RECOR

July/August 1993

A Publication on 
. Turfgrass Management by the 
United States Golf Association

Vol. 31, No. 4

JULY/AUGUST 1993 USGA Green Section

RECORD

USGA PRESIDENT:
Stuart E Bloch

GREEN SECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN:
Raymond B. Anderson
1506 Park Avenue, River Forest, IL 60305

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
David B. Fay

EDITOR: 
James T. Snow Dr. Kimberly S. Erusha Diane Chrenko Becker

ASSISTANT EDITOR: ART EDITOR:

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mark Carlson

NATIONAL OFFICES:
United States Golf Association, Golf House
P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, NJ 07931 • (908)234-2300
James T. Snow, National Director
Dr. Kimberly S. Erusha, Manager, Technical Communications
Nancy P. Sadlon, Environmental Specialist

P.O. Box 2227, Stillwater, OK 74076 • (405) 743-3900
Dr. Michael P. Kenna, Director, Green Section Research

GREEN SECTION AGRONOMISTS AND OFFICES:

Northeastern Region:
United States Golf Association, Golf House
P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, NJ 07931 • (908)234-2300
David A. Oatis, Director
James E. Skorulski, Agronomist

186 Prospect Street, Willimantic, CT 06226 • (203) 456-4537
James E. Connolly, Agronomist

Mid-Atlantic Region:
P.O. Box 2105, West Chester, PA 19380 • (215) 696-4747
Stanley J. Zontek, Director
Robert A. Brame, Agronomist
Keith A. Happ, Agronomist

Southeastern Region:
P.O. Box 95, Griffin, GA 30224-0095 • (404) 229-8125
Patrick M. O’Brien, Director

Florida Region:
P.O. Box 1087, Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1087 • (407) 546-2620
John H. Foy, Director
Chuck Gast, Agronomist

Great Lakes Region:
11431 North Port Washington Rd., Suite 203
Mequon, WI 53092 • (414)241-8742
James M. Latham, Director
Robert C. Vavrek, Jr., Agronomist

Mid-Continent Region:
300 Sharron Drive, Waco, TX 76712 • (817) 776-0765
James F. Moore, Director
George B. Manuel, Agronomist

Western Region:
22792 Centre Drive, Suite 290
Lake Forest, CA 92630 • (714) 457-9464
Larry W. Gilhuly, Director
Paul H. Vermeulen, Agronomist
Patrick J. Gross, Agronomist

Turfgrass Information File (TGIF) • (517) 353-7209

A Quality Control Checklist for 
Successful Greens Reconstruction 
by James Francis Moore

/T Tee Construction: Use of the Laser Grader
O by Patrick M. O’ Brien

Using Effluent Water on Your Golf Course 

yJ by Dr. David Kopec, Dr. Charles Mancino, 

and Douglas Nelson

The Bird Community Found on 
British Columbia Golf Courses 
by Ian E. Moul and John E. Elliott

Biting the Bullet: Greens Complex 
Reconstruction at the Country Club of Virginia 
by Alan D. Hess

On Course With Nature 
Restoration of Potash Pond 
by Scott Bertrand

All Things Considered 
Hit The Ball!
by David A. Oatis

Turf Twisters

13

16

19

21

Back
Cover

Cover Photo:

Careful attention to detail and quality 
control helps ensure success in green 
construction. Photograph by Alan D. Hess.

©1993 by United States Golf Association®. Permission to reproduce articles 
or material in the USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD is granted to pub­
lishers of newspapers and periodicals (unless specifically noted otherwise), 
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.

GREEN SECTION RECORD (ISSN 0041-5502) is published six times a year in 
January, March, May, July, September, and November by the UNITED STATES GOLF 
ASSOCIATION®, Golf House, Far Hills, NJ 07931. Postmaster: Send address changes 
to the USGA Green Section Record, P.O. Box 708, Golf House, Far Hills, NJ 07931- 
0708. Subscriptions, articles, photographs, and correspondence relevant to published 
material should be addressed to: United States Golf Association Green Section, Golf 
House, Far Hills, NJ 07931. Second-class postage paid at Far Hills, NJ, and other 
locations. Office of Publication, Golf House, Far Hills, NJ 07931. Subscriptions $12 
a year. Foreign subscriptions $15 a year (surface mail) or $24 a year (air mail).

Installation of the “smile” interceptor trench and drain at the low end of a green.

A Quality Control Checklist for 
Successful Greens Reconstruction

by JAMES FRANCIS MOORE
Director, Mid-Continent Region, USGA Green Section

QUALITY CONTROL. Think about 

| those words for a minute. They 
describe an effort to control or ensure 
■ quality. Now consider the construc­
tion of a golf green. Greens construction 
requires a precise combination of artistic 
talent, a sound scientific base, and the best in 
workmanship. The reconstruction of greens 

is one of the most challenging projects in the 
life of any course. Reconstruction represents 
a tremendous opportunity for improvement 
of the facility. This is the chance to correct 
agronomic problems such as poor drainage, 
inconsistency in playing quality, weed and 
pest infestations, and inadequate cupping 
area. It is a chance to convert to superior 

turfgrasses, make the course more attractive, 
and make it more fun to play for all classes 
of players.

Unfortunately, there also exist many 
opportunities to make mistakes. Attempting 
to cut comers during critical aspects of re­
construction invariably leads to problems 
with the new greens that soon have every­

JULY/AUGUST 1993

1

one questioning the worth of the project. 
Building good greens is not as easy as some 
think. There are many pitfalls that must be 
avoided.

Since most of us would expect the new 
green to last at least 20 years and possibly 
much longer, quality control in the con­
struction of that green is critical. Who should 
be in charge of ensuring quality control? 
Ideally, all participants in the project will 
strive to do the best work possible and will 
constantly review their own efforts. The 
architect, contractor, materials supplier, and 
blender all should have quality control 
guidelines and procedures of their own. 
Certainly, it is in their best interest to con­
struct greens that perform properly.

Those who are paying for the new greens 
also have a responsibility as consumers to be 
knowledgeable about what they are buying. 
It is foolish to assume that the quality con­
trol efforts of the seller (regardless of what 
is being sold) are sufficient to completely 
protect the interests of the buyer. The buyers 
need someone on the project representing 
only their interest. That person needs to have 
a working knowledge of all aspects of the 
construction of greens. They should know 
the area well, be in tune with the desires of 
those who play the course, and have a vested 
interest in the success of the project. No 
one fits this description better than the golf 
course superintendent.

In most cases the golf course superinten­
dent will serve as the “owners’ representa­
tive” during the reconstruction of greens. On 
a project of this magnitude there is a wide 
variety of tasks and procedures that must 
be accomplished. In most cases, there are 
numerous ways to accomplish the same 
goal. It therefore is quite possible for differ­
ences of opinion to arise concerning which 
method is best. For the superintendent to be 
effective in such circumstances, the owners 
must give him/her the authority to halt the 
project if necessary until a consensus of 
opinion can be reached.

Obviously, there is a great deal to monitor 
during a project of this size. Very likely it will 
prove impossible for the superintendent 
alone to provide such close scrutiny through­
out the project, particularly on courses that 
remain open during construction. It therefore 
is a very good idea to appoint a member of 
the maintenance crew as a “clerk-of-the- 
works” for the duration of the project. This 
individual should have no responsibilities 
other than providing a second set of eyes 
and ears for the superintendent. Using the 
guidelines provided below as a beginning, 
the superintendent should prepare a daily 
“punch-list” for the clerk-of-the-works, 
detailing specific aspects of the project to 
be monitored.

2

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

Plywood protects the subgrade surface so that the small skid 
loader can bring in the gravel and choker layer materials.

What follows is a checklist to help the 
golf course superintendent make certain 
that good quality control is maintained 
throughout every critical phase of a greens 
construction or reconstruction project. It is 
important to note that not every step in the 
checklist will be appropriate for every job. 
It is equally important to keep in mind that 
this list is an example only. Every job is 
different, and consequently every quality 
control effort must be individually tailored 

to the specifics of site, individuals involved, 
materials, etc. For example, on many jobs a 
great deal of additional testing of materials 
may be necessary to meet contractual agree­
ments. This is particularly true in areas where 
the physical properties of materials are in­
consistent.

Once prepared, a quality control checklist 
such as this one will help the superintendent 
avoid many of the mistakes commonly 
made during greens construction. Space 

does not permit detailed discussion of each 
guideline. Refer to the March/April 1993 
issue of the Green Section Record and call 
your local Green Section office for additional 
details.

I. Identification Phase

The first step to take before the recon­
struction of greens that have a history of 
poor performance is to ensure all the fac­
tors responsible for that poor performance 
have been identified. Greens fail for many 
reasons. While an improved root zone mix 
can correct drainage problems, it cannot 
provide light, air movement, or additional 
surface area. Unfortunately, all too often a 
new green is built without correcting many 
of the most limiting factors that caused the 
old green to fail. The first step should be to 
make certain that poor construction was the 
principal reason for the existing green’s 

poor performance. The following questions 
should be asked:

1. Is surface drainage good?
2. Do the greens drain well internally?
3. Have root zone samples been submit­
ted to a physical soil testing lab for analysis?
4. Are there layers in the profile that 

inhibit drainage?

5. Has deep-tine aerification been tried?
6. Is the existing root zone high in silt 

and clay?

13. Are there adequate entry and exit 

points to the green to distribute the traffic?
14. Have nutritional requirements been met?
15. Has there been a check for nematodes?
16. Have irrigation coverage and applica­

tion needs been met?

17. Could water quality problems (either 
physical or chemical) be the basis for the 
problems?

18. Have walk-behind mowers been tried 

instead of triplex equipment?

7. Is the existing root zone of consistent 

19. Are the greens being cut too low and 

depth?

8. Have the terminal points of the 
drainage tile been found and checked for 
blockage?

9. Has the drain tile system been flushed?
10. Does sufficient light reach the turf sur­

face at all times of the year?

11. Is there sufficent air movement across 

the putting surface?

12. Is the green large enough to take the 

traffic?

kept too fast?

20. Is the type of grass on the greens 
appropriate for the demands of your climate?
21. If part of the reason for rebuilding 
is to eliminate Poa annua in the greens, has 
Poa been controlled on the rest of the course?
22. Is the membership happy with the 
architectural characteristics? Remember, the 
desire of the players for a better design is as 
much a justification for reconstruction as 
poor drainage.

A piece of rebar, marked at a four-inch depth, is used to probe the area to check for consistent depth in the layers. 

alan d. hess

23. Has your regional Green Section 
agronomist been asked to examine the greens 
and help identify and document the problems 
causing their failure?

IL Selecting Construction Materials

A. Is climate an issue? These questions 
must be answered prior to selecting con­
struction materials.

1. Will the greens be maintained in a 
climate of extreme dryness and high evapo­
transpiration rates?

2. Will the greens be maintained in a 
climate of frequent and prolonged wet 
weather, high humidity, and heat?

Section agronomist the possible repercus­
sions of whatever compromises must be 
made?

20. It is likely that more than one sand 
and organic matter mixture will fall within 
the guidelines. Have you discussed the 
various mixtures available with your Green 
Section agronomist to help you select the 
material best suited to your needs?

21. Once a root zone mixture is deter­
mined, has a chemical soil test been run to 
identify which nutrients should be added 
prior to planting?

3. Will the root zone be irrigated with 

ALAN D. HESS

water high in sodium, salts, or both?

B. Selecting materials

1. Have you personally visited local sup­
pliers to collect samples for submitting to a 
lab?

2. Have you discussed with the supplier 
the construction of greens so they understand 
the need for preciseness during the project?
3. What is the source of the material?
4. Is the source consistent?
5. How much notice is needed to guaran­
tee that the required quantity and quality 
will be available?

6. Can they stockpile the materials at 
their site throughout the project, or must the 
stockpile be kept at the golf course site?

7. Is their stockpile area free of weeds 

and soil?

8. Can they mix organic matter and 

sand, or will a custom blender be hired?

9. Will they mix the components and 
then wait until an outside lab tests the 
mixture?

10. Can they incorporate nutrients?
11. Do they keep “in-house” quality con­

trol records?

12. Do they use their own trucks for 

delivery?

13. How much are shipping costs over 

FOB?

14. To what other golf courses have they 

supplied material?

15. Has a physical soil testing lab been 
located, and have their fees and testing 
standards been determined?

16. Does the lab test according to the pro­

cedures published by the USGA?

17. Have all of the materials (sands, or­
ganic matter, and gravel) been submitted to 
the lab to verify their suitability for the con­
struction of greens according to the USGA 
Green Section recommendations?

18. Has a sample been prepared according 
to the lab’s mixing ratio to serve as a visual 
“standard” throughout the project?

19. If because of cost or lack of avail­
ability the proper materials cannot be ac­
quired, have you discussed with your Green 

4

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

An insulated copper wire, wrapped around the 
main line, can be used in the future to locate 
the drainage lines.

III. Monitoring Quality During Mixing

This is one of the most critical phases of 
a greens construction project, and therefore 
good quality control efforts are mandatory. 
What follows is a sample quality control 
program that will suffice for many projects. 
However, note that this aspect of your quality 
control program must be tailored to fit the 
specifics of your situation. It may prove 
necessary to include much more testing 
throughout the project, depending on the 

consistency of the materials and to meet 
contractual agreements.

1. Test the first load mixed to verify 
that the mixing procedure is valid. The 
project will have to be put on hold for 24 
to 48 hours while the lab verifies that the 
field mixing duplicates the recommenda­
tions offered by the lab.

2. Remove samples daily or anytime 
the mixing operation is interrupted and com­
pare them to the standard.

3. Be prepared to mix as much of the 
material at one time as possible and stock­
pile it.

4. Each delivery truck should be in­
spected as the load is dumped and the mix 
compared against the standard.

5. Collect a one-gallon composite sample 

from every green, and label and store it.

6. Submit to the lab a composite sample 

from every third green built.

7. When moving root zone mix from 
stockpile into trucks, closely monitor the 
loader operator to ensure that the bucket is 
not collecting the underlying soil or asphalt 
and that cleated tires or tracks are not “till­
ing” other material into the mix.

IV. Construction

A. Location of the Green

1. Will there be plenty of air movement 

across the green?

2. Will sunlight be a problem in sum­

mer or winter?

3. Will tree roots compete with turf?
4. Will there be good access to the green?
5. Is there room for triplex greensmowers 

to turn?

6. Is a perimeter irrigation system needed?
7. Is the green site prone to flooding?
8. Is enough surface area provided to 

withstand anticipated traffic?

9. Are there enough hole locations?
10. If not all the greens are to be rebuilt, 
does the design of the new greens comple­
ment the old greens?

B. Subgrade Checks

1. Are there prior construction problems 
such as still-functional drain lines from the 
previous greens?

2. Have the new drainage outlet point(s) 

been identified?

3. Is the material to be used for the sur­

rounding base of good quality?

4. Is the material free of large organic 

matter clumps and stone?

5. Is the subgrade smooth and com­

pacted?

6. Are there any water-collecting hollows?
7. Has the architect approved the grades?
8. Has the superintendent approved the 

grades?

9. Has the club’s representative approved 

the grades?

10. Have the grade stakes been installed 

and checked?

11. Are the side walls of the cavity stable?
12. Has the plastic barrier been installed 

along the side walls of the cavity?

13. Has the green perimeter location wire 

been installed?

14. Have pictures been taken of the sub­

grade?

C. Tile Line Installation

1. Are trenches at least 8" deep, after 

cleaning?

2. Are bottoms of ditches smooth and 

clean?

3. Is enough fall provided?
4. Are the lateral lines within 15 feet of 

each other?

5. Have “smile” drains been installed at 

each surface runoff location?

6. Has the subgrade been cleaned of soil 

displaced during trenching?

7. Has gravel been laid and firmed on 

the bottom of the trench?

8. Are connections taped or glued?
9. Are all lines completely free of buckles 

or bridges?

10. Have lines been “shot” to ensure 

proper grade?

11. Has the tile location wire been in­

stalled?

12. Have flush points been installed, 
capped, and marked with metal for future 
location?

13. Have the perimeter and tile location 
wires been brought to the main flush point?
14. Has the inspection drain in front of 

the green been installed?

15. Have pictures been taken of the fin­

ished drain tile system?

D. Gravel Layer

1. Is the gravel clean and properly sized?
2. Has care been taken not to crush 

drain lines?

3. Have joints been checked to ensure 
they are intact after gravel has been spread?
4. Is the surface of the gravel smooth?
5. Are grade stakes still intact?
6. Has the finished grade of the gravel 
layer been checked to ensure it “mirrors” 
the desired finished grade of the putting 
surface?

7. Have pictures been taken after gravel 

installation?

E. Intermediate Layer

1. Has the gravel contour been preserved?
2. Has the sand been kept moist during 

installation to help prevent occlusion?
3. Have grades been rechecked?
4. Have pictures been taken?

ALAN D. HESS

To insure that there are no pockets and that the green has positive surface drainage, a level and transit 
should be used in conjunction with a mechanical bunker rake.

2. Was the mixture kept moist during 

6. Have all parties approved of final con­

installation to help prevent occlusion?
3. Has the mix been firmed?
4. Have all grades been checked?
5. Have amendments been added?
6. Have samples of the mix been collected?
7. Does the finished grade mate well 

with surrounding soil?

G. Irrigation System

1. Has single-head control been provided?
2. Has coverage been checked?
3. Have quick couplers been installed?
4. Is a perimeter system needed?
5. Have isolation valves been installed?
6. Have all ditches been firmed and 

leveled?

H. Final Checks Prior to Planting
1. Have all drains been checked?
2. Have all terminal points of drains been 

protected?

3. Have nutrients been added?
4. Has the root zone mix been com­

struction?

7. Is certified seed or sod being used?
8. Has enough root zone mix been stock­

piled for the first year’s topdressing?

9. Has all heavy equipment damage been 

repaired?

10. Have the surrounds been sodded to 

prevent erosion during grow-in?

11. Has fumigation been accomplished in 
areas prone to nematode, nutsedge, or warm­
season grass contamination problems?

* * *

A properly built USGA green can pro­
vide many years of dependable, relatively 
low-cost service. Where problems have 
occurred with USGA greens, often it was 
because shortcuts were taken or mistakes 
were made without someone being aware 
of what was happening. Developing and 
following a good quality control program is 
a small price to pay for ensuring success 
in the construction of the most important 
features of the golf course.

JULY/AUGUST 1993

5

F. Root Zone Mix

pacted?

1. Is the depth of the root zone mix 

5. Is the irrigation system completely 

uniform throughout the green?

functional?

New technological methods have made leveling a tee surface faster and more reliable. 
Reconstructing tees by a laser-guided grader produces an accurate final product.

Tee Construction:
Use of the Loser Grader

by PATRICK M. O’BRIEN
Director, Southeastern Region, USGA Green Section

SURFACE SMOOTHNESS of golf tees 

is a desirable characteristic that aids 
the golfer in addressing and driving the 
ball. A smooth surface ensures a level and 

balanced stance during the execution of the 
tee shot, necessary for delivery of the golf 
club along the desired path to hit a long and 
straight shot. Unfortunately, unlevel tees are 
all too common on golf courses.

Given the amount of golfer traffic today, 
and the resulting divots and surface com­
paction, it isn’t any wonder why tees become 

6

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

uneven. The purpose of this article is to 
discuss a quick and reliable method of re­
constructing unlevel tees.

Historically, tees often have been built 
by simply using the native soil from the 
golf course property to form these features. 
Internal drainage lines and modified root 
zone materials have been used only occa­
sionally. This construction system works 
fairly well as long as the tees have adequate 
size and receive adequate sunlight and 
routine maintenance. Nevertheless, depres­

sions or undulations generally occur over a 
period of time, requiring rebuilding to 
correct.

Traditional methods of rebuilding using 
I-beams, grader boxes on small tractors, 
concrete forms, and transits are time-con­
suming, and depending on staff size and de­
mand for the playing surface, a tee may be 
closed for months. A faster, more reliable 
method is available and is more popular 
with both golf course superintendents and 
golfers alike.

In the South, golf course superintendents 
have significantly reduced the time required 
for tee reconstruction by abandoning old 
technology for new technology. The golf 
course staff does practically all of the 
preparation and most of the finishing work, 
except the final surface leveling. A skilled 
contractor does the most difficult step, which 
is leveling the tee surface, using new laser 
leveling equipment. A skilled laser operator 
can level an average-size tee in 45 to 75 
minutes. Traditional grading methods can 
take as long as eight to 16 hours. The degree 
of accuracy achieved with the laser-guided 
boxblade is equal or superior to any other 
method. Preparation of nine tees prior to 
final leveling by the laser contractor re­
quires three to four days. The following steps 
typically are required:

Establish a Temporary Tee

Find a level site (approximately 200 
square feet) in front of or next to the exist­
ing tee. Mow down the area to tee height 
and topdress. Establish this site in advance 
of expected construction work to minimize 
mower scalping. Fortunately, one advantage 
of this method is that golfers will be forced 
to play from the temporary tee only for a 
short time.

Realign the Tee Edges

A psychological correlation seems to 
exist between alignment of the teebox to 
the target area and how the golfer tends to 
line himself up with the edges of the tee. 
Obviously, proper tee marker positioning 
facilitates the proper alignment to the target 
area, but many golfers use the edge of the 
tees for this alignment. Before reconstruction 
work begins, readjust the mowing pattern 
on the edge of the tee to align it with the 
fairway. Next, install stakes on the actual 
comers of the tee for alignment purposes. 
Attach string to the stakes parallel to the 
direction of play. Stand on the tee again and 
adjust the mowing pattern and strings to 
achieve the desired tee alignment. Prior to 
leaving, shift the stakes onto the bank of 
the tee at each comer, approximately 15 feet 
from the site of the new edge. The stakes and 
string later will serve as guides for the laser 
grader operator.

Strip the Sod

Strip off the sod accurately from the tee 
surface with a sod-cutter set approximately 
1 to 1.25 inches deep. An extra pass over the 
tee surface with the sod-cutter sometimes 
may be necessary on older tees with more 
thatch. Remove the sod on the tee surface, 
working perpendicular to the direction of

play if you wish to reuse the sod; otherwise, 
any direction is fine. Next, remove the sod 
from around the edge of the tee, approxi­
mately 4 to 5 feet down the tee slope. If sod 
will be reused, roll and store it in a shaded 
area by the tee. Another option is to lay the 
sod flat on plastic or plywood and syringe 
frequently.

Tilling Considerations

Clay or compacted soils may require 
shallow tilling to produce the friable material 
necessary for final grading. Adjust a tractor­
mounted tiller to a 3- to 4-inch tilling depth 
and thoroughly loosen the soil. Tilling to 
greater depths is a common error that in­

creases your chances of surface settling at a 
later time.

After tilling, rake the area to remove soil 
clods, thatch, tree roots, or rocks. Haul this 
debris away. In compacted soils, a Verti- 
Drain treatment, either before or after tilling, 
will help to relieve deep subsurface com­
paction. The Verti-Drain will penetrate 
approximately 10 inches into most com­
pacted bases. Incorporating sand topdress­
ing into the aeration holes will help facili­
tate drainage as the water reaches the base 
of the tee.

On sandy soils, tilling may not be neces­
sary. Nonetheless, spot-tilling isolated com­
pacted areas may be required, and having a 
hand tiller available is helpful.

Using washed sod or a sod grown on a similar soil reduces the 
likelihood of problem-causing layering within the soil profile.

JULY/AUGUST 1993

7

Add Root Zone Material

On most well-drained soils, simply dump 
2 to 3 cubic yards of root-zone-quality 
sand or a sand/organic mix over an average­
size tee (approximately 1!4 to 2 inches 
deep). This sand or mix will provide a good 
surface on which to establish the sod. On 
poorly drained soils, adding new root zone 
material (up to 6 inches) would be bene­
ficial. Refer to the chart (Figure 1) to esti­
mate the amount of material needed based 
on the root zone depth and tee size. During 
reconstruction, it may be desirable to ele­
vate the tee surface to improve playability. 
This can be accomplished by adding fill to 
the base or by adding root zone mix. Before 
adding 2 inches or more of root zone mix, 
it is essential to grade and compact the sub­
base to prevent settling. A laser grader is 
the fastest and most accurate machine for 
this step. Usually, new root zone material 
with an infiltration rate of between 2 and 6 
inches per hour would be considered ade­
quate for tees.

How to Obtain a Level Surface

Many golf course superintendents in the 
South are familiar with laser grading tech­
nology, and several local contractors now 

have this equipment. It is important to in­
vestigate the type of equipment used, since 
certain equipment may be more accurate, 
and to examine the degree of experience of 
the operator. These factors will affect the 
quality of the finished product and how the 
tee blends into the surrounding landscape. 
The cost is approximately 10 to 15 cents per 
square foot. It is possible to level even very 
small tees with this equipment.

Laser grading enhances the playability of 
the tee in two ways. As a general guideline, 
tee surfaces follow the contour of the fair­
way. For example, elevated fairways dictate 
an upward pitch sloping upward from back 
to front. Secondly, a laser grader also can 
establish fall from side to side. On dogleg 
holes, a draw or fade will be encouraged with 
a slight pitch to either the left or right. The 
laser contractor should work with the golf 
course superintendent or golf course archi­
tect to decide the pitch and side fall for 
each tee.

As mentioned previously, water infiltra­
tion through the root zone mixture is im­
portant, but surface drainage is essential. 
Surface drainage will prevent water from 
accumulating on the tee surface. Usually, a 
.33% to 1 % fall is satisfactory for an average 
tee, but the surrounding landscape should 

Laser grading results in a well-defined tee edge.

8 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

be considered. Establishing such a small 
slope for good surface drainage is easily 
done with a laser grader. The tee surface 
will appear flat at a pitch of 1% or less. A 
consistent pitch from tee to tee isn’t neces­
sary since these small percentages are 
undetectable to the eye. Surface water 
always should be directed away from heavy 
traffic areas, cart paths, and any high banks 
at the rear of tees.

New Tee Additions

It is very easy to add teeing ground to 
existing tees during the project. Begin by 
installing extra fill according to availability. 
However, care must be taken so that the 
“add-on” blends with the existing tee both 
in terms of grade and soil. A laser grader 
easily blends the new tee surface into the 
existing tee surface, a difficult task with 
other methods. Normally, the size of most 
tees increases by 5% to 10% since the outer 
edge of the tee generally will be 1 to I'Z 
feet wider after grading is complete. Estab­
lish new edges after grading by lightly hand 
raking and feathering the root zone into the 
existing contours. For additional width, add 
more root zone mix to the edges.

Resodding

The tee surface and slopes are ready for 
turf establishment after laser grading. Un­
like other methods, no touch-up work is re­
quired prior to grassing because the base 
created by the laser is perfectly finished. If 
time permits, water the graded surface for 
several days to promote settling. Next, sod, 
sprig, or seed the tee surface and sod the 
tee banks. If you choose to sod, avoid using 
a sod grown on a different or incompatible 
soil. This is especially true with cool-season 
turfgrasses. Drainage and rooting may be 
seriously impaired otherwise. Using washed 
sod or sod grown on a similar soil will re­
duce the likelihood of having to deal with a 
sod layer. Surface irregularities will occur 
due to the variability of the sod pieces, but 
the faster establishment is a tremendous 
advantage compared to seed establishment. 
Topdressing after sodding will smooth any 
irregularities. If sod grown on a clay soil is 
used, plan on establishing a coring program 
to break up this soil layer.

Conclusion

A level tee increases the ease, comfort, 
and relaxation of the golfer during the tee 
shot, and the golfer looks forward to tee­
ing up on a surface that enhances his game. 
Laser grading technology allows for a 
superior surface in minimum time. Any 
way you look at it, the course comes out 
on top with level tees.

Using Effluent Water 
On Your Golf Course

by DR. DAVID KOPEC, DR. CHARLES MANCINO, and DOUGLAS NELSON
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

YOU MIGHT CALL IT a recycler’s 

nightmare. Every day, 365 days a 
year, hundreds of millions of gallons 
of useable treated water is dumped need­

lessly into the ground, rivers, and oceans of 
the world. Is this truly necessary, or is there 
an alternative method of disposal to allow the 
recapture of some of this water and put it 
through a natural filter? Actually, there is! 
Parks, golf courses, sports fields, and certain 
agricultural crops all can use effluent water 
for irrigation.

In addition to preventing needless dump­
ing, a useable effluent water supply has 
several other advantages. These include (1) 
guaranteed availability, even during periods 
of drought, (2) a nutrient content that poten­
tially can lessen dependence on manufac­
tured fertilizers, (3) the freeing of limited 
supplies of potable water for other, more 
essential uses, and (4) income, from the sale 
of effluent water to agricultural users, to pay 
for the construction of public sewage treat­
ment plants.

Before running to the faucet and turning 
on an effluent water supply, however, there 
are several points that should be considered. 
To begin with, a thorough understanding of 
effluent water and how it is produced is 
essential.

What is Effluent?

The source of most effluent water sup­
plies comes from municipal sewage that is 
approximately 99.9% water (effluent) and

Preliminary

Primary

Secondary

Effluent

Advanced

Effluent

Screening 
Comminution 
Grit Removal

High-Rate Processes 
activated sludge 
trickling filters 
rotating biocontactors

Secondary 
Sedimentation

Sludge Processing

1 
Biological
thickening
digestion
dewatering
filter
centrifuge
drying beds

1 

Non-Bioiogicai
thickening
conditioning
dewatering
filter
centrifuge
incineration

Disposal

Figure 1 — Generalized Flow Sheet for Wastewater Treatment

Source: Asano, T, R. G. Smith, and G. Tschobanoglous, 1984

JULY/AUGUST 1993 

9

To produce usable effluent for golf course irrigation, the water is screened and treated.

.06% solids (sludge). To produce useable 
effluent for golf course irrigation, treatment 
plants process the raw sewage in several 
successive stages (Figure 1).

The first stage of the process is known as 
primary treatment. This involves screening 
the raw sewage for large debris and placing 
it in settlement ponds. The solid particles 
either sink or float and are removed. Primary 
effluent contains no more than 50% solids. 
Following primary treatment, the resulting 
effluent usually has a very foul odor and 
contains numerous harmful pathogens. 
Effluent water at this stage is not yet suit­
able for irrigation.

The next stage of the process is known as 
secondary treatment. This stage involves 
removing more than 90% of the original 
solids via microbial digestion by pumping 
the effluent through large cylindrical vats 
containing bacterial colonies. Following 
solid removal, the effluent usually is chlori­
nated, so that the coliform bacterial count 
is less than 23 per 100 milliliters of water 
(Table 1). Because secondary treated efflu­
ent has been chlorinated to reduce human 
health risk and is virtually solid-free, it 
commonly is used for irrigation of turf and 
several non-edible crops.

Even though secondary effluent can be 
used for irrigation, many treatment plants 

10 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

continue the process with a final stage 
known as tertiary treatment. Tertiary treat­
ment involves the removal of non-biode- 
gradable organic pollutants and a significant 
percentage of nutrients, such as nitrogen 
and phosphorus. Tertiary effluent can be de­
scribed as having no foul odor and a coliform

bacterial count of less than 2.2 per milliliter, 
and can be used safely for most purposes.

Understanding what effluent water is and 
what it is not allows us to address concerns 
of the golfing public and to develop main­
tenance practices to compensate for its use 
on the golf course.

Table 1
Water Treatment and Quality Criteria for Irrigation in California

Treatment Level

Primary

Coliform Limits 
Per 100 Milliliters

T\pe of Use

Oxidation and disinfection < 23

Oxidation, coagulation, 
clarification, filtration, 
and disinfection 

Surface irrigation of orchards and 

vineyards

Fodder, fiber, and seed crops

Pasture for milking animals 
Landscape impoundments 
Landscape irrigation (golf courses, 

cemeteries, etc.)

Surface irrigation of food crops 
(no contact between water and 
edible portion of crop)

Spray irrigation of food crops 
Landscape irrigation (parks, 

playgrounds, etc.)

Source: California Department of Health Services, 1978

Table 2
Constituents of Concern in Wastewater Treatment and Irrigation with Effluent Water

Measured Parameters

Reason for Concern

Constituent

Suspended solids

Suspended solids, including 
volatile and fixed solids

Indicator organisms, total 
and fecal coliform bacteria

Communicable diseases can be transmitted by the pathogens in 
wastewater: bacteria, viruses, parasites.

Biodegradable organics

Biochemical oxygen demand, 
chemical oxygen demand

Pathogens

Nutrients

Nitrogen 
Phosphorus 
Potassium

Stable 
(refractory organics)

Specific compounds 
(e.g., phenols, pesticides, 
chlorinated hydrocarbons)

Hydrogen ion activity

PH

Heavy metals

Dissolved inorganics

Specific elements 
(e.g., Cd, Zn, Ni, Hg)

Total dissolved solids, 
electrical conductivity, 
specific elements (e.g., 
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, B)

Residual chlorine

Free and combined

Suspended solids can lead to the development of sludge deposits 
and anaerobic conditions when untreated wastewater is discharged 
in the aquatic environment. Excessive amounts of suspended solids 
cause plugging in irrigation systems.

Composed principally of proteins, carbohydrates, and fats. If 
discharged to the environment, their biological decomposition can 
lead to the depletion of dissolved oxygen in receiving waters and to 
the development of septic conditions.

Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are essential nutrients for 
plant growth, and their presence normally enhances the value of the 
water for irrigation. When discharged to the aquatic environment, 
nitrogen and phosphorus can lead to the growth of undesirable 
aquatic life. When discharged in excessive amounts on land, 
nitrogen can also lead to the pollution of groundwater.

These organics tend to resist conventional methods of wastewater 
treatment. Some organic compounds are toxic in the environment, 
and their presence may limit the suitability of the wastewater for 
irrigation.

The pH of wastewater affects metal solubility as well as alkalinity 
of soils. Normal range in municipal wastewater is pH = 6.5-8.5, but 
industrial waste can alter pH significantly.

Some heavy metals accumulate in the environment and are toxic to 
plants and animals. Their presence may limit the suitability of the 
wastewater for irrigation.

Excessive salinity may damage some crops. Specific ions such as 
chloride, sodium, boron are toxic to some crops. Sodium may pose 
soil permeability problems.

Excessive amount of free available chlorine (0.05 mg/1) may cause 
leaf-tip bum and damage some sensitive crops. However, most 
chlorine in reclaimed wastewater is in a combined form, which does 
not cause crop damage. Some concerns are expressed as to the toxic 
effects of chlorinated organics in regard to groundwater 
contamination.

Source: Asano, T., R. G. Smith, and G. Tschobanoglous, 1984

Human Considerations

The most common question raised by 
the golfing public concerns that of human 
health (Table 2). Although effluent water is 
derived from municipal sewage, people 
should generally feel safe if exposed to 
effluent because it has been chlorinated. In 
fact, many public health officials concede 
that some tertiary effluent supplies could be 
used for swimming, although at this point 
in time adequate supplies of potable water 
are still available.

Despite the low human health risk in­
volved with using effluent water, legislation 
nonetheless has been written to reduce ex­
posure to an absolute minimum. This legis­
lation consists primarily of restricting the 

use of the irrigation system to non-daylight 
hours, when golfers are absent from the 
course, and posting the course with signs, 
such as “Warning: Course Irrigated With 
Reclaimed Water.” In some cases, to comply 
with this legislation requires the installation 
of an automatic irrigation system that can 
deliver the volume of effluent water neces­
sary to irrigate the course within a nightly 
eight-hour irrigation cycle.

In the environmental ’90s, some concern 
also is being raised by the general public as 
to possible adverse side effects on wildlife. 
Again, due to chlorination, irrigation with 
effluent water poses little risk to wildlife. 
Furthermore, the use of effluent water on 
golf courses prevents its dumping in pristine 

public waterways, where the nutrient con­
tent would promote damaging algae growth.

Chemical Interactions

The first step in developing maintenance 
practices to accommodate effluent water 
usage is to have a sample analyzed to deter­
mine the following parameters:

• Salt concentration.
• Sodium hazard.
• Bicarbonate concentration.
• Toxic ion concentration.
•pH.
Salt Concentration — Effluent water 
generally contains a significant amount of 
several salts that are combinations of sodium 

JULY/AUGUST 1993

11

(Na), chlorine (Cl), magnesium (Mg), cal­
cium (Ca), sulfate (SO4), and bicarbonates 
(HCO3). After irrigation with effluent, these 
salts accumulate in the soil and attract pure 
water molecules, preventing some of the 
water from being absorbed by the turfgrass 
plants. As a result, less “free” water is avail­
able for turfgrass uptake and symptoms of 
drought stress begin to occur.

Sodium Hazard — Sodium hazard indi­
cates the relative amount of sodium (Na) in 
relation to calcium (Ca) and magnesium 
(Mg). A high amount of sodium in effluent 
water is undesirable from a water and soil 
standpoint. In addition to being a component 
of salt stress, sodium (Na) accumulation 
eventually will result in displacement of 
calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) on the 
exchange sites of soil particles. This in turn 
inhibits the ability of the soil to aggregate and 
form peds necessary to maintain good soil 
structure.

Bicarbonate Concentration — Bicarbon­
ate (HCO3) concentration is important be­
cause of its ability to form precipitates of 
calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and magnesium 
carbonate (MgCO3). These precipitates 
“steal” calcium and magnesium from the 
soil particle exchange sites, and in turn can 
be replaced by sodium. Of lesser importance 
is that excess bicarbonate can lead to an 
increase in soil pH.

Toxic Ion Concentration — High concen­
trations of specific ions, such as chlorine and 
boron, can cause damage as they accumulate 
in plant tissue. Fortunately, turfgrasses are 
relatively tolerant of several toxic ions. 
These ions tend to accumulate in the leaf 
tip and are removed during mowing. Many 
ornamental trees and shrubs are not as 
fortunate, however, and can experience dis­
figuring leaf bums. The type and amount of 
toxic ions found in effluent is a function of 
where the raw sewage emanates from. 
Generally speaking, most municipal efflu­
ent does not contain high toxic ion concen­
trations, whereas industrial and mining 
effluent does.

pH — The pH (negative logarithm of the 
hydrogen ion concentration) of effluent 
water serves as an indication that there may 
be some type of ion imbalance in the water. 
In general, it is held that the pH of the water 
itself is not a problem, as most soils have a 
great resistance to pH alteration.

What Next?

With an understanding of the chemical 
characteristics of effluent water, developing 
maintenance practices that compensate for 
any negative attributes is a relatively simple 
matter. To begin with, the highest manage­
ment priority is determining the water’s total 
salt concentration. As mentioned previously, 
dissolved salts can quickly accumulate in 
the soil and inhibit “free” moisture/nutrient 
uptake.

To avoid such an occurrence, periodic 
heavy irrigation cycles must be programmed 
to saturate the soil and leach the salts below 
the root zone. To accommodate salt leach­
ing, the importance of good subsurface 
drainage cannot be overstated. This point is 
especially important in regard to putting 
greens, where excessively wet conditions 
would make the soil more susceptible to 
excessive compaction from concentrated 
foot traffic.

Another high priority is the sodium 
hazard, or the relative amount of sodium in 
comparison to calcium and magnesium. If 
the sodium hazard is high, the sodium ions 
will accumulate on the soil exchange sites 
and cause degradation of the soil structure. 
As a counterbalance, additional calcium 
should be added to the soil. In a majority of 
cases, this can be done by applying calcium 
sulfate (gypsum) in either a granular or liquid 
formulation.

In cases where the soil has a high pH and 
excess free calcium carbonate, however, 
sulfur should be applied. As the sulfur 
breaks down, it dissolves the natural calcium 
deposits and increases the availability of 
minor nutrients by lowering the pH.

Table 3 
Potential Fertilizer Value of Irvine Ranch 
Water District Reclaimed Water (Per Acre-Foot)

Concentration 
mg/1

Pounds/ac.-ft.

Commercial* 
Value $/ac.-ft.

Nutrients

Nitrogen (N)

Phosphorus (P)

Potassium (K)

Total Potential Fertilizer Value

23.0

2.2

13.9

62.6

6.0

38.1

$11.27

2.82

6.10

$20.19

^Commercial value based on average fertilizer prices for the summer of 1980: N = 180/lb., P = 470/lb., K = 160/Ib.
Source: Asano, T., 1981

12

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

As a potential benefit, many effluent 
water supplies contain substantial amounts 
of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium 
(Table 3). However, due to daily and seasonal 
nutrient fluctuations, it is not possible to 
calculate the exact amount of these nutri­
ents that will be deposited on the turf 
so that it can be subtracted from the annual 
fertilization program. Therefore, monitoring 
of both turf performance and soil test data 
should be done to make the necessary 
adjustments.

Although nutrient content is a potential 
benefit, toxic ions are another matter. If 
present, some toxic ions can lead to the 
deterioration of the turf and the surround­
ing landscape. Since the removal of toxic 
ions from an effluent supply would not be 
economically feasible in most cases, and 
they cannot be effectively leached through 
the soil, blending of the effluent with other 
water sources is likely to be the only real 
solution. For example, the concentration of 
boron could be reduced to a nontoxic level 
by blending an effluent water supply with a 
well water supply.

Though not directly toxic to plants, high 
bicarbonate levels in effluent water can 
contribute to sodium buildup in the soil by 
reacting with calcium and magnesium. To 
prevent this reaction, acid injection (the 
addition of acid to the effluent water) some­
times is used to lower the pH and nullify the 
bicarbonate ion. To determine the potential 
benefits of acid injection, water samples can 
be submitted for special testing.

Conclusion

As an alternative to potable water use, 
effluent water can in fact be a logical, safe, 
and economical choice for golf course and 
sports turf irrigation. Furthermore, it offers 
an environmentally responsible choice to the 
wholesale dumping of treated water into 
existing waterways. Turning on the faucet 
simply requires understanding both what 
effluent water is and what it is not!

REFERENCES

Asano, T. (Proj. Dir.). 1981. Evaluation of agri­
cultural irrigation projects using reclaimed 
water. Agreement 8-179-215-2. Office of Water 
Recycling. California State Water Resources 
Control Board. Sacramento, CA.

Asano, T, R. G. Smith and G. Tschobanoglous. 
1984. in Pettygrove, G. S., and T. Asano (eds.). 
1984. Irrigation with Reclaimed Municipal 
Wastewater — A Guidance Manual. Report No. 
84-1 California State Water Resources Control 
Board. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Health Services. 1978. 
Wastewater reclamation criteria. California 
Administrative Code.

The Bird 
Community 
Found on 
British 
Columbia 
Golf Courses

by IAN E. MOUL and 
JOHN E. ELLIOTT 
Canadian Wildlife Service, 
Delta, British Columbia

Suburban expansion and the demand for more golf courses is impacting the rural landscape.

IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, like most 

regions in North America, the popularity 
of golf has resulted in many proposals 
for new courses. New golf course develop­

ments are often at the interface between 
expanding population centers and diminish­
ing rural lands. If urbanization trends con­
tinue as expected, golf courses will provide 
important green spaces. In an effort to foster 
the inclusion of wildlife habitat within new 
golf courses, we undertook a project to sur­
vey the birds found on existing courses, and 

to compare bird numbers and species rich­
ness with the habitats offered.

Study Area and Methods

Birds were counted on eight golf courses 
located in the Fraser Valley region of British 
Columbia. The courses were chosen to 
reflect a range of potential wildlife habitat 
from very open sites with minimal tree cover 
to sites with large areas of trees and 
hedgerow. On four of the courses, we 

mapped the major vegetation and classified 
habitats as:

1. Turf — all areas of intensive turf 
maintenance, including the greens, tees, fair­
ways, and areas of rough not associated 
with trees, shrubs, or brush.

2. Water — all lakes, ponds, streams, and 

ditches.

3. Hedgerow — all areas of trees, shrubs, 
or brush where understory vegetation was 
minimally maintained and allowed to grow 
naturally.

JULY/AUGUST 1993 

13

Table 1.
The Golf Course Bird Community and the Habitats Where They Are Found

Bird Species

Great Blue Heron
Canada Goose
Mallard
Bufflehead
Hooded Merganser
Bald Eagle
Red-Tailed Hawk
Killdeer
Glaucous-Winged Gull
Belted Kingfisher
Downy Woodpecker
Northern Flicker
Violet-Green Swallow
Bam Swallow
Northwestern Crow
Black-Capped Chickadee
Bushtit
Winter Wren
Golden-Crowned Kinglet
Ruby-Crowned Kinglet
American Robin
Cedar Waxwing
European Starling
Orange-Crowned Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Rufous-Sided Towhee
Song Sparrow
Dark-Eyed Junco
Red-Winged Blackbird
Brewer’s Blackbird
Brown-Headed Cowbird
House Finch
Pine Siskin
American Goldfinch
Evening Grosbeak
House Sparrow

Water
■
■
■
■
■

■
■

■
■

■

Habitat

Grass

Hedgerow

Tree

■
■

■
■

■
■
■
■

■

■

■
■

■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■

■

■
■
■
■

■
■

■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■

■
■

■
■
■
■
■
■
■

Table 2
Species Counts and Total Number of Birds Counted in 
Four Types of Habitat Found on Four Golf Courses During 
30 Counts at Each Course from November 1990 to July 1991

Habitat

Turf

Water

Hedgerow

Trees

Total

Number 
of Bird 
Species

Total 
Number of 
Birds

Land Area 
Surveyed 
(Acres)

Average 
Number of 
Birds/Acre

19

22

40

37

73

6,355

4,871

1,210

1,348

13,784*

127.0

7.2

12.8

25.2

172.2

*This total excludes 1,519 birds observed flying

1.6

22.6

3.2

1.8

2.6

14 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

4. Trees — individual or groups of trees or 
shrubs of any species where the understory 
vegetation has been removed.

Between July 1990 and July 1991, during 
152 bird counts, the species and the num­
bers of all birds seen or heard (on all eight 
courses) were recorded, along with the 
habitat in which they were found (four 
courses).

Results and Discussion

A total of 19,443 birds representing 103 
species were observed during this study. 
Twenty of these species were seen only once, 
on one golf course, and were considered 
accidental. We considered 36 species (Table 
1), observed on over half the courses sur­
veyed, to form the community of birds likely 
to be found on golf courses. Within this com­
munity, some species were very abundant, 
while others were present in lower num­
bers. Eight species, the European starling, 
American robin, mallard, Northwestern 
crow, Canada goose, bam swallow, dark­
eyed junco, and black-capped chickadee, 
were among the 10 species most commonly 
sighted and also the 10 most numerous 
species. Collectively, these birds represented 
69.8% of all the birds counted; they have 
minimal habitat requirements and could 
also be found in parks and neighborhoods 
throughout the study area. Bird species ob­
served in low numbers were often associated 
with a specific habitat. Great blue herons and 
hooded mergansers were found associated 
with water bodies of sufficient quality to 
support the fish consumed by those birds. 
Woodpeckers, kinglets, and wrens were 
found in hedgerows and treed areas.

Wildlife habitats offered by golf courses 
may be judged by how effectively they meet 
the most basic requirements of birds: food 
and shelter. We noticed a considerable dif­
ference among the habitats found on the 
golf courses surveyed. During the initial 
surveys in July and August 1990, the species 
count on eight courses ranged from 14 to 
46. While we did not measure the habitats at 
the time, it was clear that those courses with 
minimal foliage or small, recently planted 
trees had less habitat to offer birds, and the 
species diversity was accordingly low (14 
to 16 species). This is not to say that those 
courses were without some suitable habitat. 
On one course we frequently observed a 
green-backed heron foraging or roosting in 
vegetation along the edges of one pond. 
The presence of this uncommon species 
indicates the value of the habitat offered.

In terms of overall numbers of birds 
counted, just under half were seen on turf 
(Table 2). If we consider bird numbers per 
land area of each habitat, though, turf 
accounted for only '/u that of water, !4 that

of hedgerow, and was the lowest in species 
richness. Of the birds using turf, the 
American robin and the European starling 
together accounted for over 80% of the 
birds counted. Large numbers of American 
wigeon were observed feeding on turf dur­
ing the winter at one course. As golfers 
approached, the wigeon would flush to 
nearby ponds, returning to the turf as the 
golfers passed. Of the species using turf, 
only Canada geese, mallards, and glaucous­
winged gulls used turf surfaces for resting.

Water, while it only accounted for 4% of 
the land area surveyed, contained the greatest 
density of birds. The American wigeon was 
the most numerous species, accounting for 
47.5% of the birds seen on water. Aside from 
the mallard at 39.4% and the Canada goose 
at 8.9%, all other species had a relative 
abundance of less than 1%. It was interest­
ing to observe large numbers of American 
wigeon and mallards on the water at one 
golf course despite the fact that they did 
not use the habitat for foraging. At least 
during the winter, they used the ponds 
exclusively as a safe place to rest.

The differences between hedgerow and 
tree habitats, as we defined them, were due 
to the clearing of underbrush at tree bases. 
From the golfer’s perspective, minimal vege­
tation makes it easier to locate stray golf 
balls. The removal of ground vegetation, 
from the perspective of a ground-feeding 
bird, means the elimination of a place to 
retreat from predators or from perceived 
threats, such as passing golfers. On the 
courses we visited, hedgerows often were 
located along course boundaries, screening 
a service road, or at a junction between a 
green, tee, and an adjacent fairway. Hedge­
rows often were not large, but formed a 
valuable habitat island within the open turf 
expanse.

Hedgerows had the greatest species 
richness of all the habitats observed. With the 
more common bird species, there was little 
difference in numbers between hedgerows 
and trees. For species observed less fre­
quently, more birds per acre were located in 
hedgerows. Of the two species of wood­
pecker, both the downy woodpeckers and 
the northern flickers were seen twice as 
often in hedgerows as in trees. Of the birds 
typically found on the ground or in lower- 
story vegetation, the dark-eyed junco, 
rufous-sided towhee, and song sparrow were, 
respectively, 4, 9, and 25 times more abun­
dant in hedgerows versus trees.

Conclusions and Recommendations

On the courses we visited, those with 
both the highest numbers of bird species and 
also the greatest numbers of birds (exclud­
ing those found on water) had extensive areas

(Top) The vegetation of this pond provides habitat for mallards and a green-backed heron.
(Above) This beaver pond on a Vancouver Island golf course is ideal habitat for nesting waterfowl 
and red-winged blackbirds.

of natural vegetation. Most of the courses we 
visited contained areas where additional 
wildlife habitat could be created. Small 
changes in management practices in loca­
tions away from immediate areas of play 
could increase the quality of habitat offered 
to wildlife without a great inconvenience to 
the golfer. A deep rough consisting of long 
grasses typical of abandoned fields would 
provide for species such as the ring-necked 
pheasant, common yellowthroat, and west­
ern meadowlark. Allowing bulrushes to grow 
in a pond or marshy area would supply the 
habitat needs of green-backed herons, red­
winged blackbirds, American bitterns, and 
various species of waterfowl. We encourage 

golf courses to join programs like the 
Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program, 
designed to acknowledge and enhance the 
wildlife component of golf courses. While 
golf courses never can be truly “natural” 
habitat, they can serve as urban green spaces 
and support a wildlife community.

The information presented here was part 
of larger study, titled “A Survey of Pesticide 
Use and Bird Activity on Selected Golf 
Courses in British Columbia,” Technical 
Report Series Number 163. Copies may be 
obtainedfrom the Canadian Wildlife Service, 
Box 340, Delta, British Columbia, Canada, 
V4K3Y3, (604) 946-8546.

JULY/AUGUST 1993 

IS

Biting the Bullet:
Greens Complex Reconstruction 
at the Country Club of Virginia

by ALAN D. HESS, C.G.C.S.
Director of Golf, Country Club of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia

WHAT IMAGE comes to mind 

when you think of a golf course 
constructed 65 years ago? To the 
golfer it might be thoughts of a mature, 

traditional layout weaving through wooded, 
gently rolling hills. A golf course superin­
tendent might describe a golf course with 
small, slow-draining greens complete with 
compacted soils and a mix of bentgrass and 
Poa annua. This latter scenario described the 
conditions at the James River Course at the 
Country Club of Virginia before the recon­
struction began.

The James River Course at the Country 
Club of Virginia in Richmond was opened 
for play on June 30, 1928. It was designed 
by William Flynn and constructed by 
Frederick Findlay. Mr. Findlay, who built 
much of the original character of the golf 
course, eventually became the golf course 
superintendent and an accomplished archi­
tect in his own right.

Since the late ’60s and early ’70s, the old 
course began showing signs and problems 
associated with age. All were classic prob­
lems, including:

• Small greens.
• Original green design had been lost over 
the years, and most had become more oval 
in shape.

• Poor internal drainage within the greens. 
• Enlarged and encroaching bunkers.
There were other problems, too. For in­
stance, golf equipment and golfer skill had 
evolved to such an extent since the 1920s 
that the course was now playing much 
shorter. This, in turn, created a fairway visi­
bility problem because golfers were clearing 
areas which were unapproachable before. 
Furthermore, the “postage stamp” size tees 
of the early years were not capable of 
handling the increasing amount of play. 
Ultimately, though, the emphasis of the 
golf course renovation project came down 
to the greens.

16

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

The restoration work had been in the 
long-range plans for a number of years. 
Essentially, the work was needed because 
of the inconsistency in the health of the 
turf on the greens. Several other factors con­
tributed to the need for renovation of the 
course. First, there was the encroachment 
and infestation of common bermudagrass 
from the edges of the greens. The encroach­
ment was partially responsible for the greens 
losing their original size and shape.

The second consequence of time was the 
condition of the old German bentgrasses 
with which the greens were originally 
planted. Examples of different strains of 
bentgrass with varying colors, leaf textures, 
disease susceptibilities, etc., could be 
found on every green. Fred Findlay even 
developed two of his own bentgrass varieties, 
James River I and James River II, from the 
patches in the greens.

Increasing traffic, lower mowing heights, 
and even changing climatic conditions had 
made it difficult for these grasses to perform 
to today’s standards. The newer bentgrass 
varieties have enhanced heat tolerance, bet­
ter rooting, and better disease resistance 
compared to some of the old strains. Also, 
they have a more upright and consistent 
growth habit and can provide the good 
quality playing conditions desired by to­
day’s golfers. Moreover, the newei bent­
grasses provide a more consistent appear­
ance, at least for many years, and should 
tolerate the lower heights demanded today 
for faster greens.

Perhaps the most critical factor in re­
building the greens was to improve both the 
internal and surface drainage problems. 
Typically, the old greens had only one exit 
point for surface drainage, and this usually 
was to the front of the green. Also, pockets 
near the center of the greens were prone to 
turf loss due to water accumulation and 
traffic problems. These were not good cir­

cumstances in which to grow reliable turf­
grass in Virginia, right in the heart of the 
Transition Zone.

To correct these problems, we established 
a team of experts to develop a workable 
master plan, create a budget, sell the idea to 
the membership, and, finally, complete the 
reconstruction project. The key components 
of this team were the architect, an overseer, 
the general contractor, the golf committee 
chairman, a select group of members, and the 
staff all working together. The club went 
through a detailed process of selecting the 
golf course architect, eventually selecting 
Rees Jones.

The other members of the team were the 
agronomists of the USGA Green Section 
Mid-Atlantic Region. Stanley Zontek, 
Director of the Mid-Atlantic Region, was 
an important contributor, along with Bob 
Brame. Mr. Zontek, by coincidence, had 
worked cooperatively on a renovation project 
with Rees Jones just a few years earlier. The 
continuity between the team players was 
critical to the success of our project. Not only 
were we getting a team that had worked 
together before, but we had a well-recog­
nized group. As a matter of fact, once the 
team was secure and the project approved, 
the membership’s attitude changed from 
apprehensive to one of excitement and 
anticipation. Landscapes Unlimited, Inc., of 
Lincoln, Nebraska, was selected as the 
general contractor. Of particular interest to us 
was their experience in building greens to 
USGA recommendations. Once under 
contract, they were on-site and began 
working within two weeks. All work began 
April 1, 1992. More than one comment was 
made about starting the project on April 
Fool’s Day!

By the time Landscapes Unlimited had 
finished planting the greens and had left 
the property, it was early October. Within that 
period of five months, we had rebuilt

ALAN D. HESS

(Above) Taking the blade to a problem green.

(Left) At the rear portion of the seventh green, 
an elbow section was installed as the basis for a 
flush-out drain for the main line. The orifice for 
this flush-out will be protected by a valve box.

19 green complexes and all or part of 13 
fairways, constructed 58 sand bunkers, en­
larged tees, created two large lakes, and 
installed a double row, computerized irriga­
tion system.

Before the reconstruction process started, 
all the construction materials were analyzed 
and selected. By working with an experi­
enced soil testing laboratory and our 
advisors, and with an expense of almost 
$7,000 for tests, we were able to find quality 
construction materials. Eventually, a mixture 
of 80% sand and 20% Canadian sphagnum 
peat was selected for the root zone mix. This 
topmix met all the USGA recommendations 
and tested at 16.2 inches per hour percolation 
rate. All materials were to be mixed off­
site, and a balanced blend of fertilizer and 
lime were included during the blending 
process.

The sand was an especially good material, 
not just for its particle size, but also for its 
uniformity, particle shape, and absence of 
fines. Eighty-five percent of the material 
tested in the coarse- and medium-sized sand 
fractions. The use of soil in the green con-

JULY/AUGUST 1993 

17

Methyl bromide fumigation was a key step prior to the seed bed preparation. We were convinced this was 
necessary due to the amount of bermudagrass established during construction on the green cavity wall.

struction mix was never a consideration due 
to our desire to maintain an accelerated rate 
of percolation.

When the actual construction began, it 
was very methodical and deliberate, with 
attention to quality. Our assistant superin­
tendents were positioned at each green site 
throughout the entire process. Rees Jones 
approved each green shell cavity before 
subsurface drainage work began. It was his 
desire to have the shape of the subgrade 
conform as closely as possible to the final 
shape of the green. The personal attention to 
each step by Mr. Jones and his architectural 
assistant, Steven Weisser, deserves special 
recognition.

The drainage system was installed from 
the back of the green to the front, using a 
herringbone design with laterals installed on 
15-foot centers. In the process of working 
back to front, the trenches, gravel, rigid 
drainage pipe installation, and intermediate 
layer were done almost simultaneously. To 
protect the subgrade and materials, %-inch 
plywood was used as a buffer below the 
skip loader. Every step of the way, the gravel 
and intermediate layer were constantly 
gauged to ensure the correct depths.

In addition, at the low end of each green, 
a “smile” perimeter drain was installed to 
intercept any additional drainage water that 
might collect at the interface of the sub­
grade and native soil collar. Flush-out boxes 

18 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

were installed at the top of each green and 
at the head of the main drain line. The final 
touch was the addition of a 14-gauge copper 
wire to designate the main drain lines, as 
well as the perimeter of the green. This will 
help in the future for determining the original 
green configuration and locating drain lines.
The hard part was finally over! Now it 
became a simple matter of filling the green 
cavity with the topmix. Each green averaged 
about 6,200 square feet, and about 7,000 
tons of topmix was needed. After the greens 
mix was in place, irrigation was installed, 
followed by the completion of the bunkers 
and the sodding of the entire putting green 
complex. The greens were left to settle and 
firm up until the time was right for planting 
in late August.

When the optimal planting temperatures 
had finally arrived, the greens were fumi­
gated with methyl bromide and prepared 
for seeding. Once this was done, Mr. Jones 
designated and approved the final putting 
green contours. To help the establishment 
process, an organic turkey manure by­
product fertilizer was applied at the rate of 
1.5 pounds of actual nitrogen per 1,000 
square feet. The greens were seeded to 
Pennlinks creeping bentgrass, applied in 
three different directions using a drop 
spreader at a rate of 1.5 pounds per 1,000 
square feet. The seed was worked into the 
soil, using leaf rakes, and then rolled.

Within two weeks, we had uniform 
germination and a solid stand of new grass! 
By mid-October, all the greens were being 
mowed every other day using walk-behind 
mowers set at a height of This was a 
remarkable accomplishment. It is still too 
early to be definite, but an opening date in 
mid to late summer of 1993 is tentatively 
planned.

Large-scale renovations such as this one 
are rare. When envisioning the restoration of 
a historic, championship-quality golf course, 
seldom is it thought of on such a large scale. 
Furthermore, the tendency is to under­
estimate the amount of work involved. A 
key to the successful outcome comes back 
to “the team.” They helped formulate a 
workable, common-sense, and agronomi- 
cally sound plan to develop a better golf 
course for the future. Moreover, everyone 
on the team assisted in ensuring the integrity 
of the process and the final construction 
effort. Eventually, when the course is re­
opened for play, people will be enjoying a 
better golfing experience that will serve them 
long into the future.

It was a big project, but we can all look 
back with pride at what has been accom­
plished. Our membership “bit the bullet,” did 
the job right, and we now have a better golf 
course for it. Perhaps our success will serve 
as a pattern for other golf courses that have 
similar problems and need similar solutions.

ON COURSE WITH NATURE
Restoration of Potash Pond

by SCOTT BERTRAND
Superintendent, The Bridgehampton Golf Club, Bridgehampton, New York

HEY, SCOTTY, the course looks 

great, but what’s the story with the 
pond on the first hole? Boy, what 
an eyesore.” As superintendent at The 

Bridgehampton Club for 10 years, I began, 
for the uncountable time, to tell the gentle­
man before me the story about Potash Pond.
The eyesore the member referred to was 
a drainage area located in a highly visible 
area near the clubhouse and the first tee. 
Time and excess drainage from surrounding 
roadways and agricultural fields resulted in 
silt deposits to the pond, rendering it un­
usable and aesthetically unpleasing. To add 
to the problem, during periods of excessive 
rainfall the pond overflowed and flooded 
several fairways.

While everyone wanted to see something 
done, there was a problem. Potash Pond was 
listed as a wetland on the New York Depart­
ment of Environmental Conservation (DEC) 
wetland map and, as in many states, was 
heavily protected and regulated. A DEC 
permit was required for any changes. The 
man groaned, wished me luck, and pro­
ceeded off to the first tee. At that point, I 
knew it was time to tackle this problem.

My hopes for finding a creative solution 
were renewed when shortly thereafter I met 
my new green chairman, Wallace Quimby. I 
was delighted to learn that as president of the 
local historical society, Mr. Quimby had 
knowledge about the pond’s history. Potash 
Pond is listed on the earliest known maps 
of the area, and Bridgehampton’s oldest 
members remember it as a wonderful skat­
ing pond. With dedicated determination, Mr. 
Quimby was instrumental in gaining the 
membership’s support for restoring the pond.

The Initial DEC Meeting

Having heard many nightmarish tales 
about the DEC, I had last-minute reservations 
when the DEC car pulled into the parking lot 
for the site visit. I really didn’t know what 
to expect from this all-important first 
meeting, and, I must admit, I half expected 
them to appear with horns and pointed red 
tails! I was pleasantly surprised to meet

Local schoolchildren were some of the most enthusiastic workers that we could have hoped for.

JULY/AUGUST 1993 

19

two extremely knowledgeable and helpful 
individuals.

The DEC’S major concern was that the 
end result of the restoration project be just 
as valuable as the existing wetland. I told 
the DEC representatives about our commit­
ment to the environment and about other 
environmental projects such as IPM and the 
development of naturalized areas on the golf 
course. This set a good tone for the meet­
ing. Also, all the pertinent information was 
available, and it helped to have a club 
official present at the meeting to provide 
input. We were honest and up-front in our 
dealings with them, and we asked them 
outright what they thought could be done 
to make the area more attractive to wildlife 
and more aesthetically pleasing.

The Maze of Paperwork

Shortly after the site inspection, the /i'- 
thick permit application arrived. At first it 
was overwhelming, but the DEC contacts 
were extremely helpful in completing the 
application, and it helped to establish a good 
working relationship. Additional information 
was required from us, which was promptly 
sent, and I made periodic calls to the DEC 
to check on the application status. Patience 
was needed as the review process extended 
over six months.

The approved permit included the follow­

ing DEC construction recommendations:

1. Remove the upper four inches of top- 
soil from the project site and stockpile 
nearby.

2. Excavate the fill and use in low areas 
near the site. Soil is not to be removed from 
club property.

3. Slope the pond shoulder not to exceed 

1:10.

4. Spread stockpiled topsoil four inches 

deep over the sloped shoulder.

5. Two years after the project, hand-pull all 

phragmites.

Construction and Grow-In

When the final permit approval arrived 
in October 1991, there was not much time 
before winter to get the project completed. 
The DEC required a 24-hour posting notifi­
cation, and we began the construction 
exactly 24 hours after the final approval. I 
don’t believe anyone was ready for the 
huge piles of earth that seemed to be 
everywhere.

If you are planning a project like this, 
here are a few suggestions for the planning 
stages that can help the construction go 
much more smoothly:

1. Before moving the first shovel of soil, 
review the information sent with the ap­
proved permit. Many guidelines need to be 
followed.

Before: The drainage area near the first tee was an eyesore that the members were ready to get rid of

After: Restoration of Potash Pond left a natural area that everyone can be proud of.

20 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

2. Communicate with the membership 
about the realistic start and completion dates 
of the project. Focus on the positive aspects.
3. Develop a good working relationship 
with the contractor. I brought ours coffee 
each morning and we talked about the day’s 
work.

One problem was encountered during 
construction when trying to spread the 
stockpiled topsoil. The topsoil, which looked 
more like muck, is the original wetland soil 
and is a valuable seed source of wetland 
plants. The material was difficult to work 
with, and I had to borrow a farmer’s disc 
harrow to move it. It took seven weeks to 
complete the contouring and finish grading.
To establish a natural buffer, we seeded 
the area around the pond perimeter with a 
ryegrass and fescue mix to control erosion 
and to slow runoff. The buffer zone provides 
food and cover for wildlife and also shades 
the shallow water along the edge, helping 

to moderate the water temperature. Switch­
grass, marsh hibiscus, Joe-pye weed, wild 
iris, and broomsedge were planted the fol­
lowing spring. More native plants, including 
buttonbush and shadbush, are planned for 
subsequent plantings.

Project Costs

The entire restoration project cost approxi­
mately $12,000, and several factors helped 
keep the costs down. The permit application 
was only $50 since the area disturbed was 
less than an acre. The DEC did not require the 
standard engineering drawings, but allowed 
my sketches. I did a portion of the work 
with my crew and utilized local resources to 
accomplish many of the tasks. A local 
nursery provided invaluable advice on wet­
land plant materials.

The most cost-effective labor for seeding 
of the pond edges was provided by the local 

elementary school. The kindergarten and 
second-grade classmates of my two sons, 
armed with cups of switchgrass seed, were 
the most enjoyable and enthusiastic work­
ers. We plan to include these future environ­
mentalists in more projects.

The Bridgehampton Golf Club is regis­
tered in the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary 
Program for Golf Courses, and I am 
delighted with the program’s suggested 
projects and advice. This program has pro­
vided information for making Potash Pond 
even better for wildlife, along with other 
projects that we can incorporate on the golf 
course.

While I started out trying to improve an 
undesirable situation on my course, I have 
found a new avenue to enhance the golf 
course, improve the area for the wildlife, 
and educate a future generation about the 
environment. The restoration of Potash Pond 
has been a rewarding experience.

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED

HIT THE BALL!

by DAVID A. OATIS
Director, Northeastern Region, USGA Green Section

A COUPLE of years ago, I visited 

a golf course and was shocked 
to find that the club had played 
“preferred lies” for many years because of 

having poor-quality fairway turf during a 
portion of each summer. At the time of my 
visit, the fairways were nearly flawless, yet 
the club continued to “roll the ball” because 
a few thin areas of turf existed (1% or 2% 
of the total fairway acreage), and thus it 
was possible to have a less-than-perfect lie 
in the fairway. In essence, this membership 
was saying that a ball landing in a fairway 
should be guaranteed a perfect lie and to 
have less simply would not be fair!

I was so shocked by the attitude of the 
club that I related the story to the golfers at 
another course the following week. To my 
dismay, the story was met with blank looks 
and embarrassed stares from the committee 
members, as they admitted having played 
preferred lies for years as well!

The account typifies what has happened 
to American golfers and American golf 
courses. Perfection is demanded, and if it 
can’t be attained, we cheat! Golf isn’t sup­

posed to be fair. Golf is supposed to be a 
test of nerves, physical skill, and mental 
acuity. It should be a challenge and a les­
son in overcoming adversity, not a cake­
walk and definitely not a guarantee!

The major objective in golf turf manage­
ment always has been to improve playing 
conditions, the theory being that by doing 
so we would increase the skill factor and 
reduce the luck factor. Playing conditions 
have been improved unbelievably over the 
years, but the demands of golfers have in­
creased along with the quality of the playing 
conditions. A well-struck tee shot landing 
in the fairway should not be intentionally 
penalized; that would make no sense at all. 
By the same token, neither should the golfer 
be guaranteed a perfect lie. Removing the 
luck factor entirely also eliminates the 
need for the skill required to negotiate a 
tricky lie.

I contend that luck is an integral part 
of golf and that it adds great interest to 
the game. Can you imagine how boring it 
would be to be able to predict exactly what 
type of lie you would face on your second 

shot immediately after striking your tee 
shot? Do not misunderstand me; I am not 
advocating that we should trick up our 
golf courses, only that they need not, and 
cannot, be perfect. Above all else, we need 
to play the ball as we find it, not as we 
think we should find it, or would like to 
find it.

It is time we put things in perspective. 
There should be no guarantees in golf. If a 
shot landing in a fairway comes to rest in a 
divot, invent a shot to get it out of the divot. 
If a ball plugs in a bunker, don’t change the 
sand or raking techniques or complain to 
the course manager. Figure out a way to get 
the ball unplugged. If the greens are hard 
and do not hold shots as well as you would 
like, try landing the ball short. If the condi­
tion of the golf course doesn’t suit your 
particular game, adjust your game. It is not 
the responsibility of the golf course super­
intendent to tailor course conditioning to a 
particular golfer’s desires. We do not need to 
trick up our courses, but neither do we need 
to perfect their condition. In short, play the 
course as you find it. Just hit the ball!

JULY/AUGUST 1993 

21

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD 
JULY/AUGUST 1993

TURF TWISTERS

PROTECT AGAINST

Question: I would like to reduce pesticide use on my golf course. Japanese beetle grub populations in the fair­
ways often are high enough to warrant an insecticide treatment. Would placing the commercial Japanese beetle 
traps in the roughs protect the fairways from damage? (Michigan)

Answer: The Japanese beetle traps will attract adult beetles from a considerable distance, but should 
only be considered a monitoring tool. True, many beetles are captured, but many more are attracted 
to the area. This may increase the potential for foliar feeding injury of ornamental plantings and 
turf injury from grubs later in the season. A few well-placed traps near the course will help monitor 
the overall population in the area and provide useful information regarding when to sample fair­
ways for grubs.

SLIMY SNAILS

Question: During the summer, we have problems with small aquatic snails plugging the screens in our sprinklers. 
We use reclaimed water and suspect the snails are feeding on the algae that is typically found in our irrigation 
pond. We tried granular copper sulfate to eliminate the algae, but we still have a problem with the snails. Any 
other suggestions? (California)

Answer: The installation of a self-flushing filtration system for your pump station would help 
keep the snails from plugging the sprinklers. A screen size of 50-100 microns would be most 
effective. In addition to granular copper sulfate applications, you may also want to inject chlorine 
into your irrigation pond. Check the water before adding the chlorine to be sure you do not exceed 
a total of 10 ppm, which could adversely affect the turf.

AND PRODUCT OVERUSE

Question: I’ve used Nemacur on my greens the last three seasons to suppress nematodes and it worked fine. 
However, this year’s treatment didn’t work! What happened? (Mississippi)

Answer: True resistance to nematicides has not been documented, but there is evidence of 
enhanced microbial degradation of certain nematicides. One possibility is that some microbes may 
be using the Nemacur as a food source. After years of repeated use, the microbe population may 
have increased to levels that cause the material to degrade before it kills the nematodes. To avoid 
resistance problems, rotate the nematicide products used. If possible, adjust management prac­
tices to promote turfs that are less susceptible to these pests.