 1990. A groundwater monitoring
study for pesticides and nifrates associated with golf courses on Cape Cod. Grounci Water Mon. Rev.
10(0:160-173.
15. Cohen, S.Z. 1990. The Cape Cod study. Go/fCouz-ie A'/anage/we/ii'58(2)26-44.
16. Cohen, S.Z., S.M. Creeger, R.L. Carsel and CG. Enfield. 1984. Potential for pesticide contamination
of groundwater resulting from agricultural use. p. 259, 297-325. In: R.F. Krueger and J.N. Seiber (eds.).
Treatment and disposal of pesticide wastes. Am. Chemical Soc. Symposium Series, Washington, D.C.
17. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Guidance for data quality assessment: practical methods for
data analysis. USEPA QA/G-9 QA96 Version, EPA/600/R-96/084. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington
D.C.
18. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992a. Pesticides in groundwater database: a compilation of
7 of 9 2/9/00 4:49 PM
DM November 1997 - Water pollution minimal from monitored courses http://www.gcsaa.Org/gcm/gcm_archive/1997/nov97/l lwater.html
monitoring studies: 1971-1991. EPA 734-12-92-001. U.S. Gov. Print. Office. Washington, D.C.
19. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992b. Another look: national survey of pesticides in drinking
water wells-Phase II report. EPA 579/09-91-020. U.S. Gov. Print. Office. Washington, D.C.
20. Evans-Hamilton Inc. and Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand Inc. 1990. The Falls Country Club surface
water and groundwater monitoring plan. Evans-Hamilton Inc., Seattle, Wash., and Dalton, Olmsted &
Fuglevand Inc., Bothell, Wash.
21. Evans-Hamilton Inc. and Rensel Associates Inc. 1996. Reports from Echo Falls Golf and Coimtry
Club surface water quality monitoring. Evans-Hamilton Inc., Seattle, Wash., and Rensel Associates hic,
Arlington, Wash.
22. Farm chemicals handbook. 1997. Meister Publishing Co., Willoughby, Ohio.
23. Felton, G.K., and A.J. Powell Jr. 1993. Turfgrass chemicals exiting a well-managed golf course.
Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington.
24. Fern, J., and C. Nothwanger. 1996. Singing Hills Country Club water quality reports. Applied
Consultants, San Diego, Calif.
25. Floh, S.B,, L.A. Mahoney, J.C. Batey and D.M. Petroff 1996. Evaluation of the use of substitution
methods to represent non-detect data. In: Keith Hoddinott (ed.), Superfund risk assessment in soil
contammation studies: 2nd volume, ASTM STP 1264. Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials.
26. Gibbons, R.D. 1994. Statistical methods for groundwater monitoring. Wiley and Sons, New York.
27. Greenhalgh, T., and B. Moore. 1991. Palm Beach golf course study. Florida Dept. of Environmental
Regulation, Tallahassee, Fla.
28. Guam EPA. 1992. Guam Intemational Country Club, groundwater quality monitoring program
review. Guam.
29. Heath, R.C. 1982. Classifications of groundwater regions of the United States. Groundwater 20(4).
30. Heath, R.C. 1984. Ground-water regions ofthe United States. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply
Paper 2242. U.S, Gov Print. Office, Washington, D.C.
31. Helsel, D.R. 1990. Less than obvious: Statistical treatment of data below the detection limit.
Environmental Sci. Technology 2A{\2y.\166-\ll A.
32. 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(2):362-370.
33. Inst, of Wildlife and Environmental Toxicology at Clemson University. 1993. Environmental
sensitive techniques in golf course management: a model study at the Ocean Course, Kiawah Island, S.C.
Clemson University, Pendleton, S.C.
34. Kaysak P., E. Rzemien and R. Newport. 1990-1995. Caves Valley Golf Club environmental
monitoring program. Versar Inc., Columbia, Md.
35. Kenna, M.P. 1995. What happens to pesticides applied to golf courses? USGA Green Section Record,
33:1-9.
36. Miles, C.J., G. Leong and S. Dollar. 1990. Pesticides in marine sedunents associated with golf course
runoff at Ka'anapali, Hawaii. Univ. of Hawaii, Honolulu.
37. Minoura, K., S. Ohba, S. Washioka and 0. Yamada. 1994. Environmental study on water
inside/around golf courses in Japan. Abstract/Poster No. 113, Eighth lUPAC Intemal Congress of
Pesticide Chemistry Book of Aijstracts. lUPAC/Am. Chem. Soc, Washington, D.C.
38. Peoples, S.A,, K.T. Maddy, W. Cusick, T. Jackson, C. Cooper and A.S. Frederickson. 1980. A study
of samples of well water collected from selected areas in Califomia to determine the presence of DBCP
and certain other pesticide residues. Bull. Environmental Contamination and roxico/ogy24(4):611-618.
39. Pierce, N., B. Raymond. 1997. The Links at Crowbush Cove water quality data. Prince Edward
Island Dept. of Environment, PEI, Canada.
40. Spalding, R.F., and M.E. Exner. 1993. Occurrence of Nitrate in Groundwater - A Review. J.
Environmental Quality 22:392-402.
41. Spalding, R.F., G.A. Junk and J.J. Richard. 1980. Pesticides in groundwater beneath hrigated
farmland m Nebraska, August 1978. J. Pesticide Monitoring 14(2):70-73.
42. Stamer, J.K. 1996. Water supply: implications of herbicide sampling. J. Am. Water Works Assoc.
Feb., p. 76-85.
43. Swancar, A. 1996. Water quality, pesticide occurrence, and effects of irrigation with reclaimed water
at golf courses in Florida. USGS, Tampa, FL.
44. Tessier, D., and E. Nash. 1996. A summary of Bayberry Hills Golf Course groundwater monitoring
program December 1988 to March 1996. West Yarmouth, Mass.
45. Thurman, E.M., D.A. Goolsby, M.T. Meyer. 1992. A reconnaissance study of herbicides and their
metabolites in surface water of the midwestem United States using immunoassay and gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry. Environmental Sci. Technology, 26:2440-2447.
46. U.S. Water Resources Council. 1968. The nation's water resources, p. 808. In: van der Leeden, F.,
F.L. Troise and D K. Todd (eds), 1991, The Water Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,
Mich.
47. van der Leeden, F., F.L. Troise and D.K. Todd. 1991. The Water Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. Lewis •
Publishers, Chelsea, Mich.
48. Wauchope, R.D. 1978. The pesticide content of surface water draining from agricultural fields ~ a
review. J. Environmental Quality 7(4):459-472.
49. Wauchope, R.D., and R.A. Leonard. 1980. Maximum pesticide concenfrations in agricultural mnoff:
a semi-empirical prediction formula. J. Environmental Quality 9:655-672.
50. Water Resources Institute of Grand Valley State University. 1995. Water quality assessment and
'of 9 • 2/9/00 4:49 PM
|CM November 1997 - Water pollution minimal from monitored courses http://www.gcsaa.Org/gcm/gcm_archive/1997/nov97/l lwater.html
recommendations for the Meadows Golf Club. Grand Valley State Univ., Allendale, Mich.
51. Welterlen, M.S., CM. Gross, J.S. Angle and R.L. Hill. 1989. Surface mnoff from turf. p. 153-160 In:
A.R. Leslie and R.L. Metcalf (eds.). Integrated Pest Management for Turfgrass and Ornamentals.
52. Zaki, M.H., D. Moran and D. Hartis. 1982. Pesticides in groundwater: the aldicarb story in Suffolk
County, N.Y. Am. J. Public Health, 72:1391-1395.
Stuart Cohen, Ph.D., is ah environmental chemist, a certified groundwater professional, and is president
of Envfronmental & Turf Services Inc. of Wheaton, Md. Amelia Svrjcek is an environmental scientist.
LaJan Barnes is a registered geologist with a master's degree in hydrogeology. Tom Durborow is a
specialist in surface water studies. All were employed by Envfronmental & Turf Services Inc. during this
research project.
9 of 9 2/9/00 4:49 PM