USGA GREEN SECTI A Publication on Turf Management by the United States Golf Association NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978 Long-Range Planning », USGA GREEN SECTION *•'record A Publication on Turf Management by the United States Golf Association ©1978 by United States Golf Association. Permission to reproduce articles or material in the USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD is granted to publishers of newspapers and periodicals (unless specifically noted other­ wise), provided credit is given the USGA and copyright protection is afforded. To reprint material in other media, written permission must be obtained from the USGA. In any case, neither articles nor other material may be copied or used for any advertising, promotion or commercial purposes. VOL. 16, No. 6 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978 The Best Laid Plans ................................................................................................ 1 by James T. Snow The Stimpmeter and the Open ................................................................................ 7 by Frank Thomas A Machine for Cleaning Sand Bunkers ................................................................... 10 by Brahm P. Verma Index to the Green Section Record for 1978 ......................................................... 13 Turf Twisters ............................................................................................ Back Cover COVER PHOTO: The 4th hole at Plainfield Country Club, prior to the 1978 U.S. Amateur Championship. Published six times a year in January, March, May, July, September and November by the UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIA­ TION, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931. Subscriptions and address changes should be sent to the above address. Articles, photographs, and correspondence relevant to published material should be addressed to: United States Golf Association Green Section, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931. Second class postage paid at Far Hills, N.J., and other locations. Office of Publications, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931. Subscriptions: $2 a year. EDITOR: Alexander M. Radko MANAGING EDITOR: Robert Sommers ART EDITOR: Miss Janet Seagle GREEN SECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: William C. Campbell P.O. Box 465, Huntington, W. Va. 25709 NATIONAL DIRECTOR: Alexander M. Radko P.O. Box 1237, Highland Park, N.J. 08904 • (201) 572-0456 GREEN SECTION AGRONOMISTS AND OFFICES: Northeastern Region: P.O. Box 1237, Highland Park, N.J. 08904 • (201) 572-0440 Stanley J. Zontek, Director, Northeastern Region William S. Brewer, Jr., Agronomist James T. Snow, Agronomist Mid-Atlantic Region: Suite M, 7124 Forest Hill Avenue, Richmond, Va. 23225 • (804) 272-5553 William G. Buchanan, Director, Mid-Atlantic Region Southeastern Region: P.O. Box 4213, Campus Station, Athens, Ga. 30602 • (404) 548-2741 James B. Moncrief, Director, Southeastern Region North-Central Region: P.O. Box 592, Crystal Lake, III. 60014 • (815) 459-3731 Carl H. Schwartzkopf, Director, North-Central Region Mid-Continent Region: 17360 Coit Road, Dallas, Tx. 75252 • (214) 783-7125 Dr. Douglas T. Hawes, Director, Mid-Continent Region Western Region: Suite 107, 222 Fashion Lane, Tustin, Calif. 92680 • (714) 544-4411 Donald D. Hoos, Director, Western Region Providing for an adequate supply of reliable, efficient equipment should be a major goal at every club, but it is one that is often found lacking. by JAMES T. SNOW, Agronomist, USGA Green Section IMAGINE LIVING day to day with little regard for what may happen tomorrow, next year, or five years from now — a bleak existence, probably, with few alternatives to meet emergencies and no provi­ sions made for maintaining your lifestyle. Actually, however, we all strive to reach some goal. Can we say the same about golf clubs? It would probably be safe to say that most golf clubs do not have a satisfactory written plan or policy for running of the course and club. Very few suc­ cessful businesses are developed or maintained without a complete long-range plan. Why should a club, with many employees and a significant bud­ get, be different? The plan should do much more than deal with capital improvements, although this aspect is cer­ tainly important. It should include equipment acquisition and replacement, architectural changes and specific plans for maintaining each area of the golf course. Even though the course may be in perfect shape, a written policy that outlines the successful operations of the program and which provides for future changes is necessary for con­ tinuity. THE PROBLEMS There are many good reasons for developing a long-range plan. Consider the following problems which could occur unless provisions are made for dealing with them. Setting Standards Perhaps the foremost problem is having members who agree about what kind of golf course they want and can afford. They give the superintendent hardly any direction for building a maintenance and devel­ opment program, and yet when things go wrong the complaints roll in. This often results in unneces­ sary conflicts between the superintendent and the green committee which may ultimately cause the superintendent to lose interest. On the other hand, the average committee member has very little knowledge of what should be done to the course in terms of maintenance. He doesn’t understand why things are done or what happens when problems occur. It is easy to see how frustration and conflict develop during difficult times as the members, by nature, begin to believe that the superintendent NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978 1 doesn’t know what he’s doing. A long-range pro­ gram could help resolve these problems, with the superintendent and committee combining to create a complete and comprehensive maintenance and development plan based on the wishes of the mem­ bership and the resources they have to offer. This is the first step in planning; it defines goals and sets financial guidelines. People Problems Most clubs go through a period when activities are presided over by a well-meaning but aggressive individual in a position of authority for a period and changes the course as a monument to his term. The changes may be new greens, tees, bunkers or plant­ ings of trees that leave an indelible mark on the design of the course. Too often these changes don’t fit the course theme and character. Design work is best left to a qualified architect, someone trained to protect the integrity of the original design and to bring out the best of what is available. Problems of this nature can be avoided with a long-range pro­ gram which includes changes based on the advice of a golf course architect, with variations possible only upon the approval of the committee and/or architect. Changes in the Green Committee Many clubs have a policy that limits the green com­ mittee chairman to a brief term in office, usually two years. He then leaves the committee. As the new chairman takes office, he usually has little idea of what is involved in the total maintenance opera­ tion or what should be expected from the golf course superintendent. By the time he learns it is time to leave office, and the next fellow has to learn it all from scratch. This is difficult for both the superintendent and the green committee chairman. On the other hand, the green committee chair­ man is responsible to the membership and there­ fore must be in frequent contact with the superin­ tendent on course operations. Since usually he has no training in golf course management, friction may develop between him and the superintendent, who sometimes mistakenly believes the green com­ mittee chairman is questioning his knowledge and authority. Here is where a long-range plan would benefit everyone. A comprehensive plan would list all course maintenance programs and their purpose. The green committee chairman, or any other mem­ ber for that matter, could refer to the plan and immediately know what is being done and why. The superintendent would not have to spend so much time explaining and justifying his programs. Change of Superintendent The change ofagolf coursesuperintendent is some­ thing of a traumatic experience at many golf clubs. The selection committee, usually untrained in golf course operations, has nothing on which to base a decision except for intuition and seeing how each prospective superintendent sells himself. The suc­ cessful applicant is not necessarily the most knowl­ edgeable and the best qualified. With a comprehen­ sive plan, however, the committee would be better able to determine the most qualified applicant. The committee would have a good idea of what to ex­ pect from the new superintendent, and with a com­ plete record of past programs available to him, the new man would be in a good position to recom­ mend positive changes based on past successes and failures. Serious Turf Problems Despite the excellence of their maintenance pro­ grams, even the best golf courses will suffer losses of turf under extreme conditions, usually because of the weather. This problem can be very frustrating for both the superintendent and for the golfers. Members can’t understand how such a disaster can happen, and the superintendent is criticized, a sad commentary on the communications channels and public relations efforts at so many clubs today. This could be avoided with a long-range plan de­ veloped by the superintendent and the green com­ mittee. Such a plan, outlining the best steps to take to avoid such injury (and approved, of course, by the committee), would be of tremendous value if winter injury were to occur again. PLANNING PROCESS Figure 1. A schematic outline of the general planning process. It provides a systematic approach to problem solving and long-range planning. EVALUATE 2 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD What kind of golf course does your membership want? A highly manicured, consistently uniform course will cost more than the “natural look.” These are just a few of the problems golf courses throughout the country face each year that could be resolved with a long-range plan. THE PURPOSES OF A LONG-RANGE PLAN (A) To improve the physical facilities of the golf course in an orderly manner in order to make it more beautiful, functional, interesting and efficient. (B) To promote the interests of the entire mem­ bership rather than of a few individuals or special groups within the club. (C) To effect coordination and improve com­ munications with regard to course development and maintenance, so as to avoid conflict, duplica­ tion and waste. (D) To ensure that short-range actions are con­ sidered in the context of long-range goals. (E) To bring professional and technical knowl­ edge to bear on the decisions based on the wishes of the members. The professionals may be the superintendent, architect, agronomist or other consultants. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING A PLAN? The responsibility for initiating and developing the plan may fall to the superintendent, green committee chairman, president, manager, golf professional or someone else in authority. Because the superintendent makes his living through the club and has perhaps the most to gain, he should pick up the ball and carry it. It must be stressed, though, that input into the plan should come from many sources. The plan must represent the wishes of the entire membership. Various clubs have different procedures for formulating the long-range plan. Often the super­ intendent and the green committee will work together, with the superintendent providing techni­ cal information and forming the basic plan based on desires and goals of the committee. Other clubs have a long-range planning committee, separate from the green committee. This L.R.P. committee may be more practical at clubs with a variety of activities, such as golf, swimming, tennis and plat­ form tennis, where a long-range plan would include all these activities and the green committee would have only limited input. Regardless of the mechanisms your club uses to form its plan, it will take hard work by many people to develop a comprehensive plan which will serve everyone’s best interests. There must be committee members who are willing to sacrifice some time to provide the critical information on which the superintendent can base his program. The committee should be willing to invest some money so that the best technical information and evaluation can be provided. The superintendent will provide the bulk of this information, but others, such as architects, agronomists, engineers and other experts, should be consulted. No one person can be expert in every area of a long-range plan. Finally, there is no such thing as a complete and final plan; many changes will occur from day to day and year to year. Therefore, there must be a commitment by the superintendent and the green NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978 3 committee to analyze and revise the plan on an annual basis, or else it will lose its value. THE BASICS OF A LONG-RANGE PLAN A well-defined process has developed by which a plan is designed. It offers a systematic approach to meeting your long-range goals and needs, and it should act as a model for you as a long-range pro­ gram is developed for your course. Figure 1 shows the planning program broken down into several basic components. What this says is that (1) the goals and needs of the members are defined, (2) the planning process is carried out, and this results in (3), a new environment, the realization of your goals. The situation is then periodically evaluated, and this may lead to the development of new goals and plans. As you can see, the long-range plan is a continuous system which always provides for necessary changes. Define Your Goals This is a critical step in the planning program, for how can a plan be designed without knowing the members’ goals and objectives? The superinten­ dent may be of some assistance with this step, but here is where the members should provide the most input. After all, the club exists for their enjoy­ ment, and they are paying the bill. The goals and objectives should be general in nature. For exam­ ple, one goal might be “to produce tees which are adequately large, low cut, level and firm.” Objec­ tives should not be so specific as “the 7th and 16th tees should be rebuilt because they are too small.” This specific problem will be picked up and re­ solved in the “Analysis” and “Design” steps. As suggested in Figure 1, the planning process itself can be broken down into three general com­ ponents: Analyze What You Have This is a time-consuming, step-by-step analysis of every phase of the operation. Included as general areas of interest are greens, tees, fairways, bun­ kers, landscape, equipment, buildings, irrigation, tennis courts, swimming pool, etc. Analyze each area and consider alternative solutions to the prob­ lems as you go along. For example, “the area over the irrigation line on the 12th tee is sunken and may be corrected by removing the sod, adding top- soil and replacing the sod so that it conforms to the remainder of the tee. Frequent topdressing would also resolve the problem but would take longer to complete.” The responsibility forthe analysis phase should be shared by the superintendent and the commit­ tee, with the superintendent carrying the heavier load. Develop The Plan Based on your analysis of every phase of the golf course or club operation, the long-range plan should be developed. Specific plans for each proj­ ect should be completed, along with comprehen­ sive cost estimates and time schedules for their completion. An overall timetable for capital im­ provements and equipment acquisition must also be worked out, based on the resources of the club and allowing for who will be doing the work. Out­ side contractors often will do much of the construc­ tion work, though the superintendent and his crew may handle a large portion of this if time and labor allow. Recommendations for regular maintenance procedures should be finalized and incorporated into the plan. If the members have been satisfied with the course to this point, these maintenance procedures will be nothing more than what has been done for years. However, now it will be writ­ ten down as part of the long-range plan, to be re­ ferred to by the superintendent, committee mem­ bers or others as the need arises. Implement The Plan The implementation phase simply involves follow­ ing through with the plan as you have designed it. 4 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Regarding capital improvement work, details should be completed according to the time sched­ ule, including the finalization of drawings, speci­ fications, bids, etc. The decision as to who will do the work is again worth mentioning. Often the superintendent and his crew will be given the re­ sponsibility for such capital improvement work as building greens, tees, bunkers, bridges, installing cart paths, irrigation systems, etc. Too often they are expected to maintain the golf course in top condition and work on these projects at the same time, with no increase in the size of the crew. What often happens is that the appearance and play­ ability of the golf course suffers, and the projects are not completed on schedule. This situation works out poorly for everyone involved, and so provisions must be made to increase the size of the crew during periods of capital improvement work, or else offer the work to contractors outside the club. Strive for a dependable on-site supply of irrigation water to cope with drought or purchased water shortages. Some of the points which will be considered as you develop a long-range plan are illustrated below. This example of a long-range plan for greens is necessarily brief and omits many of the details which would ordinarily be included. How­ ever, it should give you the general idea of some of the points that have been discussed thus far. These goals could differ from club to club. A LONG-RANGE PLAN FOR GREENS Goals (1) To develop consistently fine greens with a high percentage of bentgrass, good density and fine texture. (2) To maintain uniform surfaces to the de­ sired speed. (3) To maintain resilience in the soil so that a well hit golf shot will stay within a reasonable distance from the spot where it lands. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978 5 (4) To maintain the character of the architec­ tural design in the mowing pattern of the surface outline. Analysis (1) All greens contain too much Poa annua. (2) Grain is a problem at certain times of the year. (3) There is no turf nursery for repair work. (4) Greens No. 3, 8, 9, 17 do not provide ade­ quate surface drainage. (5) Shade and tree root competition result in weak turf on greens No. 7 and No. 17. (6) There is poor irrigation coverage on green No. 12. (7) Winter injury is an annual problem on green No. 17. Recommendations (1) As part of the routine maintenance pro­ gram, the greens will be: (a) cut daily with the ap­ propriate equipment at 3/16 inch, (b) aerated in the spring and fall to reduce soil compaction, (c) verticut lightly twice monthly, weather permitting, to prevent excessive grain, and (d) topdressed monthly with a material meeting USGA specs in order to produce a smooth, firm, resilient surface. (2) Overseed all greens with an appropriate bentgrass twice annually, at the time they are aerated, to increase the percentage of permanent grasses. (3) Establish a putting green nursery for the purpose of repairing the greens. It shall be main­ tained in the same manner as the other greens. Cost — $1,000. (4) Provide adequate surface drainage on greens No. 3, 8, 9 by lifting sod, regrading subsur­ face and replacing sod. (5) Rebuild green No. 17 according to USGA specifications. Retain a golf course architect to re­ design green. Approximate cost — $13,500. (6) Relocate irrigation heads around No. 12 green to improve coverage. (7) Root-prune trees around greens every three years. Again, this is only a brief outline of the type of plan you might develop for the greens. In addition, similar plans would then be designed for other areas of the course and other aspects of the total program. For example, you might have long-range plans for each of the following general topics: Irrigation System Greens Tees Collars Fairways Roughs Traffic Control Bunkers Trees and Landscape Swimming Pool Practice Areas Tennis Courts Drainage Equipment Buildings Cart Paths and circumstances surrounding any particular situa­ tion may change with time. Therefore, the final and continuing phase of the long-range plan is to periodically evaluate the plan and see what it has produced. If things are not as they should be, new goals may need to be defined, new analyses made, and new recommendations incorporated into the plan. The evaluation phase is critical, and the best plan ever created would be worthless without it. A formal evaluation on an annual basis is a popular schedule, as this allows enough time for some progress to occur yet is frequent enough to keep the interest of the superintendent and committee. Many things should be considered in the devel­ opment of a long-range plan, and it certainly can­ not be done overnight. It may take months or even years to create a comprehensive plan that serves the best interests of the club, its members and its staff. It gives the members the opportunity to set the standards for the maintenance and develop­ ment of their course to best suit their skills and desires. It gives them a reference point as to what should be done on the course, but it also realisti­ cally limits their expectations according to what they can afford and what resources they provide for the superintendent and crew. The important point is that they understand the situation in ad­ vance so that disappointments and conflicts can be minimized. The long-range plan gives the superin­ tendent a set of goals which seems real and defi­ nite, not an abstract cloud of complaints and com­ pliments from several hundred individual mem­ bers. It leaves the responsibility of setting stan­ dards and finding resources to the committee of members, where it should be. It eliminates many potential areas of conflict, some of which could find the superintendent's job on the line. The long-range plan offers valuable dividends to everyone at a golf course. It takes a good deal of hard work to create, but what item of value doesn’t? It is something that every club should develop. REFERENCES Carpenter, J. D., and A. S. Lieberman 1971 Environmental Design: A Citizen’s Primer. Cornell University. Kent, T. J., Jr. 1964 The Urban General Plan. Chandler Publishing, San Francisco. Runyon, L. K., August 1978 The Practicality of a Long-Range Plan. The Golf Superintendent, pp. 16-23. Watson, J. R., March 1971 Tomorrow Is the Day You Should Have Planned Yesterday. USGA Green Section Rec­ ord. pp. 12-15. THE BEST LAID PLANS . . . Williams, R. 1977 Despite the best efforts of the superintendent and committee to bring everything together in a comprehensive plan, things will be left out and the Long-Range Planning Program For the Main­ tenance of Our Golf Course. Rutgers Turfgrass Proceedings, pp. 21-36. 6 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD The Stimpmeter and the Open by FRANK THOMAS, USGA Technical Director After four consecutive days of double-mowing at cham­ pionship setting, note excellence of texture and putting quality. SUPERINTENDENT JIM YOUNG did an excel­ lentjob in bringing Cherry Hills Country Club to peak championship condition for the 1978 U.S. Open Championship. Despite difficult Colorado weather prior to and during the tournament, the course condition was super and greens in particu­ lar were superb. Ably assisted by Tim Sedgley and a young crew of eager, interested and cooperative young men, most of whom were students or college graduates, things ran smoothly despite the usual day-to-day problems that are sure to occur when a major tournament is in progress. Young’s ability to organize and delegate authority prevailed, but his fine sense of humor made this championship enjoyable for all who came in contact with him. To achieve championship uniformity and speed on putting greens, Young's program was as follows: 1. Little fertilizer was applied — only Va pound nitrogen per 1,000 square feet was applied in the spring prior to the championship. Carefully conditioned hungry turf makes for better championship putting surfaces. 2. Iron is applied periodically during the year. High sodium soils require periodic treat­ ments with ferrous sulfate and chelated iron. One treatment was applied during the week of the Open. 3. The normal summer watering program re­ quires 20 minutes each night; during the Championship the program was altered as follows: Tuesday night — 10 minutes to all greens. Wednesday night — 10 minutes to all greens. Thursday night — 10 minutes to all greens except for No. 1, No. 4, No. 14 and No. 16, which were softer than others. They were watered only five minutes. Friday night — all greens watered 15 minutes. Saturday night — all greens watered 15 minutes except No. 4, 14 and 16, which were watered 10 minutes. This schedule may surprise some people who are knowledgeable in turfgrass management, since this normally would be considered a heavy water­ ing schedule in other regions. However, the soils and water supplied in this region are high in sodium, which causes a breakdown in soils, in­ creases compaction and limits water penetration — hence the need to water more. Secondly, the tem­ perature for this week was in the 90s, the sky was cloudless for most of the week, humidity was low NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978 7 and 15- to 20-mile-per-hour winds blew incessantly on some days. This combination causes surface water to evaporate rapidly and close-cut putting green grasses to wilt. Therefore, every green had to be syringed shortly after noon every day. De­ spite this schedule, greens were tournament firm. THE MOWING SCHEDULE All greens were double-cut beginning on Wednesday morning. Speed tests daily indicated that it took four consecutive days of double mow­ ing to attain the desired uniformity and speed; therefore, in the future, all greens will be mowed so that the fourth consecutive double-cutting will take place the morning of the last practice round, if this can be safely accomplished. Because of the high temperatures at Cherry Hills, Young was afraid that some turf would be lost on greens late in the week if they were double-cut too early. Single unit rigid mowers were used set at 5/32nds the week prior to the Open, at 9/64ths for Monday to Thursday and at 7/64ths according to Young for the Friday, Saturday and Sunday mowing. Stimpmeter readings were taken on every green every morning between 15 and 20 minutes before play, keeping well ahead of the field. In many cases more than one reading was taken on some greens to check the consistency of different zones. In general, this is not necessary. In this case, however, the data exposed a problem which might not have been corrected without multiple readings. On one day, greens were tested following the final group in the afternoon to confirm previous findings regarding changing speeds of greens dur­ ing the day. These tests confirmed that there was relatively little change in speed during the day. This can be attributed to the two opposing factors which influence the speed of the green. In general, as the greens dry they may become a little faster. During the day, however, the grass continues to grow, and this is inclined to decrease speeds. These two factors are therefore counter­ acting one another. It depends upon which of the two is dominant as to which way the change will be. However, the change at the end of the day tested was slower, but no more than 6 percent slower than when play started. One cannot con­ clude from this that the relationship between these two opposing forces is linear throughout the day. For example, a quick-drying spell in the early morning may have a rapid speeding-up effect on the green before the growing grass can slow it down. Greens sheltered from the wind may not be affected as much as exposed greens. Syringing of the greens also has an affect on the putting surface, but not nearly so dramatically as we anticipated. Preliminary tests have shown that if syringing is done correctly and those condi­ tions requiring syringing prevail — i.e. reasonably high temperatures and drying winds — within five minutes after the syringing, the putting speed is virtually identical to what it was before syringing. The preliminary tests showed that even though approximately five minutes was required to regain the putting speed, only two and one-half minutes was required for the speed to return to within 5 percent of the original speed prior to syringing. This information should not be misused, because it depends upon a number of conditions — first, that the syringing is done correctly; second, that the conditions requiring the syringing prevail after it has been done; and third, the analysis cannot be considered conclusive since data was gathered from one location only. When we tested the Cherry Hills greens with the Stimpmeter, we experimented with a golf ball with no dimples. This ball gave us repeatable read­ ings, and yet when we compared them with the data we gathered using regular dimpled golf balls, we found them to be no longer or shorter on the average. SPEED AND CONSISTENCY The chart below shows the green speeds Wednesday through Sunday, the final day of the Championship. These are averages and include the measurements made on the practice greens. It can be seen from these figures that the greens were in the medium-fast range for cham­ pionship conditions during the final two days. However, this does not imply that the faster the greens the better. One should understand that generally a fast green presents a better putting surface and, therefore, a truer test of one’s skill. However, one must seek to achieve consistency of the greens over the entire course. GREEN SPEEDS STIMPMETER READINGS — 1978 U.S. OPEN Last Practice Round Average 8' 81/2" First Round 8' 111/2" Second Round 9' 4%" Third Round 9’ 51/2" Fourth Round 9’ 7%" Speeds for Tournament Play Fast 10' 6" 9' 6" Medium-Fast 8' 6" Medium T 6" Medium-Slow Slow 6' 6" 8 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD It can be argued that a true champion should be able to determine the speed of the green for himself and that, therefore, making greens consis­ tent in surface texture and speed takes something away from the game. Unfortunately because greens are mowed and maintained in the condition they are today, it is almost impossible for anybody to determine differences in speeds from visual inspec­ tion. Also, the Rules of Golf prevent him from using his sense of touch to test the texture of the grass. If the condition of golf courses had not changed in the last hundred years because of advances in management practices and turfgrass research, then possibly there would be no reason for the Stimpmeter. However, courses have changed, and because course conditions are so good, we should try to present the players with similar conditions with regard to surface texture. Course architec­ ture is therefore playing an increasingly important part in maintaining the challenge a golf course should offer. A well planned and executed shot should be rewarded. During the last round, the average speed was 9 feet, 7% inches; 68 percent of the greens were within plus or minus 3% inches of the average, and 95 percent of the greens were within plus or minus 7 inches of the average. We consider this ade­ quately consistent, the result of Young’s close scrutiny each day of the Stimpmeter readings and his modification of the mowing and watering schedules. Mowing procedure was also modified slightly. The first green at Cherry Hills, for example, fea­ tures a large dip or valley across the front part of the green, rising to a plateau section towards the back. Either section could be used for hole loca­ tions. Wednesday’s Stimpmeter measurement showed the speed of the front section to be ap­ proximately 9 feet; the back area was almost a foot slower. There was no apparent reason for this, although it did present a problem. Young, in consultation with USGA agronomists on the scene, decided to triple-cut the back section of the green on the mornings of the first and second rounds. On the final day of the Championship the back section of the green was still a little slower than the front, but only by two or three inches. Prior to the 1978 Open at Cherry Hills, the Stimpmeter was used and measurements made for educational purposes. However, at Cherry Hills the data was actually used to manipulate and modify preparation of the greens and thus present the fairest challenge possible to every competitor. A note of caution should be added. Readings of from six to seven feet are perfectly adequate for regular membership play; emphasis should be given to consistency rather than speed. If one attempts to maintain a green at speeds over nine feet for everyday play, it can become extremely costly because of the manpower required. We must keep in mind that the lifeblood of golf is the challenge it offers; however, this chal­ lenge should be fair and one's ability to return a good score should not depend to any major degree NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978 upon luck. Having presented the player with vir­ tually a perfect undulating green on which to putt (whether it is good or bad for the game is a subject for debate), we have taken away the contrast which previously allowed him to determine the speed of each green he approached. The Stimpmeter allows us to give something back that we have taken; how­ ever, there are other areas where advances in tech­ nology may be taking some of the challenge from the game and these must be carefully considered and with advanced technical standards controlled. Fighting fire with fire. STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION (Act of October 23,1962; Section 4369, Title 39, United States Code.) 1. Date of Filing — October 1, 1978. 2. Title of Publication — USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD. 3. Frequency of issues — Six issues a year in January, March, May, July, September and November. 4. Location of known office of publication — Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931.5. Location of the headquarters of general business offices of the publishers — Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931. 6. Names and addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor: Publisher — United States Golf Association, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931. Editor — Alexander M. Radko, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931. Managing Editor — Robert Sommers, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931. 7. Owner (if owned by a corporation, its name and address must be stated and also immediately thereunder the names and addresses of stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, the names and addresses of individual owners must be given). If owned by a part­ ner, partnership or other addresses — United States Golf Association, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931; President — Frank D. Tatum, Jr., Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931; Vice-Presidents — Eugene S. Pulliam and Will F. Nicholson, Jr., Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931; Secretary — James R. Hand, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931; Treasurer —William C. Campbell, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931. 8. Known bondholders, mortgages, and other security holders own­ ing or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mort­ gages or other securities — None. 9. Paragraphs 7 and 8 include, in cases where the stockholder or security holder appears upon the books of the company as trustee or in any other fiduciary relation, the name of the person or corporation for whom such trustee is acting, also the statements in the two paragraphs show the affiant’s full knowledge and belief as to the circumstances and conditions under which stockholders and security holders who do not appear upon the books of the company as trustees, hold stock and securities in a capacity other than that of a bona fide owner. Names and addresses of individuals who are stockholders of a corporation which itself is a stockholder or holder of bonds, mortgages or other securities of the publishing corporation have been included in paragraphs 7 and 8 when the interests of such individuals are equivalent to 1 percent or more of the total amount of the stock or securities of the publishing corporation. 10. This item must be completed for all publications except those which do not carry advertising other than the publisher’s own and which are named in sections 132.232 and 132.233 Postal Manual (Sections 4355a, 4344b and 4356 of Title 39, United States Code). Average No. Copies Single Issue Each Issue During Nearest to Preceding 12 Months Filing Date A. Total No. Copies Printed (Net Press Run) B. Paid Circulation 1. Sales through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors and Counter Sales 2. Mail Subscriptions C. Total Paid Circulation D. Free Distribution (including samples) by Mail, Carrier or other means E. Total Distribution (Sum of C and D) F. Office Use, Left Over, Unaccounted, Spoiled after Printing G. Total (Sum of E and F) I certify that the statements made by me are correct and complete. Robert Sommers, Managing Editor 7,500 7,500 none 6,616 6,616 365 6,981 519 7,500 none 6,616 6,616 365 6,981 519 7,500 9 A GREEN SECTION SUPPORTED RESEARCH PROJECT A Machine for Cleaning Sand Bunkers by BRAHM P. VERMA, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Engineering University of Georgia, Georgia Experiment Station, Georgia suiting closed figure is a constant width triangle and is the desired cross-section for the two pulleys. To construct these pulleys in a practical man­ ner, make nine punch marks on four 2 x 2 x '/? inch flat metal pieces outlining the periphery of the constant width triangle. Drill % inch diameter holes at the punch marks on the four metal pieces. Then insert % inch diameter steel rods 13 inches long into the holes of a pair of the metal pieces using them as end caps. Welding the rods to the caps forms a 12-inch wide pulley of the desired configuration (Figure 3). A 12-inch wide by 18-inch long cleaning bed was made by using the two pulleys and 26 3/16- inch diameter round nylon belts. The belts were spaced 3/8 inch apart, center-to-center. Chain and sprockets of the same size, on each pulley shaft, were used to keep the pulleys in time during operation. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURE A laboratory experiment was designed to test the separating efficiency of the curved triangular pulley-belt system. The cleaning bed was mounted Figure 1. Cross-section of constant width triangular pulley. z REMOVAL OF TRASH or foreign materials from sand bunkers is an essential mainte­ nance chore for golf course superintendents. A machine that quickly and efficiently removes trash from bunkers has been developed. It effects a small degree of separation by using narrow belts spaced a preset distance apart and driven by rotat­ ing circular pulleys. With this arrangement, ma­ terial on the bed of moving belts that is smaller than the space between the belts should fall through and the remaining material will be car­ ried to the end of the bed. There are two major problems with this arrangement. (1) When small particles are on the top of the larger particles, they are carried on to the end of the belt without being separated, and (2) At certain moisture contents, sand particles will adhere to each other and not be separated. This problem can be solved if vibration is pro­ vided so that the position of the particles on the belt is changed and the force of adhesion is over­ come to disperse sand particles. A pulley-belt mechanism was developed in which pulleys of non-circular cross-section were successfully used to transmit vibration to the belts. Pulleys of any constant width closed curve* can be used, provided that the two pulleys are of the same shape and size and that the two pulleys are in time. Figure 1 shows the pulley cross-section and Figure 2 illustrates the positions when the two pulleys are in- and out-of-time. CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEST CLEANING BED Two pulleys of constant width triangular cross­ section (Figure 1) were constructed by the follow­ ing procedure: Start with an equilateral triangle ABC, where AB=BC=CA=1 inch and extend the three sides in both directions so that AD=AE=BF=BG=CH=CI = 0.375 inch. Then construct three arcs Fl, EH, and GD with the compass point at A, B, and C, respec­ tively. Similarly, draw three arcs DE, GF, and HI with centers at A, B, and C, respectively. The re­ Constant width closed curves possess the property in which the distance of any two parallel tangents are always at the same. Circle is only one such shape. For details see references Gardner, 1963, and Verma, et al., 1977. 10 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD at the end of a conveyor belt with an arrangement so that a sand and trash mixture from the con­ veyor belt could be dropped on the cleaning bed at a predetermined rate. The cleaning bed pulleys were driven by a variable speed motor. The following conditions were tested to deter­ mine the separating efficiency of the design: 1. Five Pulley RPM: 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 RPM. 2. Three cleaning bed inclinations (angles from horizontal plane): 0 degrees, 10 de­ grees and 15 degrees. 3. Two sizes of gravel to simulate trash: (a) % to 1/2 inch and (b) greater than 1/z inch. Figure 4. The bunker sand cleaning unit above and the reason why it’s needed on the right. Figure 3. Construction of pulleys. (Left) Pulley end piece with ’/4-inch holes outlining the triangular pulley cross-section. (Right) Steel rods between the end pieces to form the pulley. Figure 2. Schematic of constant width triangular pulley-belt arrangement. (A) Pulleys in-time. (B) Pulleys out-of-time. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978 4. Three rates of sand and gravel mixture fed onto the cleaning bed by the conveyor belt set at ¥2 mph linear speed to provide sand thicknesses of: (a) ¥>-inch thick sand and gravel mixture, (b) 1-inch thick sand and gravel mixture, and (c) 11/2-inch thick sand and gravel mixture. Assuming the bunker cleaner is set to pick up a layer of sand 1/4 inch deep, the above conditions simulate operating speeds of 1, 2, and 3 mph. 5. Two sand moisture contents: (a) dry sand and (b) moist sand. 6. All tests were replicated twice. Some pre­ liminary tests indicated that the most satis­ factory mode of operation was to introduce a pre-weighed amount of sand and known number of gravel particles on the cleaning bed. Therefore, 10, 20, and 30 pounds of sand was introduced at ¥2, 1, and V/2 inch thickness, respectively. With the sand 50 large and 100 small gravel particles were mixed. The sand and gravel were collected at three locations: (a) under the first half section of the cleaning bed, Section 1, (b) under the second half section of the clean­ ing bed, Section 2, and (c) at the end of the cleaning bed, Section 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Data from the laboratory tests were analyzed to determine design criteria for best cleaning. The cleaning efficiency was determined by: (a) the separation of sand from gravel with collection in Sections 1 and 2, (b) the conveyance of large-gravel to the rear with collection in Section 3, and (c) the conveyance of small-gravel to the rear with collec­ tion in Section 3. For the best performance, 100 percent sand and no gravel should be collected in Sections 1 and 2, or 100 percent of the gravel of both sizes and no sand should be collected in Sec­ tion 3. The first set of tests was run using dry sand. For all operating conditions, 100 percent of the sand and 100 percent of the large gravel was separated. However, the small gravel separation was dependent upon the pulley RPM. As the pulley RPM was increased, more small gravel particles were conveyed to the rear, and at a 10 degree bed angle and 150 pulley RPM, 99 percent of the small gravel was transported to the rear of the cleaning bed. Test results with the moist sand show that, in general, the sand separating efficiency increases as the pulley RPM are increased at all three bed angles. However, the small-gravel transporting efficiency decreases with increase in pulley RPM from 50 to 150 RPM and then increases as the pulley RPM is further increased to 250 RPM. The large-gravel transporting efficiency was 100 per­ cent for all test conditions. To determine the best operating condition, the overall cleaning efficiency was calculated by multiplying the sand-cleaning efficiency and the sand-gravel transporting efficiency. It was found that the best cleaning was obtained at 250 pulley RPM, 0 degree bed angle and ¥2 inch sand thick­ ness. It appeared that the bed angle had little effect at 250 pulley RPM and ¥2 inch sand thickness. THE FIELD UNIT Based on the results of the laboratory test, a field unit with a cleaning bed 18 inches long and 24 inches wide was made, using the curved tri­ angular pulley and belt system. The cleaning unit was mounted at the rear of a Trap King* bunker tractor (Figure 4). In front of the cleaning bed, a sand pick-up unit was mounted. The pick-up unit was made by using six, 6-inch square blades mounted at a 45-degree angle on a shaft. A shield was constructed to direct the sand and trash onto the cleaning bed. The pick-up unit rotated back­ wards, i.e., reverse to the direction of rotation of the tractor wheels. A collection basket made with ¥4-inch hardware cloth was mounted at the rear of the cleaning bed and provision to vibrate it was made. The unit works well when the sand is not wet and where the depth of cut is such that the sand entering the cleaning bed is not excessive. We have recorded 100 percent sand separation and trash transportation under good operating con­ ditions. However, we have found that the pick-up unit is unable to pick up all trash and deposit it on the cleaning bed. Improvement in the design of the pick-up unit is recommended. CONCLUSIONS We have successfully demonstrated that the constant width curved triangular shaped pulleys can be used in a pulley-belt system for separating trash from sand. Pulleys of such cross-section can provide the necessary vibration to materials for size separation. A field unit was constructed using the new separating mechanism which performed well when sand was not wet. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author is extremely grateful to J. Gordon Futral, Head, Department of Agricultural Engi­ neering, Georgia Station, for his advice and help in the development of the cleaning concept, and to Walter Allen, Technician, for the construction of the test units and for conducting tests. REFERENCES Gardner, Martin 1963 Mathematical Games-Curves of Constant Width, one of which makes it possible to drill square holes. 208 (2): 148-156. Verma, B. P„ et al. 1977 Non-circular pulleys for sorting materials. ASAE Paper No. 77-1539, St. Joseph, Michi­ gan. 25 pp. ‘Mention of a trademark of proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by the University of Georgia or the USGA Green Section, and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other prod­ ucts that may be suitable. 12 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Index to the GREEN SECTION RECORD for 1978 The appropriate article is listed and followed with the name of the author, year, volume, number and page. BUDGETS AND COURSE ECONOMY The Numbers Racket — A Better Angle? ......... Management Makes a Difference — The Budget ................................................... The Best Laid Plans ............................................ W. S. Brewer, Jr. Jan. 1978; 16(1 ):1 J. T. Snow J. T. Snow Mar./Apr. 1978; 16(2):13 Nov./Dec. 1978; 16(6):1 DISEASES, INSECTS & PESTICIDES Everything You’ve Always Wanted to Know About Fairy Rings (But Were Afraid to Ask) ............................. C. H. Schwartzkopf EQUIPMENT A Machine for Cleaning Sand Bunkers ............ Dr. B. P. Verma GREENS “Three Years of Experience with a USGA Green” ..................................... How Fast Are Your Greens? .............................. How the Stimpmeter Helped the R. Phipps A. M. Radko 1978 U.S. Open at Cherry Hills ........... F. W. Thomas GREEN SECTION INFORMATION & AWARDS Dr. Jesse A. DeFrance Where Do We Go from Here? Dr. Douglas Hawes becomes Mid-Continent Director of Green Section Donald Hoos becomes Western Director as Bengeyfield resigns from the Green Section IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE Water Conservation at Oakland Hills Country Club ................................................ Water Management Affects Playability ............. Current Review of Sewage Effluent for Irrigation Use ......................................... T. W. Woehrle Panel Discussion Dr. A. E. Dudeck Jan. 1978; 16(1):7 Nov./Dec. 1978; 16(6):10 Jan. 1978; 16(1):11 Mar./Apr. 1978; 16{2):20 Nov./Dec. 1978; 16(6):7 Mar./Apr. 1978; 16(2):1 May/June 1978; 16(3):9 Jul./Aug. 1978; 16(4):13 Jul./Aug. 1978; 16(4):13 Jan. 1978; 16(1):6 Mar./Apr. 1978; 16(2):22 Jul./Aug. 1978; 16(4):5 RESEARCH REPORTS AND SURVEYS “Iron Byron” Sets Distance Standards ............. The Search for Better Grasses .......................... Disease Resistance and Quality of F. W. Thomas Dr. V. B. Youngner Mar./Apr. 1978; 16(2):5 Mar./Apr. 1978; 16(2)15 Bentgrasses in Washington State .............. C. J. Gould, R. L. Goss, A. G. Law & Bud Ashworth Sept./Oct. 1978; 16(5):5 SOILS AND THEIR RELATED PROBLEMS Soil Testing for Turfgrasses ............................... T. R. Turner TURF MANAGEMENT RELATING TO THE GAME OF GOLF Requirements for Play — The Professional’s View .............................. R. Rhoads Management Makes a Difference ...................... R. H. Eichner The ABCs of Management ................................. C. H. Schwartzkopf The Public Parks Golfer Deserves Something More Than Mediocre Golfing Turf! ............ W. H. Bengeyfield “A Thing of Beauty Is a Joy Forever” ............... W. S. Brewer, Jr. The Golf Course Superintendent — The Man Who Maintains Turfgrass Standards .......... W. G. Buchanan New Zealand ........................................................ W. H. Bengeyfield Golf Course Maintenance and Management — The USGA’s Role ......................................... A. M. Radko WEEDS AND CONTROL Poa Annua — It Won’t Go Away! ...................... Goosegrass .......................................................... Dr. R. L. Goss J. B. Moncrief May/June 1978; 16(3):6 Mar./Apr. 1978; 16(2):2 Mar./Apr. 1978; 16(2):8 Mar./Apr. 1978; 16(2):11 May/June 1978; 16(3):1 May/June 1978; 16(3):11 Jul./Aug. 1978; 16(4):1 Jul./Aug. 1978; 16(4):10 Sept./Oct. 1978; 16(5):5 Mar./Apr. 1978; 16(2):26 Sept./Oct. 1978; 16(5):12 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978 13 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978 TURF TWISTERS THERE IS A DIFFERENCE Question: Is there a difference in wetting agents that are used in turfgrass management? (Iowa) Answer: Ionic wetting agents are phytotoxic and some may even affect soils. Non­ ionic wetting agents are normally used. These materials are bio-degradable; they will not build up in the soil. They also reduce bulk density and soil tension. TOPDRESSING WITH Question: What makes topdressing work? (Massachusetts) Answer: The most important effect appears to be the physical alteration of the thatch microenvironment, best achieved by keeping the topdressing material intimately intermingled with the thatch through frequent, light applications. SALT Question: Our golf course is situated next to a college that enjoys a large enrollment. In recent years, the school enlarged its parking area which drains onto our property and into our irrigation pond. Our problem concerns the heavy use of salt on roads and the parking lot to melt the ice in winter. Will salt have a detrimental effect on our irrigation water? If so, what can we do about it? (New York) Answer: Without question salt will have a detrimental effect on your golf course soil and turf. Sodium will not deteriorate; therefore, it will accumulate in the pond. Also, high concentrations will impair turf quality; sodium also causes a breakdown in soil structure. It will be especially harmful when your pond level is low and the sodium concentration is high. It would be most helpful to your predicament if you could persuade the college officials to switch to urea or calcium chloride in place of sodium chloride to melt the ice on their parking area and roads.