Record Volume 35, Number 2 March/April 1997 — ---------------————■ si '* • < * > * I Developing Maintenance Guidelines A PUBLICATION ON TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT V pl J BY THE UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION® MARCH/APRIL 1997 Volume 35, Number 2 Cover Photo: Mowing frequencies and a range of acceptable mowing heights should reflect the needs of the majority of golfers at the course while protecting the health of the turf. Record 1 When in Doubt — Spec It Out Developing maintenance guidelines for your golf course can clarify priorities and serve as a useful budgeting tool. By Patrick J. Gross 5 Pesticide Storage: One Step Ahead Proactive is always better than reactive. This is especially true with the planning and construction of a pesticide storage building. By Gary W Bogdanski 8 The Kiwis Have It Right! Golfers in New Zealand are being influenced by American maintenance standards viewed on television. Is it right or wrong? By Larry Gilhuly 10 Taming Wild Waters Using soft engineering principles to control erosion and create a wildlife habitat. By Lon Mikkelsen 12 Green Speed Physics The laws of physics applied to golf course maintenance practices. By Arthur P. Weber 16 Golf Course Real Estate For Wildlife A nest box program on your course can have many benefits for wildlife and golfers. By Ron Dodson 18 News Notes 20 Let’s Give Credit Where Credit Is Due Oversimplification of the reasons for success, or failure, hinders your ability to learn and teach others. By James Frances Moore 22 Turf Twisters Based on feedback from frustrated golfers who cannot find their golf balls in water hazards, many superintendents maintain low-cut turf to the water’s edge. This practice encourages shoreline erosion because the soil is no longer held in place by riparian vegetation. See page 10. Stimpmeter measurements on level greens provide a numerical way to characterize green speed. See page 12. Bunker maintenance is a time-consuming yet integral part of the daily maintenance program that should be detailed in the maintenance guidelines. WHEN IN DOUBT — SPEC IT OUT Developing maintenance guidelines for your golf course can clarify priorities and serve as a useful budgeting tool. by PATRICK J. GROSS IT IS HUMAN NATURE to make comparisions, and that is especially true when it comes to golf courses. It seems every golfer has a built-in rating system of what constitutes a well- maintained golf course. People often ask if the USGA has any published maintenance standards. The answer is that while the USGA Green Section agronomists work closely with course officials and superintendents to im­ prove golfing conditions, there is no cookie-cutter formula for proper golf course maintenance. Every golf course is different. Consider the number of variables inherent in each course, such as differences in microclimate, course architecture, terrain, amount of play, soils and construction techniques, water quality and availability, budgets, staff size, and many other factors. With so many variables, it is next to impos­ sible to draw an accurate comparison. Instead of comparing your course to the one down the street, it is much more beneficial to accurately determine what it takes to make your course the best it can possibly be. The corporate world has long recog­ nized the benefit of developing a comprehensive business plan with specific goals and objectives for their company and its employees. The plan clearly states the role of each person in the organization, with specific perfor­ mance criteria provided so that there is no misunderstanding about the expected outcome. How many golf courses can say they have a plan like this for the routine maintenance of the golf course? Green committees come and go, superintendents are hired and fired, and golfers’ expectations are raised based on the latest televised tournament. The actual daily condi­ tions are usually the result of the super­ intendent’s personal maintenance philosophy and his interpretation of comments and complaints from the golfers. Who usually suffers, given such a wide range of opinion and lack of a clear goal? The golf course and the superintendent. Developing a set of maintenance guidelines for the golf course will clarify maintenance priori­ ties and keep the entire organization moving in the right direction. Why Are Maintenance Guidelines Needed? There are several good reasons to develop maintenance guidelines for your course. First, it is a project that requires the superintendent and com­ mittee to organize and analyze the priorities for golf course maintenance instead of assuming that everyone has the same goals and standards in mind. Getting it down on paper makes it easier to analyze the situation and see exactly what it takes to maintain a golf course in the manner the golfers want it. In the process, the desires and expectations of the golfers are clarified, and objective standards are set for the routine maintenance and playing quality of the golf course. Developing such a document also removes subjec­ MARCH/APRIL 1997 1 tivity and provides a formula for com­ paring the desired results with the available resources. In the end, the guidelines become an objective stan­ dard that is measurable and provides a reference for future decision making. Another reason in favor of develop­ ing maintenance guidelines is the short tenure of most green committee mem­ bers and green chairmen. With only a short time to serve the club, most of the attention is on quick fixes and addressing personal preferences. The their particular style of play. In some instances, architectural modifications are necessary and the maintenance guidelines can provide a framework to analyze and implement changes. Finally, the maintenance guidelines are a useful tool to answer complaints from disgruntled golfers. It is impos­ sible to please everyone. When a golfer is upset about a particular maintenance practice on the golf course, it is better to point to the maintenance guidelines to show that the superintendent is variations. They should fairly represent the needs of all levels of players at the course. The committee should consider several factors, including course archi­ tecture, the average handicap of the golfers at their course, the available budget, tournament schedules, and the amount of play the course receives annually. By analyzing this informa­ tion, the committee should be able to provide a clear vision regarding the desired maintenance of the golf course. Then, the committee must approve a “The development of maintenance guidelines should be a cooperative effort between the superintendent, green committee, golf professional, and general manager. Once completed, the guidelines are a useful tool to communicate with golfers and compare the desired level of maintenance with the available budget resources. ” composition of the committee swings from low handicappers to high handi­ cappers, and there is never a clearly stated vision regarding the ongoing maintenance of the golf course. The venerable golf course architect Dr. Alister Mackenzie summarized it best by stating, “The history of most golf clubs is that a committee is appointed, they make mistakes, and just as they are beginning to learn by these mistakes they resign from office and are replaced by others who make still greater mis­ takes, and so it goes on.” The main­ tenance guidelines can be a valuable tool to speed the learning curve and provide guidance and continuity for future committees. Another temptation is for commit­ tees to act like golf course architects, adjusting or altering the course to suit 2 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD operating according to the plan. This makes the conversation objective and avoids personal criticism of the super­ intendent and maintenance staff. Who Determines the Guidelines? The development of the mainte­ nance guidelines should be a coop­ erative effort between the green committee, superintendent, golf pro­ fessional, and general manager. Each of these parties has a particular role to Play Green Committee: The main role of the green committee is to define the expectations for playing quality on the golf course and offer the necessary sup­ port to achieve the desired goal. The members of the committee should be thoroughly familiar with the layout of the golf course and the seasonal realistic budget that allows for the fulfillment of these expectations. Superintendent: The superintendent has the greatest influence on the play­ ability of the golf course and has the most critical role to play in the develop­ ment of the maintenance guidelines. Superintendents are often in a difficult position in trying to balance the agro­ nomic needs of the course with the expectations of the golfers. Everyone wants good quality conditions, but many do not know what they really are. The superintendent should start by discussing his or her maintenance philosophy with the committee. The superintendent should then translate the desired playing conditions into specific programs and maintenance practices based on the agronomic needs of the golf course. The super­ intendent should provide the com­ mittee with the necessary details about the maintenance operation, including agronomic conditions, equipment, materials, and labor. It is then possible to guide the discussion toward realistic expectations based on the prevailing agronomic conditions on the golf course. The superintendent then formulates a realistic maintenance plan and a budget that reflects what is needed to accomplish the desired results. Golf Professional: The golf pro­ fessional should offer constructive criticism about playing quality as it relates to the various abilities of the golfers who play the course. Since the golf professional probably has the most contact with the golfers, he or she can pass along comments and concerns about maintenance issues. Familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the golf course is important, as is a good knowledge of the Rules of Golf and course marking. The golf profes­ sional also can offer feedback on maintenance issues that affect the pace of play. General Manager: The general man­ ager should participate in all dis­ cussions, providing an overview of the golf course maintenance operation in relation to other functions at the course. The general manager should provide information and support regarding budget resources. Like the golf professional, the general manager has frequent contact with golfers and should pass along any constructive criticism that can add to the develop­ ment of the maintenance guidelines. Developing the Guidelines Since each course is different, the maintenance guidelines should reflect the specific needs of your golf course. There should be a general listing of the day-to-day maintenance practices that detail the who, what, and when of golf course maintenance. It is important to be realistic and flexible with the development of the guidelines since there is no way to account for every whim of nature. Keep the guidelines as brief as possible; there is no need to go into great detail about specific products or equipment specifications. Your regional Green Section agrono­ mist can help with the process by offering advice and recommendations on maintenance issues to determine what is right for your course. The following is a sample list of items that should be addressed as part of the maintenance guidelines. This is only a partial list, and you may wish to add topics based on the particular needs at your course. Cutting heights and mowing fre­ quencies: Since quality turf conditions are dependent on mowing frequencies, the committee and superintendent should agree on how often each area should be mowed, considering the available labor and equipment. A range of acceptable cutting heights should be prepared for all areas of the golf course that protects the agronomic condition of the turf while providing acceptable playing quality for the majority of golfers. Important factors to consider include: turf variety, height of the rough, including or excluding an intermediate rough, and mowing heights for greens, tees, and fairways. Cultivation programs: The timing and frequency of core aeration and topdressing should be mentioned in the guidelines. Details are not neces­ sary as long as there is basic infor­ mation presented to let the golfers know when cultivation practices are scheduled and what to expect. Green speed: Much has been written on the subject of green speed, but many courses go about determining the proper speed for their greens in the wrong way. It is best to first determine the proper mowing height for healthy turf, and then translate that infor­ mation into relative green speeds for regular and championship play. Due to advances in equipment technology, it is now possible to mow the greens below Vs”, but just because you can mow the greens low does not mean you should push the limit. As noted in the following table, there are times during the year when you may not want to mow the greens too low or schedule championships since this would com­ promise the health of the turf. As an example, you may wish to present the information in a manner similar to the accompanying sample table of putting green mowing heights and green speeds. Color versus playing quality: This is where a meeting of the minds is essential. The green committee, super­ intendent, golf professional, and gen­ eral manager must come to an agree­ ment on whether the maintenance priority is on promoting lush green turf or optimum playing quality. To the superintendent, this indicates the type of fertility and irrigation practices that must be implemented to achieve the desired results. Course setup: There should be some general policy on how the course should be set up each morning, includ­ ing the positioning of tee markers and rotation of hole locations. Course marking: This includes guidelines for marking ground under repair, the position of out-of-bounds and hazards on the golf course as well as how these areas are to be maintained. Bunker maintenance: In addition to the frequency of raking and trimming operations, it is good to mention other factors, such as the desired firmness and playing quality of the bunker sand, how often sand is added to the bunkers, thickness of the grass lips, and other factors. Golf cart policy: The damage caused by golf carts directly impacts course maintenance and playing quality. Any golf cart restrictions should be in­ cluded in the guidelines as a reminder to the golfers and as a guideline to the maintenance staff for course setup. Course closure for rain, frost, and winter play policy: Policies and pro­ cedures for closing the course due to inclement weather should be in­ cluded in the guidelines, along with Sample Putting Green Mowing Height and Green Speed Mowing Height Speed for Regular Play Speed for Championships Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %4" to 732" %4" tO 752" 764" tO 732" %" to 764” tO 764" 732" tO 716" 716" 716" 732" to 716" 764" to 732" 764" to 732" 764" tO 732" Fast Fast Fast Fast Fast Medium fast Medium fast Medium fast Medium fast Fast Fast Fast Medium fast Medium fast Medium fast Fast Fast Medium (not recommended) (not recommended) Medium Medium fast Medium fast Medium fast MARCH/APRIL 1997 3 who is responsible for making the determination. Environmental issues/lPM thresh­ olds: Special environmental issues that affect the maintenance of the golf course should be noted. Depending on state or local laws, there may be specific restrictions on re-entry periods after a pesticide application. Any general comments regarding IPM thresholds for weeds, insects, and diseases also are worthy of including so that the golfers are aware of the goals for your pest control program. Fairway widths and mowing con­ tours: The total acreage and width of the fairways influences the mainte­ nance and playing quality of the golf course. The larger the fairway, the more time and labor necessary for mowing and maintenance. Fairway widths and mowing contours also are a function of course architecture and can influence the pace of play. Tree maintenance: Tree mainte­ nance, or the lack of it, affects the appearance and strategy of playing the golf course. Consideration should be given to the frequency of tree pruning, how it is to be performed, and what effect it will have on playability. Guide­ lines for tree planting and the archi­ tectural significance of specific trees on the golf course also should be noted. Winter overseeding: For many courses in the southern part of the United States, the question of whether or not to overseed can have serious financial impacts. It also may be a controversial topic among golfers or club members. If winter overseeding is practiced at your course, guidelines should be developed concerning when seeding will be performed, how the grow-in period will be managed, and a description of transition programs in the spring. Putting It All Together To begin the process, the Green Committee may wish to formulate a questionnaire to get a representative idea of how golfers like to see the course maintained. After analyzing the responses, the Green Committee should meet with the superintendent, golf professional, and general manager to gather more information. Any specific problems or unusual site con­ ditions that affect maintenance should be discussed. The committee should carefully consider all aspects of the golf course and its maintenance, including architecture, agronomic requirements of the turf, the average ability of the 4 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD golfers at your course, pace of play, labor and equipment resources, sea­ sonal variations, tournament sched­ ules, and other such items. For the purposes of the guidelines, it is impor­ tant to focus on maintenance issues and separate any long-range planning items. The group can then collectively work on development of the mainte­ nance guidelines. The next step is for the superinten­ dent to take the guidelines and formu- Poor agronomic conditions such as heavy thatch and poorly drained native soil greens put limitations on the realistic expectations for course playing conditions. late a maintenance plan and budget that accurately reflects the desired mainenance level. This will require listing the required tasks and doing a detailed analysis of the labor, equip­ ment, and supplies necessary to com­ plete the work. The superintendent may wish to list different options to accomplish the goals and include information on more efficient equip­ ment or methods. It is important to be as detailed as possible when perform­ ing the analysis in order to provide realistic budget estimates. Providing a breakdown of the cost per job or per unit-area would also be useful so that any changes to the maintenance pro­ gram can be quickly calculated. After the budget is developed, an­ other meeting should be held to com­ pare the budget to the maintenance guidelines. This is where the rubber meets the road. Many committee members are shocked when they learn exactly what it takes to provide top­ quality golfing conditions. At this point, some negotiation and adjust­ ments may be in order to bring the desired maintenance level in line with the available budget resources. Once the guidelines are finalized, they should be approved by the board of directors and put to a vote of the membership. This insures stability and continuity regardless of changes in the committee or maintenance personnel. Conclusion Everyone who plays golf has an opinion and philosophy on how a golf course should be maintained. These subjective expectations are often at odds with the available resources to maintain the course. The real benefit of developing maintenance guidelines is that it allows for an objective com­ parison between the desired level of maintenance and the available budget resources. Many courses want cham­ pagne and caviar but are only willing to pay for Kool-Aid and beer nuts. The exercise of developing the maintenance guidelines also becomes an eye-open­ ing experience for the green committee, superintendent, golf professional, gen­ eral manager, and golfers by demon­ strating the many factors that go into maintaining a top-quality golf course on a consistent basis. Once the main­ tenance guidelines are developed, the green committee possesses an impor­ tant tool to communicate with golfers regarding the acceptable standards for daily maintenance and a way to respond to complaints. What is more important, the maintenance guidelines clarify the goals of the maintenance program and provide an objective standard to evaluate the golf course. It is always dangerous to assume that everyone has the same goal in mind when it comes to the conditioning of the golf course. So whenever there is any doubt, it is always better to spec it out. PATRICK J. GROSS is an agronomist in the Green Section’s Western Region. Pesticide Storage: One Step Ahead Proactive is always better than reactive. This is especially true with the planning and construction of a pesticide storage building. by GARY W. BOGDANSKI WHERE does a superintendent begin when planning to construct a new pesticide storage facility? With no definite regu­ After studying all of the recommen­ dations, I updated the basic design, which resulted in a complete, final blueprint consisting of 12 sheets. Electrical, plumbing, construction details, and even shelving locations were drawn on the layout. These details were very valuable in visualizing the final building. After presenting our final design to the County Building Department for review and approval, a building permit was issued and the contractor began construction. The Facility The new facility at The Sharon Golf Club is located approximately 140 feet from the maintenance complex. Ade­ quate separation addressed two con­ cerns: first, that operations in this building do not involve other mainte­ nance activities, and second, to elimi­ nate the possibility of a fire spreading from building to building. Only autho­ rized personnel have access to the pesticide storage building. The building was constructed with masonry block with a stick frame wood roof structure and plywood decking. The 1600 square feet consists of four rooms: two pesti­ cide storage rooms, a mix-load area, and fertilizer storage. Block walls isolate fertilizer storage from the pesti­ cide area. The walls separating all of the rooms extend completely to the roof decking to act as a fire stop. The building is entirely self-con­ tained, with no outgoing drains. Each room has a ventilation fan wired to the light switch. Signs placed on the outside walls are used to define each area as to pesticide or fertilizer storage. Telephone and alarm systems are pro­ vided to the building. Pesticide Storage Rooms Both pesticide storage rooms are identical in design with the exception of electric heat added to one room, allowing winter storage of any unused pesticide. By having two separate rooms, pesticides can be isolated in several different ways: dry or liquid, fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides. Pesticides are stored on steel shelving. A well-organized mix-load room in the pesticide storage building not only improves efficiency, but greatly adds to employee safety. lations established concerning pesti­ cide storage, a superintendent may feel somewhat bewildered as to what is considered proper storage, and may wonder if an existing or planned facility meets the requirements of future regu­ lations. Many guidelines and regulations touch on various aspects of a complete pesticide storage/handling facility, but the rules differ from state to state and agency to agency. Because the existing pesticide storage area at The Sharon Golf Club was outdated, a new pesticide and fertilizer facility was constructed using a proactive approach to the design. Getting Started Our first step in planning the new pesticide storage facility was to formu­ late a design that fit the needs of the golf course. Needs were discussed among many golf course personnel, and we reviewed the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) of the particular chemicals stored at The Sharon Golf Club. MSDS aid in defining the type of storage that is required. In our case, the local fire department, zoning de­ partment, and county building depart­ ment govern the actual building struc­ ture that is required, based on what will be stored. I designed the storage facility by using a computer-aided design (CAD) system. CAD facilitated the numerous changes that were made to the design before the final presentation. I drew a very basic design after review­ ing the guidelines offered by a number of information sources. I then solicited input on the design from all agencies that had jurisdiction regarding this type of facility. We also considered the laws of other states, since it is possible that some of these laws may be imple­ mented at some point in the future. Each room has two sets of doors. One door opens directly into the mix-load area. The second door opens to the outside, which is a fire code require­ ment. Each of the two pesticide storage rooms has a six-inch step-down, secondary containment area that is capable of holding 500 gallons. The floors and the first six inches of the walls are a monolith concrete, pour- coated to protect it from pesticide ex­ posure. A Tennessee Valley Authority acceptable concrete coating of phenolic epoxy was applied in four layers for a total of 15 mils thick. The first two layers are colored differently from the top coats. This color difference allows a contrast to appear if the integrity of the coating begins to wear thin. The ceilings of the pesticide storage rooms are two layers of 7s" fire code drywall. Even though the majority of substances stored are not combustible, the ceiling does provide a fire wall. Here again, the MSDS determines the type of construction. To achieve the best possible air flow, we exceeded the minimum ventilation requirements set by OSHA. Our state division of safety and hygiene was helpful in suggesting appropriate methods. Each room has a corrosion­ 6 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD resistant fan connected to the light switch that is mounted outside the room. Positive ventilation is then assured upon entering the room. The fans are ducted to within 16" of the floor to remove vapors that are heavier than air. Natural ventilation is achieved by the placement of open louvers mounted through the block wall. The louvers in the storage rooms have fusible links that close in the event of fire. Mix-Load Area The mix-load room is used to fill the sprayers and collect rinseate for recycling. The room is large enough to accommodate parking of all the appli­ cation equipment. The concrete floor is coated with the same phenolic epoxy, but sand was added between coatings to provide a non-skid surface. The saw­ cut joints are filled with an epoxy caulk to seal and maintain a secondary con­ tainment system. This containment area can hold about 600 gallons. An article by Ronald T. Noyes on the specifications of mix-load pads and rinseate systems is included in the MWPS 37 publication (see source table). The floor is sloped toward the center, to a stainless-steel trough that is con­ nected to a stainless-steel sump. The uniquely designed sump is a double­ lined, stainless-steel double sump. An inspection tube, permitting visual verification of a sump leak, is located between the sump and outside lining. The first sump is a settling sump with a strainer basket to catch large debris. An overflow pipe located near the bottom of the first sump allows rinseate to flow to the second sump, from which a pickup tube runs to a stainless-steel transfer pump. Three 55-gallon tanks constructed of high-density polyethylene are mounted on an overhead rack. Tanks with conical bottoms were used to allow for complete drainage of the tanks and any settled particles. By having more than one tank and separate valves for each tank, the rinseate can be segregated into such categories as fungicides, insecticides, herbicides, or any possible combinations of materials. Keeping the tank size small ensures quicker processing rather than accumulating large amounts of rinseate. Because we used translucent tanks, the amount of rinseate can be verified at a glance. The rinseate is pumped up into the tanks and dispensed via gravity. An overhead boom can be swung out and placed in the spray tank. When the appropriate valve is opened, the rinseate tank is emptied. A fourth valve can be used to pump rinseate directly from the sump to a spray tank. Irrigation water is used to fill spray equipment utilizing a dif­ ferent overhead boom. The end of the boom has a droop hose with a cam lock fitting, and couples directly to the sprayer’s anti-siphon valve. The mix-load room is equipped with an emergency shower, eyewash station, and first-aid kit. A stainless-steel counter and sink provide an area for small container mixing and hand washing. All plumbing fixtures drain into the rinseate sump. A frost hydrant was installed for cold weather use. The potable water used to supply the building is protected by a back-flow prevention device. Future plans include an open mixing system to process water-soluble fertilizers. Fertilizer and Seed Storage The majority of fertilizer used at The Sharon Golf Club is granular. In Ohio, regulations for this type of fertilizer are very basic. The material is to be stored indoors on a dry, impermeable surface. Previously, we stored fertilizer where the equipment was parked. This type of storage frequently resulted in the equipment damaging the fertilizer bags and spilling fertilizer. By includ­ ing the fertilizer storage in the new building, the material is isolated from damage. The fertilizer storage area is consistent with typical warehouse storage. We allowed plenty of area around the building for delivery truck unloading. Along one wall is an 18-ton capacity pallet racking, allowing for fertilizer pallets to be stacked with a fork lift truck. On the opposite side of the wall, steel shelving with a three-ton capacity is used to store individual bags. All of the fertilizer application equipment is stored in this room. Seed is stored in metal garbage cans that provide protection from rodent damage. Each can is labeled as to the type of grass seed. A hanging warehouse scale is used to measure out small amounts of seed or fertilizer. This area is furnished with an emergency eyewash unit. Conclusion The construction of a modem pesti­ cide facility is directly related to the type of material to be stored. From the MSDS various requirements can be determined: for example, fire pro­ tection systems, special electrical re­ quirements, community right-to-know, emergency planning, and employee handling procedures. We keep one copy of the MSDS where the product is stored and another at the mainte­ nance building office. A good way to start on a new facility is to make a list of possible information sources and then contact them to ask questions and solicit information. Use this knowledge to develop your own storage facility. Even though our new facility incorpo­ rates more safety features than are required by Ohio laws, we want to be one step ahead. GARY BOGDANSKI is the equipment manager at The Sharon Golf Club in Sharon Center, Ohio. He’s responsible for the maintenance of all equipment and buildings at this northern Ohio club. Sources Contacted for Guidelines on Pesticide and Fertilizer Storage at The Sharon Golf Club The sources shown are to be used as a guide only. Contacts will vary according to the state and county in which you are located. Source Guidelines Received EPA’s Pesticide Program implemented by the Ohio Department of Agriculture. Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA) Lawrence, Kansas 66049 Medina County Emergency Management Agency Sharon, Ohio Midwest Agricultural Chemicals Association (MACA) P.O. Box 2125 Northside Station Sioux City, Iowa 51104 Midwest Plan Service (MWPS) Iowa State University Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Dept. 122 Davidson Hall Ames, Iowa 50011 Sharon Center Fire Department Sharon, Ohio Regulates the EPA’s Pesticide Program concerning use and storage, Ohio pesticide law Quinn, Patrick. “Standards for Pesticide Storage Buildings,” Golf Course Management, July 1990 Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, Pesticide Storage Facilities, Greentips fact sheet Emergency response planning, National Fire Codes Booklet: “The ‘How To’s’ of Agricultural Chemical Storage” Kammel, David, R. Noyes, G. Riskowski, and V. Hofman. “Designing Facilities for Pesticide and Fertilizer Containment,” First Edition, 1991. MWPS-37 publication State and local fire codes St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (The Sharon Golf Club insurance company) Received information and input from the Risk Management Department State Division of Safety and Hygiene Ohio Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Environmental Research Center Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35662 State funded, on-site consultation service addressing OSHA issues Broder, Michael E, and D. T. Nguyen. “Coating Concrete Secondary Containment Structures Exposed to Agrichemicals.” Tennessee Valley Authority, June 1995. Circular Z-361. MARCH/APRIL 1997 7 The Kiwis Have It Right! Golfers in New Zealand are being influenced by American maintenance standards viewed on television. Is it right or wrong? by LARRY GILHULY CAN YOU IMAGINE a location on Earth where golf is played for the fun of it? Where it costs only a few dollars or less for 18 holes? Where fairway irrigation isn’t found on most golf courses, hence the courses play fast and firm? Where greens are now mowed as low as the dust on a hardwood floor and where bentgrass still dominates the putting surfaces? Where annual budgets are well below $100,000 and many courses are main­ tained by only one to three employees? It still exists in the wonderful land called New Zealand, but you’d better hurry before it all comes to an end! The American Influence Turn on your TV any weekend and you will observe an agronomic deli­ catessen prepared for the greatest men, women, and senior players in the world. Weeks, months, and, in some cases, years of advance planning have peaked these golf courses for the players and television cameras. The unfortunate side-effect of TV golf has been the trickle-down desire of private, resort, and public players to have the same type of conditions on their course as seen at the latest Tour event. In America, the battle to educate golfers continues; however, the real tragedy is the influence TV golf is having on golfers away from our shores. With the introduction of Sky television into New Zealand, the over-green, over-watered, over-budgeted, and expensive game of American golf is starting to influence maintenance practices there. The New Zealand Influence For a number of reasons, golf and its maintenance in New Zealand are conducted in a manner that is better for the game. Smiles abound despite the inevitable mishits, grumbling about course conditions is minimal when compared to the cacophony of com­ 8 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD plaints registered at many U.S. courses, and many courses are mowed by sheep! 1. Golf is affordable. It is very common to pay $250 per month or more to play golf in many parts of the U.S. This is after the invitation fee that can often range from $5,000 to $100,000. In New Zealand, $250 NZ pays for the entire year! That is affordable golf! 2. Green is not the dominant color on golf courses. With the lack of irri­ gation systems for the fairways and roughs, native browntop dominates the golf course in most cases. The golf courses play fast and firm on some­ times-dormant bentgrass fairways, while Poa annua often does not have the opportunity to make a strong foot­ hold compared to courses with the added expense of an irrigation system. 3. The New Zealand Sports Turf Institute agronomists. This group of highly trained turf consultants ranks as high as any group of agronomists in the world. Those responsible for the maintenance of golf courses, sports fields, and lawn bowling are very fortunate to have the services of these individuals at a very affordable cost. 4. Reasonable putting green mow­ ing heights. This is another area where overseas TV is causing a negative change in New Zealand golfing circles. By maintaining slightly high mowing heights while striving for smooth, rather than fast, surfaces, the native browntop bents continue to thrive. Unfortunately, the desire for fast greens, as seen on Sky TV, is beginning to change green populations to higher percentages of annual bentgrass. The combination of green color and fast greens does not bode well for the future of golf in New Zealand if affordable golf remains the ultimate goal! 5. Minimal chemical usage. With the lack of fairway irrigation, slightly higher putting green mowing heights, low cost of golf, a generally benign climate, and lower expectation levels by the players, golf in New Zealand does not require the chemical inputs that are common at high-budget courses in the United States. Chemicals are used; however, environmental issues currently are of no great con­ cern. If the current trend toward the color green continues, the increased use of water and plant protectants will inevitably lead to environmental questions. 6. Reduced fertilizer use. As with the use of chemicals, fertilizers are used far less in New Zealand than in the U.S. By providing minimal inputs to turf growth, labor costs and mowing requirements can be controlled. Un­ fortunately, as the game becomes in­ creasingly popular and green the color most desired, fertilizer usage and costs will escalate, thus moving New Zealand further from affordable golf. 7. The lack of motorized power carts. Let’s face it. Power carts are here to stay in the U.S., but we should not be exporting the idea that golf is meant to be played while riding! Golf is meant for walking, and that is what New Zealand golf is all about. What a refreshing change to see virtually every player walking the course, carrying on a conversation between shots, and getting exercise at the same time. Also, the endless ribbons of gravel, asphalt, and concrete are certainly not missed! 8. The lack of automatic irrigation systems. The overall climate in New Zealand is very similar to the Pacific Northwest. Given the mild climate and the desire to make golf affordable, many golf courses in New Zealand do not possess automatic irrigation systems for the fairways and roughs. While some of the expandable clays can make playing conditions unaccept­ able, the alternate solution of automatic With natural features like these, who needs bunkers, water, or trees? irrigation will ultimately lead to the ruination of golf in New Zealand as it is played today! Bold words, indeed; however, consider the initial positive point about affordable golf. As soon as an automatic irrigation system is installed, the expectation levels of the players will rise accordingly. The superintendent will be put under great pressure to produce a green golf course, thereby leading to overwater­ ing, overfertilizing, increased annual bluegrass, increased chemical usage, and a golf course that will play much longer than in “the good old days.” Costs will rise substantially, and affordable golf will cease to exist. Only those who resist the temptation of overusing the new irrigation system will have a chance to keep costs in line! 9. Good playing conditions are provided with very little funding. The golf course superintendents in New Zealand must be hard working, resourceful, and willing to put up with more than their American counter­ parts. Staff sizes generally run from one to three, with five to six representing the extreme. Many courses have only two or three mowers for the entire 18 holes. Budgets are well under $100,000 NZ (about $70,000 U.S.). Salaries are low, and many superintendents are not even invited to the green committee meet­ ings! Despite all of this, superinten­ dents produce playing conditions that are quite good, and in some cases, superior to those found in the U.S. If the trend continues, the “bump and run” may become the “bump and splat”! 10. Many courses are maintained by sheep. Where else can you go where virtually every small town has golf at a rate that is affordable for all levels of income? By combing nature’s lawn­ mowers and allowing local rules to dictate preferred lies, golf in its truest form can be enjoyed without the high cost of mowers, fertilizer, chemicals, and labor. While many of the sheep- grazed courses may not be mistaken for Augusta National, they do present exactly what golf is all about — camaraderie, challenge, and fun! Is the grass always greener on the other side? It is if you are comparing the color of golf in America to New Zealand. But is this right? Should golf be played on immaculate fields of green that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, or is it meant to be more affordable and more rough around the edges? Every golf course must answer this question individually, but I, for one, believe the Kiwis have it right! LARRY GILHULY is the Western Director for the USGA Green Section. He provides information on golf course management from the Alaskan fjords to the swaying palms of Hawaii, with the Pacific North­ west in between. MARCH/APRIL 1997 9 The turbulence created as water passes the end of the wall that is used to control shoreline erosion will begin to back-flush soil from behind the structure. This process is exacerbated when flood waters flow over the top of the wall. In the end, these walls usually collapse, or the soil behind them must be continually replaced. TAMING WILD WATERS Using soft engineering principles to control erosion and create a wildlife habitat. by LON MIKKELSEN WHO AMONG US has not had a perfect round of golf spoiled by an errant shot landing in a water hazard? The truth is, most golfers consider streams and lakes to be nothing more than obstacles. In fact, if it weren’t for the occasional complaint about the grass not being mowed to the water’s edge, golfers probably would not give water hazards any serious thought. In reality, streams often play multiple roles in the golf course landscape. The most obvious is that they are used by golf course architects to add challenge to the course layout. As significant as this role is to the game, an even more important role is the ability of a stream to contain and release surface and sub­ surface runoff water from the course. 10 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD For a stream to function properly in the golf course landscape, certain criteria should be taken into account during its design and routing. These criteria can be broadly divided into two categories — structural and environmental. From a structural perspective, the design of a stream should take into consideration shoreline erosion, sedi­ ment accumulation, cost of mainte­ nance, public safety, ground stability around bridge foundations, and downstream flooding. From an environmental perspective, wildlife habitat, noxious weed proliferation, and the transport of pesticides and fertilizers are crucial concerns. Until recently, the relationship be­ tween structural and environmental design criteria was either discounted or, worse yet, completely ignored. This failure gave birth to single-objective designs that, in many cases, have had recurring financial consequences. Single-objective designs are those that take into consideration a single criterion and generally ignore the multitude of forces that cause a stream’s personality to change over time. Using structural criteria, an example of a single-objective stream design would be one that focuses on shoreline erosion above all other criteria. This design is very common and can be found on most golf courses. The conspicuous feature of this design is a fixed, vertical wall constructed with available materials, such as gabion cages, con­ crete or railroad ties. The Achilles’ heel of a fixed, vertical wall is that it sometimes limits the cross-sectional area of a stream channel during peak flow. This limitation causes the velocity of the water to increase through the restricted area. By increas­ ing the velocity of the water, it has a greater capacity to pick up sediment, thereby down-cutting the streambed. After several flood cycles, the floor of the streambed is lowered and the water then begins under-cutting the founda­ tion of the wall. If the foundation of the wall is not undermined because, for example, the streambed is solid rock, then the turbulence created as the rapidly moving water passes the end of the wall will begin to back-flush soil from behind the wall. This process is exacerbated when flood water also spills over the top of the wall. In the end, walls used to control shoreline erosion eventually collapse, or the soil behind them must be replaced continually. Problems also can develop by using single-objective design criteria. A case in point would be the artificial creation of spawning areas for various fish species. If the hydrology of the stream is not fully understood, the spawning areas could quickly disappear. In the process of creating these spawning areas and other wildlife habitat, the stream channel is usually modified. During normal storm events, the stream acts like a conveyor belt, drop­ ping sediment into the spawning areas. The starting point for designing a successful stream or restoring a de­ graded one is to examine the drainage basin (watershed) on which the golf course resides. Keep in mind that the size and shape of a stream channel are largely influenced by the characteristics of the watershed. Prior to urbanization, a watershed has the capacity to store, and then slowly release, large quantities of sur­ face runoff — much like a sponge. As urban development occurs, the charac­ teristics of a watershed (i.e., the water’s routing, volume, and velocity) usually change. In developing or urbanized landscapes, watersheds tend to lose their retentive ability as an increasing percentage of rainfall lands on imper­ vious surfaces, such as rooftops and pavement. Once in contact with these surfaces, the water usually is inter­ cepted by a pipe or ditch that routes it directly to a nearby stream. The cumulative effect of decreased water retention throughout a watershed can greatly increase the peak flow of the receiving stream channel. Thus, the impact of urbanization on waterways has ranged from minor stream bank and shoreline erosion to catastrophic flood damage and stream channel degradation. Except for direct modifications by man, streams change in response to drainage events, which are caused by storms and intensified by urbanization. While the interval between storms is somewhat erratic, the pace of urbani­ zation proceeds at a relatively steady rate. Thus, changes in a stream’s hydro- logical personality are somewhat pre­ dictable, but may lag behind urbani­ zation’s effect on storm water drainage. In addition, it often takes many drain­ age events before urbanization changes are fully manifested in stream channels. Many of our watersheds are now undergoing a rapid rate of change. The unsteady nature of an urbanized stream causes more than channel alterations. It forces a change in the way golf courses are managed. Green commit­ tees, superintendents, and golf course architects have to reevaluate course play, infrastructure, and course layout. These reevaluations are necessary when the current hydrology (stream flow) is no longer supported by the stream channel. The old stream chan­ nel must adjust to increase its capacity to convey flows resulting from altered hydrology. Channel widening and down-cutting, bank erosion, sediment deposition, loss of vegetation, and undermining of bridge and wall foun­ dations are just a few of the responses one can expect from a stream’s chang­ ing hydrological personality. Added to the typical structural problems is an increasing awareness of environmental issues and a need to incorporate them into any restoration project. Creating and maintaining buffer zones along streams and lakes to lessen the impacts of pesticides and fertilizers, erosion and sediment con­ trol, and creating or enhancing habi­ tat for fish and wildlife are just a few considerations imposed on course managers when designing or under­ taking stream and lakeside restoration projects. Realizing the potential effects of urbanization on a watershed, it may be helpful to work with city, county, and state agencies and planning boards. By working in a cooperative manner, the peak flow down a water channel can be controlled by periodically storing storm water in available flood plains. Such flood plains can be incorporated into a watershed by including them in the design of parks and golf courses, or by adding retention reservoirs down­ stream from large impervious surfaces, such as shopping mall parking lots. Traditional methods of preventing bank erosion are becoming outdated in many cases, since they do not address a full list of structural and environ­ mental concerns. The challenges posed to design and restoration professionals have developed into a need to provide multi-objective designs that resist erosion and address environmental concerns. The development of soft engineering principles is a natural out­ come of these events. Soft engineering is based on the philosophy of working with nature by examining a stream’s natural communi­ cators and understanding its hydro- logical personality, both present and future. To prevent catastrophic shore­ line erosion and create a stable wildlife habitat, construction materials must be selected for each section of a stream channel based on the water velocity and flow characteristics. After the stream channel has been constructed, a broad range of native riparian vege­ tation must be established to provide a highly resistant erosion barrier. In some cases, the fundamental elements of soft engineering must be adjusted to avoid conflict with golf course management considerations. These considerations include the prim­ ing of vegetation to prevent obstruction of play, shading of greens and tees, and/or maintaining viewing corridors. The merits of soft engineering designs include relatively low-cost erosion protection, habitat enhancement, water quality improvement, and a natural appearance. Designing stream channels that are a true asset to the architectural theme of a course, that resist shoreline ero­ sion, and provide valuable wildlife habitat is an ominous challenge. To be successful, the design must consider multiple structural and environmental objectives. If these objectives are not carefully balanced using soft engineer­ ing principles, the eventual result will be a catastrophe — either structural or environmental. LON MIKKELSEN is a principal with Inter-Fluve, Inc., located in Hood River, Oregon. Over the past 12 years, Inter- Fluve, Inc., has restored or created more than 350 miles of stream channels and hundreds of acres of lakes and wetlands in urban and rural environments. MARCH/APRIL1997 11 GREEN SPEED PHYSICS The laws of physics applied to golf course maintenance practices. by ARTHUR P. WEBER MOST ALL putting greens are neither level nor plane, some being more or less severely contoured and sloped than others. Consequently, Stimpmeter readings, taken over such dissimilar surface profiles, correlate the most influential of which would be the height of cut, are the morphological and growing characteristics of the turfgrass species, the turf density and uniformity, the thatch layer, the dimpling pattern and the construction of the golf ball, the season, the wetness, even the time of day. Despite the influence of these variables and others, the green speeds of “as built” undulating greens can, with reasonable accuracy, be articulated and prepared analogous to the benchmark green speed indices from Stimpmeter measurements taken on level greens. Level Putting Surfaces The mathematical parameters and variables affecting the energy conservation relationships, when making Stimpmeter measurements on a reasonably level putting surface, are depicted in Fig. 1, where: W = weight of golf ball, 1.62 oz. H = height of Stimpmeter notch above horizontal upon golfball release, in. 0 = angularity of Stimpmeter notch above horizontal upon golf ball release, 20.5 deg. L = Stimpmeter length, 36 in. Vj = initial golf ball velocity across the putting surface from the foot of the Stimpmeter, ft./sec. Vo = final velocity of golf ball after rolling across the putting surface to a stop, zero S = Stimpmeter reading, ft. f = coefficient of friction between rolling balls and the putting surface, dimensionless g = gravitational acceleration constant, 32.2 ft./sec. Only S and f, as a function of S, are variable; the other parameters, in addition to W, 0, L, and g, remain constant, to wit: H = LsinO (1) = (36)(sin 20.5) = (36)(0.350) = 12.6 in. and subsequently, the total Potential Energy, PE, stored in the golf ball prior to release down the Stimpmeter is: PE = WH (2) = (1.62)(12.6) =20.4 in.-oz. differently as a linear measure of green speed. That is to say, green speed ratings, popularized as they have been by averaging Stimpmeter measurements taken on reasonably level greens, do not fairly and accurately serve as speed indices common to all putting greens. Rather, by preparing an “as built” green to Stimpmeter readings adjusted for its inherent angularities, uniformity of speed can prevail from green to green, stabilizing the composures of golfers and green superintendents in the process. By mathematically interpreting the physics fundamental to a golf ball rolling over a putting green upon release from a Stimpmeter, indices are derived, as angularity-consistent measures of speed rating characteristic of “as-built” slow-to- fast greens. These indices are graphically plotted to facilitate their use by golf course superintendents, golf committees, tournament officials, and the like. Modeling Golf Ball Roll The coefficient of friction between a golf ball and the putting green surface over which it rolls can be quantified by using a Conservation of Energy model as the computational basis for analysis. Stimpmeter measurements, supplemented by green slope measurements over which the Stimpmeter readings are made, are fundamental to the applicability of such an analysis to all putting greens, no matter their angularities or undulations, however severe. When coefficient of friction values result from Stimpmeter measurements either taken on or normalized to level greens, the measurements range from a low of about 6 feet for what are categorized to be slow greens to a high of about 12 feet for fast greens. But therein lies a rub, because all greens are not level; rather, they are architecturally contoured with slopes, if not marginally, for drainage. Moreover, few putting green slopes are unidirectional; most are compound con­ toured. Notwithstanding, golf course putting green speeds can be equalized and controlled, over the full range of slow- to-fast, by correlating Stimpmeter and putting green slope readings to coefficient of friction values. Said another way, using Stimpmeter measurements made on level greens as numerical benchmarks to characterize slow-to-fast greens, Stimpmeter readings can be indexed for all 18 golf course greens, having first surveyed their angularities, to comparatively measure up to a desired benchmark speed. Coefficient of Friction For the purpose of the analysis, the coefficient of friction can be generalized to encompass, without distinction, the static, dynamic, and rolling coefficients of friction that prevail during the putt of a golf ball starting at rest and rolling to a stop. It can be normalized to an all-inclusive parameter because of its dependence on many variables. Among them, 12 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD but only a part of which becomes vectorially carried horizontally as an equivalent Kinetic Energy, KE, at velocity, Vb or: KE = PE cos 0 (3) = (20.4)(cos 20.5) = (20.4)(0.937) = 19.1 in.-oz. the remaining potential energy 20.4 -19.1 = 1.3 in.-oz. being dissipated as the golf ball impacts vertically to the putting surface from the foot of the Stimpmeter. However: KE = if W or in 1 _ 1 iy i" 2 (32.2 x 12) vi 1-62__ V2 V = V(19.1)(2)(32.2)(12) = 9515 in./sec. 1.62 (4) The Kinetic Energy is all dissipated by frictional resistance as the golf ball rolls to a stop from V to Vo along the Stimp­ meter reading. Hence: KE = WSf or 19.1= 1.62Sf (5) and transposing the coefficient of friction as a function of the Stimpmeter reading is signified by: _ (19.1) " 12 1 _ 0.983 (1.62 S) ~ S (6) Typical calculated values deriving from Equ(6) are: S, feet 5.0 6.0 8.5 11.0 12.5 f 0.197 0.164 0.116 0.089 0.079 These values can be plotted (see Fig. 2) to establish the coefficient of friction, f, for all Stimpmeter readings, S, taken on a reasonably level surface. f . L J NJ p _ _ N _ NJ 1_ p O _ _ '*-* O O 1_ _ O _ , _ n * O 1_ >- J o i 0 t c i r F f o _ _ * ^ 1_ >- 4 _ C _ J _ 1_ N O _ _ * O 1_ L o J - _ O _ O p 1_ O _ _ J _ O O 1_ 0 _ ^ _ I_ O O 4 t n e i c i f f e o C / Figure 2 ■ 4 । 5 । 6 । 7 । 8 । 9 । 10 । ■ 11 12 ■ 13 । 14 Stimpmeter Reading on Level Surface, S, Feet Obtaining a realistic Stimpmeter reading on a green that is not level provides challenges to get a number that is representative of the true surface conditions. MARCH/APRIL1997 13 Downsloped Putting Surfaces A similar analysis can be made for a downsloped putting surface, as depicted in Fig. 3. As before, the Potential Energy initially being carried vectorially by the golf ball, as it rolls off from the base of the Stimpmeter, = WHcosO. However, as the ball rolls down along the slope to its stopping point, where Vo = 0, additional PE is acquired by the golf ball the steeper the downslope angle 6, the value of which is: Accordingly, where S4 is the Stimpmeter reading taken downhill, the total Potential Energy to be dissipated by friction will be: From the afore-calculated values of the coefficient of friction, f, over a range of slow to fast Stimpmeter readings taken on a level putting surface, S, the following equivalent values of S 4 can be calculated from Equ. 11, based upon the prevailing downslope angle. s 0° 5.0 6.0 8.5 f 0.197 0.164 0.116 0.089 11.0 0.079 12.5 1° 5.48 6.71 9.98 13.8 16.0 2° 6.07 7.62 12.1 18.2 22.3 S4 3° 6.78 8.78 15.4 26.6 36.4 4° 7.74 10.5 22.1 51.8 109 5° 8.94 12.8 33.9 492 00 6° 10.8 16.4 81.9 00 00 Again, these calculated values can be plotted as a family of curves representing the tabulated downslope angles and interpolated in between to establish downhill Stimpmeter readings and, therefore, putting green speeds comparable to such readings and speeds on a level surface. See Fig. 4. The calculated Stimpmeter reading becomes infinite, e.g. the ball will not stop rolling downhill, when in Equ. 11 sin 0 cos becomes equal to or greater than the coefficient of friction, f. Then WH cos 0 + WX cos = WS4f But, X = S 4* sin Or, (8) (9) ™= oo (12) f-sincos Figure 4 Stimpmeter Reading on Downsloped Surface, S 4, Feet 14 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD f 0.197 0.164 0.116 0.089 0.079 S 5.0 6.0 8.5 11.0 12.5 Limiting Downslope Angle 11°-40' 9° - 40' 6° - 30' 5° -10' 4° - 30' These values are plotted in Fig. 5_to establish the limiting downslope angles for all values of S. Upsloped Green Surfaces Conversely, for golfballs rolling uphill, Stimpmeter reading St, Equ. 12 becomes St = 118 f+sin