ECOLOGICAL APPROACHES
TOWARDS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
FOR GOLF COURSES

AUDUBON INTERNATIONAL DISTINGUISHED SCIENTIST PROGRAM STUDY TOUR TO EUROPE 1996

 

NOVEMBER 1996

 

This report has been produced by the European Golf Association
Ecology Unit
in conjunction with
Audubon International

 

Please address all comments or enquiries to:
Mr David Stubbs, Executive Director, European Golf Association Ecology Unit
c/o Environmental Golf Services, 51 South Street, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 2JX, UK.

Tel: +44 1306 743288 Fax: +44 1306 742496

e-mail: ega.golf.ecology@dial.pipex.com

 

 

CONTENTS

 

1 SUMMARY

2 SEMINAR PRESENTATION NOTES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the following for their time and help in arranging and conducting seminars, site visits and meetings:

 

Major P D Clarke, Secretary, The Berkshire Golf Club

Mr Bob Morton, Head Greenkeeper, The Berkshire Golf Club

Mr Gerald Watts, Secretary, Royal St George's Golf Club

Mr Neil Metcalfe, Head Greenkeeper, Royal St George's Golf Club

Count Leopold Lippens, President, Royal Zoute Golf Club

Mr Andre Rabaey, Head Greenkeeper, Royal Zoute Golf Club

Mr Guido Burggraeve, Conservator Natuurreservaat het Zwin

Mrs Marie-Christine Henrist, Communications Officer, Royal Belgian Golf Federation

Mr Nicky James, General Manager, St Andrews Links Trust

Mr Ian Forbes, Links Manager, St Andrews Links Trust

Mr Michael Bonallack, Secretary, Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews

Mr Eric Shiel, Carnoustie Golf Club

Mr John Philp, Course Manager, Carnoustie

Mr Jonathan Smith, Scottish Golf Course Wildlife Adviser

Ms Eva Meyle, Danish Golf Union

Mr Stig Persson, Ljunghusens Golf Club/Swedish Golf Federation Course Committee

Mr Einar Petersen, Course Manager, Falsterbo

Mr Jan Dahlin, Chairman of Nature Conservation Committee, Lunds Golf Club

We are also grateful to the Royal Belgian Golf Federation, Scottish Golf Union, Danish Golf Union and the Swedish Golf Federation for their generous hospitality and contribution to hosting meetings and seminars. Funding of the study tour was shared by Audubon International and the EGA Ecology Unit. Dr Peacock was also in receipt of a travel grant from North Carolina State University.

 

1 SUMMARY

 

At the end of September 1996 the EGA Ecology Unit hosted a special study tour by a three man delegation from Audubon International, an American environmental organisation which works closely with the United States Golf Association (USGA) to promote environmental good practice in golf. The participants were:

The programme started with a theoretical examination of golf course ecology underpinned with a case study of a naturalistic golf course in Kansas and how this related to the natural ecology of the region. This was followed by a detailed review of Best Management Practice, building on ecological theory to set out a rational approach to integrating golf course management with appropriate environmental safeguards. The third American paper focused on the Audubon programme and how this draws on the scientific basis to provide a popular, self-motivating programme for individual golf clubs.

We then looked at the European context and what lessons could be drawn from the American work. At the Edinburgh and Malmo seminars the discussion went further to examine national applications. It was evident that the seminars had excited considerable interest from the delegates and opened up several possibilities for future collaboration in terms of research, biological recording and joint conservation initiatives.

One of the aims of the study tour was to enable the Audubon team to see first hand a selection of traditional, naturalistic style courses, of the type so widely revered by golfers everywhere. At the same time these site visits gave us the opportunity to discuss aspects of functional ecology and Best Management Practices as they might apply in these situations. The following golf courses were visited:

The maintenance of these European courses was typified by very low use of chemicals, generally limited to the greens and tees - in many cases the fairways were untreated except for mowing and were composed of natural turf communities with a high component of non-grass species. Irrigation management was similarly conservative, with the general aim of maintaining a healthy turfgrass capable of sustaining the amount of traffic experienced. The often stated goal was turf quality not cosmetic colour. The predominance of cultural management techniques over chemical applications on these courses is an important illustration of Best Management Practice in action. The optimal climatic conditions of northern Europe certainly favours low input golf course maintenance but it still requires skill and dedication to resist the pressure to over-manage these sites.

Some of the British links and all of the Swedish golf courses were especially notable for their open public access. In many cases these courses also operated cooperative management agreements with local conservation authorities. Falsterbo is a particularly impressive example of a heavily used golf course which successfully accommodates hundreds of birdwatchers, who gather there to observe the spectacular autumn bird migration over the course. Despite numerous potential hazards, conflicts are rare, and this is primarily due to the open access culture on recreational land in Sweden.

A rather different situation exists at Lunds, where the golf course has been threatened with closure by the local environmental authority because of perceived impact of the course management on rare plants. In response, the members have established an excellent outreach and information programme to develop a better understanding of the cultural heritage and ecology of the site. This pro-active initiative to address local community concerns in an excellent example of using dialogue to resolve conflict.

The ten sites visited during the Audubon International study tour were all chosen as good examples of long-established golf courses integrated into the natural landscape. It was clear that the managers of these courses appreciated their environmental responsibilities and were eager for more information and guidance on ecological management techniques. We also know that there are many other golf courses like these in Europe, and that they are popular with golfers too. Obviously, not all golf courses can match the natural qualities and heritage enjoyed by these examples, but they can aspire to more environmentally orientated management. This is shown to be perfectly consistent with golfing requirements and will add enormously to the enjoyment of the courses by golfers and visitors alike.

The research funded by the USGA on golf course ecology and the fate of nutrients and pesticides applied to golf turf has helped to confirm many environmental benefits attributable to golf courses. At the same time it is clear that golf can cause deleterious impacts on sensitive ecosystems, either through poor siting and design, or ill-informed management. However, as Ron Dodson emphasised in his presentation, golf course managers do not go out each day with the avowed intention of harming the environment! Accordingly the message of combining ecological land management and public outreach and awareness with Best Management Practice on the golf course, has achieved a strong resonance within the American golfing community.

This same interest and enthusiasm was generated among the seminar audiences and course managers encountered on the European study tour. There was a definite consensus on the need for better information and guidance on environmental management issues, and a strong interest in developing cooperative links between interested parties.

It is the task of the EGA Ecology Unit to build on the impetus generated by the study tour, to establish an effective and widely recognised Environmental Management Programme for golf courses in Europe. This will require active support from national golf federations and both non-governmental organisations and public authorities. Already a national pilot project is running in Scotland - the Scottish Golf Course Wildlife Project, jointly supported by the Scottish Golf Union, Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Strathclyde Greenbelt Company. In 1997 similar projects will start up in Belgium, Denmark and Portugal. This work is being co-funded by the European Commission.

It would be wasteful to create an entirely new approach from scratch, when there

 

2 SEMINAR PRESENTATION NOTES

2.1 Golf Course Ecology: Researching Golf Courses as
Ecosystems by Max Terman

All wilderness areas, no matter how small or imperfect, have a large value to land-science

Study Areas and Methods

In this paper I report on the results of a three year study of the birds found on Prairie Dunes Country Club in Kansas and a nearby natural area, Sand Hills State. This study is part of an innovative cooperative arrangement between Prairie Dunes Country Club and Tabor College. Sponsored by the USGA Green Section, this unique team approach combines the resources of the academic and golf communities in the important endeavour to understand and preserve biodiversity on human-dominated landscapes.

Prairie Dunes and Sand Hills present an ideal situation for an ecological study of this type. With the exception of tees, fairways, greens, and the buildings, Prairie Dunes is very similar to Sand Hills State Park in topography and vegetation. Both have native prairie plants and rolling dunes typical of the sand hills biotic region of Kansas. The public trail used for the bird census in the park is approximately the same shape and distance as a loop through both nine-hole layouts of the golf course.

Prairie Dunes is a highly regarded, intensively managed golf course that hosts more than 35,000 rounds of golf per year. Approximately 74% of the country club is in a natural state with native plants growing not only in the roughs and out-of-play areas but also in a natural buffer zone that partially surrounds the course, separating it from some of the nearby housing developments.

Sand Hills State Park is a valuable natural area under the control of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. To control woody plant invasions and maintain the dominant herbs and grasses, the park is burned periodically. Local residents treasure the natural beauty of the sand dunes, grasslands, wetlands, and woodlands. Located approximately four miles from Prairie Dunes, its 455 hectares (1123 acres) contain public walking trails accessible only to walkers and permitted horseback riders. Compared to the golf course, the park is a low impact area with minimal human disturbance to the wildlife.

Birds were censused in good weather on transects (paths) located on the public trail in Sand Hills and on the golf course proper at Prairie Dunes. All birds seen along the public trail in the park and near the tees, fairways, roughs, and greens on the golf course proper were counted and recorded by species. In order to adequately sample all birds using the areas in different seasons, we performed a total of 12 censuses over three years with five censuses occurring during the autumn, one during winter, two during spring, and four during summer.

The off-course natural areas at Prairie Dunes were not censused and all Prairie Dunes bird observations are restricted to the golf course proper. Future studies will census the natural areas at Prairie Dunes.

Both the golf course and the natural area supported complex bird communities, sharing many species in common. In terms of the number of species using the two areas (species richness), the golf course compared favourably to the natural area and a statistical comparison indicated no significant differences in this measure of species diversity. However, there were significant differences in other measures. Statistical tests comparing indices of relative abundance (the specific kinds, numbers, and proportions of the total in each kind) revealed that the kinds of birds and the numbers per species were different between the two areas. Measures of community similarity and species diversity also indicated noticeable differences.

Sand Hills had more species of birds than Prairie Dunes but fewer individuals. Sand Hills had 15 species that did not occur on Prairie Dunes and 9 species occurred on the golf course but not on the park. For the most part, birds with larger natural habitat requirements and perhaps less tolerance for disturbance (e.g., least flycatcher, yellow breasted chat) occurred more frequently in the state park while those with less restrictive habitat needs and higher tolerances for disturbance frequented the golf course (e.g., American robin, common grackle, eastern kingbird).

Is it worthwhile to include natural habitat areas on golf courses? If providing a home for a significant number of birds is important, the answer is yes. Fifty-seven species of birds used Prairie Dunes in my survey and knowledgeable observers have added 15 to 20 more species to the list. Some birds using Prairie Dunes such as the grasshopper sparrow, yellow-billed cuckoo, and Mississippi kite have experienced significant regional declines in their populations. My students have studied other golf courses (unpublished data) without wildlife habitat in the area and seldom does the species count exceed 27 and rarely do we find as many sensitive species such as the yellow-billed cuckoo, grasshopper sparrow, and dickcissel. In truth, the bird community on Prairie Dunes differs from these conventional courses in much the same way that Sand Hills differs from Prairie Dunes. On naturalised golf courses, the occurrence of sensitive species is much more frequent and the distribution of individuals among the species is more even and stable. Providing habitat on privately managed landscapes does attract an exceptional number of birds. Furthermore, these areas may be especially important to migratory birds needing a place to stop and refuel (yellow-rumped warbler) or to spend the winter (Harris sparrow).

Are naturalistic golf courses the same as natural areas in the kinds of bird communities they support? The answer here is no since there are many birds that require the larger, less fragmented and impacted habitats found in undisturbed areas away from human activities. The high amount of patchiness and edge habitat on golf courses is problematic for many birds that preferentially choose large, connected habitats. For this reason, natural areas may lose many species birds depending on the type of golf course constructed on the site. This is an important consideration in decisions regarding the siting of golf courses. It is unknown whether golf courses including larger areas of undisturbed habitat (such as the approximately 100 acres of natural area on Prairie Dunes) will lose fewer numbers of bird species. Our future studies of these undisturbed areas on Prairie Dunes should provide more information in this regard.

Naturalistic golf courses (those using the natural environment of a region as a development template) offer much promise in the larger struggle to preserve plant, animal, and ecosystem diversity. If managed correctly, naturalistic courses fit well into the emerging new philosophy of ecosystem management that recognises the immense potential of smaller parcels of public and private lands for preserving nature. With the involvement of ecologists, golf courses commonly thought to be environmental problems can now become ecological assets in the effort to increase the survival chances of many plants and animals. Especially attractive in this regard are the naturalised golf courses built on already disturbed land such as old mines, landfills, and highly eroded or otherwise negatively impacted landscapes. The large amount of natural habitat also reduces water runoff, reduces irrigation, and decreases chemical inputs

In theory, the ecological role of golf courses and smaller habitat parcels may be to serve as "population sinks" for the "population sources" of natural areas. Larger natural areas give a wide variety of species a chance to reproduce and individuals spread out across the country side from these reproductive "fountains". Dominant individuals secure territories on the natural area and younger individuals then move out as the area fills up with offspring dispersing from the nests. Smaller habitat areas, such as golf courses, then receive these dispersing individuals (like a sink) and provide them a home if they can adapt to the smaller habitat patches and human activity of the golf course. Not all the species can adapt but a good number do find a home. How to increase this number is the critical question which engages myself and other ecologists. Answers await more ecological research. However, the stakes are high as the fate of many of our favourite birds and other wildlife hangs in the balance.

Undisturbed, pristine habitats commonly are the choice of ecologists in search of knowledge about the machinery of nature. However, with the spread of urbanisation, it is time for ecological scientists to also study human dominated landscapes such as golf courses. Many opportunities exist for helping the golf community make ecologically sound decisions. This present study is an example of one cooperative effort between a golf course and an academic institution and a rewarding relationship has developed which benefits us both.

Ecologically designed golf courses can join natural areas, greenbelts, parks, farms, backyards and other units of the habitat mosaic. Furthermore, with the growing popularity of golf, practically millions of additional people can experience nature who normally would miss it. Surveys indicate that the golfing community is very responsive to environmental concerns and that links-style courses are growing in popularity. If nurtured by environmental professionals, ecological golf courses may be as useful in the attempt to retain biodiversity as some natural areas.

For ecologists who happen to be golfers, the relationship between science and golf is quite natural. Both cultures have become intertwined in my life (see Terman, M. 1996, Messages From An Owl, Princeton University Press) to where ecology is more than just a career and golf more than just a game. Both activities bring to my life the best in human relationships -friendship, honesty, integrity, a respect for tradition, a sense of fair play, and decision-making based on objective evidence. With these shared ideals, the common ground between the science of ecology and the golf community becomes fertile soil for future cooperative efforts to protect our common natural heritage. In the final analysis, we are both stewards of the same gifts of creation - those special places for which John Muir so eloquently pleaded with these words:

"Man needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in where nature can heal and cheer and give strength to body and soul alike." -John Muir, naturalist

 

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Tabor College and the USGA for supporting this study which is part of a larger cooperative project to produce a book on Golf Course Ecology with Audubon International and Ann Arbor Press of Chelsea, Michigan. My thanks also go to P. Stan George, superintendent of Prairie Dunes Country Club; Paul Jantzen, friend and naturalist; and Brent Konen, wildlife technician, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks for their assistance in this study.

Relevant publications by MRT:

Terman, M. R. 1994. The promise of natural links. Golf Course Management

62(12):52-59.

Terman, M. R. 1995. Naturalised golf courses may serve as nature preserves (Kansas). Restoration and Management Notes 13(1):127.

Terman, M. R. 1996. The bird communities of Prairie Dunes Country Club and Sand Hills State Park. USGA Green Section Record (in press).

 

Golf course management for the 21^st Century must be different than now. Whatever the futuristic plans for the year 2000 might include, add three factors concerning the environment to those other golf course management decisions which will affect how golf courses are managed - credibility, accountability and defensibility. Why? Because the public does influence environmental law. Because the public will insist that drinking water supplies be protected. Because of the link between water resources and watersheds, management of water resources must include the watershed. Incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water resources should be part of the golf course’s overall environmental management programme.

Golf course management decisions must be made based on the principles of Sustainable Resource Management. This can be defined as a pattern of human activity that can be supported indefinitely. This means it must be synonymous with progress. It also means becoming less dependent on non-renewable resources and that activities associated with golf course management must not create a negative impact environmentally. In many people’s eyes, golf courses have an image as an energy waster and polluter. Those knowledgeable about turfgrasses can offer many positive environmental impacts such as the following: oxygen production; cooling of the atmosphere; absorption of sound and glare; preventing erosion; and effective filtering of natural and synthetic contaminants. Equally, a second list could be offered which touches on the positive impacts dealing with our quality of life including the following: providing areas for popular recreational activities; increasing property values; providing greenspace and wildlife habitats in urban areas; and economics - jobs! Less informed individuals, and those whose agendas are anti-development and anti-golf would list the following as negative impacts: destruction of wildlife habitat; sedimentation of wetlands; fertiliser and pesticide pollution; and wasting of valuable water resources.

Environmental quality has many aspects. Public perception and attitude is often influenced by the popular press. Consider the following article on the Neuse River which flows through Raleigh, North Carolina to the coast:

"City sewage, industrial wastewater, farm fertilisers, livestock manure and lawn and golf course chemicals are changing the Neuse (River), choking it with nitrogen and phosphorus."

The response to these problems from the golf course perspective is clear. The industry must be proactive and not only just point out the positive benefits, but must also address situations where golf course management intersects with environmentally sensitive areas and develop management strategies which will protect these areas. To protect natural resources within the watershed a threefold approach should be taken as follows: 1) Preventative measures; 2) Control measures; and 3) Detection. This proactive approach stresses incorporating Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the design as a preventative strategy; protecting water quality through removal, filtration, detention or rerouting potential contaminants before they enter surface waters; using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to achieve BMP goals; a Risk Assessment, including developing strategies for protection of environmentally sensitive areas and guidelines for pesticide selection based on this assessment; and detection through an environmental monitoring programme that provides feedback to the golf course superintendent as to conditions and movement of materials.

Management Programme

A well developed management plan will be well documented and structured. While some of the types of information may at first seem elementary, to someone who is not scientifically astute it will lend credibility to one’s intentions to manage the golf course in a responsible way rather than making instantaneous decisions. This plan should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

Site Description and Evaluation - This will include a detailed description of the physical setting, preferably hole-by-hole with the surrounding environment with drawings and/or aerial photographs as available to delineate where concerns must be focused. The description should also include details of the topography and how it intersects with natural areas and interacts with management practices. The general soils mapping should be included which classifies the native soils and gives an indication of fertility, percolation, depth to bedrock and/or groundwater. Surface water features should be described and located. Data on the climate should summarize conditions which relate to growth of turfgrasses at the course and impact pest management strategies such as temperature, rainfall, potential evapotranspiration, length of growing season, and mean first and last frost dates.

Golf Course Cultural Practices- Mowing affects playability, turf performance, stress tolerance, pest problems and evapotranspiration. Mowing factors to consider include species, cultivars, and golfer’s expectations. Mowing objectives during optimum and stress situations should be described. Irrigation factors such as slope, type of grass, height of cut, rooting depth, weather factors, soil types and irrigation system performance should also be documented. Fertilisation factors to be addressed should include soil and plant tissue testing, objectives for growth, choice of materials, and environmental consequences. Supplemental practices such as aerification (which could affect pesticide/nutrient loss due to runoff), topdressing/vertical mowing (which affects thatch control and pesticide/nutrient response) and others are also important.

Safety - Details on storage, handling, disposal and record keeping of pesticides related to worker protection, employee right-to-know, OSHA, should be provided.

Best Management Practices - Developing the plan should rely heavily on use of (BMPs). There are several goals of BMPs which are as follows:

Reduce the off-site transport of sediment, nutrients and pesticides;

Control the rate, method and type of chemicals being applied;

Reduce the total chemical loads by use of IPM, economic thresholds, alternative pest control and fertility testing

Examples of BMPs which can be put into place include:

use of vegetative buffers for filtering runoff or sub-surface drainage

planting more pest resistant or stress tolerant cultivars

culturally or biologically controlling pests

using soil testing and plant tissue analysis to help determine nutritional requirements

There are many more examples which are intent on meeting the goals of BMPs as stated above (Balogh and Walker, 1992; USEPA, 1993).

Integrated Pest Management - IPM is a BMP whose strategies have been applied in agriculture for over 30 years. Recently, the US Department of Agriculture has launched an initiative which has a goal to implement IPM methods on 75% of the total crop acreage by the year 2000. The EPA supports this effort and the Office of Pesticide Programme has been instrumental in helping golf course superintendents find ways to incorporate IPM strategies into their programme. The definition of IPM as put forward by the Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) is as follows:

"A system of controlling pests in which pests are identified, action thresholds are considered, all possible control options are evaluated and selected controls are implemented. Control options - which include biological, chemical, cultural, manual and mechanical methods - are used to prevent or remedy unacceptable pest activity or damage."

The choice of control options then is based on:

 

effectiveness

environmental impact

site characteristics

worker/public health and safety

economics

 

The basic components of IPM are 1) monitoring - of potential pest populations and their environment; 2) determining - pest injury levels; 3) decision making - developing and integrating all biological, cultural and chemical control strategies; 4) educating - personnel on all biological and chemical control strategies; 5) timing and spot treatment - utilizing either the chemical, biological or cultural methods; 6) evaluating the results - an on-going process. This necessitates that the turf manager and people involved in the IPM programme have a thorough knowledge of turf and its pest problems, that there be a structured monitoring or scouting programme the intensity of which is determined by the value of the area and a knowledge of pest life cycles and that detailed records are kept to measure the effectiveness of the programme and record information on which to make future decisions.

There are six basic approaches for turf protection using IPM as follows: 1) regulatory - using certified seed, sod, and sprigs; 2) genetic - selecting the best adapted species/cultivars for the location; 3) cultural - a healthy grass means fewer problems; 4) physical - isolating areas where pests are a problem; 5) biological - favoring natural competition; and 6) chemical - which is selective, but may be necessary. One of the critical strategies to an IPM approach is to set thresholds for pest problems and try to only use chemical treatments when they are exceeded. This requires vigilant daily scouting for pests by qualified personnel who are trained to recognise the pest problem even at an early stage.

These are also largely determined by the value of the area and the recuperative capacity of the turf (Watschke et al., 1994). Information on the biology of insect problems common to the area should also be included in an IPM plan. For example, there is a degree day model on billbug larvae and adults that uses climatic information on which to base the scouting programme and plan the most effective treatment schedule.

Thresholds for fungal and bacterial diseases are less well defined and depend to a great extent on the turfgrass species, prevailing environmental conditions, economic or aesthetic value of the site, and the cost of chemical treatment versus renovation of damaged turf sites. Thresholds may also be based on previous history of infection at the site, particularly for problems such as Spring Dead Spot, Take-All Patch and Summer Patch. Similarly, weed problems can be handled with the same objective in mind.

Monitoring programme focus on two objectives as follows: the IPM objective, to determine if pest populations are building to a point they will need some form of control to be implemented; and the environmental objective to determine if any environmental impact is occurring. Monitoring for golf agronomic purposes can be grouped by frequency. There are those items which need to be monitored on a daily basis such as quality of cut, soil moisture, disease incidence, weed infestation and leaf insects; on a weekly basis such as soil temperatures, tissue nitrogen concentrations, algae and moss infestation and the presence of hydrophobic soil problems; on a monthly basis the soil profile should be examined for presence of fungi, compaction, infiltration rate, soil pH should be analyzed, and the irrigation system should be checked for calibration; at least annually a complete soil analysis should be performed, drainage should be evaluated, wind movement and shade should be checked. The determination of timing on these and other factors may vary due to location and the type of soil and turfgrasses in the area. But, some form of structured programme should be in place to collect information to help in making management decisions.

IPM is an evolutionary process! Changes will continually be made to the programme as information is collected about the golf course, new information on strategies for control and as the options for control change. When starting an IPM programme it is important that it be a structured programme. The monitoring should be set up to use designated scouts (which should include the superintendent), keep detailed records and continually evaluate the results.

Risk Assessment

Risk Assessment is the process of assigning magnitudes and probabilities of effects to ecosystems resulting from human activities or natural phenomena. The risk assessment protocols include procedures that characterize the source of the risk, the ecological resources at potential risk, the magnitude of the hazard, the exposure potential, and the assessment of risk. A list of pesticides appropriate for use in watershed locations should be developed from this type of analysis. Based on the receptors on the property, restrictions for use of certain materials should be made where appropriate. Evaluation of materials should start with chemical properties and site conditions. Further evaluation will be based on exposure potential and toxicity and screening models such as GUS, SCS ad PLP can be used. At this point, materials may be accepted for use or require further evaluation. Computer simulations and maximum exposure limitations can further refine the list of those acceptable for use, perhaps with restrictions on locations based on site conditions such as slope, soil texture, proximity to surface water features, etc. This risk assessment procedure will allow development of a list of pesticides which under well managed conditions present the least possible potential for environmental problems.

Cooperative Sanctuary Programme

An additional option as part of the overall IPM and monitoring strategy is to consider becoming a part of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program of Audubon International. The whole approach to the Audubon programme is to promote sound land management and conservation of natural resources, incorporating every aspect of the use of BMPs and IPM. Additionally, it encourages the superintendent to take a leadership role in conservation projects and the recognise those golf courses for their efforts. Under this programme, everyone should work towards gaining certification in the areas of environmental planning, public involvement, integrated pest management, wildlife food enhancement, wildlife cover enhancement, water conservation and water enhancement. These are not just critical issues from the public relations perspective, but promote and document good stewardship on the golf course.

Summary

The benefits of incorporating BMPs and IPM into golf course management programme are threefold:

 

assures more judicious use of pesticides/fertilisers

an economic savings

public relations over environmental concerns and less environmental impact

 

IPM strategies have been successfully employed at thousands of golf courses around the world. By adopting the strategies of prevention, control and detection and using recognised conservation principles, good stewardship and environmental awareness can make golf course management in watershed areas environmentally responsible.

Literature Cited

Balogh, James C. and William J. Walker. 1992. Golf Course Management and Construction: Environmental Issues. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.

USEPA. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 840-B-92-902, Washington, DC.

Watschke, Thomas L., Peter H. Dernoeden and David J. Shetlar. 1994. Managing Turfgrass Pests. Lewis Publishing Co., Boca Raton, FL.

 

2.3 The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System by Ron Dodson

History of the Audubon Movement

During the late 1880s, in response to the vast destruction of birds in the name of fashion, George Bird Grinnell, editor of Forest and Stream Magazine, began the first Audubon Society. The fanciful style of wearing bird feathers in hats and bird wings on coats nearly caused the extinction of several species. To change this fashion trend, Grinnell used his magazine to organise a national bird protection organisation. Grinnell was greatly influenced by Audubon's passion for birds and felt that "Audubon" would be a fitting name for the movement.

Grinnell also felt the best way to create change was to encourage the collective action of individuals. He urged women to pressure the fashion industry by signing pledge cards that promised they would refrain from wearing bird feathers and men promised to shoot birds only for consumption. In order to have the greatest impact and reach as many people as possible, he helped form small, grassroots groups dedicated to bird preservation throughout New York and other states.

Massachusetts Audubon was formed in 1896, followed by New York State Audubon in 1897. During the next five years, thirty-five Audubon Societies were incorporated and later joined to form a loose coalition of independent state groups. As with most social and political movements, there were changes in direction, focus, and structure over the years. In the 1940s, a small group of individuals decided to form a separate organisation that would focus on issues they felt were beyond the scope of state Audubon Societies. This organisation became the National Audubon Society.

 

Audubon Societies Today

Today, there are more than 500 Audubon Societies in the United States. Each of these groups is independent and separately incorporated and each is free to establish its own goals, develop its own programmes, and take positions regarding environmental issues.

Audubon International as well as the state Audubon Societies of New York, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island, Connecticut, the Audubon Naturalist Society are not affiliated with the National Audubon Society.

The diversity of Audubon Societies is not meant to confuse the public. Rather, it serves to broaden public involvement and increase the number of approaches taken to enhance and protect the environment.

 

Audubon International

Audubon International was created to help expand efforts for sustainable resource management throughout the United States and internationally. The Mission of Audubon International is to improve the quality of the environment through Research, Education, and Conservation Assistance.

Our objective is to provide guidance and education regarding environmental and conservation activities through the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System (ACSS). Our goal is to encourage landowners and land managers to become actively involved in: 1) creating and enhancing wildlife habitat, and 2) conserving and staining natural resources.

 

Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System

The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System was founded on the belief that if we all work toward conservation and habitat enhancement on our own properties in our schools, and where we work and play, we can create a national and international system of wildlife habitat and environmental conservation. Members of The Cooperative Sanctuary System receive information about how to manage their property with wildlife in mind as well as how to incorporate sound environmental practices such as energy and water conservation, recycling, and waste reduction. Cooperators have an opportunity to learn about and become involved in landscaping for wildlife, beginning or expanding nest box projects, planting special gardens for hummingbirds or butterflies, and many other wildlife enhancement and conservation activities which are designed for their property.

Cooperators are involved in a variety of conservation efforts ranging from nesting box management for bluebirds to the management of threatened or endangered bird species. In addition, Cooperators are working on habitat enhancement projects ranging from tall grass prairie establishment in Kansas to wetland enhancement in Florida. Aside from wildlife and habitat projects, cooperators are also involved in a variety of other projects, such as energy efficient lighting, composting, recycling, and water quality management, which reflect areas of their particular interest and concern.

The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System is a nationwide membership network comprising four programmes for:

 

The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses (ACSP) was created by Audubon International and is sponsored by the USGA. Together, the USGA and Audubon International are striving to:

 

Enhance wildlife habitats on existing golf courses by working with the golf course superintendent and providing advice for ecologically sound course management;

 

Encourage active participation in conservation programme by golfers, golf course superintendents, golf officials, and the general public;

 

Recognise the people who are actively participating in environmentally responsible projects;

 

Educate the public and golfing community about the benefits of golf courses and the role they play relative to the environment and wildlife.

 

Programme for Corporate or Business Property

The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Corporate and Business Property is designed to encourage, support, and recognise corporations and business that are working to ensure a high degree of environmental quality within their daily operations. Because of the diversity of types of property, this programme is designed to accommodate a variety of organisations. Members of this programme include corporate and business properties as well as nursing homes, retirement communities, homeowners' associations, cemeteries, yacht clubs, and hotels or resorts. Regardless of your type of business, providing habitat for wildlife, conserving water and energy, and reducing and recycling wastes can help your business increase revenue and decrease maintenance time. Environmentally-sensitive management practices also benefit both the larger community and the environment in which you live.

 

Programme for Individuals

The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System is looking for partners for conservation. Your participation can make a meaningful difference. Whether you live in a city apartment, own a home in the suburbs, or manage many acres of land, we invite you to join us in enhancing and preserving the quality of the environment.

Our objective is to provide guidance and education concerning environmental and conservation activities through the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System. By adopting simple and enjoyable wildlife and conservation projects where you live, both you and the environment will benefit. Landscaping with the needs of wildlife in mind will add uniqueness and beauty to your home and can increase the value of your property. Indoor conservation projects can provide substantial financial savings while preserving important natural resources.

 

Programme for Schools

The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Schools promotes environmental education and personal action through a dynamic, hands-on approach to environmental studies. Students will not only learn about nature, wildlife, water, and waste, they'll have the opportunity to work on habitat enhancement and conservation projects right in the classroom and on the school grounds. Students involved in the programme have constructed and placed nest boxes for birds, mounted bird feeders, built nature trails, landscaped for hummingbirds, butterflies, and other wildlife, and have adopted recycling, energy, and water conservation programme. Any school, public or private, may become a Cooperative Sanctuary. The only membership requirement is an active interest in learning about the Earth and doing what you can to be a responsible steward of land and natural resources.

 

The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System Membership

Membership fees for the programme of the Cooperative Sanctuary System are $35/ year for Individual Backyards, and $100/year for Golf Courses, Schools, and Business and Corporate Properties.

The landowner has total control over property registered in the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System. All activities are voluntary and there are no requirements or restrictions placed on the property or property owner.

Members receive various publications, including Field Notes, conservation fact sheets, and accomplishment certificates as a benefit of membership in addition to recognition of their conservation efforts.

 

The Membership Process

 

What does membership include? Membership includes a Conservation Report providing direction and guidance for a variety of conservation activities and projects, various publications, conservation fact sheets, access to Audubon staff advisory service, and Certificates of Achievements and recognition for conservation efforts.

What is the Resource Inventory? After the course registers in the programme, we then send a packet of materials including the Resource Inventory. The Resource Inventory is the critical step in initiating your involvement in the programme. It is usually filled out by the course superintendent and provides basic information concerning the "nature" of the course and other information which we will use to prepare a Conservation Report for your course.

What is the Conservation Report? After Audubon staff receive the completed Resource Inventory, they prepare a Conservation Report which includes a variety of wildlife enhancement projects and resource conservation programme that specifically focus on the interests and needs of the individual course or club. Additional educational materials are included with the report.

How do we become a Certified Cooperative Sanctuary? After reading the Conservation Report, the golf course may begin working toward certification in Environmental Planning, Member/Public Involvement, Integrated Pest Management, Wildlife & Habitat Management, Water Conservation, and Water Quality Management. A Certificate of Achievement for each category will be granted once the category is properly developed and implemented. The golf course will become a Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary after all certificates have been achieved.

 

3 SEMINAR DISCUSSION POINTS

This is a synthesis of the key discussion points raised in the four Golf-Ecology seminars. Some topics were specific to particular local or national situations, while other more general points came up repeatedly at the different seminars. Due to restrictions of time and space, this is inevitably a selective review of the discussions and individual comments cannot be attributed. However, we hope this gives a fair impression of the strong interest shown by participants at each of the seminars.

3.1 Land-use Issues

There is a clear distinction between the North American and European situations for the siting of golf courses. The USA still possesses large tracts of undeveloped land dating back to pre-settlement times. These vast natural areas support rich biological communities, with complex food webs and so-called ‘interior species’, which require large undisturbed habitat units. The research by Dr Terman demonstrated that golf development in such natural areas does impact on biodiversity, and in particular affects the more disturbance sensitive interior species. These problems are amplified because most American golf projects have a considerable amount of associated real estate development.

In contrast, the European landscape is highly fragmented and the product of millenia of human influence. Here, in the more densely populated countries, such extensive natural areas as found in the USA do not occur. Indeed, in north-western Europe, there are very few examples of interior species remaining. As a result of the high level of development, there are many situations where the older, traditional style golf courses have served to preserve the last remaining fragments of certain habitat types and some of their associated flora and fauna. In these situations the historical role of golf courses as reservoirs for species lost from the countryside around, has been a significant contribution to the conservation of biodiversity.

There is growing recognition within the golfing world that some sites cannot sustain potential golf course development and the no development scenario is a real option. But where development is permitted, a well designed golf course is probably the least destructive alternative. Indeed, in urban fringe and intensive agricultural areas (human dominated landscapes), golf courses offer one of the best forms of managed land-use for the protection of nature. Thus there are good ecological reasons for favouring golf courses in degraded and highly modified environments, and discouraging their development on sites of high natural quality.

What is obviously needed is clearer guidance on the types of sites where golf development would have the most beneficial environmental effects. Information on the ability of golf courses to increase local biodiversity would be very useful.

There are other environmental land-use considerations of special importance in a European context, which go beyond the focus on wildlife ecology; namely, landscape and cultural heritage. These are obviously primarily associated with human modified environments, although in many cases the heritage features may be extremely ancient and effectively fully integrated into the natural ecology of an area.

Social and amenity factors add further complexity to assessing and evaluating potential golf course developments. The challenge is to achieve a sensitive balance.

 

 

3.2 Ecological Studies of Golf Courses - Which Topics
and Species Should be Targeted?

We know that golf courses are often good places for seeing different types of wildlife but what does that really mean? How can we establish whether or not they support productive biological communities? We still know very little about how wildlife uses golf courses, yet this is fundamental to determining the most appropriate management practices.

What are the best species groups to study in order to understand better the functional ecology of golf courses? Much emphasis in the Audubon work has been given to birds. In their favour, birds are popular and relatively easily observed. There are more people knowledgeable about birds than any other taxonomic group, so they are the best suited to large scale surveys using many different observers. The concern is that birds occupy relatively large areas and a golf course may only represent part of their normal home range. In this case it would be difficult to tell how dependent they are on the golf course area as opposed to surrounding land uses. On the other hand, even on a transitory basis, such as during migration, a golf course might provide important habitat for certain birds. The question how birds use a particular site rather than simply noting their occurrence would therefore be more useful to research.

Cases were made for a number of less mobile species groups, such as small mammals, amphibians and certain invertebrates, which would be almost exclusively dependent on conditions within a particular site and therefore better indicators of local environmental quality. The drawback with these is the specialist knowledge required. They are best suited to small scale, intensive research projects and would be difficult to apply to golf courses on a wide scale.

An alternative approach would be to look at a range of key species across different taxonomic groups as broad indicators of the ecological complexity of golf courses. A considerable amount of information in this regard should be extracted from the Audubon International Managed Lands Database which is currently in development. In the UK the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology has extensive databases on land-use cover and vegetation, which could be analysed in a golf course context to provide a basic inventory of habitats.

 

3.3 Use of Golfers as Amateur Naturalists

Ecological studies on golf courses have an additional potential value beyond their scientific content. That is the awareness raising among golfers of the environment around them. It is also reasonable to presume that a large number of people who play golf also enjoy wildlife and many of these will have a good knowledge of certain plant and animal species. If we could harness this potential interest and use golfers effectively as biological recorders, this could be an excellent means of generating large data sets, and promoting our environmental programme.

What, however, would be the scientific value of wildlife inventories supplied by these golfing amateur naturalists? The consensus was that provided the sample size is large and the survey parameters are kept simple, such an approach can give useful information. It is definitely worth attempting and will also have the added value of generating interest and goodwill.

An additional approach could be to use undergraduate students as a source of volunteer recorders. This could be coordinated within the context of a more focused university research project.

3.4 Water Management And Use of Treated Effluent

Water resource management is now widely accepted as a major concern in golf course management throughout Europe - not just in the more arid southern regions. A golf course is an ideal site for collecting water and rainwater farming is a useful supplement.

Use of effluent water is becoming more frequent in the USA and experience to date has been positive. There are some limitations, particularly regarding the nutrient load, which may be more than required at certain times. In England, North West Water is developing a system for waste water use on golf courses and is testing this at a new course in their region. One concern is that small treatment plants have higher risks as there is less capacity to treat periodic heavy loads. Existing golf courses might be limited by space for settlement and filtration lagoons but these could be incorporated into new designs.

3.5 Effects of Pest Control on Wildlife

A common question was if there was evidence of golf course management practices impacting on wildlife. From a toxicological standpoint a recent detailed research project at Kiawah Island in South Carolina had shown no evidence of pesticide poisoning which could be attributed to the golf course. Other published reports of bird kills on golf courses all appear to be old cases involving now prohibited products.

In a European context the quantities of pesticides used on golf courses is demonstrably less than on most American courses and also substantially less than on the equivalent areas of agricultural land. In all European countries there are strict regulations governing the types of products available and in some countries this leaves greenkeepers with a very restricted choice.

Run-off into aquatic systems was a further question. However, Dr Peacock emphasised that the main concern regarding run-off should be towards fertilisers - primarily nitrates - and not pesticides, which tend to be less mobile. Thus on any reasonable scale of risk, normal pesticide applications to turfgrass on European golf courses do not pose a significant danger. However, it is noted that many golf courses have sub-standard chemical storage, handling and waste disposal facilities, and these could be a loophole leading to some potential pollution.

Dr Gange from Royal Holloway, University of London, reported on some research on mycorrhyza and bacteria populations in samples of golf green soils. Comparative counts showed much lower numbers of soil microbes than in untreated grasslands, and some greens which had received fungicide applications were devoid of soil microbes. In effect these were sterile soils providing a hydroponic medium for the turfgrass. In environmental terms these findings were not alarming but could have implications for turf management in so far as understanding the role of soil micro-organisms in promoting a healthy sward.

Pest management strategies should also consider indirect effects on non-target species. An example cited was how eradication of rabbits from a golf course area might lead to local habitat changes as there would no longer be any grazing to maintain open grasslands. This would lead to scrub invasion and possible loss of important floristic diversity, unless alternative compensatory management actions were undertaken.

3.6 Use of Biological Pest Control Agents on Golf Courses

This is another potential avenue for possible application on golf courses. However, at present biological products are not as cheap, nor as effective as synthetic material. Most research in this field is driven by agriculture and it will be some time before suitable turf applications become widely available.

3.7 Are Best Management Practices and Integrated Pest
Management Only for Large Clubs?

There is a common tendency to view the discussion on BMP and IPM as something aimed at those golf courses which use large quantities of water and chemicals. Dr Peacock stressed that these principles applied at all levels and were just as important for small operators. One can operate IPM without using chemicals. Many small clubs are effectively doing BMP without knowing it. What is vital is that managers of all facilities think about their operation and define their management programme appropriate to the site and the resources available.

3.8 Role of the Greenkeepers

The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program owes much of its success to the enthusiasm and initiative of golf course superintendents at the participating clubs. They have been very much the leaders in this programme and this reflects their relatively high status within American golf clubs. In Europe the influence of greenkeepers on club management policy is not to the same extent. This situation is steadily changing with the improvements in greenkeeper education, which includes an increasing environmental component. However, while any environmental programme for European golf clubs will definitely need to work alongside the greenkeeping profession, it will simultaneously need a major awareness drive on the golfing public and golf club officials.

It was also felt that greenkeepers are not well served with access to impartial information on products and management strategies. An active environmental management campaign could be an important means of addressing this problem.

3.9 Encouraging Golfers to Think Green

A theme expressed at each seminar was the need to educate the golfing public about the importance of environmental quality to the game. Much of this related to how golfers perceive their course in environmental terms, and particularly how their concept of ‘perfection’ might be weaned away from the high profile, intensively managed, ‘TV studio’ courses to the more traditional, naturalistic style courses. An awareness raising project such as the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program must be a key element of any drive in this direction.

A number of suggestions were made with a view to breaking down the fashion for artificial, highly manicured golf courses and indeed to create a new vogue for traditional style, naturalistic golf courses. The emphasis would have to be to try to reconnect modern golf courses with the traditions and natural origins of the game. Novel measures proposed included:

3.10 Why do Golf Clubs Participate in Environmental Projects?

The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program has over 2,300 registered member clubs. It is perhaps easy to imagine how a motivated individual, or small group of people, within a club might persuade it to join a programme such as Audubon’s but what keeps them in the programme? The high renewal rate of the Audubon programme testifies to its success in this regard. A number of reasons have been advanced:

3.11 Should There be a Similar Programme in Europe?

This was a question directed primarily at the golfing representatives attending the seminars in order to gauge potential reaction to this approach. In view of the evident popularity of the Audubon system among American golfers, it was not surprising to find a broad welcome to setting up a similar programme in Europe. Clearly many questions of detail need to be examined, but there is good evidence (not just arising from this tour) that many European golf clubs would be keen to participate. The notion of a certification programme resulting in some form of "Green Flag" award was well received - much more so than would have been imagined even two years ago. Although seven European golf clubs have already joined the Audubon programme proper, it was widely felt that a distinctly European project would be needed. Indeed, its implementation in different countries would almost certainly depend on the programme having sufficient flexibility to accommodate distinctive national/regional variants.

The key would be to have consistent criteria and standards without imposing uniformity. This would enable each project variant to contribute to the overall programme as a whole, while retaining individual national/regional style and character. In this way a European project could also be compatible with the Audubon system as an independent yet related project.

 

 

4STUDY TOUR NOTES

4.1 Study Tour Notes by Max Terman

From an ecological point of view, the European courses were quite exceptional in the amount of habitat contained on the courses.

The Berkshire had a strong vertical complexity component and good habitat connectivity which facilitated good bird diversity. Royal St George’s was a classic links-style course with good amounts of grassland and rolling dunes which added complexity to the land form. The habitat patches were a good mix of sizes and shapes and connected to form a matrix of high quality grassland habitat. Low amounts of pesticide, fertiliser and water use made these courses very environmentally compatible.

Royal Zoute golf course was similar to a standard heathland course with a good blend of island habitats integrating into larger peripheral habitats. It housed green woodpeckers which indicates its suitability for that declining species.

The courses in Scotland were again remarkable in the amount of grassland habitat patches along the rough and in various island habitats on the course. Muirfield was exceptional in its patch size and connectivity, plus it protected a complete natural area adjacent to the course. Low chemical and water inputs added to the ecological attractiveness of these courses.

The Swedish courses again presented quality links-land habitat. Falsterbo was special in that it also was a major migratory stopover. Ljunghusens added a high quality playing surface to the protection of good marsh, grassland and shrubland habitat. All of the Swedish courses were open to public access which increased their usefulness.

In summary, these courses saved habitat, provided valuable open space, and added significantly to the natural resources of their localities. I was impressed with the low subsidies (chemical, water) and the fact that most golfers walk and accept variable playing surfaces as part of the game. Golf also stands alone as an economic entity and does not depend on real estate sales for its survival. In countries with little land to be devoted to nature conservation, golf courses are indeed a valuable land resource. In countries with more available presettlement land types, golf courses blend in well with the regional habitat mosaic and provide good buffer zones and corridors for wildlife and water movement and containment.

 

4.2 Study Tour Notes by Charles Peacock

General Impressions

While I have been to Europe a number of times, and have had the opportunity to see golf courses and visit with turf professionals in the past, this was the first opportunity I have had to actually feel a part of the professional community. It is obvious to me there are distinct differences, yet commonalties between golf course management in Europe compared to the United States. One of the things which was most prominent was the difference in attitude between the golfer in Europe compared to the US. They seem to focus more on the recreational and outdoor aspect rather than the competitiveness of the game. It seems to be more of an outdoor activity or experience than a sporting activity. This is evidenced by the number of players walking. In fact, few motorised carts were even available. This does not mean they expect or are willing to tolerate poor golfing conditions, however, they seem to be willing to accept less highly maintained conditions. They seem to recognise that conservation of natural resources limits the extent to which course management can make improvements in course conditions.

While we visited some of the most renowned courses in the world, even in discussions with the general public, there seems to be more of a general awareness of the heritage of the game, even among non-golfers. Comments from non-golfers made it apparent that they were aware of the concern over environmental issues, but they seemed to be responsive to letting the golfing community come up with answers to the concerns. I was very impressed with the types of organisations which had representatives at the seminars. They ranged from very involved environmental groups to political allies, all interested in working to a common goal for the benefit of golf and the environment.

Impressions of Golf Course Management

Almost any golfer that knows the history of the game would welcome a trip to Europe to play on the types of courses where the game was invented. Most of them have little understanding as to the soil, climate and site conditions which make those courses persist under specific management conditions. While most golfers would recognise the differences between a heathland and a links course, few would appreciate what makes each unique as to the management conditions and requirements.

I was especially struck by how the climate and natural ecosystems lend themselves so well to low input course maintenance. Even though the demand for play may be high, the ability of the greenkeeper to provide the best possible playing conditions under those inputs requires as much art and skill as any place I have been. It would be difficult for many US superintendents to understand how you can maintain a golf course on 25,000m³ (5.5 million gallons) of irrigation water a year. Despite the fact many of the older courses have been updated with modern irrigation systems, a very different approach to water conservation is not just expected, it is demanded. And yet, it does not have an overwhelming impact on playability.

Other approaches to management seem to blend old ideas with new technology very well. Overseeding with improved cultivars of native species to improve turf stands is commonly practised. Irrigation is very prominent, yet it is used in a conservation approach. Pest management is a truly integrated approach, favouring natural competition. Fertilisation is kept to a low level, just enough to keep the grass actively growing without shifting the nutritional balance to create more pest problems. Additionally, the use of the native species which have an inherent low maintenance requirement means dealing with fewer problems compared to growing species out of their area of adaptation. Pesticides are used, however the quantity of use is limited and more on a curative basis once pest problems reach a critical level.

Interactions with Greenkeepers

The greenkeepers exhibited a high level of professionalism and a desire to learn more about the Audubon programme. They seemed to have a more comprehensive understanding of conservation and wildlife issues as a whole. It was apparent that they are working toward being more recognised on a professional level by their clubs. The attendance at the seminars by representatives from BIGGA and the Swedish Greenkeepers Association point this out. They realise that ultimately to be successful at incorporating many of the environmental ideas of course management into their programme, they ultimately must build the trust of and educate the golfer as to what it is they are trying to accomplish.

One perhaps negative concern is that many of the greenkeepers believe they see a trend towards demanding more highly manicured turf, often comparing it to conditions found in the US. Part of this certainly is because of the exposure the professional golf tour has been given globally. This need not have such a negative impact on the environment, but care will have to be taken to manage with conservation at the fore front. This is where participation in the Audubon programme can demand that management inputs be comprehensively scrutinised to make certain criteria for conservation management are met.

Audubon International Programme Interest

The interest shown in the Audubon programme was incredible. One limiting factor in acceptance would be the education of people as to the Audubon name. It is not as well recognised in Europe as in the US. The intent of the programme is international and it was apparent the interest is also. The concepts of sustainability and natural resource management in the context of golf course management were well received by environmental and golf groups alike in attendance.

The interest in the Audubon programme will allow a European version to be accepted. It will require that details specific to the European political environment be worked out. However, it would be most beneficial to golf if it were presented as a truly unified international effort. The structure of the EGA Ecology Unit and the specific golf federations and unions lends itself well to making this type of programme successful.

 

4.3 Study Tour Notes by Ron Dodson

A central reason for going to Europe was to gather information concerning the playing conditions on the traditional golf courses in Europe. In addition, I was interested in the attitudes golfers displayed toward the game itself. Because the roots of the game can be traced to the old courses of Scotland and because some believe that a very simple approach to managing the game is more environmentally appropriate, I was interested in experiencing European golf courses first hand.

The trip also gave me an opportunity to interact with numerous environmental groups, governmental agencies, and golf association to share information concerning various golf and the environment initiatives. These meetings also allowed me the opportunity to become familiar with the European perspective of golf and the environment.

From my point of view, the links golf courses that we visited seemed to be managed in a more or less "natural" state because the infrastructure, such as inground irrigation systems and large maintenance budgets, does not exist as it does for most American courses. In addition, golfers on these courses accept these conditions as part of the history of the game.

Many of these courses are over a hundred years old. Therefore tradition dictates that you "play the ball where it lands and accept your fate." I also heard several statements such as "this game is played on grass, not on color." So the various shades of green, brown, or even bare dirt are just part of the experience.

Essentially, this theme ran throughout the trip. It certainly seemed, however, that many courses would gladly accept higher maintenance budgets if they could get them. It was also interesting for me to hear comments in Scotland concerning the pressure to compete with American golf courses especially in regard to getting tourist golfers to play their course. I was surprised to see the extent to which the courses at St. Andrews were being irrigated for example. I had always been told that they have no irrigation at all.

All in all it was a great trip and I believed we all learned a lot from each other. Every course that we visited had outstanding features and character but from a purely "spiritual" perspective, I was most impressed with the efforts being displayed by golfers at Lunds, the final course we visited in Sweden. They are working hard to keep their course as a golf course, and to not let it be converted to just another park. They are educating themselves and the public about nature and they are working to preserve endangered species. Who in the environmental movement would have thought a group of golfers would care that much about the environment. Bravo.

 

 

5 CONCLUSIONS AND ACTION POINTS

5.1 Taking the Golf-Ecology Initiative Forward in Europe

The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program the USA offers an excellent model for a voluntary environmental initiative for golf courses. It combines awareness raising with tangible practical achievements, and the certification process offers a strong incentive for golf clubs to improve their environmental performance in a rational and incremental way.

These points are all shared with the proposals for a pan-European Environmental Management Programme published by the European Golf Association Ecology Unit. This project is currently being piloted by the Ecology Unit in conjunction with the European Commission and will be launched in September 1997 at the Ryder Cup matches at Valderrama, southern Spain. In view of the inherent diversity of environmental, cultural and legal systems across Europe, it will be necessary for the Environmental Management Programme to be adaptable to different national and regional situations. The detailed implementation will need to be operated at these levels.

On a European scale we are looking to provide an essential framework and operating guidelines for the programme, in order to achieve as great a consistency of application as possible. The unifying theme will be a European level certification award to which all participating golf clubs can aspire. The actual symbol of the campaign has yet to be determined but for current convenience we envisage it as a "Green Flag" style project, conceptually akin to the Blue Flag Campaign for bathing beaches and marinas. To ensure its acceptance and Europe-wide recognition it will be important for the technical criteria to be established jointly by golfing and environmental experts and for the awarding process to be as open as possible.

It will certainly be a new programme with a distinctive European theme based on a coordination of strong national/regional projects. We also believe it desirable to match this initiative as closely as possible with the work of Audubon International. Not only is this sensible in terms of mutual cooperation but the cumulative effect of the two programmes would be a powerful demonstration to the rest of the golfing world of the benefits of a pro-active environmental policy.

5.2 Programme Structure

As with the Audubon programme, golf clubs will be encouraged to join the European programme on a voluntary basis for a modest subscription. The first wave of participants will be encouraged through a series of national/regional pilot projects taking place in 1997 in Belgium, Denmark, Portugal and Scotland. The initial commitment will be complemented by each participating club adopting a policy pledge along the following lines:

The first technical undertaking should be to carry out a detailed environmental review of the golf course and its management, utilising as best possible expertise from with the club and outside help from either local environmental specialists or consultants. In some countries this will be coordinated by a Ecology Officer engaged by the National Golf Federation. This corresponds to the Natural Resource Inventory required in the Audubon programme and is a vital basis for determining the content of the Environmental Management Programme.

Our parallel to the Audubon certification process will be based on the successful implementation of specified measures in the following categories:

An important innovation in the European programme will be to ensure independent verification of the certification awards. This will be essential for credibility and wider recognition. Although it is a golf-led initiative it is not an internal self-justifying exercise. The EGA Ecology Unit will therefore be looking to develop partnerships with leading environmental organisations in Europe.

5.3 National Initiatives

The role of the EGA Ecology Unit is primarily one of establishing a framework and coordinating the international scope of this programme. The real environmental management work will be achieved on the ground at the participating clubs. To facilitate this particular efforts are being undertaken (or are planned) by a number of national golf federations. These initiatives will provide closer links to the different clubs within a national or regional area. We feel this is an essential step in making the whole programme work.

The following current or planned golf-ecology projects are being developed in collaboration with the EGA Ecology Unit:

5.4 Research Projects

Given the evident interest among the golfing community in addressing environmental management issues, it is clear that we need to be able to support this with appropriate scientific information. There is already much excellent research material published in relation to turf management issues but virtually nothing concerning the ecological aspects of golf courses. The four Audubon seminars provided a valuable opportunity to put this right and the discussion sessions illuminated a number of potential wildlife ecology research topics:

5.5 Communicating and Raising Awareness

During 1997 the work of the EGA Ecology Unit will be focusing on green initiatives related to the forthcoming Ryder Cup matches at Valderrama and the concurrent launch of the Environmental Management Programme. These will be substantial awareness raising exercises, using TV, press and on site interpretation tools, both during the event and in the months leading up to the matches. Key measures will include filmed interviews with star players endorsing the environmental programme, and providing briefing notes on ecological topics for TV commentators.

5.6 Working Together

The seminars and study tour certainly confirmed that there is a large and active interest in environmental aspects of golf courses. It was particularly encouraging to note the interest among environmental specialists, researchers and organisations in working with golf course managers, and at the same time the willingness of the golfing participants to collaborate likewise. Golf courses are managed land areas with considerable ecological potential - for research, for conservation and for education.

We hope that this recent exercise has clearly demonstrated the golfing community’s commitment to environmental quality and that it has some exciting and innovative activities in this field. The work presented by the Audubon International team, itself a combination of golfing, conservation and research interests, was of the highest level. In Europe we can gain a great deal by learning from their lead. At the same time we know that the study tour was a valuable educational experience for our visitors.

The EGA Ecology Unit will be working closely with Audubon International to advance many of the topics and action points highlighted in this report on both sides of the Atlantic. Both our organisations appreciate the importance of working with scientists, non-governmental organisations and public authorities in these endeavours. There are many interesting and useful projects to do. They cannot be done in isolation and we actively seek support from the environmental and scientific communities to help us realise these objectives.

 

6 APPENDICES

Appendix I

Addresses of Speakers and Organisers

Dr Charles Peacock, Dept of Crop Science, P O Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N0C 27695, USA.

Tel: + (1) 919 515 7615, Fax: + (1) 919 515 7959

e-mail: Peacock@cropserv1.cropsci.ncsu.edu

 

Dr Max Terman, Dean of Biology, Tabor College, Hillsboro, Kansas 67063, USA.

Tel: + (1) 316 947 3121, Fax: + (1) 316 947 2607

e-mail: maxt@tcnet.tabor.edu

 

Mr Ron Dodson, President, Audubon International, 46 Rarick Road, Selkirk,

New York 12158, USA

Tel: + (1) 518 767 9051, Fax: + (1) 518 767 9051

e-mail: igolfnbird@aol.com

 

Mr David Stubbs, Director, European Golf Association Ecology Unit, c/o Environmental Golf Services, 51 South Street, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 2JX, UK.

Tel: + (44) 1306 743288, Fax: + (44) 1306 742496

e-mail: ega.golf.ecology@dial.pipex.com

 

Mrs Moira Hurst, PA to David Stubbs, European Golf Association Ecology Unit, c/o Environmental Golf Services, 51 South Street, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 2JX, UK.

Tel: + (44) 1306 743288, Fax: + (44) 1306 742496,

e-mail: ega.golf.ecology@dial.pipex.com

 

Mrs Marie-Christine Henrist, Communications Officer, Royal Belgian Golf Federation, Chaussée de la Hulpe 110, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.

Tel: + (32) 2 672 23 89 Fax: + (32) 2 672 08 97

 

Mr Jonathan Smith, Scottish Golf Course Wildlife Adviser, The Scottish Greenbelt Company Ltd, 375 West George Street, Glasgow, G2 4NT.

Tel: +(44) 141 221 3444 Fax: + (44) 141 221 3110

 

Mr Stig Persson, Ljunghusens Golf Club, Kinells väg, 23600 Höllviken, Sweden.

TeL + (46) 40 450384 Fax: + (46) 40 454265

 

 

 

Appendix II

List of Seminar Attendees - London

 

 

 

List of Seminar Attendees - Brussels

 

 

 

List of Seminar Attendees - Edinburgh

 

 

 

List of Seminar Attendees - Malmö