USGA9 GREEN SECTION ~B|

Record

September/October 2000

Volume 38, Number 5 

Evaluating 
Irrigation 
Systems

A PUBLICATION ON TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT

BY THE UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION0

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000 
Volume 38, Number 5

Cover Photo:
On-site weather stations and 
computer controls help the turf 
manager more precisely determine 
how much water to apply to 
the golf course turf.

USGA’ GREEN SECTION TB

Record

1
Does Your Irrigation System Make The Grade?
A guide to help evaluate factors 
influencing irrigation system performance. 
By Mike Huck

Winter protection of annual bluegrass 
golf greens is often a necessity to ensure 
that extensive winterkill doesn’t occur.
See page 11.

6
Aquifer Golf
Imagine a world where a golf course can coexist with a 
municipal water supply and not be the center of constant protest. 
By Frank A. Rendulic, CGCS

8
And The Survey Says ...
Converting to creeping bentgrass fairways should be based 
on sound economics and environmental consciousness. 
By Paul Vermeulen

11
Winter Protection of Annual Bluegrass Golf Greens 
How protective covers can reduce winter damage to putting greens. 
By Julie Dionne

14
Understanding Water Quality 
and Guidelines to Management 
An overview of challenges for water usage 
on golf courses for the 21st century. 
By R. R. Duncan, R. N. Carrow, and M. Huck

25
Back to Basics:
Restoring Playability and Native Wildlife Habitats
Is your golf course planning to undertake a renovation 
or restoration project? Now is the time to plan for 
environmental and wildlife enhancements.
By Fred Yarrington

27
News Notes

28
Perfection Is Not Attainable!
However, setting reasonable goals can allow 
for an objective evaluation of course conditions. 
By Keith Happ

The availability and distribution of fresh 
water will be a widely debated issue in 
the 21st century. See page 14.

30
Turf Twisters

Performing a catch-can test provides data on nozzle and sprinkler performance as it relates to application uniformity.

Does Your Irrigation System 
Make The Grade?
A guide to help evaluate factors influencing irrigation system performance.

by MIKE HUCK

Most golfers quickly 

recognize poor irrigation 
coverage by the obvious—the 
number and size of both wet and dry 

areas throughout the course. However, 
very few understand the many factors 
that affect an irrigation system’s ability 
to apply water uniformly.

routine maintenance should sustain 
acceptable performance. Annual adjust­
ment of pumps, pressure regulators, 
leveling of low heads to avoid sur­
rounding turf interference with spray 
patterns, and replacement of worn 
nozzles or any other damaged compo­
nents must be ongoing.

First and foremost, proper design 
and installation are critical. Hydraulics, 
head spacing, nozzle selection, control 
capabilities, and climate all must be 
considered in the design process. If any 
one area is lacking, performance suf­
fers. If one is fortunate enough to al­
ready have a good system in place, then 

Outdated systems present another 
set of problems with aging hardware 
resulting in major failures of pumps, 
controllers, mainlines, and fittings that 
can cause large areas of turf loss. To 
counter such problems, a daily ritual of 
many superintendents is to spot water, 
repair leaks, and continually adjust 

controllers — turning them up to 
reduce dry spots one day, and down 
the next to control wet spots. So much 
time is spent compensating for system 
inadequacies and inefficiencies that 
little time is left for other duties and the 
staff is constantly putting out fires. It is 
no wonder that irrigation systems are 
often nicknamed irritation systems'.

The Report Card Evaluation

Understanding and evaluating fac­
tors that influence irrigation system 
performance is the first step towards 
improving overall performance. To 
understand the system’s weaknesses 

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000

1

and evaluate where improvement is 
needed, consider completing an irriga­
tion system report card. The report 
card can help golf course decision 
makers understand the various factors 
affecting irrigation system performance 
and guide them in developing improve­
ment plans. This suggested method 1) 
identifies a system that will satisfy your 
needs, 2) considers historical perfor­
mance of the existing system, 3) evalu­
ates the existing system’s condition as 
compared to a state-of-the-art design, 
and 4) suggests actions to consider

3) More than one pumping plant or 
piping system services different seg­
ments of the golf course.

A grade average can be determined 
following each step and appropriate 
plans to bring the system up to an 
acceptable grade that will satisfy your 
overall needs (as identified in step one) 
can then be developed. Understand 
that it may not be possible to improve 
every factor to the highest possible “A” 
grade, but raising any particular area 
one or more letter grade can make a 
difference.

Is this system state of the art or in a state of disrepair? Evaluating your system 
is the first step in determining where improvements should be made or if the 
system needs to be upgraded or replaced.

based upon a final grade point average 
(GPA).

Before beginning the process, assem­
ble a rating team comprised of the golf 
course superintendent, green commit­
tee, general manager, and golf profes­
sional. The rating team then will 
evaluate several specific areas and 
assign grades from “A,” reflecting ex­
cellent performance, to “F,” indicating 
failure for each factor listed on the 
report card, a system we are all familiar 
with from our school days.

In most cases, one grade for perfor­
mance of the entire irrigation system 
will be adequate, but in some cases a 
hole-by-hole grading may be necessary 
if:

1) Modifications affecting the irriga­
tion system have been made on indi­
vidual or various holes.

2) Significant elevation changes 
occur across the property that affect 
operating pressures.

2

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

Step 1: Determine the Grade 
of an Irrigation System That 
Will Satisfy Your Needs

The level of sophistication needed 
for an irrigation system varies regionally 
depending upon factors such as: 1) 
golfer expectations for turf quality and 
course conditioning, 2) labor and 
budget resources, and 3) climate. Not 
every location requires (or can justify) 
an “A” system that includes all the 
whistles, buttons, and bells that cur­
rently are available. Using the following 
factors, an average grade can be devel­
oped that should satisfy your overall 
needs.

Golfer Expectations: Golfers’ expec­
tations and acceptance of manual 
watering, wet and dry areas, general 
turf quality, and playing conditions are 
summarized as:

•A: Must look and play like the 
latest televised event. Golfers accept 
hand watering of greens only.

• B: Excellent conditioning, firm, 
fast conditions with an occasional wet 
or dry area. Golfers accept occasional 
spot watering on greens, tees, and fair­
ways.

• C: Good conditions with moderate 
numbers of wet or dry spots. Golfers 
accept daily spot watering of fairways, 
tees, and greens to minimize problem 
areas.

• D: Fair to poor conditions, with 
numerous wet and dry areas develop­
ing when relying on sprinklers alone. 
Many hose-end sprinklers run during 
the day to maintain acceptable con­
ditions.

• F: Very poor; large wet and dry 
areas that require manual irrigation of 
large areas daily. Uniform soil moisture 
and turf color are only possible with 
rain.

Labor and Budget: To offset system 
inefficiencies, use of manual irrigation 
with hoses and portable sprinklers is 
often necessary, and this can require 
significant labor and budget additions. 
The following criteria can be used to 
determine the grade of the system 
needed to provide acceptable condi­
tions based upon budget and labor 
availability:

• A: Shoestring; must rely on the 
irrigation system entirely. Only have 
time to mow and set up the course for 
play.

• B: Limited; can hand water dry 
spots on greens and collars. Not much 
time to spot water tees or fairways.

• C: Moderate; can put out a few 
roller-base portable sprinklers on tees 
and fairways and hand water greens 
and collars as required.

• D: Large; can hide all the inefficien­
cies of the system with hand watering 
and numerous portable sprinklers.

• F: Infinite; we can hand water the 

entire property if necessary.

Climate: The sophistication of the 
irrigation system needed is directly 
related to the climate. The length of 
time between rainfall events and the 
amount of natural rainfall, along with 
peak daily ET (evapotranspiration) re­
placement requirements, must be con­
sidered. Based upon the following 
climate descriptions, the grade of irri­
gation system needed is:

Peak Daily ET Climate/ 
Replacement Expected 
in Inches 

Precipitation

• A: >0.30 

Dry desert climates,
with several months 
between significant 
rain (<15" annually).

• B: 0.20-0.30 Interior plains and 

valleys with hot, dry 
summers. Regular 
showers are expected 
every three to four 
weeks (15”-25" 
annually).

• C: 0.15-0.20 Transitional regions 

with high summer 
temperatures and 
rain expected every 
one to two weeks 
(25"-35" annually).

• D: 0.10-0.15 Coastal climates with 
considerable fog, and 
northern temperate 
regions with moder­
ate temperatures.
Weekly rainfall (35"- 
45" annually).

• F: <0.10 Our course is located 

in a rainforest; we 
receive rain just 
about daily (>45" 
annually).

Step 2: Historical Performance

After determining the grade of a 
system that will satisfy your needs, 
establish an average grade for the 
overall performance of the irrigation 
system over the past five years. Ask 
questions such as: With the existing 
irrigation system, has the staff been 
able to a) keep the turf healthy all of 
the time, b) keep the course green most 
of the time, c) keep the course firm and 
playable most of the time? Has the 
system been reliable and not cost an 
excessive amount of money to main­
tain? In short, the irrigation system 
over the past five years has:

• A: Met or exceeded expectations at 

all times.

• B: Met expectations most of the 

time.

• C: Met expectations some of the 

time.

• D: Consistently fell below expec­

tations.

• F: Never met expectations.

Step 3: Determine the Quality 
of the Existing System

The intended result of any irrigation 
system is to apply water uniformly, but 
it is a mistake to think that only “head- 
to-head coverage” is needed for uni­
form coverage. Uniform coverage is the 
end result of several factors combined, 
including:

1. Reasonable sprinkler spacing dis­
tances specified in the original design.
2. Uniformly installed spacing and 

proper configuration of sprinklers.

3. Sprinkler and nozzle performance 
that produces optimum coverage with­
in the system’s design parameters (i.e., 
spacing distance, layout, and system 
hydraulics).

4. Flexible controls with the ability to 
manage the amount of water applied 
based upon varying site requirements 
(plant and turf species, soil types, shade 
influence, slope, etc.).

5. Reasonable numbers of sprinklers 

assigned to control stations.

6. Proper hydraulic design (correct 
pipe and pump sizes, operating pres­
sures, and flow rates).

7. Properly installed, reliable hard­
ware components (controllers, fittings, 
thrust blocks, pipe pressure rating, 
etc.).

In summary, an irrigation system 
works on the “weakest link in the 
chain” theory. If any one of the above 
areas is lacking, undesirable results 
often occur. In the following section, 
each of the above areas will be graded 
against current state-of-the-art design 
standards.

Sprinkler Spacing Distances: Phys­
ics dictates that throwing water a short 
distance requires less energy (pressure) 
than discharging water a greater dis­
tance. Operating at lower pressures 
reduces operating costs and minimizes 
development of fine droplets that, 
when affected by wind, upset applica­
tion patterns. This is why new irriga­
tion systems are designed with closer 
spacing and with sprinklers that oper­
ate at lower pressures. Also, application 
uniformity generally is better when 

using smaller spacings. Assign a grade 
for the designed spacing of primary 
playing areas as follows:

• A: < 65 feet
• B: 66-75 feet
• C: 76-85 feet
• D: 86-95 feet
• F: > 96 feet
Spacing and Configuration Uni­
formity: Sprinkler spacing should be 
uniform in distance and configuration 
(equilateral triangles or squares). Spac­
ing reduced in one direction to com­
pensate for wind generally is not 
recommended because wind direction 
and velocity are usually different each 
day. The following criteria can be 
used to grade sprinkler spacing and 
uniformity:

• A: Equilateral triangles or squares, 
installed within 5% of designed spacing.
• B: Equilateral triangles or squares, 
installed within 10% of designed 
spacing.

• C: Uniformly sized non-equilateral 

triangles or rectangles.

• D: Single row, uniformly spaced 

(fairways).

• F: Varying spacing with no appar­

ent plan considered.

Sprinkler/Nozzle Performance: If 
sprinkler and nozzle performance are 
not matched to the installed spacing 
and configuration, then application 
uniformity will never be achieved. To 
measure sprinkler distribution perfor­
mance, conduct a catch-can test and 
evaluate the data. The basic procedure 
is as follows:

Maintaining level irrigation heads is a basic in sprinkler maintenance. 
The end result is improved water application uniformity.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000

3

1. Bring all sprinklers in the areas to 

be tested to a level grade.

2. Inspect nozzles of complement­
ing heads. Replace mismatched or 
unusually worn nozzles.

3. Adjust pressure regulation valves 
(PRV) to specified operating pressures.
4. Check that sprinkler rotational 
speed is within the manufacturer’s 
specifications. (Impact heads are con­
trolled by properly tensioned return- 
spring adjustment, while stator and 
nozzle combinations control gear 
rotors.)

5. Place uniformly sized catch-cans 
five feet apart throughout the test area.
6. Operate each sprinkler influencing 

the area for 15 minutes.

7. Measure and record the depth of 

water in each container.
8. Evaluate the data.
Note: Data can be evaluated man­
ually or with computer software to 
determine distribution uniformity 
(DU) and/or scheduling coefficient 
(SC). For additional information re­
garding these formulas or available 
software, contact The Center for Irri­
gation Technology (CIT) at Fresno 
State University, Fresno, California, 
(559) 278-2066. Request the references 
listed at the end of this article or visit 
http://www.atinet.org/CATl/reset.

Where high SC and low DU values 
result, operating pressure, sprinkler 

spacing, nozzle selection, and/or 
nozzle wear should be closely exam­
ined as potential problems. Where low 
SC and high DU values result, yet wet 
or dry spots persist when operating 
the system automatically, closer exami­
nation of controller programming, 
operational pressures, flow velocities, 
pipe sizing, soil compaction, and 
potential water chemistry problems 
that affect permeability (SAR and ECw) 
are warranted. The following criteria 
can be used to grade catch-can test 
results:

SC

<1.2
1.2-1.3
1.3-1.5
1.5-1.8
> 1.8

DU

> 85%
75-85%
65-75%
55-65%
<55%

•A:
• B:
• C:
• D:
• F:

Automatic Controls: Properly pro­
grammed control systems help manage 
how much, when, and where water will 
be applied. They also can balance 
hydraulics, maintain maximum flow 
velocities, and optimize operating win­
dow time frames. The following criteria 
can be used to grade automatic controls:
• A: Computerized central controls 
with flow-managing software, solid- 
state satellites, on-site weather station, 
and hand-held radio controls.

This circle of green grass and surrounding brown turf is a classic symptom of poor 
irrigation coverage. The lack of a good irrigation system often results in the staff 
spending an inordinate amount of time compensating for the system’s weaknesses.

4

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

• B: Computerized central controls 
with flow-managing software, electro­
mechanical satellites, and access to 
public weather station data.

• C: Solid-state central control with­

out flow-managing software.

• D: Electro-mechanical central and 

satellite controls.

• F: Satellite control only (no central).
Sprinkler Station Assignments: Re­
ducing the total number of sprinklers 
controlled per satellite station increases 
flexibility. Individually controlled heads 
throughout the tees, fairways, and 
roughs, along with dual heads at greens 
(one set of heads directed at the putting 
surface, with a separate set of heads 
directed at the green surrounds) to 
allow more finite management of water 
have become common with new de­
signs. The following criteria can be 
used to grade sprinkler station assign­
ments:

• A: Individual sprinkler control 
throughout greens, tees, fairways, and 
roughs, with dual heads at green perim­
eters.

• B: Individual wires to all sprinklers. 
Individual sprinkler control at greens 
and tees and dual perimeter heads at 
greens. Fairways and roughs have not 
more than three sprinklers per station, 
with individual wires accessible within 
control cabinets to allow easy station 
reassignment.

• C: Single head control at greens, 
not more than two heads per station on 
tees, and not more than four heads per 
station in fairways and roughs. Station 
assignment wires are permanently 
spliced underground and require 
trenching to make changes in station 
assignments. Fairway and rough sta­
tion assignments operate parallel to the 
direction of play.

• D: Two heads per station on greens, 
no more than five sprinklers per station 
on tees, fairways, or roughs. Tee, fair­
way, and rough heads operate parallel 
to direction of play.

• F: Any kind of control with more 
than two sprinklers operating per sta­
tion on greens, or fairway sprinklers 
operating perpendicularly (from tree 
line to tree line), as opposed to parallel 
to fairways.

System Hydraulics, Flow Velocities, 
and “Operational Windows”: To 
assure optimum operating pressures, 
efficiency, and the avoidance of water 
hammer, proper hydraulics must be 
designed into the system from the start. 
Hydraulic design and pipe sizing is 
based upon 1) the number of acres to 
be irrigated, 2) peak water replacement 

requirements, and 3) the number of 
hours available to complete an irriga­
tion cycle during peak water replace­
ment.

It is common for sprinklers to be 
added where deficiencies in the original 
design are noticed or as golfers’ expec­
tations increase. This can result in 
hydraulically overloading the system or 
extending the operating window into 
hours of daylight that interfere with 
play and maintenance. Overloading 
system hydraulics must be avoided, as 
it is similar to operating an electrical 
circuit with too many appliances. Even­
tually, something gives out! Over­
loaded electrical systems generate heat 
through resistance and blow fuses. 
Overloaded irrigation systems develop 
excessive flow velocities that create 
water hammer. Water hammer eventu­
ally fatigues and ruptures pipe. Exces­
sive velocities also cause pressure losses 
that contribute to poor coverage and 
require extending the operational win­
dow to maintain proper operating 
pressures.

Therefore, evaluating the operational 
window is often a fair assessment of 
potential hydraulic problems, and poor 
performance in this area warrants con­
sultation with an irrigation designer. To 
evaluate the overall hydraulics of the 
system, the operational window re­
quired to complete an automatic cycle 
at peak demand without exceeding 
flow velocities of 5 feet per second is:

• A: < 7 hours
• B: 7-8 hours
• C: 8-10 hours
• D: 10-12 hours
• F: 12 hours or more
System Reliability: No matter how 
well a system distributes water, it must 
also be reliable. Chronic failures of 
lateral or mainline pipe, fittings, pumps, 
or control systems can be a sign of poor 
quality products, incorrect installation 
techniques, and/or aging components 
in need of replacement. Normal wear 
and tear failures should not become an 
issue until a system reaches more than 
20 years of age. Frequent pipe failures 
occurring sooner can indicate that pipe 
and fittings of improper pressure rating 
were used, or pipe was not sized cor­
rectly and maximum flow velocities 
have regularly been exceeded. Addi­
tionally, if epoxy coated steel or PVC 
mainline fittings are utilized, chronic 
failure can be expected earlier in the life 
of the system. Their replacement with 
longer-lasting and far more durable 
ductile iron components is suggested. 
System reliability may be ranked

A good hydraulic design with a uniformly spaced and configured sprinkler layout is 
the first step towards achieving an irrigation system worthy of an “A” grade.

accordingly by the number of major 
failures occurring each season:

• A: Zero to one
• B: Two to four
• C: Five to seven
• D: Eight to ten
• F: Eleven or more
Other Rating Factors: Some sites 
may require site-specific rating factors 
to be considered by the rating team. 
These could include the following:

• Pump output
• Well output
• Lake storage capacity
• Varying soil conditions
• Soil compaction
• Tree influences
• Water chemistry as it relates to 

permeability

Step 4: Implementing Changes 
or Seeking Additional Help

Changes to improve performance, 
such as adjusting pressure regulation 
valves, lifting and leveling low heads, 
replacing sprinkler nozzles or control 
systems, can offer reasonable improve­
ments. Bringing in an irrigation design 
consultant to perform a more complete 
analysis is warranted where serious 
deficiencies are identified. Finally, it is 
important to understand that irrigation 
upgrades often require large capital 
expenditures to offer noticeable im­
provement. Recommendations based 
upon the grade point average derived 
from the various factors evaluated in 
Step 3 are:

Final GPA

• A: Excellent system; proper main­
tenance should maintain this status for 
a number of years.

• B: Good system; possibly begin­
ning to show some age, but proper 
maintenance should prolong useful life 
expectancy, maintain efficiency, and 
possibly offer improvement.

• C: This system needs work, and 
improvement maybe possible, depend­
ing upon the problems. The assistance 
of an irrigation designer may be helpful.
• D: Seek the advice of an irrigation 

designer for improvement.

• F: Get a good irrigation designer 
and get out the checkbook; nothing 
short of complete system replacement 
can likely help.

References

Solomon, K. H. 1988. A New Way to View 
Sprinkler Patterns. Center For Irrigation 
Technology Irrigation Notes, August. Pub­
lication No. 880802.

Zoldoske, D. E, K. H. Solomon, and E. M. 
Norum. 1994. Uniformity Measurements 
for Turfgrass: What’s Best? Center For 
Irrigation Technology Irrigation Notes, 
November. Publication No. 941102.

Wilson, T. P., and Zoldoske, D. F. 1997. 
Evaluating Sprinkler Irrigation Uniformity, 
Center for Irrigation Technology Irrigation 
Notes, July. Publication No. 970703.

MIKE HUCK is the agronomist in the 
Southwest Region, where water use 
efficiency is of the utmost importance 
and the arid climate quickly shows an 
irrigation system with a failing grade.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000

5

AQUIFER GOLF
Imagine a world where a golf course can coexist with a 
municipal water supply and not be the center of constant protest.
by FRANK A. RENDULIC, CGCS

A self­
cleaning 
screen at 
the lake 
intake 
prevents 
large debris 
from 
entering 
the system.

THE KITTYHAWK Golf Course is 

an 800-acre, 54-hole golf com­
plex owned and operated by the 
city of Dayton, Ohio. The golf course is 

unique in many ways. First, it is one 
of the largest municipally owned golf 
facilities in the country, and it is situ­
ated immediately above the Miami 
Aquifer, one of the largest bodies of 
underground water in the world and 
the water source for Dayton and the 
surrounding area. Second, the Kitty- 
hawk Golf Course is a part of the city’s 
Miami Well Field, which produces as 
much as 63 million gallons per day 
(MGD) of water for the residents and 
businesses of the greater Dayton area.

The concept of a golf course within 
the well field arose in 1956 when the 
city of Dayton acquired a large tract of 
land adjacent to the Great Miami River 
to act as a buffer zone for the existing 
Miami Well Field. The well field 
included a large lake and two recharge 
lagoons (long, narrow water channels 
intended to increase percolation into 
the aquifer). The lake and lagoons were 
filled naturally through a connection 
to the Great Miami River and could 
produce 2 to 4 MGD of recharge to the 
aquifer. City planners sought to make 
better use of the newly acquired land 
rather than allowing it to sit fallow.

The development of a golf facility 
was considered to be an appropriate 
dual use of the land. Robert Bruce 
Harris was contracted to design an 18- 
hole championship course (Hawk 
Course) and a par-3 beginner’s course 
(Kitty Course). Construction on the 
golf courses began in 1960, and the two 
courses opened for play in 1961. With 

6

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

increasing rounds of golf and addi­
tional land available at the Kittyhawk 
site, the city again hired Robert Bruce 
Harris to design the 18-hole Eagle 
Course. The Eagle Course opened for 
play in 1965, bringing the number of 
holes available for play to 54.

Time to Sell Water?

From 1965 to the early 1980s, the 
Kittyhawk Golf Course not only served 
as a fine test of golfers’ abilities, but 
also fulfilled its role in buffering the 
well field operations from industrial 
development. Then, in 1982, the city of 
Dayton, along with Montgomery 
County, hired CH2M Hill to study the 
feasibility of the city of Dayton selling 
water to the southern suburbs. The 
results of this study concluded that the 
well field and treatment facilities were 
adequate to proceed with the project. 
The necessary interconnects were cre­
ated, and the city began selling water 
to Montgomery County in the mid- 
1980s.

The added demand, coupled with 
back-to-back drought years in 1987 and 
1988, caused the water table to drop 
dramatically during that period. The 
drought had the expected effect on the 
golf operation, leaving large areas of 
brown turf in the non-irrigated areas 
and showing clearly any weak areas in 
the irrigation system. More important, 
however, was the impact on the city’s 
ability to provide water to area resi­
dents. Modifications to the existing 
recharge lake and lagoon system had 
allowed for a maximum aquifer re­
charge of approximately 29 MGD, but 
it was clear that additional recharge 

was needed to insure that future 
demand could be met.

Enhancing Water Recharge

The services of Camp, Dresser and 
McKee were engaged to study the 
feasibility of adding recharge facilities 
to the Kittyhawk Golf Course. Three 
possible solutions were studied: hori­
zontal collector injection wells; the 
typical long, narrow recharge lagoons 
already in use in the well field; and 
ponds strategically placed as water 
hazards on the golf courses. Each of the 
three solutions would require a pump­
ing system to lift water from the re­
charge lake near the river to the golf 
courses’ higher elevations.

Following several internal meetings, 
it was decided that golf water hazards 
were the most viable solution. Hank 
Chafin, CGCS, superintendent of the 
golf course at the time, worked with 
Abe Martin, well field supervisor, to 
select approximately 40 possible 
locations that would serve both the 
Water Department’s and the golf 
courses’ needs. Bowser-Momer, Inc., 
was contracted to take soil borings at 
each site to help determine the final 
locations for the ponds. This work was 
completed in 1988.

Woolpert LLP was hired to oversee 
the water hazard construction project. 
Six new ponds were placed on the Kitty 
Course, 13 new ponds were added to 
the Hawk Course, and 11 new ponds 
were added to the Eagle Course. In 
addition, one existing pond on the 
Hawk Course and two on the Eagle 
Course were reworked to be added to 
the recharge system. Following the 
excavation of the ponds, a connection 
to the aquifer was created by excavat­
ing a trench through any clay layers to 
facilitate movement of water into the 
aquifer. The resulting trenches were 
backfilled with clean #4 roofing gravel; 
#57 gravel and #8 pea gravel were then 
installed over the roofing gravel to act 
as a filter. The #8 gravel layer is re­
moved and replaced periodically to 
ensure maximum recharge of the 
aquifer.

Water for the recharge system is 
pumped from the original recharge 
lake, which had been modified to act 

as a stilling basin, allowing particulate 
matter to settle before being pumped 
into the ponds. The pump station is 
fitted with five 16"-diameter line shaft 
turbine pumps driven by 75 HP motors. 
The total output of the pump station is 
approximately 39 MGD. Water from 
the pump station is delivered to the 
ponds through a 30-inch main that 
branches out to each pond. The lateral 
lines servicing each pond range from 8 
to 12 inches in diameter, based on the 
size of the pond being filled. Final 
output to the ponds ranges from 800 to 
1,200 GPM (gallons per minute). Each 
pond is fitted with a water-level control 
that maintains preset levels once the 
ponds fill.

Concurrent with the installation of 
the recharge pipe network, a 60"-diam­
eter potable water main was installed to 
deliver water from 14 new production 
wells located on the golf courses to the 
water supply and treatment facility. 
This pipe was installed in a trench 
alongside the 30" recharge main. The 
routing of the two mains bisected the 
Hawk and Eagle courses. (Note: The 
resulting trench was 20' wide and 20' 
deep and did have an impact on play.)
Filling freshly excavated ponds or 
ponds that have had the filter layer 
replaced is not an overnight process. 
The initial filling can take up to two 
months. During this time, the water 
delivered to the ponds simply flows 
into the gravel channel and disappears. 
As groundwater under each pond 
begins to mound, percolation rates 
drop to the design levels and the pond 
begins to retain water. The water-level 
control structures prevent overfilling 
of the ponds.

Several factors influence the pond 
cleaning schedule. Because the ponds 
are relatively shallow (8' maximum 
depth), and because the water supply 
comes through a predominantly agri­
cultural area before reaching Dayton 
and may contain nutrients as a result of 
runoff, algae forms more rapidly. In 
addition, to help meet the needs of the 
golf operation, water has sometimes 
been pumped into the ponds when 
turbidity levels have been higher than 
planned. The Water Department in­
stalled aerators or air diffusers in 20 of 
the ponds, which helped with the algae 
problem, but the ponds must still be 
cleaned every two years. The cleaning 
involves the replacement of the gravel 
filter layer.

Replacing the filter layer is no small 
task. Excavators, loaders, and Terex- 
style, off-road dump trucks haul the 

contaminated materials out and bring 
in fresh gravel. This process takes much 
of the winter to accomplish. The trucks 
and other equipment follow prescribed 
haul roads, but they must cross the 
playing areas at times. Haul roads have 
been laid out to minimize effects on golf 
play, the grounds, and underground 
facilities.

Ongoing Maintenance

Maintaining a golf course within an 
operating well field presents special 
challenges. We stay in almost constant 
contact with the city’s Environmental 
Protection Office. A copy of our annual 
plant protection program is forwarded 
to that office for review every winter. 
Before and immediately after every 
application of fertilizer or pesticide, a 
record of the application is faxed to the 
Environmental Protection Office so 
that upcoming groundwater tests can 
be tailored to look for potential prob­
lems. In addition to 16 production wells 
located on the golf course, numerous 
monitoring wells dot the landscape. We 
can proudly say that no golf-course- 
related materials have ever been found 
in the groundwater or in soil samples 
taken around the course.

Also submitted is an annual Regu­
lated Substance Activity Inventory 
Report (RSAIR) to the city’s Environ­
mental Protection Office. This report is 
required of any business located within 
the well field protection area. The 
report lists quantities of regulated sub­
stances that may be stored or used on 
the property during the course of the 
year. The golf courses store only dry 
formulation products on site for the 
plant protective program. All liquid 
materials are stored in a specifically 
designed facility at the Madden Golf 
Course. Liquids are brought on site 
within 24 hours of use.

The Plant Protective Program is de­
veloped as a guide for the golf course 
superintendent to follow and repre­
sents the maximum amount of product 
that maybe applied. Phil Cline, CGCS, 
golf course superintendent at Kitty­
hawk, carefully monitors weather pat­
terns and is free to back off the program 
to meet conditions. A comprehensive 
inventory is conducted every fall to 
ensure that excessive amounts of 
materials are not stored. The program 
is under constant review, and products 
are replaced as newer, more efficient, or 
lower toxicity products become avail­
able.

The use of Merit® for white grub con­
trol is a prime example of this review 

process. Merit, which replaced organo­
phosphate materials used in the past, 
has decreased the potential impact on 
the environment while providing much 
better grub control. All improvements 
in our environmental management pro­
gram carry over to our other golf 
courses as well.

Application of materials is a special 
concern as well. In addition to the 
bermed pond edges to prevent runoff 
from adjacent areas, no applications 
are made within 30 feet of the top edge 
of any of the ponds to help ensure that 
materials do not run off. Maintenance 
of the pond edges is the responsibility 
of the Water Department well field 
managers, with many banks allowed to 
grow rank as a deterrent to Canada 
geese.

The Kittyhawk Golf Course (along 
with its sister courses Madden and 
Community Golf Courses) is a member 
of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary 
Program and is currently working to­
ward certification. Communicating the 
purpose of the water features and the 
need for them to be dry at times is an 
ongoing process. The Water Depart­
ment has placed signs at the first tee on 
each golf course to explain the overall 
operation of the recharge project. 
Much of the Water Department equip­
ment on the course (freshwater pumps, 
lake level control structures, water 
purifying towers, etc.) has signage 
explaining how the equipment works.
The Kittyhawk Golf Course is a 
work in progress, with changes made to 
the recharge system from time to time. 
One recent change included the 
excavation of a creek across the third 
fairway on the Eagle Course to move 
water from a purifying tower into one 
of the lakes. The stream flows at 800 
GPM and acts as a hazard on the hole. 
Work currently in progress includes the 
creation of a series of waterfalls and 
meandering streams to connect the 
ponds on the par-3 Kitty Course.

This project has demonstrated how 
the city has successfully worked with 
the community to meet their water 
needs and provide a recreational 
facility.

FRANK RENDULIC, CGCS, is superin­
tendent of Golf Operations (General 
Manager) for all Dayton Municipal Golf 
Courses. He has been with the city since 
1989, first serving as agronomist for all the 
golf courses before assuming his current 
position in 1995. Frank is a Penn State 
University graduate, with more than 26 
years of experience.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000

7

And the Survey Says... 

Converting to creeping bentgrass fairways should be based 
on sound economics and environmental consciousness.
by PAUL VERMEULEN

DURING THE LATE 1990s, gray 

| leaf spot quickly spread from 
Baltimore to Omaha, leaving 
a path of destruction unequalled in 

the turfgrass industry. This tragedy 
of almost biblical proportion has 
prompted golf courses in the upper 
transition zone, where perennial rye­
grass replaced Kentucky bluegrass in 
the 1980s, to seriously consider yet 
another change in fairway turf.

The mindset towards change is not 
so much a matter of avoiding future 
catastrophes, but rather a means of re­
ducing annual spending on pesticides. 
Since the discovery of gray leaf spot, 
turfgrass pathologists have had the 
opportunity to screen registered fungi­
cides and determine those that offer 
the highest level of control. To date, 
these research efforts have shown that 
azoxystrobin, thiophanate-methyl, and 
trifloxystrobin provide good to excel­
lent control. Furthermore, chlorothalo­
nil and propiconazole provide fair to 
good control when applied singularly 
and good to excellent control when 
tank mixed.

Given all the good news regarding 
gray leaf spot control, why is it that 
superintendents are still mulling over 
change? The answer for Scott Werner, 
CGCS, of Lincolnshire Fields Country 
Club in Champaign, Illinois, is tied to 
sound economics and environmental 
consciousness. Before perennial rye­
grass showed its vulnerability to gray 
leaf spot, Scott’s primary concerns 
were controlling pythium, brown 
patch, and dollar spot. These three 
diseases, while troublesome in their 
own rights, are fairly predictable and 
can be controlled with timely fungicide 
applications. Furthermore, the costs of 
the products typically used for their 
control are moderately priced, consid­
ering efficacy and treatment intervals.

Since 1998, when gray leaf spot first 
struck Lincolnshire Fields Country 
Club, a preventive fungicide program 
has been required, beginning in July 
and continuing through October. This 
rigorous program has been necessary 
because of the lack of a gray leaf spot 
prediction model and the inability to 
achieve an acceptable level of control

8

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

When gray leaf spot attacks, protecting perennial ryegrass from devastation 
necessitates two or more expensive fungicide treatments.

with a curative program. The bottom 
line for Scott and other superinten­
dents in the Mid-Continent Region 
battling against gray leaf spot has been 
a substantial increase in their fungicide 
budgets.

From an environmental perspective, 
the added demands of controlling gray 
leaf spot leave superintendents ques­
tioning their voluntary commitment 
to reducing pesticide usage. However, 
not meeting the high expectations for 
turf quality on courses with perennial 
ryegrass fairways will create unwanted 
openings on the starter’s reservation 
sheet and job insecurity.

If perennial ryegrass is no longer the 
best choice for fairway turf because of 
the need to make frequent fungicide 
applications, then what is the clear 
alternative? In the upper transition 
zone, where winters are too long and 
cold for warm-season grasses, the list of 
alternatives is narrowed to Kentucky 
bluegrass and creeping bentgrass.

Sentimentally, Kentucky bluegrass is 
the hands-down favorite among golfers 
because of its dark green, luxurious ap­
pearance. Problems can arise quickly, 
however, when the demand for mow­
ing heights of less than %" induce 
summer patch and, yes, the invasion of 

good ol’ Poa annua. These two prob­
lems are what originally inspired many 
golf courses to convert to perennial 
ryegrass in the first place. And, until 
new cultivars prove their advertised 
superiority in the realm of low mowing, 
it is unlikely many superintendents will 
take the risk of revisiting the past.

By process of elimination, that leaves 
creeping bentgrass as the sole alterna­
tive for courses such as Lincolnshire 
Fields Country Club. To some, this may 
seem like a consolation of sorts, but 
it really is not. Creeping bentgrass is 
actually a good choice for fairway turf. 
Its list of attributes includes reasonably 
good disease tolerance, good heat 
tolerance, excellent recuperative poten­
tial, and excellent playability when 
mowed between 7/ie" and 5/s".

The true litmus test, however, is 
whether or not creeping bentgrass 
makes good economic and environ­
mental sense when compared to peren­
nial ryegrass. To answer this question, 
a survey was conducted among 18 
courses throughout central Illinois and 
eastern Iowa. Nine of the courses 
maintain creeping bentgrass as the 
dominant species on the fairways, 
while the other nine maintain perennial 
ryegrass. The courses had a wide range

sive herbicide/growth regulator pro­
gram immediately after the fairways 
have been treated with RoundUp® and 
reseeded, and 2) to fumigate the fair­
ways before reseeding. Of these two 
strategies, fumigation, where possible, 
would be the preferred choice because 
it addresses the seed bank of Poa 
annua. By eliminating most of the 
Poa annua seed in the soil, the new 
turf can establish without competition, 
and the need for follow-up herbi­
cide/growth regulator applications will 
be minimized.

The success of fumigation has long 
been demonstrated on courses that 
have renovated greens, but rarely has it 
been performed on fairways. The rea­
son is that the product, methyl bro­
mide, is very difficult to use on a large 
scale because it requires a plastic cover 
after it has been injected.

To fumigate the fairways at Geneva 
Golf Club in Geneva, Illinois, before 
establishing them with Kentucky blue­
grass, Ed Braunsky, CGCS, used a 
granular product, Basamid (dazomet), 
that does not require a plastic cover. 
(Author’s note: The choice of Kentucky 
bluegrass was based on the golfers’ 
preference to play on a tall surface. The

Fumigation with Basamid may be the best choice for controlling Poa annua during a 
fairway conversion project. The line of Poa annua invasion indicates where the 
operator missed a narrow strip when applying the product with a drop spreader.

creeping bentgrass fairways because 
they have reached their spending limits 
on perennial ryegrass, should have an 
effective Poa annua control strategy in 
place. If not, they could wind up with 
equally high expenses.

The two control strategies that have 
worked best in the Mid-Continent 
Region are 1) to embark on an aggres­

of backgrounds, including public to 
private, newly established to well 
established, low to high traffic volumes, 
moderate to high maintenance stan­
dards, and poor to good air circulation 
and drainage characteristics.

The results of the survey are pre­
sented in Table 1 and reveal at least 
three sobering points that deserve dis­
cussion. First, not every course with 
perennial ryegrass fairways should ex­
pect to reduce pesticide usage by con­
verting to creeping bentgrass. As 
demonstrated in the survey, some 
perennial ryegrass courses maintain 
excellent playing conditions for about 
the same pesticide budget as creeping 
bentgrass courses. It is important to 
note, however, that each of these 
courses has resisted the temptation to 
overplant trees on both sides of the 
fairways and is not located where 
extreme humidity and poor drainage 
tend to increase disease activity.

Second, and most important if con­
version is being contemplated, convert­
ing from perennial ryegrass to creeping 
bentgrass can actually increase pesti­
cide usage. Wait a minute! How can 
this be, given the stated superiority of 
creeping bentgrass and the suscepti­
bility of perennial ryegrass to several 
diseases, including gray leaf spot?

The answer lies in the fact that con­
verting to creeping bentgrass, as done 
years ago by two of the leading fungi­
cide users in the survey, can bring Poa 
annua into the equation. In other 
words, the survey showed that creep­
ing bentgrass is king of the hill on 
highly manicured courses only if it is 
practically Poa annua free. This being 
the case, courses wanting to convert to 

Table 1
Results of a survey taken among 18 courses throughout central Illinois and
eastern Iowa. The totals represent actual budget information from the 1999
growing season.

Course 

No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
No. 4
No. 5
No. 6
No. 7
No. 8
No. 9
Average

No. 10
No. 11
No. 12
No. 13
No. 14
No. 15
No. 16
No. 17
No. 18
Average

Total Spent on 
Pesticides Per
Fairway Acre

Total Spent on 
Fungicides Per 
Fairway Acre

Reported 
Poa annua 
Percentage

Level of Turf 
Quality by 
Golfers

Creeping Bentgrass Fairways

$ 500
$ 668
$1,697
$2,480
$2,800
$2,825
$3,352
$3,461
$3,574
$2,373

$1,208
$2,266
$2,352
$2,640
$3,160
$3,200
$3,382
$3,500
$3,768
$2,831

$ 300 
$ 450
$1,108
$1,400
$1,142
$1,500
$2,030
$2,500
$2,833
$1,474

30
5
0
1
1
10
35
30
30

Perennial Ryegrass Fairways

$ 833 
$1,433
$1,666
$2,007
$2,400
$1,600
$2,285
$2,333
$2,411
$1,885

35
50
10
10
35
25
40
40
5

Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
High
High
High
High

Moderate
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000

9

Careful planning before renovation projects are initiated helps reduce long-term problems. 
Fumigating fairways during a renovation project can help eliminate the existing Poa annua 
seed bank that acts as a source of contamination once the new turf is established.

Basamid label is available for reference 
on the web at www.topprospecial- 
ties.com.) This product has recently 
received renewed interest as a replace­
ment for methyl bromide because of its 
effectiveness when either tilled into the 
soil or surface applied with a drop 
spreader under specific application 
parameters.

The cost of fumigating fairways has 
been raised as a possible deterrent; 
however, the survey showed that the 
payback in fungicide savings alone 
when converting fairways could be as 
short as two years. Take, for example, 
a course with perennial ryegrass fair­
ways that currently is spending $2,300 
per acre annually on fungicides. If it 
was converted to creeping bentgrass 
with fumigation and in the process the 
Poa annua population was reduced to 
3%, then the cost of controlling fungal 
pathogens could decrease to between 
$1,100 and $1,400 per acre annually.

Third, creeping bentgrass fairways, 
even when they are contaminated with 
30% Poa annua, can be maintained at 
a lower cost than perennial ryegrass. 
What? I just discussed the importance 
of Poa annua control and now I’m 
contradicting myself. Not really, be­
cause here I am referring specifically to 

10 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

situations where it is not essential to 
maintain flawless turf conditions.

In the survey there are three courses 
that for economic reasons allow the 
quality of the fairways to decline for 
short periods without causing complete 
dissatisfaction or staff turnover. Under 
these circumstances, perennial ryegrass 
can no longer prevail as the turf of 
choice because gray leaf spot has the 
potential to kill off more than 90% of 
the stand and wreak havoc on any 
attempt to reseed during the following 
fall season. When gray leaf spot attacks, 
protecting perennial ryegrass from 
devastation would necessitate two or 
more expensive fungicide treatments to 
prevent playing on bare soil. Creeping 
bentgrass, even when contaminated 
with Poa annua, can recover from 
disease infections over a period of 
several weeks.

In closing, deciding when and how 
to convert perennial ryegrass fairways 
to creeping bentgrass should be based 
on sound agronomy and reliable infor­
mation from as many sources as pos­
sible. In presenting the information 
contained in this article, I would like 
to thank the superintendents who co­
operated in the survey. Without their 
assistance, formulating renovation pro­

posals based on relevant information 
would be impossible.

References

Turner, T. R. 2000. Selecting Perennial Rye­
grass for Use on Golf Courses; Despite 
some problems, perennial ryegrasses re­
main attractive. USGA Green Section 
Record, Vol. 38, No. 2, p. 12-14.
Vermeulen, P. H. 1999. Achilles Heel, 
Perennial ryegrass is struck by gray leaf spot. 
USGA Green Section Record, Vol. 37, 
No. 4, p. 1-5.
Vincelli, P., and Powell, A. J. 2000. Chemi­
cal Control of Turfgrass Diseases 2000. 
PPA-1.

Watkins, J. E. 2000. Integrated disease 
management on creeping bentgrass fair­
ways. Golf Course Management, 68(5): 
72-75.
Zontek, S. J. 1984. LOLIUM-FOLIUM, 
Perennial Ryegrasses Are Getting Better! 
USGA Green Section Record, Vol. 22, 
No. 3, p. 1-6.

PAUL VERMEULEN is the Director of the 
Green Section’s Mid-Continent Region. 
He is responsible for the administration of 
Green Section programs in ten states and 
focuses his Turf Advisory Service visits 
in Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 
Missouri, and Nebraska.

Winter Protection of
Annual Bluegrass Golf Greens
How protective covers can reduce winter damage to putting greens.

by JULIE DIONNE

THE QUALITY of putting sur­

faces is one of the most important 
criteria by which golf courses are 
evaluated. Extensive winter-kill on 

annual bluegrass golf greens is a major 
concern in Canada and the northern 
United States, where damage can dis­
rupt play for many weeks in the spring 
and result in significant losses of in­
come. Winter damage is caused by a 
wide range of environmental stresses, 
including rapid exposure to cold tem­
peratures, prolonged exposure to cold 
temperatures, desiccation, freeze-thaw 
cycles, extended snow cover, ice en­
casement, and disease.

Golf course superintendents utilize 
various types of protective covers to 
reduce winter damage to putting 
greens. The covers can be invaluable 
tools for protecting golf greens against 
freezing temperatures, ice encasement, 
and desiccation injury. There is a wide 
array of winter covers available for use.

However, many superintendents report 
inconsistent results with the use of the 
protective covers, and there are few 
precise recommendations for their use 
and almost no data comparing their 
effectiveness in northern climates.

The Horticultural Research Center of 
Laval University, Quebec City, estab­
lished a research program to answer 
some of these questions. The Canadian 
Turfgrass Research Foundation pro­
vided funding for the project. The 
project’s objectives were to evaluate the 
effectiveness of different winter covers 
and develop improved protection prac­
tices for annual bluegrass golf greens.

Research Methods

The study was conducted over a 
seven-year period at Laval University’s 
experimental green located in Quebec 
City and on greens at Montreal 
Country Club, Royal Montreal Country 
Club, and Royal Quebec Country Club.

The golf courses were selected in part 
because of the wide variation in winter 
climates between sites. The principal 
objective of this research was to evalu­
ate the impact of different winter pro­
tective covers on soil temperature and 
on winter survival of annual bluegrass 
on golf greens.

During the winter of 1994-95, eight 
different winter protection treatments 
were tested. Covering systems with 
different permeability and insulating 
characteristics were selected. The pro­
tection systems in the project included:

• Permeable covers
• Impermeable covers (Evergreen 
brand covers from Hinspergers 
Poly Industries Ltd.)

• A curled wood shavings mat 

(American Excelsior Company) 
protected with an impermeable 
cover

• A straw mulch system (consisting 
of a permeable cover with 15 cm

Research plots at Montreal Country Club seven days after the winter protection covers were removed. The type 
of cover used had a significant influence on soil temperatures and turf injury under severe winter conditions.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000 

11

Impact of winter covers on soil temperature

Impact of winter covers on soil temperature

WITH SNOW

son.

Effects of Deep Snow Cover

Snow cover was deep and lasting at 
the Quebec City plots. Soil tempera­
tures remained around 0°C (32°F) 
throughout the winter season under 
the different protective covers and on 
uncovered control plots. The thick and 
continuous snow cover was a very 
good natural insulating material and 
prevented soil temperatures that could 
be fatal to the turf. However, the deep 
snow cover and constant soil tempera­
ture also were favorable for snow mold 
diseases. Consequently, most winter 
damage observed on the experimental 
golf green at Quebec City was caused 
by snow mold rather than by freezing 
temperatures. These results emphasize 
the importance of disease management 
and appropriate use of fungicides prior 
to installing the covers.

Effects of Intermittent Snow Cover

In contrast to the Quebec City ex­
perimental site, the plots at Montreal 
Country Club had thin snow cover, 
and, as a result, the soil temperatures 
were lower, even though air tempera­
tures at the sites were similar. In addi­
tion, high rainfall completely melted 
the snow cover in December 1994 and 
January 1995. The type of cover used 
had a significant influence on soil tem­
peratures and the resulting turf injury 
under these severe winter conditions.

Insulating covers like straw, the 
curled wood mat, and the 5 cm air space 
reduced soil temperature fluctuations 
at the crown level, minimizing the 
impact of freezing air temperatures 
and thin snow cover. Minimum soil 
temperatures at the crown level were 
recorded at -1°C (30°F) under straw, 
-2°C (28°F) under curled wood mat, 
and -6°C (21°F) under the air space. 
Straw, the curled wood mat, and the 
5 cm air space provided adequate in­

5°C 

-5°C

sulation, and the annual bluegrass 
overwintered successfully. Turf quality 
was excellent immediately upon re­
moval of the straw and curled wood 
mat covers. Minor damage was ob­
served under the cover that provided 
the 5 cm air space, but the turf was fully 
recovered within two weeks following 
the removal of the covers.

The thick felt material (10mm) cover 
did not provide as much insulation as 
straw, the curled wood mat, or air space 
treatments. The soil temperature at 
crown level under the felt dropped to 
a minimum of -10°C (14°F) and con­
siderable winter damage was observed 
on turf under those covers. Recovery 
was complete and turf quality was 
excellent on April 26, more than a 
month after winter protection removal.
Very cold minimum soil tempera­
tures were recorded under the thin felt 
material (3mm) covers, permeable and 
impermeable covers used alone, and on 
turf without protection. Minimum soil 
temperature at crown level reached 
-15°C (5°F) under permeable and im­
permeable covers and -17°C (1°F) 
under thin felt material covers and on 
the uncovered control plots. The cold 
soil temperatures at the plant crowns 
and the large temperature variations 
were responsible for the severe damage 
observed for the four treatments.

Annual bluegrass under thin felt 
material, permeable and impermeable 
covers, and on the uncovered control 
plots was entirely dead following the 
removal of the covers. Spring recovery 
eventually resulted from germination of 
annual bluegrass seed present in the 
green soil seed bank.

Annual bluegrass seedlings were ap­
parent on damaged plots in mid-April, 
and turfgrass quality improved as 
annual bluegrass growth progressed. 
Spring turfgrass quality on control plots 
and under thin felt material, permeable, 

of straw covered by an 
impermeable cover)

• A 3 mm felt material (Texel 

Incorporated) protected by an 
impermeable cover

• A 10mm felt material (Texel 

Incorporated) protected by an 
impermeable cover

• A 5 cm air space (created with a 
wooden frame covered with an 
impermeable cover)

• A non-protected control 

treatment

In 1994, winter covers were installed 
on 3m-by-3m plots on November 24, 
prior to the first snow cover at Laval 
University and on November 30 at the 
Montreal Country Club. A fungicide 
and rodent repellent were applied be­
fore the covers were installed. Winter 
protective covers were removed on 
April 7 at Laval University and on 
March 21 at the Montreal Country 
Club. Soil temperatures under the 
covers and climatological data, includ­
ing air temperature, thickness of snow 
cover, rainfall, and snowfall, were re­
corded daily during the winter. Annual 
bluegrass quality and recovery in the 
spring were also evaluated.

Soil Temperatures and 
Turfgrass Winter Survival

Soil temperature is more critical than 
air temperature for the winter survival 
of annual bluegrass. Temperatures in 
the surface soil affect the crown portion 
of the plant. Surface soil temperature is 
also a determinant in turfgrass disease 
development. Winter air temperatures 
in both Quebec City and Montreal 
often reach values of -30°C (-22°F). 
Annual bluegrass cannot tolerate ex­
posure to such low temperatures, and 
its winter survival is linked to the in­
sulating protection of snow or artificial 
covers.

12 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

and impermeable covers remained sig­
nificantly inferior to that observed 
under the better-insulating covers for 
several weeks following the removal of 
the covers. Annual bluegrass on these 
severely damaged plots was not suitable 
for play until May 17, about one month 
following the Montreal Country Club 
golf course opening (April 16). From 
the level of damage observed on these 
plots and from other winter protection 
experiments, we have determined that 
a critical minimum crown level tem­
perature of -10°C (14°F) is required to 
damage annual bluegrass greens.

Practical Steps For 
Winter Protection

The use of insulating winter protec­
tive covers improved turfgrass quality 
and surface conditions earlier in the 
spring in our tests. That may be good 
news for golf course superintendents 
and for golfers in northern climates. 
There are some practical steps for op­
timizing the winter protection of your 
golf greens:

• A preventive fungicide for snow 
mold disease control must be applied 
before the installation of winter protec­
tive covers. Temperature and moisture 
conditions under covers are very favor­
able for disease activity, and fungicide 
protection is therefore imperative.

• Consider local winter conditions 
and snow cover. It is not necessary to 
use a heavy insulating material if snow 
cover is deep and continuous. How­
ever, if snow cover is thin, the use of 
insulating protective covers is highly 
recommended. They decrease tem­
perature fluctuations at crown level 
and minimize the impact of freezing 
temperatures.

• Always use impermeable protective 
covers to keep the insulating material 
dry and reduce injury from ice encase­
ment and crown hydration.

• Monitor the temperature profile 
under winter protective covers. Tem­
perature provides information on the 
modifications of the insulating proper­
ties of the covers and will be helpful 
for determining when to remove the 
covers in spring.

• Install and remove the winter pro­
tective covers at the right time. Install­
ing covers too early may interfere with 
hardening of the plant and lead to 
excessively warm temperatures under 
the covers. It is important to install 
covers as late as possible in fall, ideally 
after the plant has hardened off. 
Removing covers too early in the spring 
can expose turf to frost damage and 

desiccating winds, while late removal 
could result in snow mold damage 
because fungicide effectiveness is low at 
the end of winter.

• Spring permeable covers should be 
used after the winter protective covers 
have been removed. These light cover 
materials provide protection against 
late frosts and desiccation.

• Winter protective covers are a 
valuable tool for preventing winterkill 
of annual bluegrass golf greens. How­
ever, the covers will be most successful 
when used together with a sound turf­
grass management plan. Proper mow­
ing practices and a sound fall fertili­
zation program are very important to 
maximize energy reserves and opti­
mize cold hardening of turf, and con­
sequently improve winter survival of 
annual bluegrass golf greens. Turf grow­
ing in full sun also will reach a greater 
degree of cold temperature hardiness.

Current Research Programs

The first series of experiments con­
firmed that winter protective covers are 
an effective and practical way to miti­
gate winter damage on annual blue­
grass golf greens in northern climates. 
Additional trials to look at different 
insulating materials and covering 
systems also are required. We currently 
are working on atmospheric compo­
sition under winter protective covers, 
particularly under impermeable covers. 
These covers are very effective in pre­
venting excess water at the plant crown 
level and keeping insulating materials 
dry, thereby increasing plant tolerance 
to winter stresses. However, annual 
bluegrass winter damage not related to 

low temperatures has been observed 
under impermeable covers on certain 
golf greens. It is hypothesized that 
this damage may result from the 
modification of the atmosphere at the 
plant level due to the presence of the 
covers.

We have recently documented that 
CO2 concentration under covers in­
creases as a result of oxygen consump­
tion, exposing plants to anoxic condi­
tions for long periods of time during 
winter. The objectives of our ongoing 
research on winter protection are to 
identify soil and/or plant factors asso­
ciated with the occurrence of anoxia 
under winter protective covers, and to 
evaluate passive or forced ventilation 
systems for reducing anoxic conditions 
and toxic gases on recurrent winter­
damaged annual bluegrass golf greens.

Principal Collaborators on the Project 
Dr. Yves Desjardins, Laval University,

Quebec

Dr. Philippe Rochette, Agriculture and 

Agri-Food Canada, Quebec

Eric Dugal, Laval University, Quebec 
Normand Bertrand, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, Quebec 
Pierre Dufort, Superintendent,
Montreal Country Club

Blake McMaster, Superintendent, 
Royal Montreal Golf Club
Michel Tardif, Superintendent, 
Royal Quebec Country Club

This research is funded by the Canadian 

Turfgrass Research Foundation

fULIE DIONNE is a research associate at 
the Horticultural Research Center, Laval 
University, Quebec, Canada.

Soil temperature under winter protective covers

----- straw ------- curled wood mat air space — thick felt 

thin felt ------- impermeable —— permeable 

control

Date

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000 

13

Fairbanks Ranch Country Club (Rancho Santa Fe, California) successfully demonstrates that, with careful 
maintenance practices, a quality golf course can be achieved despite having been built on a salt lake bed.

Understanding Water Quality 
and Guidelines to Management
An overview of challenges for water usage on golf courses for the 21st century.

by R. R. DUNCAN, R. N. CARROW, and M. HUCK

WITH GLOBAL demand for fresh 

or potable water doubling every 
20 years, competition for this 
valuable resource will increase in the 

21st century. Potable water reserves 
comprise only 2.5% of the total avail­
able global water supply, with ground­
water reserves averaging about 1.7% of 
that total. For groundwater, only 45% 
is fresh water, and this source supplies 
30% of the human and industrial users, 
with the remainder from surface water 
resources. This potable water dilemma 
will result in turfgrass managers having 
no choice but to irrigate with recycled 
and other non-potable alternative 

14 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

water resources of lesser quality that 
contain increased levels of dissolved 
salts.

Several overriding issues will change 
21st-century turfgrass management 
strategies. A primary concern is water 
quality and the consistency of that 
water quality. Non-potable water can 
be referred to as brackish, effluent, re­
cycled, wastewater, reclaimed, regen­
erate, or grey water. Water released 
from sewage plants can vary from 
primary to secondary to tertiary treat­
ment levels, and quality will be partially 
dictated by the 1) quality of the original 
source prior to potable use, 2) salts 

and solids added by first-time users 
(e.g., discharges from factories or by­
products of other manufacturing facili­
ties), and 3) contamination of salts and 
solids added via surface runoff into 
treatment facilities.

Quality factors include the presence 

of:

1. Solids (sand-silt-clay and organic 
particles) that potentially can clog the 
irrigation delivery system, plug soil 
micropores, and cause excess wear on 
sprinkler nozzles and pumping com­
ponents.

2. Biological (nematodes, weed seeds, 
algae, fungal spores) and chemical 

(pesticides, fertilizers, other salt resi­
dues, pollutants) materials that can 
affect turfgrass performance.

3. Salt-related problems such as total 
salinity, sodium permeability hazard 
(impact on soil structure), specific toxic 
ions, and nutrient balance.

Water quality variability is site­
specific and can change seasonally or, 
in extreme cases, on a daily basis. The 
focus of this article is on assessment of 
water for these salt-related problems.

Water Quality Assessment

Water quality assessment is one of 
the most confusing and complex prob­
lems facing turf managers. The types 
and quantities of chemicals that are 
applied to the turf system through irri­
gation water have a dramatic influence 
on soil chemical/physical aspects and 
turf performance. Variable levels of 
salts and extreme environmental con­
ditions (high prolonged heat and 
humidity, severe drought, and traffic) 
magnify water quality problems. Water 
samples submitted to laboratories for 
analysis often come back with data in 
confusing units or with no reference 
points. Do you have a problem with the 
water on your course? How do you 
assess the data? What are the critical 
points to look for? How can you adjust 
your management to prevent a poten­
tial future problem? These are all valid 
questions that will be addressed in this 
article.

Problems

Four critical problem categories 
must be considered from the data pre­
sented in a water analysis report: total 
salt content, sodium permeability 
hazard, specific ion toxicity, and 
critical nutrient levels. Each category 
is a salt problem but differs from the 
other three problem areas in specific 
effects on soil traits and turf perfor­
mance. In addition to these salt prob­
lems, inorganic or organic suspended 
solids need to be consistent. The four 
problem areas can result in many dif­
ferent combinations and degrees of 
stress.

High total salts or total salinity 
concentrations will often reflect the 
potential for a saline soil problem to 
develop. Saline conditions inhibit 
water uptake by turfgrasses and cause 
a salt-induced drought stress. This is the 
most common salt-related water issue 
that occurs and must be managed on 
golf courses. Total salinity problems are 
site-specific and must be assessed on 
that basis, and management strategies

Continuous use of saline water sources without leaching the soils can 
lead to serious salt accumulations and ultimately turfgrass decline.

involving grass selection, cultivation, 
and irrigation scheduling must be 
developed accordingly.

High sodium concentrations, espe­
cially in conjunction with high bicar­
bonates and relatively low calcium 
(Ca+2) and magnesium (Mg+2) levels 
identified in the water analysis, can 
potentially cause a sodium perme­
ability hazard. This hazard must be 
assessed, and high values have the 
potential for developing serious soil 
structural deterioration and water in­
filtration problems. Assessment and 
management strategies must be 1) 
based on site-specific soil and water 
conditions and 2) aggressively moni­
tored and frequently adjusted to 
address specific constraints involving 
grass selection, amendments to the 
water and/or the soil, regular cultiva­
tion, and careful irrigation scheduling 
(leaching).

Specific toxic ions must be assessed 
as to their level of toxicity and their 
potential impact on the turf root sys­
tem as well as foliar damage. Finally, 
nutrient load in the irrigation water is 
a fourth problem that can contribute a 
substantial amount of fertilizer to the 
turfgrass and can often induce defi­
ciencies of other critical nutrients in 
salt-challenged turfgrass systems.

Calculations and Unit Conversions

analytical laboratory for analysis. What 
data should you ask for, and in what 
specific units should these data be 
presented?

Quality Factor

Water
Carbonates and
Bicarbonates

Preferred 
Units

pH 
mg/L, 
ppm, or 
meq L1

Total Salinity (impact on plant 
growth from higher total salts)

Electrical 
conductivity (EC)
Total dissolved 
salts (TDS)

dS/m

ppm

Ion Toxicity (impact on root 
and foliar contact)

Na 
Cl 
B 

meq/L and ppm
ppm
ppm

Na Permeability Hazard 
(impact on soil structure)

Sodium
adsorption 
ratio (SAR)
Adjusted SAR 
(adj SAR) 
Residual sodium 
carbonate

meq/L

meq/L

meq/L

Nutrients

ppm and 
meq L1

Development of an effective manage­
ment program starts with collection of 
a representative water sample and sub­
mission of that sample to a reputable 

Often, the laboratory analysis comes 
back with confusing units for some of 
the data values. The conversion factors 
can be found in Table 1.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000 

15

Table 1. Conversion factors

To convert ppm to 
meq/L, multiply by:

To convert meq/L to 
ppm, multiply by:

Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Chloride
Potassium
Sulfate
Carbonate
Bicarbonate

Na*1
Ca*2
Mg*2
ci-
K*1
SO42
CO32
hco3

0.043
0.050
0.083
0.029
0.026
0.021
0.033
0.016

23.0
20.0
12.2
35.4
39.0
48.0
30.0
61.0

Note: 1 mg L1 = 1 ppm

For example, to convert 220 mg L1 Na+ to meq L4: 
(220 mg L4) x (0.043) = 9.46 meq L1 Na*

Electrical Conductivity of Water

Convert ECw

Multiply by:

mSm1 to dSm1
dSm1 to mSm1
mScm1 to mSm1
mSm1 to ppm
dSm1 to ppm
mScm1 to ppm
ppm to dSm1

0.01
100
100
6.4
640
640
0.0016

Other Conversion Factors:
1 mmhos cm1 = 1 dSm1 = 1,000 umhos cm1 = 0.1 Sm1
1 umhos cm1 = 0.001 dSm1 = 0.001 mmhos cm1
1 ppm = 1 mg L1 (solution) = 1 mg kg1 (soil)
1% concentration = 10,000 ppm
1 mmole L1 = 1 meq L1
1 ECw (dSm4) = 640 ppm (TDS = Total Dissolved Salts)
TDS (ppm) = ECw x 640; TDS (Ib./ac.-ft.) « TDS (ppm x 2.72) 
ppm = grains per gallon* x 17.2
(grains/gallon is still used by domestic effluent water purveyors to report hardness) 
Sum of cations and anions (meq L1) ~ EC (dSm4) x 10

Total Salinity

The most common salt problem on 
turf is accumulation of high total salts 
leading to a saline soil condition. 
Saline soils can cause salt-induced or 
physiological drought. Turfgrass symp­
toms include reduced growth, dis­
coloration, wilting, leaf curling, and 
eventually leaf firing or desiccation. 
Drought or water stress symptoms can 
occur a) if salt from irrigation water is 
allowed to accumulate within the root­
zone, b) if accumulated salts in the 
rootzone (previously added by salt­
laden irrigation water) rise up into the 
active rootzone by capillary action, or 
c) when both occur simultaneously 
during hot, dry periods.

16 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

In USGA greens, the perched water 
table zone, located below the normal 
rootzone, is an area of potential salt 
accumulation where salts could rise by 
capillary action into the rootzone dur­
ing high ET periods. To avoid capillary 
rise, sufficient surface water must be 
applied to break tension in a USGA- 
type green and periodically flush out 
excess salts. In a native soil, a net 
downward movement of salts beyond 
the active turf rooting area must be 
maintained by ample irrigation.

Excess salts inhibit water uptake by 
turfgrass roots and cause wilting. Salts 
literally prevent water uptake even in 
a moist soil, and the turf can change 
color rapidly (sometimes overnight) to 

a yellowish brown and purplish color, 
depending on turf species. Salt crystals 
may actually form on the soil surface, 
especially in bare-soil areas. Salts that 
contribute to total salinity include cal­
cium, potassium, magnesium, sodium, 
chloride, sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, 
and bicarbonate.

Electrical conductivity (ECw) is the 
extent to which water conducts elec­
tricity, which is directly proportional to 
the concentration of dissolved salts. 
ECw is used to estimate the total dis­
solved salts (TDS) in water (TDS = 
640 = ECw). TDS will occasionally be 
referred to as total soluble salts (TSS) 
or total dissolved solids (TDS) by 
analytical laboratories. Irrigation water 
containing high total salts such as 
sewage effluent can lead to saline soil 
conditions and poor turfgrass perfor­
mance. Most sewage effluent ranges 
from 200 to 3,000 ppm TDS or ECw = 
0.30 - 4.7 dSm1 (Feigin et al., 1991).

Irrigation quantity, leaching duration 
and frequency, drainage requirements, 
and turf species/cultivar selection re­
quirements increase as ECw or TDS 
increases (Table 2). Water quality moni­
toring must be used to predict future 
soil salinity problems and to adjust 
management strategies to minimize 
deterioration of turfgrass performance.

Management Strategies 
for Total Salinity

Indicators of total salinity impact on 
turfgrass growth will be ECw and TDS, 
and both measurements are interre­
lated. When a water analysis indicates 
that total soluble salts (> 0.75d Sm1 
ECw or > 500 ppm TDS) are the pri­
mary problem, irrigation scheduling 
and cultivation plus leaching become 
the predominate management options. 
Sodium (Na), chlorine (Cl), and boron 
(B) levels may be high, and if ECw > 
1.50 dSm1 and TDS > 1,000 ppm, selec­
tion of salt-tolerant turf species and 
specific cultivars within that species 
becomes increasingly important.

Drainage requirements also increase 
since leaching frequency and the water 
quantity needed for leaching escalates 
as the total salinity hazard increases. 
Leaching directly affects nutrient avail­
ability, particularly with mobile ions 
such as potassium (K), magnesium 
(Mg+2), nitrate (NO3), iron (Fe), and 
manganese (Mn). Fertilizer programs 
must be adjusted accordingly, and this 
topic will be discussed in the section 
on “Nutrient Variability.”

The success or failure of the manage­
ment strategy for dealing with high total

Table 2. Total salinity hazard classification guidelines for variable 
quality irrigation water based on ECw and TDS (Carrow and Duncan, 1998)

Salinity
Hazard Class

Low

ECw
(dSm1)

<0.75

TDS
(PPm)

<500

Medium

0.75 -1.50

500 - 1,000

High

1.5 - 3.00

1,000 - 2,000

Very High

>3.00

> 2,000

Management
Requirements

No detrimental effects 
expected
Moderate leaching 
to prevent salt 
accumulation
Turf species/cultivar 
selection, good 
irrigation, leaching, 
drainage
Most salt-tolerant 
cultivars, excellent 
drainage, frequent 
leaching, intensive 
management

High salt levels from even low vol­
ume total salt applications (TDS = 600- 
800 ppm) can build up in subsoil layers 
over time in sand-based greens during 
prolonged dry periods. These salt layers 
usually can be found at depths 
corresponding to how deep the 
irrigation water percolated into the 
sand profile. If only a low volume (< 
0.50 inch) of irrigation water is applied, 
the salt accumulation zone is often 
located just below the root system at 
about 6-8 inches depth, unless total 
salts are leached deeper by a periodic 
heavy flushing from rainfall or irriga­
tion. Any zone of salt accumulation on 
sandy soils should be at least 12-16 
inches deep, and on fine-textured soils, 
at least 16-24 inches deep to limit a 
possible rapid capillary rise of salts 
when irrigation volume is not sufficient 
for net leaching.

At shallower depths, salts can rise 
within two or three days through capil­
lary action and evapotranspiration 
during extreme hot and prolonged dry, 
windy conditions. The salts may have 
been added through irrigation water at 
600-800 ppm levels (which is normally 
not a problem), but the subsurface salt 
accumulation zone will be at much 
higher concentrations that can quickly 
desiccate and kill the turfgrass root 
system. Thus, net downward water 
movement is essential to avoid salt 
layers near the turfgrass rootzone. A 
heavy nighttime leaching program fol­
lowed by an afternoon hand-watering 
of localized dry areas on sand-based 
greens may be necessary to prevent 
turfgrass collapse when temperatures 
exceed 90-95°F for one to two weeks or 

more. The rule of thumb to minimize 
salt accumulation is to increase water 
volume applied by 12.5% for each 640 
ppm rise in total dissolved salts (TDS) 
in the irrigation water.

Additionally, high total salts can 
have a growth regulator effect on turf­
grasses because water uptake is limited. 
Regardless of the level of salt tolerance, 
all turfgrass cultivars will experience 
some growth reduction from high salt 
accumulations. The most salt-tolerant 
cultivars (for example, seashore pas- 
palum cultivars Sea Isle 1, Sea Isle 
2000) have high inherent growth rates 
so that they maintain adequate growth 
for recovery from injury and for long­
term performance when under persis­
tent salt stress. Less salt-tolerant culti­
vars can be significantly affected when 
other stresses such as low mowing 
height (< % inch), high salt-index 
soluble fertilizers, shade, and excessive 
traffic/wear/compaction negatively 
affect long-term turf performance. Sites 
continually irrigated with salt-laden 
irrigation water should restrict cart 
traffic on the golf course to cart paths 
only, especially on turf species and 
cultivars with low salt tolerance.

Sodium Permeability Hazard

The sodium concentration in con­
junction with the quantity and type of 
other salts in irrigation water have a 
major influence on a) water infiltration 
into and percolation through soil pro­
files by directly affecting soil perme­
ability, b) the leaching fraction, or the 
quantity of water required to leach 
excessive Na or other salts, c) whether 
the water should be treated prior to 

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000 

17

Excess suspended solids can plug water- 
conducting pores at the soil surface. 
Low-quality effluent irrigation sources 
are notorious for containing high loads 
of suspended organic solids.

salts is predicated on one key aspect of 
turf management, namely water man­
agement. In particular, good irrigation 
scheduling and adequate volumes that 
promote leaching are essential. Cultiva­
tion is an integral part of regular man­
agement in salt-affected environments, 
encompassing both deep aeration (8- 
12 inches) once or twice each year 
and shallow aeration (3-6 inches) as 
needed, depending on soil texture. 
Infiltration, percolation, and drainage 
will dictate how effectively total salts 
are moved away from the turfgrass root 
system and are not allowed to build 
up in subsoil layers where they could 
potentially rise to the rootzone during 
periods of inadequate leaching.

Theoretically, sandy soil profiles are 
easier to leach than heavier clay soils. 
However, both soil types often require 
regularly scheduled deep and shallow 
cultivation followed by adequate leach­
ing to move the excess salts downward. 
If aeration is regularly performed, but 
irrigation is scheduled for only 5-10 
minutes daily (i.e., light, frequent irriga­
tion), salts can move back up through 
the soil micropores by capillary action, 
form a concentrated layer in the root­
zone, and limit water uptake or even 
kill the turf root system. This usually 
occurs when evapotranspiration (ET) 
exceeds the amount of water applied 
to the turf during prolonged high 
temperature or windy conditions. Also, 
if large diameter aeration holes are not 
backfilled with topdressing sand prior 
to leaching, large volumes of water can 
run into the holes and beyond the sur­
face, while leaving behind a salt-laden 
zone between holes.

late adj SARw and residual sodium 
carbonate (RSC) according to Table 4.

Sodic and Saline-Sodic 
Soil Formation

application to enhance infiltration/ 
percolation into the soil, and d) the 
options available to adjust manage­
ment scenarios to maintain or enhance 
turf performance. Two key water com­
ponent relationships must be deter­
mined before management decisions 
can be made: Sodium adsorption ratio 
and bicarbonate/carbonate levels.

The SARw, or sodium adsorption 
ratio, is used to assess the sodium 
status and permeability hazard (Table 
3). Sodium, calcium (Ca), and mag­
nesium concentrations (in meq L1) are 
used to compute SARw:

SARw =-------------------
(Ca + Mg)/2
When bicarbonate (HCO3) and 
carbonate (CO32) concentrations are 
> 120 and 15 ppm, respectively, calcu­

Table 4. Calculation for adjusted 
sodium adsorption ratio and 
residual sodium carbonate

adj SAR or adjusted 
sodium adsorption ratio

a) adj SARw = SAR [1 + 8.4 - pHc] 
(refer to Carrow and Duncan 1998, 
and Ayers and Westcot 1985)

b) adj SARw is also calculated by 

the Hanson et al. (1999) method

RSC or residual sodium carbonate

RSC = (CO3 + HCO3) - (Ca + Mg), 
in meq L1

Table 3. Sodium permeability hazard and specific toxic ion reference points 
(Adapted from Harivandi and Beard, 1998; Carrow and Duncan, 1998)

Irrigation Water Components 

Degree of Problem

Sodium permeability hazard (Na+-induced soil structural deterioration, 
and low water/oxygen permeability)
SARw or adj SARw (sodium adsorption ratio) by clay type (ppm)

Clay type unknown
Montmorillonite (2:1)*
Illite (2:1)*
Kaolinite (1:1)**
Sands with ECw > 1.5 dSm -1
Sands with ECw <1.5 dSm -1
RSC (residual sodium carbonate)

Specific Toxic Ions
Sodium Content

Toxicity to roots

Toxicity to leaves

Chloride Content

Toxicity to roots

Toxicity to leaves

Residual Chlorine (Cl2)
Boron toxicity on roots
Bicarbonate content

SARw
ppm
meq L1
ppm

meq L1

PPm
meq L1
PPm
PPm
PPm
meq L1
PPm

Low Moderate High
>18
10-18
< 10
>9
6-9
< 6
> 16
8-16
<8
>24
16-24
<16
> 18
10-18
< 10
>9
6-9
<6
<1.25

1.25 - 2.50 >2.50

Low Moderate High
>9
3-9
<3
>210
<70
70 - 210
>3
<3
>70
<70

<2
<70
<3
< 100
<1
<0.7
< 1.5
<90

2-10
70 - 355
>3
>100
1-5
0.7-3.0
1.5 - 8.5
90 - 500

>10
>355

>5
>3.0
>8.5
>500

*2:1 clays are shrink-swell clays

**1:1 clays do not shrink (crack) on drying or swell on wetting 

Other 1:1 types are Fe/Al oxides and allophanes

18 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

The relative quantities of soil Ca, 
Mg, and Na are extremely important. 
Calcium is the primary ion that stabi­
lizes soil structure. Magnesium offers 
secondary structural stability. When 
excess Na (> 200 ppm) is applied 
through irrigation water, the Na con­
tent builds up over time and eventually 
will displace the Ca+2 ions that are the 
building blocks and that enhance the 
structural integrity of the clay fraction 
in the soil profile. This “push-and- 
shove” relationship, which is domi­
nated by a larger Na+ ion with a weaker 
force or charge for holding clay par­
ticles together, eventually results in soil 
structure breakdown. The result is a 
sodic soil. It is sometimes referred to as 
black alkali, since the excess sodium 
precipitates out the organic matter 
fraction in the soil, which in turn rises 
to the soil surface. The deposit on the 
surface is black with a slick, oily 
appearance. Where excess Na+ and 
high total salts are both present, it is 
called a saline-sodic soil and is charac­
terized by having both white salt de­
posits and black decomposed organic 
matter deposits on the surface.

Very few turfgrasses can survive 
these sodium hazard conditions since 
the soil structural breakdown results in 
a sealed soil with little or no water 
permeability. Classic symptoms on golf 
courses are heavily compacted areas, 
areas with long-standing puddles, and 
dead turf. A secondary symptom can be 
surface algae and black layer formation 
caused by the constant moist condi­
tions and the lack of oxygen in the turf 
root system. Sodium adsorption ratios 
(SAR or adj SAR) exceeding 6 meq L1 
indicate that the Na+ levels are high 
enough to cause structural deteriora­
tion in some soils.

A more subtle symptom often occurs 
in sand-based greens or on fairways 
and tees where clay soil profiles have 
been capped with sand. On greens, 
short duration (5-10 minute) daily irri­
gation scheduling when using high Na 
irrigation water may eventually result in 
a layer forming in the sand profile. This 
layer normally will be as deep as the 
water percolates downward each day 
(usually somewhere between 4 and 12 
inches deep). While sands often con­
tain few clay colloids, Na+ can cause 
organic matter of colloidal size to 
migrate to this depth and start to seal 
the soil pores, eventually leading to 
black layer formation. High sulfur or 

sulfate concentrations in the water will 
enhance the process.

The salts and excess Na congregate 
in this zone and, with normal evapora­
tion, the salt concentration will gradu­
ally increase. When evapotranspiration 
exceeds irrigation, coupled with pro­
longed hot, dry, and/or windy condi­
tions, these concentrated salts will 
move back up into the turf rootzone, 
cause salt-induced drought, root dessi- 
cation, and may even kill the turf. The 
turfgrass will turn purple or yellow to 
yellowish-brown to brown, usually 
within 24 hours, depending on the turf 
species.

A similar scenario can develop on 
fairways, roughs, or tees where sand (4- 
10 inches in most cases) is used to cap 
a heavy clay soil. The high Na irrigation 
water will usually result in a concen­
tration of excess Na ions at the interface 
of the sand cap and clay. Unless the 
excess Na+ moves laterally under the 
sand cap (drainage lines can help), it 
will eventually break down the clay 
structure and the subsoil will seal off. 
Symptoms during wet periods will be 
continuously damp, boggy areas with 
possible standing water. In dry periods, 
salts may rise into the rootzone.

The type of clay soil has a profound 
influence on the amount of Na that will 
eventually cause soil structural deterio­
ration. Soils that crack open when they 
dry (montmorillonite, illite) tolerate a 
much lower Na concentration before 
soil structural deterioration, mainly 
because Na+ easily enters between clay 
platelets, and because of the increased 
exposure of the clay particle exchange 
sites to excess Na as these soils expand 
and contract. Soils that have non­
swelling clays (kaolinite, Fe/Al oxides) 
tolerate much higher Na concentra­
tions before structural breakdown be­
cause the Na ion has more difficulty 
migrating into these non-expanding 
soils and in-between clay platelets.

Regardless of clay type, once a soil 
has deteriorated into a sodic condition, 
turning this condition around will re­
quire a program of aeration, application 
of Ca+2 source amendments, high-vol­
ume leaching, and careful turfgrass 
selection. Calcium amendments should 
be applied immediately following aera­
tion to avoid acceleration of permea­
bility problems in the soil profile at the 
depth of the aeration treatments. This 
scenario is the most complex and diffi­
cult salt stress to overcome and may 
take several months to several years to 
accomplish. With poor quality, salt­
laden water as the only irrigation 

source, management at a high level will 
have to be constant to prevent the sodic 
soil condition from reoccurring.

Bicarbonate and
Carbonate Influence

Another set of water data factors 
is also important in influencing Na+ 
activity — namely, relative levels of 
bicarbonates (HCO3) and carbonates 
(CO32) in relation to Ca+2 and Mg+2 
concentrations (Tables 3 and 4). When 
high HCO3 and CO32 levels (> 120 
and 15 ppm, respectively) are applied 
through the irrigation water, these ions

Acid injection and sulfur burners 
can be used to treat water with excess 
bicarbonate levels. Acidifying irrigation 
water to a pH of 6.5 reduces 
bicarbonates by approximately 50%.

react with Ca+2 and Mg+2 to form in­
soluble CaCO3 and MgCO3. The de­
creased levels of Ca+2 and Mg+2 from this 
reaction process reduce the amount of 
these ions that can compete with Na+ 
for exchange sites on the clay particles. 
As the Na+ content increases through 
daily irrigation applications, the Na+ 
dominates these exchange sites and 
causes soil structural breakdown. The 
soil becomes sealed, water does not 
percolate into the soil profiles, and 
the turf eventually dies. The insoluble 
Ca/Mg carbonate forms precipitate out 
into the soil, and remaining bicarbon­
ates reduce the effectiveness of gypsum 
or sulfur treatments to the soil.

The sodium permeability hazard in 
irrigation water is usually assessed by 
SARw values when HCO3 is < 120 ppm 
and CO32 is < 15 ppm. The SARw value 
incorporates the influence of Na+, Ca+2, 
and Mg+2 concentrations. Above these 
levels, adj SAR is preferred since these 
values incorporate the influence of 
HCO3 and CO3 2.

Residual sodium carbonates (RSC) 
also are used to assess the sodium 
permeability hazard, and this value 
includes the influence of HCO3 and 
CO32 as compared to Ca+2 and Mg+2 
(Tables 3 and 4). As a general rule, 
whenever HCO3 exceeds 120 ppm, it is 
a good idea to calculate RSC. It is not 
the absolute levels of HCO5 and 
CO52 present in the irrigation water 
that are important, but the relative 
concentrations of HCO; and CO32 
compared to Ca+2, Mg+2, and Na+ 
levels.

When HCO3 and CO32 concentra­
tions exceed soluble Ca and Mg con­
centrations, water acidification may be 
needed if residual sodium carbonate 
and adjusted sodium adsorption ratios 
(adj SARw) exceed 1.25 and 6 meq L1, 
respectively (Table 3). If HCO3 and 
CO32 concentrations are < 120 ppm, 
RSC < zero, and adj SARw < 6 meq 
L4, then acidification of irrigation water 
should not be needed. Know all three 
values before deciding to purchase a 
sulfur generator or acid injection sys­
tem for water treatment! (Carrow et 
al, 1999)

If the RSC is > 0, indicating residual 
carbonates remain above those re­
moved by Ca and Mg precipitation, 
another option is to add gypsum or 
a soluble Ca+2 source to prevent Na+ 
accumulation in the soil. One meq L1 
Ca must be added for each meq L 4 
HCO3. However, any previously pre­
cipitated Ca and Mg tied up by the 
excess bicarbonates (positive RSC 
value) will not be active or available. 
Thus, acidification will remove the 
bicarbonate and will make available 
the Ca and Mg contained in or added 
to the irrigation water to react with the 
excess Na adsorbed to soil CEC sites. 
Additional Ca could be supplied by 
adding gypsum or a soluble Ca source. 
The amendments are intended to im­
prove soil water infiltration and perco­
lation. (Refer to Carrow et al, 1999, 
Green Section Record, 37(6): 11-15 for 
more information on water treatment 
options to improve infiltration.)

SAR/ECw Interaction

The interaction of SARw and ECw 
on soil water infiltration is presented in 
Table 5. High total (salt) electrolyte 
concentrations in the irrigation water 
can counteract the adverse effects of 
Na on causing soil deterioration. When 
irrigation water is very low in salts 
(ECw < 0.5 dSm4), permeability prob­
lems can arise at the soil surface even 
at low SARw (1-10 meq L4). All irriga-

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000 

19

Table 5. Interaction of sodium adsorption ratio (SARw) and 
electrical conductivity (ECw) on soil water infiltration 
(Harivandi and Beard, 1998)

Salt-Laden Irrigation Water (dSnr1) 
Influence on Soil Permeability*

SARw and
ECw

No 
Restriction

Slight to 
Moderate Restriction

Severe 
Restriction

SARw =
ECw =

SARw =
ECw =

SARw =
ECw =

SARw =
ECw =

SARw =
ECw =

0-3
>0.7

3-6
> 1.2

6-12
> 1.9

12-20
>2.9

20-40
>5.0

0-3
0.7 - 0.2

3-6
1.2 - 0.3

6-12
1.9 - 0.5

12-20
2.9 -1.3

20-40
5-2.9

0-3
<0.2

3-6
<0.3

6-12
<0.5

12-20
<1.3

20-40
<2.9

*Soil permeability = ability of water to infiltrate into the soil and percolate/drain. 

Gas exchange is reduced by low soil permeability.

tion water should contain at least 20 
ppm or 1 meq L1 Ca and have a mini­
mum ECw = 0.5 dSm1 to prevent soil 
dispersion (Petrie 1997). At high ECw 
(> 3 dSm1), the high electrolyte (salt) 
concentration can function in main­
taining soil permeability even with a 
high SARw (15-30 meq L1). Thus, a 
high Na hazard in the soil can be 
reduced by irrigation water with a high 
ECw (see Table 3).

(Refer to Duncan and Carrow, 1999, 
Golf Course Management, May: 58- 
62, or Carrow and Duncan, 1998, for 
the gypsum requirements to reduce soil 
exchangeable sodium percentage.)

Specific Ion Toxicity

Irrigation water may contain toxic 
levels of certain ions that affect turf­
grass in 1) root tissues due to soil 
accumulation, 2) shoot tissues due to 
uptake by the turf roots and accumu­
lation in leaves, and 3) directly on the 
foliage of landscape plants due to 
sprinkler irrigation. The ions that 
cause toxicity problems include Na, 
Cl, B, HCO5, and pH (H+ or OH ions). 
As total salinity increases in irrigation 
water, the potential for specific ion 
toxicity also increases. Germinating 
seed, young seedlings, and sprigs are 
especially vulnerable because of their 
juvenile root systems.

The specific ion toxicity guidelines 
(Table 2) apply to sensitive turf and 
landscape plants, but soil accumulation 

20 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

of these ions can eventually cause 
damage to even tolerant turfgrass. Over 
time, sodium can become toxic to turf 
roots, since it accumulates in the soil 
and leaves of susceptible turf genotypes 
at SAR > 3 meq L1 or 70 ppm. Chloride 
(Cl) can accumulate at potentially toxic 
levels for roots and leaves at 2-3 meq 
L1 or 70-100 ppm, and can restrict N 
uptake. Excess Cl normally accumu­
lates in the tips of leaves. In turf, 
regular mowing plus collection and 
disposal of clippings removes these 
high concentrations from the turf and 
soil system. But leaf removal is nor­
mally not a management option for 
landscape plants, or may be limited 
on turf under non-mowed conditions, 
such as in naturalized roughs.

Residual chlorine (Cl2) that is used to 
disinfect wastewater becomes toxic at 
> 5 ppm. HCO3 concentrations are not 
toxic at > 8.0 meq L1 or 500 ppm, but 
can cause unsightly deposits on leaves 
and equipment and can contribute 
to excess Na+ deterioration of soil 
structure.

Depending on the source, some irri­
gation effluent can contain high levels 
of heavy metals and other ions (Carrow 
and Duncan, 1998). Maximum concen­
trations of selected heavy metals Zn 
(2.0 ppm) and Cu (0.2 ppm) are note­
worthy since these ions can restrict 
uptake of iron (Fe) (Table 4). The 
maximum concentrations for Fe (5.0 
ppm) and Mn (0.2 ppm) are important 

to know since these elements tend to 
be deficient in salt-affected and highly 
leached turfgrass systems. These maxi­
mum guidelines are based on the 
potential to achieve toxic levels over 
time with long-term use of the water.

Soil and Water pH

Water pH and soil pH are additional 
management considerations. The key 
reference points are pHs <5.0 (H+ 
dominates on the acidic level) and >8.5 
(OH dominates on the alkaline level). 
When pHs are at or beyond these 
specific extremes, management levels 
must be increased accordingly to mini­
mize deterioration in turf performance 
(Carrow and Duncan, 1998).

The effect of water pH on altering 
soil pH is often short term because the 
buffering capacity (CEC) of most clay 
and loam native soils is so high that 
many years of irrigation will be required 
before a significant change will occur. 
Soils with lower CECs (sands, decom­
posed granites, crushed lava rock) 
should be monitored closely for pH 
changes. Accordingly, acidifying water 
for the sake of pH modification is 
questionable when cost analyses are 
considered. However, when high bi­
carbonates are supplied in combination 
with excess Na in the water source 
(which ties up the Ca/Mg needed to 
counter the Na), water acidification 
would be justified. Additionally, when 
the water pH is in the 8.0-8.5 range, use 
of acidifying fertilizers (sulfur-based 
sources) to dissolve some of the free 
calcium carbonate (lime) can counter 
some of this alkaline soil pH reaction.
Be aware that extreme water pH and 
high salt concentrations, when used in 
the sprayer mix with fungicides, herbi­
cides, or insecticides, can have an 
effect on efficacy. This is particularly 
true with organophosphate and carba­
mate chemistries. Consult with manu­
facturers regarding each particular 
product when confronted with this 
problem.

Critical Nutrient Considerations

All irrigation water will contain a 
certain level of nutrients in its compo­
sition, and wastewater may contain 
elevated levels of certain nutrients. 
Due to the nutrient load in effluent 
irrigation water, fertility programs must 
be adjusted to maximize turfgrass per­
formance and to minimize environ­
mental impact (King et al., 2000).

Nutrient guidelines in irrigation are 
compared in Tables 5, 6, and 7. Key 
ratios to calculate include Ca:Mg, 

Ca:K, and Mg:K (Table 8), especially in 
salt-affected sites that are irrigated with 
salt-laden water. When dealing with 
these conditions, certain management 
considerations should be considered.

• Because of the high mobility of K+ 
and the propensity of Na+ to displace 
K+ on soil exchange sites, a regular K+ 
application may be needed every 2-4 
weeks to maintain a nutritional balance 
in the turf plant.

• Due to high leaching events with 
salt-laden irrigation water, Fe and Mn 
may be needed on a regular basis in 
spoon-feeding format.

• Highly soluble nitrate sources 
[Ca(NO3)2] are recommended in a 
spoon-feeding approach to maximize 
turf uptake and utilization in a salt- 
challenged environment.

• Less soluble, slow-release products 
with lower salt indexes may be more 
appropriate when planning soil-applied 
fertilization programs to reduce the 
total salt load in the turf rootzone.

• Avoid unnecessary sulfur applica­
tions (except when in conjunction with 
lime to form gypsum) because they 
can lead to black layer and anaerobic 
problems in turf.

• If P, PO4, and P2O5 concentrations 
are in the normal range, do not apply 
additional P-based fertilizers since this 
nutrient is one of the least mobile of 
nutrients in the soil and can contribute 
to algal blooms in holding ponds or 
contamination in surface and subsur­
face water resources.

• Avoid foliar calcium applications 
since this element is the least mobile of 
nutrients and is an element that is more 
effectively taken up by roots than 
through foliar tissue.

Total Suspended Solids

Suspended solids are inorganic or 
organic materials (sand, silt, clay, 
plant debris, algae) that do not dis­
solve in water and can only be 
removed by filtration. While total sus­
pended solids (TSS) is normally not 
considered a salt problem, it is an 
important water quality characteristic. 
Low quality effluents are notorious for 
containing high volumes of organic 
solids. The overall effect on hydraulic 
conductivity is governed by particle 
size and quantity of suspended in­
organic and organic solids. Organic 
materials include humic substances 
such as fulvic acid and humic acid 
that exhibit both soil aggregating and 
anti-aggregating properties. Excess 
suspended solids, and particularly sand 
contamination, often contribute to pre­

mature wear or plugging of sprinkler 
and pumping components as well as 
increasing the potential for plugging 
micropores, which conduct soil surface 
water.

Suspended solids generally have 
little or no impact on native soils (fair­
ways, roughs, landscaped areas) or 
pushup soil tees and greens, because 
the added solids normally are similar 
in particle size to the native soil. In this 
case, solids added through the irriga­

tion water in small amounts provide a 
light topdressing to the native soil.

The primary concern with suspended 
solids is their effect on newly con­
structed sand greens that can poten­
tially be contaminated by these fine- 
particle-size solids delivered during 
seed germination, establishment, and 
grow-in. If significant amounts of 
suspended soil fines are applied at this 
stage, soil surface micropores can be­
come plugged, function like a layer of

Table 6. Nutrient guidelines in irrigation water (ppm)

Nutrient

P
PO4
p2o5
K
K2O
Ca
Mg
N
no3
s
so4

Low

<0.01
<0.3
<0.23
< 5
< 6
<20
< 10
< 1.1
<5
<10
<30

Normal

0.1-0.4
0.3 -1.21
0.23 - 0.92
5-20
6-24
20-60
10-25
1.1 -11.3
5-50
10-30
30-90

High

Very High

0.4 - 0.8
1.21 - 2.42
0.92 -1.83
20-30
24-36
60-80
25-35
11.3 - 22.6
50 -100
30-60
90 -180

>0.8
>2.42
>1.83
>30
>36
>80
>35
>22.6
> 100
>60
>180

Table 7. Reclaimed water guidelines — recommended maximum values 
(Adapted from L. J. Stowell, 1999. Pointers on reclaimed water 
contract negotiations. Fairbanks Ranch meeting. June 7, 1999.)

TDS (ppm) ..................................960

Cl (ppm)......................................250

ECw (dSnr1)................................. 1.5

Na (ppm)..................................... 200

SARw ........................................... 5.7

Fe.................................................. 5.0

adj SARw.................................... 11.6

Mn................................................ 0.2

RSC (meq L1) ........................ <  1.25

Zn................................................. 2.0

HCO3 (ppm)............................... 250

Cu................................................. 0.2

B (ppm) ......................................  0.5 

Ni.................................................. 0.2 

Table 8. Nutrient ratios in irrigation water and potential deficiencies*

Ca:Mg

Ca:K

Mg:K

<3:1
>8:1

< 10:1
>30:1

<2:1
>10:1

Ca deficiency 
Mg deficiency

Ca deficiency
K deficiency

Mg deficiency
K deficiency

irrigation water with nutrient concentrations outside these ranges can be used; 
the fertility program must be adjusted to avoid deficiencies.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000 

21

foreign soil or incompatible topdress­
ing, and inhibit water infiltration and 
percolation. If the irrigation water is 
salt-laden, the fines can settle at the 
bottom of the wetting zone and de­
velop a layer where excess salts 
accumulate and concentrate. If ET is 
higher than the volume of irrigation 
that is applied, the concentrated salts 
can rise through capillary action into 
the turf rootzone to cause salt injury.

Unfortunately, no specific guidelines 
have been published for predicting the 
level at which TSS becomes a hazard. 
Interpret TSS data based on common 
sense and the potential impact that 
contaminants may or may not have on 
soil structure and irrigation system 
components. Use the following method 
to evaluate the TSS hazard:

1) The water quality test reports TSS 
in parts per million (ppm) or milligrams 
per liter (mg L1).

2) Multiply the value by a conversion 
factor of 2.72. The resulting value is 
equivalent to the pounds of solids per 
acre-foot (325,852 gallons), or the 
volume of solids applied to each acre 
with 12 inches of irrigation water.

For example:
1) Water quality test reports 22 ppm 

TSS.

2) 22 ppm x 2.72 = 59.84 or 60 lbs. 
of solids applied per acre-foot of water 
applied to the turf.

3) Is this a problem? Not likely, since 
this amount (60 lbs./acre-foot) is equiv­
alent to one bag of cement spread over 
the golf course with each acre-foot of 
water applied. Sand, silt, and clay 
particle residue from a windy day 
would provide more solids than this 
water source (Kopec, 1998).

4) If the TSS was 735: 735 ppm x 
2.72 = -2,000 lbs. or 1 ton of solids per 
acre-foot. This volume of fines could 
be a problem on sand greens. Filtering 
the water or providing settling ponds 
would be options to consider.

Summary

Steps in assessing, water quality 
to determine turfgrass management 
options:

1. Check for bicarbonates and car­
bonates in the water. If concentrations 
are greater than 120 ppm and 15 ppm, 

respectively, calculate adj SARw and 
RSC to verify the degree of impact that 
these ions will have on Ca and Mg 
activity. Adj SARs > 6 meq L1 and RSCs 
> 1.25 may indicate that acid treatment 
plus lime or gypsum applications are 
needed.

2. Check Na content and calculate 
SARw or adj SARw and RSC to assess 
impact on soil structural deterioration 
(Na permeability hazard). Also, evalu­
ate ECw in conjunction with SAR or 
adj SAR to estimate the permeability 
hazard (Tables 3 and 5). Knowledge of 
the clay type will be useful. These 
values will determine the level of aerifi­
cation, amendments, and leaching that 
will be needed.

3. Check ECw and TDS for their 
impact on turfgrass (Table 2). High total 
salinity values in conjunction with low 
Na+ and HCO3 values would indicate 
the potential to create a saline soil con­
dition and will determine the degree of 
aeration and leaching needed as your 
primary management options.

4. Check S and/or sulfate levels in 
the water. If S > 60 ppm or SO4 > 180 
ppm, you may need to use lime as an 

This patch of seashore paspalum is surviving better than the surrounding 
bermudagrass in this poorly drained, high-salt-content soil.

22 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

amendment. The high sulfates (sulfur) 
in the water will combine with lime to 
form gypsum. Removing the excess 
sulfur and sulfates will help minimize 
anaerobic problems and black layer 
formation when regular aeration and 
leaching are used in management 
protocols.

5. Check actual Na, Cl, and B values 
for their specific ion toxicity potential 
(Table 3). These ions normally will 
affect landscape plants and susceptible 
turf cultivars, but continued accumu­
lation can eventually influence even 
tolerant species. Plants tolerant to high 
total salinity also are generally tolerant 
to high levels of these specific ions.

6. Check levels of actual nutrients 
and make appropriate adjustments in 
your fertility program to account for 
nutrient additions or any induced defi­
ciencies (Tables 6 and 7). Calculate 
Ca:Mg, Ca:K, and Mg:K ratios and 
adjust the fertility program accordingly 
(Table 8). Watch for deficient levels of 
Fe and Mn. With very high Cl levels, 
you may need to increase N by 10-25%. 
P and K are critical to maintenance of 
a good root system in a salt-challenged 
ecosystem. Annual P and K rates may 
need to be increased 25-50% above non­
salt-affected sites, but with a spoon­
feeding application regime. High Ca 
and Mg applications to replace excess 
Na can depress K uptake. High Na 
also depresses K uptake. N:K2O ratios 
should be maintained at 1:1 up to 1:1.5 
by light, frequent applications.

7. Aerate, aerate, aerate followed by 
leach, leach, and leach. Keep the salts 
moving!

Glossary of Terms

Acid injection: Used to treat water with 
high HCO3 and CO3 content. Adding an 
acid evolves the HCO3 and CO3 off as CO2 
and water. Commonly used sources include 
sulfuric, urea-sulfuric, and SO2 gas from 
sulfurous generators.

B: Boron, a micronutrient, essential at very 
low concentrations. Can become toxic at 
soil concentrations of 0.5-6.0 ppm. Most 
turfgrasses have a good tolerance to boron, 
while some ornamental species are very 
sensitive.

Bicarbonate: HCO3 ion.

Ca: Calcium is an essential plant nutrient 
and cation responsible for good soil 
structure.

CaCl2: Calcium chloride, a very soluble 
calcium salt that can be dissolved in irriga­
tion water to lower the SAR or increase the 
ECw.

CaCO3: Calcium carbonate (lime), insoluble 
form of calcium precipitated by water high 
in Ca, HCO3, and CO3. Sometimes naturally

Without proper management, sodium, in combination with bicarbonates, can cause 
crusting and sealing of the soil surface.

occurring in calcareous/caliche soils in 
arid regions. Insoluble until reacted with an 
acid.

Cu: Copper, an essential micronutrient, but 
if concentrations are excessive (> 0.2 ppm) 
can restrict the uptake of iron.

CaCOj • MgCO3: Calcium/magnesium car­
bonate (dolomitic lime), insoluble calcium/ 
magnesium combination precipitated from 
water high in Ca, Mg, HCO3, and CO3. 
Sometimes naturally occurring in calcare­
ous/caliche soils in arid regions. Insoluble 
until reacted with an acid.
Carbonate: CO3 2 ion.

CaNO3: Calcium nitrate, a highly soluble 
source of calcium and nitrogen that can be 
dissolved in irrigation water to lower the 
SAR or increase the ECw.

CaSO4: Calcium sulfate, commonly referred 
to as gypsum. An amendment used to dis­
place sodium from the soil exchange sites 
and can be added to irrigation water 
(usually as a suspension) to increase ECw 
or the ratio of Ca/Na, thereby lowering 
SAR.

CEC: Cation exchange capacity, the sum 
total of exchangeable cations that a soil can 
absorb.

Cl: Chloride is required in small amounts as 
a plant nutrient; it is a highly soluble salt 
and toxic in larger quantities (70-100 ppm). 
Trees and ornamental plants are often more 
sensitive to chloride than turf, and accumu­
lation is first noted in leaf tips. Most plants 
are generally more sensitive to chloride salts 
than sulfate salts.

Cl2: Chlorine, used by water treatment 
plants to disinfect water of various patho­
gens. Excess or residual chlorine (> 5.0 
ppm) can cause toxicity.

CO3: Carbonate, combines with Ca (cal­
cium) and Mg (magnesium) to form CaCO3 
and MgCO3 (calcium carbonate and mag­
nesium carbonate) forms of insoluble lime 
or calcite.

dS/mj Decisiemens per meter, the stan­
dard measurement used to report electrical 
conductivity of water (ECw).

ECw: Electrical conductivity of irrigation 
water. This is a measure of the total salinity 
or total dissolved salts. 640 ppm TDS = 1.0 
dS/m ECw.

ESP: Exchangeable sodium percentage, 
used to classify sodic and saline-sodic soil 
conditions. The degree of saturation of the 
soil exchange complex with sodium as 
compared to other exchangeable cations 
occurring from irrigation with sodium- 
dominated water.

ET: Evapotranspiration, the total amount of 
water loss from soil evaporation and plant 
transpiration.

Fe: Iron, essential plant nutrient that tends 
to become depleted in highly leached, salt- 
affected soils.

H2SO4: Sulfuric acid, either forms in soil 
when acidifying amendments/fertilizers are 
used such as soil sulfur (S), ammonium 
sulfate, etc., or is injected into irrigation 
water via a sulfurous generator or acid 
injection and products such as urea sulfuric 
acid (NpHURIC).

HCO3: Bicarbonate, combines with Ca 
(calcium) and Mg (magnesium) to form 
CaCO3 and MgCO3 (calcium carbonate and 
magnesium carbonate) forms of insoluble 
lime or calcite. Can also cause unsightly 
deposits on ornamentals.

K: Potassium, an essential nutrient that 
influences rooting, drought, heat, cold, and 
disease tolerance. Potassium can be dis­
placed by sodium at the cation exchange 
site.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000 

23

meq/1: Milliequivalents per liter. Parts per 
million (ppm) divided by equivalent weight 
equals milliequivalents per liter.

mg L *: Milligrams per liter, equals parts per 
million.

Mg: Magnesium, an essential plant nutrient 
and cation associated with good soil struc­
ture, providing it is not available in exces­
sive quantities in relationship to Ca.

MgCO,: Magnesium carbonate, insoluble 
form of magnesium precipitated by water 
high in Mg, HCO3, and CO3. Sometimes 
naturally occurring in calcareous/caliche 
soils in arid regions. Insoluble until reacted 
with an acid.

Mn: Manganese, essential plant nutrient 
that tends to become depleted in highly 
leached, salt-affected soils.

Na: Sodium, non-essential as a nutrient, a 
“small” cation with a large hydrated size 
that disperses soils, thereby affecting infil­
tration and soil aeration. Can displace 
potassium on soil exchange sites.

Na2SO4: Sodium sulfate, a soluble salt 
formed when gypsum is used to treat soils 
with high sodium content.

pH (water): A logarithmic measurement of 
relative alkalinity or acidity. Water with 
low pH often reflects higher quantities of 
sulfates or iron, while high pH tends to 
reflect high bicarbonates or sodium.

ppm: Parts per million. Milliequivalents per 
liter multiplied by equivalent weight = parts 
per million.

RSC: Residual sodium carbonate, like the 
adj SARw, it is used to determine whether 
Na will cause soil structure problems. The 
RSC compares the concentrations of Ca 
and Mg to HCO3 and CO3 and determines 
when calcium and magnesium precipitation 
can occur in the soil and result in additional 
sodium domination of soil cation exchange 
sites. RSC = (CO3 + HCO3) - (Ca + Mg). 
This calculation is done with all measure­
ments in meq/1.

RSC Value 
< 1.25 

1.25 - 2.5 
> 2.5 

Potential Irrigation Use
Generally safe for
irrigation
Marginal
Usually unsuitable
unless treated

S: Sulfur, a secondary plant nutrient used as 
a soil amendment to modify pH in alkaline 
soils. Also used in calcareous and caliche 
soils (containing high lime) to convert lime 
into gypsum.
SARw: Sodium adsorption ratio of irriga­
tion water. SARw is used to determine 
whether sodium (Na) levels of water will 
cause soil structure to deteriorate. Unad­
justed SAR (SARw) considers only Na, Ca, 
and Mg.

Adj SAR: Adjusted sodium adsorption 
ratio of irrigation water. Adj SARw predicts 
the increased influence of sodium (Na) 
upon soil structure due to the influence of 
carbonates and bicarbonates.

24 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

SO3 Generator: Sulfurous generator, also 
known as a sulfur burner. Equipment used 
to treat irrigation water containing high 
carbonates and bicarbonates. Bums sulfur 
at high temperatures to produce sulfurous 
gas that when combined with water be­
comes sulfuric acid. This evolves the HCO3 
and CO3 off as CO2 and water. This is 
another method of acid injection.

SO4: Sulfate, when combined with lime 
while in an acid form creates gypsum. May 
also combine with other cations to form 
various soluble salts.

TDS: Total dissolved salts, normally re­
ported as parts per million (ppm).

TSS: Total suspended solids, organic and 
inorganic materials (sand, silt, clay, algae, 
plant debris, etc.) that do not dissolve in 
water and must be removed by filtration or 
settling.

References
Ayers, R. S., and D. W. Westcot. 1985. Water 
quality for agriculture. FAO Irrigation and 
Drainage Paper, 29. Rev. 1, Food and Agric. 
Organiz., Rome, Italy.

Berndt, W. Lee. 1995. “Quality” water 
for your plants. Landscape Management 
34(10): 21-23.

Bond, W. J. 1998. Effluent irrigation— an 
environmental challenge for soil science. 
Austral. J. Soil Res. 36: 543-555.
Borchardt, Julie. 1999. Reclaiming a re­
source. Golf Course Mgmt. Jan.: 268-272, 
276-278.
Carrow, R. N. 1995. Water quality testing for 
turfgrass sites. Ga. Turfgrass Assoc. Mgmt. 
Brief #1. 7p.

Carrow, R. N., and R. R. Duncan. 1998. 
Salt-affected turfgrass sites: assessment and 
management. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, 
MI. 185p.
Carrow, R. N., R. R. Duncan, and M. Huck. 
1999. Treating the cause, not the symptoms. 
Irrigation water treatment for better infil­
tration. USGA Green Section Record. 
37(6): 11-15.
Cohen, Stuart, A. Surjeck, T. Durborow, 
and N. L. Barnes. 1999. Water quality 
impacts by golf courses. J. Environ. Qual. 
28: 798-809.
Duncan, R. R., and R. N. Carrow. 1999. 
Establishment and grow-in of paspalum 
golf course turf. Golf Course Mgmt. May: 
58-62.
Duncan, R. R., and R. N. Carrow. 2000. 
Seashore paspalum, the environmental 
turfgrass. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, ML 
Feigin, A., L. Ravina, and J. Shalhevet. 1991. 
Irrigation with treated sewage effluent. 
Management for environmental protection. 
Springer-Verlag. Berlin.
Hanson, Blaine, Stephen R. Grattan, and 
Allan Fulton. 1999. Agricultural Salinity 
and Drainage. Div. Agric. Natural Res. Pub. 
3375, U. Cal. Irrig. Program, Univ. Calif., 
Davis, Ca. 160p.

Harivandi, A. 1998. Reclaimed water irri­
gation. GCSAA, Lawrence, KS. 129p.

Harivandi, M. Ali. 1999. Interpreting turf­
grass irrigation water test results. Univ. 
California Pub. 8009 (http://anrcatalog.uc- 
davis.edu).
Harivandi, M. A., and J. B. Beard. 1998. 
How to interpret a water test report. Golf 
Course Mgmt. 66(6):49-55.

Hayes, Allan. 1995. Comparing well water 
with effluent: what superintendents need to 
know. Golf Course Mgmt. June: 49-53.

Hawes, Kay. 1997. Quenching golf’s thirst. 
Golf Course Mgmt. June: 71-72, 74, 78, 80, 
84-86.
King, K. W, J. C. Balogh, and R. D Harmel. 
2000. Feeding turf with wastewater. Golf 
Course Mgmt. January: 59-62.

Kopec, D. 1998. True grit — understanding 
TSS on a water quality report. Cactus Clip­
pings. Newsletter of the Cactus and Pine 
(Arizona) Golf Course Superintendents 
Association.
Newcom, J., and E. McCathy. 1999. Lay­
person’s guide to water recycling. Water 
Education Foundation. Sacramento, CA 
95814.
Petrie, S. E. 1997. Understanding irrigation 
water quality. UNOCAL Solution Sheet. 
April: 1-4.
RJioades, J. D., A. Kandiah, and A. M. 
Mashali. 1992. The use of saline waters for 
crop production. FAO Irrigation and Drain­
age Paper #48. Rome, Italy. 133p.
Ross, B. B. 1988. Irrigating turfgrass under 
adverse water quality conditions. Land­
scape and Irrigation 12(4): 148, 150, 151, 
154.
Schinderle, Gary. 1990. Identifying and 
correcting severe water quality problems. 
Golf Course Mgmt. May.
Throssell, C. S., and D. M. Kopec. 1994. 
Irrigation water quality. Salt-affected irri­
gation water and soil: impact on turf­
grass growth and management. GCSAA, 
Lawrence, KS. 50p.
U.S. Golf Association. 1994. Wastewater 
reuse for golf course irrigation. Lewis Publ., 
Chelsea, ML
Yenny, Reed. 1994. Salinity management. 
USGA Green Section Record 32(6):7-10.

Zupancic, J. 1999. Reclaimed water: chal­
lenges of irrigation use. Grounds Mainte­
nance 34(3):33, 36, 38, 85.

DR. RON R. DUNCAN (turfgrass genetics/ 
breeding, stress physiology) and DR. 
ROBERT N. CARROW (turfgrass stress 
physiology and soil physical and chemical 
stresses) are research scientists in the 
Crop and Soil Science Department, Uni­
versity of Georgia, Georgia Experimental 
Station at Griffin. MIKE HUCK is an 
agronomist with the USGA Green Section 
Southwest Region.

ON COURSE WITH NATURE
BACK TO BASICS: 
Restoring 
Playability and 
Native Wildlife 
Habitats
Is your golf course planning 
to undertake a renovation 
or restoration project?
Now is the time to plan for 
environmental and wildlife 
enhancements.

by FRED YARRINGTON

DURING 1998, the Hole-in-the- 

|Wall Golf Club (Naples, Florida) 
was closed for nearly six months 
during a complete renovation of the 

golf course playing surfaces and resto­
ration to first-class playing conditions. 
While the golf course was closed and 
there was no concern about turf dam­
age, we took advantage of special 
equipment, time, and the general dis­
ruption to undertake several wildlife 
habitat enhancement projects. The fol­
lowing year we continued to fine-tune 
the work we had begun the previous 
summer. The result has been not only 
a great improvement in playability and 
aesthetics, but enhanced native plant 
communities and wildlife populations.
Based on our experience at Hole- 
in-the-Wall, we highly recommend 
to anyone considering major course 
restoration that they plan to incorpo­
rate wildlife and habitat management 
projects at the same time. It definitely 
will pay dividends at the minimum 
expense possible for this type of work.

Removing Exotic Invasive Species

Florida is a haven for exotic, invasive 
plant species that are wreaking havoc 
on our native ecological communities. 
Our golf course is host to some of the 
worst offenders, including melaleuca 
and Brazilian pepper.

Our exotic plant removal program 
began a number of years ago and has 
won general acceptance by the mem-

Lakeside planting and an osprey platform enhance wildlife diversity 
and aesthetics at the Hole-in-the-Wa.ll Golf Club, Naples, Florida.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000 

25

A concerted effort was made to remove exotic, invasive plant species during a scheduled golf course renovation period. 
The end result enhanced the beauty of the golf course natural areas.

bership and support of the board of 
directors, but removing exotics a little 
here and a little there whenever it can 
be worked into the regular mainte­
nance routine yields slow progress. 
During the early stages of the course 
renovation, our golf course superin­
tendent, Russ Geiger, pushed hard for 
exotic plant removal and had the 
opportunity to show the restoration 
committee examples of the advantages 
generated by such work. Through the 
support of club president Bill Harvey, 
who approved the work and expanded 
the budget to accommodate it, we were 
able to accelerate our efforts and 
removal is now 60-70% complete.

With the golf course closed, exten­
sive removal of Brazilian peppers was 
undertaken on the east side of the lake 
on the fifth hole and in the general area 
bordering the fifth hole, the sixth tee, 
and on through the woods to the 16th 
fairway. Normally, work of this nature 
could not be done in this area without 
significant turf damage caused by heavy 
equipment. The golf course renovation 
project proved to be the perfect time to 
take action.

The improvement in the area for 
both wildlife and golfers is astounding. 
The pepper removal by the lake and 
modest replanting along the banks 
with ferns has opened up a very attrac­
tive cypress and native plant vista. We 
undertook more extensive replanting 
with native vegetation in the area west 
of the fifth green and planted a small 
butterfly garden around the restrooms. 
This area has a very attractive grove 
of native pine, which was formerly 
totally obscured by the heavy growth of 
peppers.

In addition, we removed several 
ornamental plant hedges on the golf 

26 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

course and replaced them with native 
plant material. The same type of 
material was used to create badly 
needed buffers between several existing 
holes.

In the summer of 1999, a significant 
number of melaleucas were removed 
from the course by the 12th hole and 
the 13th fairway. These areas were re­
planted with oaks, sable palms, and 
other native plant material, with much 
of the cost covered by a memorial fund 
for former club president Jerry Doyle.
Also included in the renovation pro­
gram was a continuation of exotic re­
moval between our sixth hole and the 
16th tee and along the entire right 
side of the second hole. Both of these 
projects involved improving turf con­
ditions by opening up the areas to 
increase air circulation and light. The 
substitution of native plant material for 
the exotics enhanced the visual attrac­
tiveness of both these areas.

Naturalizing Out-of-Play Areas

Another exciting project we under­
took during course renovation was to 
eliminate one of the largest out-of-play 
areas on the course. For several years 
we have considered a number of ideas 
for naturalizing the area between our 
fourth and 18th fairways, but here 
again, we couldn’t have done what we 
did without incorporating it into our 
renovation work.

Course restoration required a source 
of fill, so we capitalized on the situation 
and created an attractive lake with an 
island/peninsula at one end. By de­
stroying a large cluster of Brazilian 
pepper, we opened up a beautiful area 
of large sable palms and other native 
trees on the island. Thus, we solved our 
naturalization problem, created a new 

golfing feature, saved money on the 
cost of fill, and opened up a whole new 
wildlife habitat area.

Documenting Positive Results

Major golf course restoration had 
multiple benefits for Hole-in-the-Wall. 
Playing surfaces have improved dra­
matically and new turf areas have 
eliminated the need for overseeding, 
thus substantially reducing chemical 
and fertilizer use. Documentation and 
observations indicate that Hole-in-the- 
Wall has a stable population of birds 
and reptiles and a sufficient food supply 
to support them. Osprey and bald 
eagles are regularly seen, and we’ve also 
had a hatch of more than ten alligators 
beside the 18th tee. Based upon the 
wildlife activity on the property, it is 
obvious that given adequate acreage, 
good turf management practices can 
be very compatible with maintaining 
an environment for wildlife on the golf 
course.

Now that the work is done, we’re all 
glad to take a break from intensive and 
expensive renovation and get on with 
simply enjoying the golf course. If your 
course is thinking about renovation, 
take the time now to plan habitat im­
provements too. Such a back-to-basics 
plan for enhanced playability and wild­
life habitat will prove satisfying and 
worthwhile for the entire golf course 
community.

Longtime Hole-in-the-Wall member 
FRED YARRINGTON spearheads Audu­
bon Cooperative Sanctuary Program 
efforts in cooperation with golf course 
superintendent Russ Geiger. Hole-in-the- 
Wall Golf Club achieved certification as 
an Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary in 
1994.

NEWS NOTES
Eb Steiniger Receives 
Piper & Oakley Award

EBERHARD “EB” STEINIGER, CGCS, the legendary, longtime super­

intendent of the Pine Valley Golf Club in Clementon, N.J., has been named 
the sixth recipient of the USGA Green Section’s Piper & Oakley Award. The 
Piper & Oakley Award was established in 1998 to recognize persons who have so 

generously contributed to the programs and activities of the USGA Green Section. 
Drs. Charles V. Piper and Russell A. Oakley were among the earliest scientists to 
conduct studies in the fields of turfgrass science and golf course management, and 
served as the first Chairman and Co-Chairman, respectively, of the USGA Green 
Section. They were men of great character, keen vision, and remarkable achieve­
ment, characteristics that pertain equally well to Eb Steiniger.

Eb’s contributions to the Green Section dramatically underscore the reasons 
for his selection for the award. Beginning his career at Pine Valley in the 1920s, 
Eb met Dr. Oakley prior to Oakley’s untimely death in 1928, and thereafter served 
as friend, confidant, and advisor to generations of Green Section agronomists and 
directors, including Dr. John Montieth, Dr. Fanny-Fem Davis, and Dr. Fred Grau. 
He was especially close to Al Radko, the longtime Northeast Region Director and 
National Green Section Director, and he helped mold the careers of agronomists 
such as Holman Griffin, Billy Buchanan, and Stanley Zontek. Officially, he served 
on the USGA Green Section Committee from 1972 to 1990 and the USGA Green 
Section Award Committee from 1974 to 1989. Eb was also extremely generous in 
sharing his experiences with other golf course superintendents by writing articles 
for the Green Section Record and serving as toastmaster and speaker at many a 
Green Section education conference. His enthusiasm for his profession and his 
boundless curiosity in trying to find a better way to maintain his golf course made 
him a magnet for visits from Green Section agronomists, and he never failed to 
have something new to show them. On behalf of the many Green Section 
agronomists whom you have counseled over the years, we salute you, Eb!

The Piper & Oakley Award was presented to Eb in early July by Jim Snow, 
National Director of the Green Section, at a luncheon with some of Eb’s longtime 
friends near his New Jersey home.

Physical Soil Testing 
Laboratories*
The following laboratories are accredited by 
the American Association for Laboratory Accredi­
tation (A2LA), having demonstrated ongoing 
competency in testing materials specified in the 
USGA’s Recommendations for Putting Green 
Construction. The USGA recommends that only 
A2LA-accredited laboratories be used for testing 
and analyzing materials for building greens 
according to our guidelines.

BROOKSIDE LABORATORIES, INC.
308 S. Main Street, New Knoxville, OH 45871 
Attn: Mark Flock
(419) 753-2448 • (419) 753-2949 FAX

EUROPEAN TURFGRASS 
LABORATORIES LIMITED
Unit 58, Stirling Enterprise Park 
Stirling FK7 7RP Scotland 
Attn: John Souter
(44) 1786-449195 • (44) 1786-449688 FAX

N.W. HUMMEL & CO.
35 King Street, P.O. Box 606 
Trumansburg, NY 14886 
Attn: Norm Hummel
(607) 387-5694 • (607) 387-9499 FAX

ISTRC NEW MIX LAB, LLC
1530 Kansas City Road, Suite 110
Olathe, KS 66061 
Attn: Bob Oppold 
(800) 362-8873 • (913) 829-8873 
(913) 829-4013 FAX
e-mail: istrcNewMixLab@worldnet.att.net

LINKS ANALYTICAL
22170 S. Sating Road, Estacada, OR 97023 
Attn: Michael S. Hindahi, Ph.D.
(503) 630-7769

THOMAS TURF SERVICES, INC.
1501 FM2818, Suite 302 
College Station, TX 77840-5247 
Attn: Bob Yzaguirre / Jim Thomas 
(409) 764-2050 • (409) 764-2152 FAX

TIFTON PHYSICAL SOIL 
TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
1412 Murray Avenue, Tifton, GA 31794 
Attn: Powell Gaines
(912) 382-7292 • (912) 382-7992 FAX

TURF DIAGNOSTICS AND DESIGN, INC.
310-A North Winchester Street
Olathe, KS 66062 
Attn: Chuck Dixon 
(913) 780-6725 • (913) 780-6759 FAX

* Revised July 2000. Please contact the 

USGA Green Section (908-234-2300) for 
an updated list of accredited laboratories.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2000 

27

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED
Perfection Is Not Attainable!

However, setting reasonable goals can allow for 
an objective evaluation of course conditions.

by KEITH HAPP

MANY GOLFERS comment that 

a well-struck shot should be 
. rewarded. For example, when 
a well-struck shot from the teeing 

ground finds the fairway, the player 
then should have the opportunity to 
reach the green on a par-4 hole or the 
landing area of a par-5 hole with the 
next stroke. However, it seems that no 
matter where the golf balls may land, 
many golfers want to have a perfect lie 
from which to play. It is alarming that 
having level tees, great greens, and 
healthy, consistent fairway turf is not 
enough. It seems that there is an in­
creasing emphasis placed on eliminat­
ing small blemishes in the rough or 
finding the perfect bunker sand that 
will minimize the potential for a chal­
lenging shot. Whatever happened to 
the saying, “Hit it, go find it, and hit 
again”? Isn’t that what this game is all 
about?

We often hear the question, “What 
can we do about the condition of our 
rough? When my ball lands there I 
can’t play a recovery shot.”

I want to respond by asking the 
question, “What type of recovery shot 
are you trying to play?” After all, 
doesn’t the lie of the ball dictate the 
type of shot that is to be played? Where 
is it stated that there should be no 
penalty for hitting a shot into the 
rough? Sometimes a great recovery 
shot is one that simply positions the 
player for the next shot to the hole.

As an example, perfection also seems 
to be a requirement for bunkers. When 
an errant shot finds a bunker, golfers 
expect the lie of the ball to be perfect. 
There also seems to be an increasing 
demand for absolute consistency from 
one bunker to another. In many in­
stances, simply raking the sand will 
never elevate bunker playability to a 
satisfactory level. Sand may have to 
be removed, drainage installed, bunker 
contours may need to be altered, and 
then new sand can be positioned and 
readied for play. This is time consum­
ing and, for some, cost prohibitive. 
Budgetary constraints must be con­
sidered so conditioning priorities can

28 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

Establish maintenance standards for the golf course. These guidelines provide 
direction to achieve conditioning goals. Guidelines will vary for day-to-day 
versus tournament play.

be established. However, establishing 
priorities is only the first step. 
Developing realistic and obtainable 
priorities is the challenge, and this task 
further identifies the fact that golf 
course operations are different. Just as 
the lie of the ball dictates shot selection, 
economic resources dictate course 
preparation. All too often an apples-to- 
oranges comparison is made regarding 
course conditioning. The manner in 
which one course is prepared may not 
be affordable for every course.

For those courses that have focused 
on elevating playability, agronomic 
strategies used on greens have been 
expanded to tees, fairways, and even 
rough. Tees are fertilized more heavily 
and are overseeded on an as-needed 
basis. Fairways are being topdressed so 
that they are firm and better able to 
support play, no matter what weather 
conditions are presented. Rough is 
being topdressed with composts to 
improve the quality of the soil in which 
the turf is grown. Now, all of these 
strategies improve the health of the turf, 
but they come at a cost. Not all course 
operations have the same budget under 
which to operate, so once again priori­
ties must be established.

It is not possible to achieve the same 
level of conditioning every day of the 
year. There are too many uncontrol­
lable factors involved in turfgrass man­
agement. Budgetary constraints factor 
into the programs that can be used 
throughout the property. Weather pat­

terns impact turf growth as well as 
course grooming activities. If funds are 
limited, the scope of what is an “impor- 
tant-to-play area” must be clearly de­
fined. In other words, this may neces­
sitate learning a few different shots 
when playing from the rough or learn­
ing how to play a bunker shot from a 
less-than-perfect lie.

What are perfect conditions for the 
game of golf? Webster defines perfect as 
“satisfying all requirements.” This 
definition suggests that “the commit­
tee” needs to provide a clear, well-de­
fined description of the desired course 
setup. Doing so could allow for a fair 
evaluation of the course and the man­
ner in which it plays. More importantly, 
course maintenance resources could be 
evaluated to determine if playability 
requirements could be satisfied. If the 
committee constantly changes condi­
tioning goals, then course conditioning 
standards will never be met. All things 
considered, no matter how high the bar 
is raised, expectations will continue to 
climb and this is further evidence that 
perfection is impossible to achieve.

KEITH A. HAPP is an agronomist in the 
Mid-Atlantic Region, visiting courses in 
the states of Delaware, Maryland, West 
Virginia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. 
Recently, Keith opened a sub-regional 
office in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 
area, bringing him closer to courses in the 
western portion of the Mid-Atlantic 
Region.

USGA PRESIDENT
Trey Holland

GREEN SECTION 
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
John D. O’Neill 
49 Homans Avenue 
Quiogue, NY 11978

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
David B. Fay

EDITOR
James T. Snow

ASSOCIATE EDITOR 
Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D.

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS
Marty Parkes

©2000 by United States Golf Association®

Subscriptions $18 a year, Canada/Mexico 
$21 a year, and international $33 a year 
(air mail).

Subscriptions, articles, photographs, and corre­
spondence relevant to published material should 
be addressed to: United States Golf Association 
Green Section, Golf House, P.O. Box 708, Far 
Hills, NJ 07931.

Permission to reproduce articles or material in 
the USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD is 
granted to newspapers, periodicals, and educa­
tional institutions (unless specifically noted 
otherwise). Credit must be given to the author, 
the article’s title, USGA GREEN SECTION 
RECORD, and the issue’s date. Copyright 
protection must be 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: Address 
service requested — USGA Green Section 
Record, P.O. Box 708, Golf House, Far Hills, NJ 
07931-0708.

Periodicals postage paid at Far Hills, NJ, and 
other locations. Office of Publication, Golf 
House, Far Hills, NJ 07931.

Visit the USGA’s Internet site on the 
World Wide Web. The address is: 
http://www.usga.org

Turfgrass Information File (TGIF): 
http://www.lib.msu.edu/tgif 
(517) 353-7209

GREEN SECTION NATIONAL OFFICES:
United States Golf Association, Golf House
P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, NJ 07931 • (908) 234-2300 • Fax (908) 781-1736 
James T. Snow, National Director, jsnow@usga.org 
Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D., Director of Education, kerusha@usga.org

P.O. Box 2227, Stillwater, OK 74076 • (405) 743-3900 • Fax (405) 743-3910 
Michael P. Kenna, Ph.D., Director, mkenna@usga.org
Construction Education Program:
720 Wooded Crest, Waco, TX 76712 • (254) 776-0765 • Fax (254) 776-0227 
James F. Moore, Director, jmoore@usga.org
REGIONAL OFFICES:
Northeast Region:
P.O. Box 4717, Easton, PA 18043 • (610) 515-1660 • Fax (610) 515-1663
David A. Oatis, Director, doatis@usga.org • Jim Baird, Ph.D., Agronomist, ibaird@usga.org 
1500 N. Main Street, Palmer, MA 01069 • (413) 283-2237 • Fax (413) 283-7741 
James E. Skorulski, Agronomist, iskorulski@usga.org
Mid-Atlantic Region:
P.O. Box 2105, West Chester, PA 19380-0086 • (610) 696-4747 • Fax (610) 696-4810 
Stanley J. Zontek, Director, szontek@usga.org • Darin S. Bevard, Agronomist, dbevard@usga.org 
Manor Oak One, Suite 410,1910 Cochran Rd., Pittsburgh, PA 15220 • (412) 341-5922 • Fax (412) 341-5954 
Keith A. Happ, Agronomist, khapp@usga.org
Southeast Region:
P.O. Box 95, Griffin, GA 30224-0095 • (770) 229-8125 • Fax (770) 229-5974 
Patrick M. O'Brien, Director, patobrien@usga.org
4770 Sandpiper Lane, Birmingham, AL 35244 • (205) 444-5079 • Fax (205) 444-9561 
Christopher E. Hartwiger, Agronomist, chartwiger@usga.org
Florida Region:
P.O. Box 1087, Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1087 • (561) 546-2620 • Fax (561) 546-4653
John H. Foy, Director, jfoy@usga.org
Mid-Continent Region:
P.O. Box 1130, Mahomet, IL 61853 • (217) 586-2490 • Fax (217) 586-2169
Paul H. Vermeulen, Director, pvermeulen@usga.org
4232 Arbor Lane, Carrollton, TX 75010 • (972) 492-3663 • Fax (972) 492-1350 
Brian M. Maloy, Agronomist, bmaloy@usga.org
North-Central Region:
P.O. Box 15249, Covington, KY 41015-0249 • (859) 356-3272 • Fax (859) 356-1847
Robert A. Brame, Director, bobbrame@usga.org
P.O. Box 5069, Elm Grove, Wl 53122 • (262) 797-8743 • Fax (262) 797-8838 
Robert C. Vavrek, Jr., Agronomist, rvavrek@usga.org
Northwest Region:
5610 Old Stump Drive N.W., Gig Harbor, WA 98332 • (253) 858-2266 • Fax (253) 857-6698 
Larry W. Gilhuly, Director, lgilhuly@usga.org
P.O. Box 5844, Twin Falls, ID 83303 • (208) 732-0280 • Fax (208) 732-0282 
Matthew C. Nelson, Agronomist, mnelson@usga.org
Southwest Region:
505 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 121, Santa Ana, CA 92705 • (714) 542-5766 • Fax (714) 542-5777 
Patrick J. Gross, Director, pgross@usga.org • Michael T. Huck, Agronomist, mhuck@usga.org

I' IJ RI ■ T W151T,

DON’T DELAY

Question: The last couple of years I’ve heard several references to the Green Section Internship Program. 
I would love to spend a week traveling with a Green Section agronomist. How do I apply? (Indiana)

Answer: The process starts with each university nominating one student from its turfgrass management 
program to the corresponding Green Section Regional Director. The internship program is limited to 
juniors, seniors, and graduate students in four-year turfgrass management programs. A stipend and all 
expenses are paid. The USGA regional agronomists interview the candidates, and one or more students 
are selected to participate in the program. Nominations for the 2001 program are due back from the 
university on November 30,2000. Your starting point is to let your turfgrass professor know that you would 
like to be considered for the program.

ADDRESS

Question: As an assistant superintendent, one of my least liked tasks is determining when our greens should 
be opened during a frost condition. The decision is easy, but what I don’t like is having to go into the pro shop 
and “face the music” of irate golfers. Any tips on how to handle this situation? (Washington)

Answer: Above all, do not avoid the unpleasant task of going into the pro shop and directly facing the 
complaints. Let’s face it, the people behind the counter receive plenty of complaints daily. Look at this 
as an opportunity to hone your communication skills with golfers! Explain that your decision is based 
on sound agronomic principles and you are trying to protect their investment. Although it is sometimes 
difficult, try to do this with a smile on your face while educating the golfers that a little patience now will 
serve the greens, tees, and fairways well in the future. For those who simply refuse to listen, a handy photo 
taken on the course showing the telltale black footprints of frost damage can be very convincing. If they 
still won’t listen, remember that the world is full of CAVE people — Citizens Against Virtually Everything!

THE SITUATION AT HAND

Question: Our course recently experienced vandalism on two of our greens. The greens were damaged by the 
tires of a car. Additionally, gasoline was poured in several areas and lit on fire. From a playability perspective, 
a large portion of the greens was affected. However, actual turf damage was limited to about 10 percent of the 
turf. What is the best method for repairing this damage? (Delaware)

Answer: Repair of vandalism on greens is both time consuming and tedious. Sod is the obvious solution 
for repairing the damage. However, the method is important. First, if possible, obtain sod from a nursery 
green or practice green to minimize visual impact from turf differences. New sod will work too, although 
the appearance of the sodded area will often last several years. When sodding on such a small scale, it is 
important to use narrow sod strips. Six- to 8-inch strips of sod can be obtained using a hand sod cutter. 
The small strips make the job time consuming; however, they allow for surface contours to be maintained. 
Wider strips of sod can lead to irregular areas that take many topdressing applications to address. Vandalism 
is unfortunate, but careful repair can minimize the impact on playability.

10248824COKQ08LBR8 SAMPL
PETER COOKINGHAM
MSU LIBRARIES
EAST LANSING Ml 48824