Contents

January-February 2006 Volume 44, Number 1

1 Rebuild or Resurface

Greens must be rebuilt every 
15 to 20 years, even those of 
USGA method construction — 
or do they?

BY BUD WHITE

7 Resistant Turfgrasses 

for Improved Chinch Bug 

Management
University of Nebraska 
researchers document multiple 
chinch bug resistance in cool- 
and warm-season turfgrasses.

BY TIFFANY M. HENG-MOSS,

F. P. BAXENDALE,

R. C. SHEARMAN,

AND T. E. EICKHOFF

12 Roughing It

With Bermudagrass
A review of basic management 
practices for the dominant 
warm-season turfgrass used 
in roughs.

BY JOHN FOY

16 The Annual Bluegrass 

Weevil Rears Its Ugly Head 
New control options worth 
considering in the fight against 
the annual bluegrass weevil.

BY PAT VITTUM

21 Mowing Roughs 

to Minimize Runoff
Scientists at Oklahoma State
University demonstrate the 
environmental protection value 
of multiple-height roughs.

IS Bonne Etiquette!

Golf course superintendents 
and the Green Committee 
can lead the way.

BY MATT NELSON

BY GREG BELL

AND JUSTIN MOSS

2 6 Paying the

Price for Success
An open letter to aspiring 
turfgrass professionals.

BY JIM SIMMONS

30 GeoCamp

Is Here Again!
Golf courses participate in a 
program to help young students 
become “Habitat Heroes.”

BY JENNIFER HILL

32 a Blueprint

for Management
Shaping the Audubon program 
to address golf’s environmental 
concerns.

BY JEAN MACKAY 

AND JOELLEN ZEH 

34 USGA Publications 
35 2006 USGA

Green Section Education 

Conference Golf Industry 

Show and 2006 USGA 

National & Regional 

Conferences

36 Speed Demons

Who’s to blame in the need 
for speed?

BY MATT NELSON

3 8 Turf Twisters

USGA

USGA President
Fred S. Ridley

Green Section 
Committee Chairman
Bruce C. Richards 
12202 NE 31st Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

Executive Director
David B. Fay

Editor
James T. Snow

Associate Editor
Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D.

Director of Communications
Marty Parkes

Cover Photo
Golf courses facing the 
decision to renovate their 
greens should also consider 
the option of resurfacing 
versus rebuilding.

Rebuild or 
Resurface

Greens must be rebuilt 
every 15 to 20 years, even 
those of USGA method 
construction — or do they?

BY BUD WHITE

The architect has completed the green 

complex reconstruction plans, including 
the long-range plan for the entire golf 
course. The grass variety has been chosen for the 

putting surfaces. A high-quality sand has been 
identified and the rootzone mix has been evalu­
ated by an accredited lab. Bids have been put out 
and returned, and a contractor has been selected. 
Rebuilding the greens will cost $655,000, and 
they will be closed for about nine to ten months.
Many courses have undergone this process, but 
in this case, did the course officials consider resur­
facing instead of rebuilding? This is a fair question, 
and resurfacing may be a feasible alternative.
Nearly all golf courses eventually face the 
decision of renovating greens to improve play­
ability and agronomic performance. Many 
courses today are confronted with this dilemma, 
even with 10- to 20-year-old greens built to 
USGA guidelines. A resurfacing option may be 
available for these courses, costing as little as 20% 
of the cost of total rebuilding. Although total 
reconstruction is often the mindset, it is not 
always necessary.

Research has shown that greens built to the 
USGA method maintain their original integrity 
below about the 4-inch depth many years after 
construction. It is the upper 3- to 4-inch zone 
that undergoes a drastic change in composition in 
the field with age. An increase in silt and clay 
from topdressing, wind movement, or sometimes 
through dissolved solids in irrigation water, 
creates this change in the upper zone. Organic 
matter (OM) buildup, however, is the primary 
effect that leads to poor infiltration, a tendency 
for black layer, increased algae on the surface,

Careful observation and testing are needed to determine 

whether a green must be rebuilt or only resurfaced.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

I

poor rooting, an affinity for localized dry spot 
(LDS), and soft playing surfaces. This zone also 
can remain quite wet because organic matter 
increases water-holding capacity. This problem is 
located in the top 4 inches of the green and is not 
a profile/drainage system problem. If the greens 
were originally built to USGA specifications and 
were properly managed over the years, the surface 
layer can be replaced or modified to put the putt­
ing green system back into as-good-as-new 
working order.

How is the “rebuild vs. resurface” decision 
made? This step-by-step decision-making process 
includes:
• Digging test holes in greens to evaluate the 
integrity of the drainage system and profile.
• Correctly taking undisturbed soil cores.
• Sending sand samples from several sources to 
the lab along with the cores.
• Utilizing lab services to evaluate undisturbed 
soil cores.
• Deciding on a surface renovation procedure.

WHERETO START
Resurfacing is a very effective option for courses 
that have older greens built to either USGA or 
California specifications. A scientific and system­
atic testing process is essential to ensure that your 
greens are candidates for successful resurfacing 
with long-term benefits. For poorly built greens, 
resurfacing alone is a temporary or Band-Aid 
approach, but it can improve performance for 
three to five years. Some courses have utilized this 
approach to improve the greens temporarily and 
optimize time to raise money and develop a 
long-range plan before spending reconstruction 
dollars.

As mentioned earlier, many golf courses with 
well-built older greens find that the rootzone mix 
below the 3- to 4-inch upper zone still functions 
the same as when it was installed, but that upper 
3 to 4 inches becomes unacceptable over time. 
When the lower portion of the rootzone is tested 
by an accredited lab and found to be within 
specifications and when the drainage system is

Deciding whether to 

rebuild or resurface a 

green should be based 

on several steps. One is 

to evaluate the integrity 

of the drainage system. 

Here, a test hole was 

dug on the high side of 

the putting green and 

water was added directly 

to the gravel blanket.

2

GREEN SECTION RECORD

intact, the club can choose the option of green 
resurfacing instead of full renovation to restore 
the greens back to their original condition.

This explains why rigorous aerification and 
topdressing is so vital to the health and life of 
turf and greens. Properly done, aerification can 
lengthen the useful life and performance of a 
green. The newer bentgrass and bermudagrass 
putting green grasses produce substantially more 
thatch and require more aeration. When organic 
matter accumulation becomes unmanageable, 
resurfacing or reconstruction is necessary.

During the renovation decision process, it 
is important that greens be evaluated for external 
growing conditions, because reconstruction alone 
will not solve a problem such as poor air circula­
tion or excessive shade. The Green Section Record 
article “Helping Your Greens Make the Grade,” 
by Jim Moore, March/April 1998, which can be 
accessed online at http://www.usga.org/turf/- 
articles/construction/greens/make the grade.html, 
is an excellent scorecard that should be utilized 
on difficult green sites to make sure all external 
factors are addressed. An important factor is the 
adequacy of the greens’ irrigation system, which 
often is lacking.

Detailed testing is an essential investment in 
time and lab costs to ensure successful renovation. 
This procedure monitors the aging process of the 
roootzone and evaluates the effectiveness of the 
aerification and topdressing program. Test holes 
dug in existing greens can measure the function 
of the gravel blanket and check water flow 
through the drainage system. This also helps 
locate the exhaust end of the drainage system if 
all outlets have not been found.

It is best to dig this test pit in the high side of a 
green so the cleanliness of the gravel blanket can 
be checked as water works its way through the 
gravel blanket, into the drain system, and eventu­
ally out of the drain outfall pipe.

LAB WORKS
Undisturbed soil core samples are taken by 
driving a 3-inch PVC pipe through the green 
profile and gravel blanket and into the subgrade. 
To remove the core, drill holes in the top of the 
pipe, put a piece of rebar through the holes, and 
pull the pipe out of the green. The pipe is then 
sealed on both ends and sent to an accredited lab 
for an undisturbed core evaluation. The lab will 
test the profile as it exists in the field, as well as 
the upper 3 to 4 inches and the lower 4 to 12 

inches. The results help determine if the green 
profile is functioning properly and if it still meets 
guidelines below a certain depth. This is an 
excellent test for tracking the aging process of 
greens.

Along with the undisturbed core samples, the 
superintendent must send a sample of the sand 
expected to be used for the resurfacing. Ideally, 
the sand source will be the same one used when 
the greens were constructed, but this is often not 
the case. If there are questions about sand quality, 
or if a course is shopping for different sand sources 
for price, then multiple samples can be sent to the 
lab for evaluation. A gallon of each sand should 
be sent, along with a letter of explanation regard­
ing your resurfacing plan. Contact the lab director 
prior to sending the samples so 
he/she is aware of your project, 
and provide some history and 
background to assist with the 
evaluation process. The lab will 
also provide sampling recom­
mendations and shipping details.
The proper procedure for 
sampling sand, as for any root­
zone or topdressing material, is 
detailed in the “Quality Control 
Sampling” brochure, available 
through your USGA Green 
Section office. Good quality 
control is essential for establishing 
the initial sand quality, and regular 
monitoring must be carried out 
as loads are delivered throughout 
the renovation process.

GREEN REDESIGN
In the past, it was common for architects to utilize 
the rootzone mix instead of the sub-base for sur­
face contour design. This practice does not adhere 
to the USGA method for construction, which 
requires that the sub-base mirror the finish grade 
contour and the rootzone be a consistent 12" ± 
1" in depth. Therefore, rootzone depth validation 
should be conducted with probes to ensure a uni­
form rootzone depth. Only very minor modifi­
cations, if any, can be made to soften contours 
when resurfacing. If the golfers are happy with 
the existing contouring, then the upper 3 to 4 
inches of the rootzone mix can be removed and a 
sand or mixture should be applied, making sure it 
is compatible with the existing rootzone mix. 
Rototilling may or may not be utilized (discussed

Undisturbed soil core 

samples help determine 

I) if the green profile is 

functioning properly, 

2) if it still meets guide­

lines below a certain 

depth, and 3) effects of 

the aging process. Cores 

are taken by driving a 3" 

PVC pipe through the 

green profile and gravel 

blanket and into the 

subgrade.The undis­

turbed core is sent to 

a lab for analysis.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

3

Over time, golf course 

greens change composi­

tion in the upper profile. 

The new profile (above) 

is from an eight-month- 

old green that was roto- 

tilled and resurfaced. 

The aged profile (right) 

shows the aeration 

history in the profile of 

a 12-year-old green.

later).The surface is then firmed, floated 
(smoothed), sterilized, and replanted.

The recommended standard today is a maxi­
mum of 3% slope on putting surfaces that will be 
maintained at a green speed approaching 10 feet 
as measured by the Stimpmeter.® A high percent­
age of older greens are too severe in slope and 
contouring for the increased speed demands of 
today’s golfers. Existing slopes must be carefully 
evaluated and measured to stay within this guide­
line if at all possible. Severe slopes and faster 
greens are a recipe for disaster.

DECIDING ON A PROCEDURE
There are several ways to proceed with a 
resurfacing project.
• Thoroughly core aerate prior to sod removal 
and fill the holes with the replacement sand. 
Many superintendents double or triple aerate. 
Then, remove the sod to the 2- to 21^-inch depth, 
fill the void with the replacement sand, and float 
the green. Sterilization, final smoothing, and 
replanting complete the resurfacing. Deep-tine 
aeration or drill-and-fill can be utilized to 
penetrate the entire zone to more thoroughly 

4

GREEN SECTION RECORD

eliminate deep layering. Sand is introduced 8 to 
10 inches into the profile, versus 3 to 4 inches by 
conventional aeration only.
• The above procedure has also been utilized 
when resodding greens. Ideally, the sod is cut as 
thick as possible to remove more of the organic 
mat layer. Coordination with the sod producer is 
essential to ensure that the new sod is cut at the 
same depth as the sod being removed. After sod 
removal, the surface is lightly raked for smooth­
ness, sterilized, and the new sod is installed.
• Remove the organic layer 2 to 4 inches deep, 
depending on the depth of the OM accumula­
tion, and fill the created void with the replace­
ment sand. The profile is tilled 6 inches deep to 
eliminate any layering that may still exist. This 
can be done quite effectively and uniformly by 
removing the upper 4 inches, followed by install­
ing the replacement sand, rototilling the green in 
multiple directions approximately 6 inches deep, 

refloating, and firming. The new surface can then 
be inspected by the architect before planting to 
insure that the original contours are maintained.
Special Note: The turf on the collar should also 
be removed as part of the renovation. Sterilizing 
the collar provides a buffer for keeping Poa annua, 
bermudagrass, or other offensive grasses out of 
the green. The collar is also used as a transition, or 
tie-in, to the green surrounds and should be as 
seamless as possible. This cannot be done at the 
green edge.

As noted earlier, not all greens need to be 
rototilled. Many green renovation projects have 
been successful with thorough aeration prior to 
sod removal, topdressing to fill the holes, remov­
ing the sod, and reinstalling the replacement sand 
or sod without any disturbance to the profile 
below the sod layer. Light hand raking prior to 
new sod installation is needed, of course. Aeration 
must be deep enough, however, to completely

The collar should be 

included with putting 

green resurfacing to 

maintain green purity 

and a seamless tie-in 

to the surrounds.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

5

reach through the layer of OM buildup. The OM 
depth depends on the age of the green, cultural 
management practices, and the growing environ­
ment, all of which can affect the rate of 
accumulation.

When an area is rototilled, firming and floating 

procedures must be implemented to prepare the 
seedbed for planting. Green contours can be lost 
without careful rototilling procedures, and new 
surfaces should be inspected and approved by the 
architect prior to planting.

Consequently, the best method for preserving 
contours will have to be considered on an indi­
vidual basis. Both of these methods, rototilling or 
not rototilling, can be successful. The lab can assist 
with recommendations about which method 

greater than %-inch deep. Again, watering must 
be included in the process to achieve appropriate 
firmness. To reiterate, collars must be included in 
the sterilization process. This also allows Poa annua 
and/or bermudagrass to be cleared from the collar 
to prolong a weed-free putting surface.

Total renovation is not the only alternative for 

improving green quality. Scientific and depend­
able methods are available to evaluate older, yet 
well built, greens to determine the quality of 
existing construction. Resurfacing has not been 
used frequently in the past, but many courses save 
70% to 80% of what it would cost for complete 
reconstruction.

Moreover, the anticipated nine- to ten-month 
downtime is substantially reduced to four or five

Green contours can 

be lost without careful 

rototilling procedures. 

One method is to leave 

sod strips during 

rototilling and sand 

replacement to help 

maintain the contour 

details.

might be better for your greens based on the test 
performance of the undisturbed soil cores.

Firming and floating the finished product is a 
critical part of the renovation process, just as it is 
with new construction. Thorough applications of 
water are needed to maintain good soil moisture 
while firming and floating. Many courses contract 
this work out, as a quality golf course contractor 
is knowledgeable about the best procedures for 
firming and floating greens. If this work is done 
in-house, it is important for the superintendent to 
pay careful attention to preparing a firm and 
smooth seedbed.

A good rule of thumb is to firm and float the 

months, on average, due to the greatly reduced 
scope of work. This can significantly reduce 
revenue loss and golfer inconvenience. Your 
regional USGA Green Section staff agronomist 
can help any golf course work through this evalu­
ation process and assist with quality control pro­
cedures during testing and renovation. Knowing 
the construction quality of your greens and 
researching renovation alternatives with an 
accredited lab could save your course money 
and downtime, and create much improved 
putting surfaces.

seedbed until the average-size person can walk 
across the green without leaving a footprint 

Bud White is a senior agronomist in the Green 
Section’s Mid-Continent Region.

6

GREEN SECTION RECORD

ponsored

Research Yow Can Use

Resistant Turfgrasses for
Improved Chinch Bug Management
University of Nebraska researchers document multiple chinch bug 
resistance in cool- and warm-season turfgrasses.

BY TIFFANY M. HENG-MOSS, F. P. BAXENDALE,

R. C. SHEARMAN, AND T. E. EICKHOFF

Numerous arthropods are 

important pests of the cool- 
and warm-season turfgrasses 
commonly found on golf courses. Turf­

grasses are subject to injury by insect 
and mite pests, and several are known to 
have increased susceptibility to certain 
sap-feeding insects, including chinch 
bugs.

In the United States there are four 
chinch bug species that are of major 
economic importance: common chinch 
bug (Blissus leucopterus leucopterus), 
southern chinch bug (Blissus insularis), 
hairy chinch bug (Blissus leucopterus), 
and western chinch bug (Blissus 
occiduus) .8 Chinch bugs are widely dis­
tributed throughout the United States, 
primarily east of the Rocky Mountains. 
Individual species often have overlap­
ping geographic distributions. In par­
ticular, the geographic distribution of 
the western chinch bug, and its pre­
ferred host, buffalograss, are such that 
any of the other chinch bug species 
could be present in adjacent turfgrasses. 
Furthermore, all four chinch bug species 
have extensive documented host ranges.
The common chinch bug is widely 

distributed across the east coast and 
western plains of the United States and 
south in Mexico. The most common 
hosts of this chinch bug include wheat, 
sorghum, corn, and several turfgrasses 
(bermudagrass, Kentucky bluegrass, tall 
fescue, and zoysiagrass).

Researchers at the University of Nebraska evaluated selected cool- and warm-season turfgrasses for 

resistance to chinch bugs in the Blissus complex, and documented the presence of multiple chinch bug 

resistance in these turfgrasses.

The hairy chinch bug is distributed 

throughout the northeastern United 
States. Its range includes southern 
regions of the eastern Canadian 
provinces, parts of the Midwest to 
Minnesota, and into the Mid-Atlantic 
States as far south as Virginia. It is an 
important pest of most cool-season 
turfgrasses, including creeping bent­
grass, Kentucky bluegrass, perennial 
ryegrass, and fine-leaf fescues. The hairy 
chinch bug is also an occasional pest of 
zoysiagrass and St. Augustinegrass, and it 

has been reported feeding on timothy 
grass.

The southern chinch bug ranges from 
southern North Carolina southward to 
the Florida Keys and into eastern and 
southeastern portions of Texas. This 
chinch bug is considered the most de­
structive pest of St. Augustinegrass. It 
also occasionally infests bahiagrass, ber­
mudagrass, centipedegrass, and zoysia­
grass, and it has been reported feeding 
on crabgrass, guineagrass, pangolagrass, 
torpedograss, and tropical carpetgrass.

ANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

7

Chinch bugs are widely distributed throughout the United States, primarily east of the Rocky Mountains. Individual species often have overlapping geographic 

distributions. Shown, left to right, are the distribution of common chinch bugs, hairy chinch bugs, southern chinch bugs, and western chinch bugs.

The distribution of the western 
chinch bug includes much of the cen­
tral United States, north into Canada, 
and south into Mexico. First detected 
infesting a heavily damaged buffalograss 
lawn in Lincoln, Nebraska, in 1989, 
these chinch bugs have subsequently 
been found associated with buffalograss 
throughout Nebraska and surrounding 
areas.3 More recently, the western 
chinch bug has become a pest of 
zoysiagrass.

Recent studies at the University of 
Nebraska have shown that this chinch 
bug has an extensive host range, includ­
ing buffalograss, zoysiagrass, Kentucky 
bluegrass, tall fescue, bermudagrass, and 
perennial ryegrass.4 Among the turf­
grasses tested, offspring were produced 
on buffalograss, fine fescue, perennial 
ryegrass, bentgrass, zoysiagrass, Kentucky 
bluegrass, and tall fescue, demonstrating 
that the western chinch bug can repro­
duce on a wide variety of hosts. These 
results have profound implications and 

8

GREEN SECTION RECORD

provide new information that will 
facilitate improved monitoring and 
detection of chinch bug infestations 
before they build to damaging levels. 
Increased knowledge of the biology 
and host range of this chinch bug will 
aid in the development of more 
efficient management approaches.

BASIC CHINCH BUG 
BIOLOGY
The immature stages of all chinch bug 
species are similar in appearance. Chinch 
bug eggs are elongate, whitish, and 
average < Xs inch (1.0 mm) in length 
when first laid. As the embryo develops, 
the egg takes on an orange-red color, 
with the nymphal chinch bug visible 
within the egg before hatching. First 
instars are tiny (< Xs inch), long, bright- 
red insects with a distinctive white band 
across the abdomen. As nymphs mature 
through five nymphal stages, their color 
gradually changes to orange-brown and 
finally to dark brown. Adults are black 

with reddish-yellow legs and are about 
Xo to %> inch, depending on the sex and 
species. Females are typically larger and 
more robust than males.

Most chinch bug adults have shiny 
white wings that extend back over the 
abdomen, but wing dimorphism is 
common, with both macropterous 
(long-winged) and brachypterous 
(short-winged) forms present in certain 
species. Chinch bugs tend to feed in 
aggregations and often produce a char­
acteristic odor from scent glands when 
disturbed or crushed. Most chinch bug 
species have two generations per year 
and overwinter as adults.

Chinch bugs injure grasses by with­

drawing sap from plant tissues in the 
crown area. While feeding, they also 
may inject a salivary toxin that damages 
plant tissues and inhibits the transloca­
tion of water and nutrients. Initially, this 
feeding results in reddish-purple dis­
coloration of the leaves. In the turf 
stand, damage appears as patchy areas

that turn yellow and dry to a straw­
brown color as feeding progresses. At 
higher infestation levels, chinch bug 
feeding can result in severe thinning or 
death of the turfgrass stand.

Damage is usually the heaviest in 
sunny locations during hot, dry periods 
and is often mistaken for drought stress. 
Chinch bug infestations are less likely 
to develop in years when spring and 
summer rainfall and temperature are 
near or below normal. This occurs in 
part because fungal diseases keep chinch 
bugs under control. These diseases are 
much less likely to develop during 
periods of drought, and following 
several dry seasons chinch bug numbers 
can build to damaging levels.

PLANT
RESISTANCE
Historically insecticides have been 
employed as the principal method to 
control chinch bugs. However, concern 
for reducing pesticide inputs has under­
scored the need for developing alterna­
tive approaches for controlling insect 

pests affecting turfgrasses. One such 
approach involves the use of integrated 
pest management (IPM). This strategy 
employs all suitable techniques in as 
complementary and environmentally 
compatible a manner as possible to 
maintain pest populations below dam­
aging levels. IPM tactics include cultural, 
mechanical, biological, and chemical 
controls, and the use of plant resistance 
to insects. The development of turf­
grasses with resistance to chinch bugs 
offers an attractive approach for manag­
ing insect pests associated with turf­
grasses because it is sustainable and 
environmentally responsible.

The idea behind plant resistance is to 

exploit natural plant defense systems. 
Turfgrasses possess a variety of natural 
defense mechanisms to overcome biotic 
stresses such as insect feeding. These 
defense mechanisms can be based on 
physical or chemical characteristics of 
the turfgrass. In some cases, the turfgrass 
is able to tolerate insect feeding through 
physiological and biochemical 
modifications.

Turfgrasses with resistance to the 
chinch bug species have been identified 
in both cool- and warm-season turf­
grasses. However, few of the recently 
released cultivars have been evaluated 
for chinch bug resistance, and it remains 
unclear if turfgrasses with resistance to 
one chinch species may also be resistant 
to one or more of the other species. 
The USGA helped to fund a project 
that focused on evaluating selected 
cool- and warm-season turfgrasses for 
resistance to chinch bugs in the Blissus 
complex, and documenting any inci­
dence of multiple resistance. This infor­
mation is fundamentally important for 
developing chinch bug-resistant turf­
grasses through conventional breeding 
and biotechnological techniques.

RESISTANCE TO THE 
WESTERN CHINCH BUG
Greenhouse and field screening studies 
were initiated to search for buffalo­
grasses, bermudagrasses, and Zoysia­
grasses with resistance to the western 
chinch bug. Forty-eight buffalograss 

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

9

genotypes from diverse geographical 
locations were evaluated in replicated 
studies under greenhouse conditions. 
Based on turfgrass damage ratings, 
4 were categorized as highly resistant, 
22 were moderately resistant, 19 were 
moderately susceptible, and 3 were 
highly susceptible to chinch bug 
feeding.56

Of the buffalograsses studied, 

“Prestige” exhibited minimal chinch 
bug damage, although it became heavily 
infested with chinch bugs. This suggests 
that tolerance may be responsible for 
the resistance.7 Plant tolerance has 
several advantages as a pest management 
tool from an ecological viewpoint: it 
raises economic/aesthetic injury levels, 
preventing early pest management 
action, and does not place selection 
pressure on pest populations, unlike 

other management approaches. In spite 
of its advantages, the use of tolerance 
for pest management is limited primarily 
because the mechanisms and genetics of 
plant tolerance remain unknown.

Studies are currently underway to 
investigate the biochemical and physio­
logical mechanisms imparting resistance 
in buffalograss. This information is fun­
damentally important for formulating 
plant breeding strategies and subse­
quently developing chinch bug-resistant 
turfgrasses through conventional breed­
ing and biotechnological techniques. In 
addition, knowledge of specific resis­
tance mechanisms would be valuable 
for identifying biochemical and physio­
logical markers for use in germplasm 
enhancement programs and for charac­
terizing plant defense strategies to 
insect feeding.

Several Zoysiagrasses and bermuda- 
grasses were also evaluated for resistance 
to the western chinch bug. The zoysia- 
grass “Emerald” and bermudagrass 
“Mini Verde” displayed the highest level 
of resistance, while the Zoysiagrasses 
“Myer,”“Zenith,”“DeAnza” and the 
bermudagrasses “Jackpot” and “Tifway 
419” were moderately to highly suscep­
tible to chinch bug injury.

MULTIPLE CHINCH BUG 
RESISTANCE
Another component of this research was 
to document the presence of multiple 
chinch bug resistance among selected 
cool- and warm-season turfgrasses. 
Because of the extensive geographical 
overlap of the four economically 
important chinch bug species and their 
host plants, the potential exists for the 

The immature stages of all chinch bug species are similar in appearance. Chinch bug eggs are elongate, whitish, and average < Zs inch (1.0 mm) in length 

when first laid.As the embryo develops, the egg takes on an orange-red color, with the nymphal chinch bug visible within the egg before hatching. First instars 

are tiny, < Zs inch (1.0 mm) long, bright-red insects with a destinctive white band across the abdomen. As nymphs mature (there are five nymphal stages), 

their color gradually changes to orange-brown and finally to dark brown. Adults are black with reddish-yellow legs and are about /io to 3Zs inch (2.5 to 5 

mm), depending on the sex and species. Females are typically larger and more robust than males.

10

GREEN SECTION RECORD

western chinch bug and other chinch 
bug species to become associated with 
and damage non-traditional turfgrasses. 
The presence of turfgrasses with resis­
tance to multiple chinch bug species 
would be highly desirable in these 
interfacing situations.

A series of studies was conducted 
under greenhouse conditions to evalu­
ate selected buffalograsses, fine fescues, 
and St. Augustine- 
grasses for resistance to 
multiple chinch bug 
species. These studies 
established that 
buffalograsses resistant 
to the western chinch 
bug were susceptible 
to southern and hairy 
chinch bugs. All St. 
Augustinegrasses 
(southern chinch bug­
resistant “Floratam” 
and -susceptible 
“Raleigh” and 
“Amerishade”) were 
highly resistant to the 
western chinch bug. 
Furthermore, all 
endophyte-free and 
-enhanced fine fescues 
were moderately to 
highly susceptible to the hairy chinch 
bug, but moderately to highly resistant 
to the western chinch bug. This research 
clearly demonstrates multiple resistance 
among turfgrasses to chinch bugs and 
suggests different feeding mechanisms 
among the chinch bug complex.1

The varying degrees of susceptibility 

and resistance exhibited by the grasses 
underscores the importance of identify­
ing turfgrasses that are not only resistant 
to one particular chinch bug species, 
but also resistant to other chinch bug 
species inhabiting nearby turf areas. For 
example, as buffalograss is adapted to 
various regions throughout the United 
States, it is likely to be planted near 
areas of southern and hairy chinch bug 
infestations. Therefore, identifying turf­
grasses that exhibit resistance to multiple 
chinch bug species will decrease the 

chances of an opportunistic infestation 
by southern and hairy chinch bugs.

The reasons for the different responses 

of the grasses to the three chinch bugs 
remain unclear. Studies investigating 
chinch bug probing behaviors, feeding 
locations, and mouthpart morphology 
have documented differences in probing 
frequencies among the chinch bug 
species and identified the vascular tissues, 

LITERATURE CITED
1. Anderson, W G.,T. M. Heng-Moss, and F. P. 
Baxendale. 2005. Evaluation of cool- and warm­
season grasses for resistance to multiple chinch 
bug (Hemiptera: Blissidae) species.J. Econ.
Entomol. (Accepted).

2. Anderson, W G.,T. M. Heng-Moss, F. P. 
Baxendale, L. M. Baird, G. Sarath, and L. G. 
Higley. 2005. Chinch bug (Hemiptera: Blissidae) 
mouthpart morphology, probing frequencies, 
and locations on resistant and susceptible 
germplasm.J. Econ. Entomol. (Accepted).

3. Baxendale, F. P.,T. M. 
Heng-Moss, and T. P. 
Riordan. 1999. Blissus 
occiduus (Hemiptera: 
Lygaeidae): a chinch bug 
pest new to buffalograss 
turf. J. Econ. Entomol. 
92:1172-1176.

4. Eickhoff.T. E.,F. P. 
Baxendale, T. M. Heng- 
Moss, and E. E.
Blankenship. 2004. 
Turfgrass, crop, and weed 
hosts of Blissus occiduus 
(Hemiptera: Lygaeidae) .J 
Econ. Entomol. 97:67-73.

5. Gulsen, O.,T. Heng- 
Moss, R. Shearman, P. 
Baenziger, D. Lee, and F. 
Baxendale. 2004.
Buffalograss germplasm 
resistance to Blissus occiduus 
(Hemiptera: Lygaeidae) .J. 
Econ. Entomol. 97:2101- 
2105.

6. Heng-Moss,T. M., F. P. 
Baxendale, T. P. Riordan, 

Researchers at the University of Nebraska are investigating chinch bug damage. Recent studies 

have shown that the western chinch bug has an extensive host range, including buffalograss, 

zoysiagrass, Kentucky bluegrass, tall fescue, bermudagrass, and perennial ryegrass.

bulliform cells, and bundle sheaths as 
primary chinch bug feeding sites.' 
Scanning electron micrographs revealed 
no obvious differences in the mouth­
part morphology among Blissus species 
and subspecies.2 Studies are currently 
underway to identify and characterize 
chinch bug salivary secretions, and 
document differences among the 
chinch bug species.

This research provides essential infor­
mation for the development of chinch 
bug-resistant buffalograsses for use on 
golf courses and other turfgrass areas, 
and for the implementation of chinch 
bug management decisions. Commercial 
production of warm-season turfgrasses 
with resistance to chinch bugs will offer 
turfgrass professionals and homeowners 
with a high-quality turfgrass with 
enhanced resistance to chinch bugs.

and J. E. Foster. 2002. Evaluation of buffalograss 
germplasm for resistance to B. occiduus 
(Hemiptera: Lygaeidae) .J. Econ. Entomol. 
95:1054-1058.

7. Heng-Moss,T. M., F. P. Baxendale,T. P. 
Riordan, L. Young, and K. Lee. 2003. Chinch 
bug-resistant buffalograss: an investigation of 
tolerance, antixenosis, and antibiosis.J. Econ. 
Entomol. 96:1942-1951.

8.Vittum, P.J., M. G.Villani, and H.Tashiro. 
1999. Turfgrass Insects of the United States and 
Canada. Second edition. Cornell University 
Press. Ithaca, N.Y.

Tiffany M. Heng-Moss, Ph.D., 
Assistant Professor, Department of Ento­
mology; Frederick P. Baxendale, 
Ph.D., Professor, Department of Entomology; 
Robert C. Shearman, Ph.D., Professor, 
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture; 
and Thomas E. Eickhoff, Graduate 
Research Assistant, Department of Ento­
mology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

I I

Over the past 25 years, 

a large number of real 

estate development golf 

courses have been con­

structed in Florida and 

other regions. With no 

separation between the 

golf course rough and 

the home lawns running 

parallel down both sides 

of almost every hole, 

a wall-to-wall mainte-

nance philosophy must 

be practiced.

Roughing It
With Bermudagrass

A review of basic management practices for the 
dominant warm-season turfgrass used in roughs.

BY JOHN FOY

he Scottish Enks courses typically have 
very wide fairways bordered by heather, 
gorse, and areas of tall but somewhat sparse 

grass. Since the game of golf was brought across 
the Atlantic Ocean, a characteristic of American 
golf courses that has evolved over time is main­
taining acres of higher-cut turfgrass roughs.
With the shift to lightweight mowing of 
fairways in the 1980s, simple economics begged 
reductions in the acres of intensively maintained 
fairway turf by as much as 50% at some courses. 
The setup of courses hosting championships or 
professional tournaments has also resulted in 
increased rough turf acreage. The widths of fair­
way landing zones are being narrowed to as little 
as 25-30 yards to place a higher premium on 
accuracy. This type of setup is not necessarily 
appropriate for daily play, but there is a mindset at 
some courses that par must be defended to 
maintain rankings and status.

Furthermore, and coinciding with escalating 
golfer expectations for perfect turf through all 
areas, the boom in construction of real estate 
development courses over the past two to three 
decades has increased demands for lush, green, 
weed-free, and regularly mowed roughs. At many 
facilities, a wall-to-wall maintenance philosophy 
must be practiced because there is no separation 
between the roughs of the golf course and the 
home lawns running parallel down both sides 
of every hole.

Along with being a hazard or penalty for off­
line shots, roughs are a design feature utilized to 
provide fairway definition. On northern cool­
season grass courses, mixtures of Kentucky blue­
grass, perennial ryegrass, and fine fescues provide 
both color and texture contrast to bentgrass fair­
ways. Over the years there have been attempts to 
use different warm-season turfgrass species or 
cultivars in fairway and rough areas in an effort to

12

GREEN SECTION RECORD

A standard setup at 

northern golf courses 

hosting championships 

or professional events is 

to have a 6 to 10 ft. wide 

intermediate rough 

between the primary 

rough and fairways. 

However, due to height 

of cut limitations with 

bermudagrasses, main­

taining this type of 

course setup when 

hosting daily play is 

not practical.

create a northern look on southern golf courses. 
However, in most cases, long-term successful 
results have not been achieved with mixing and 
matching different turfgrasses. Bermudagrass 
(Cynodon sp.) is by far the dominant turfgrass 
species used throughout the warm climatic 
regions of the United States, and the standard 
setup is a monostand of bermudagrass through 
both the roughs and fairways.

The hybrid bermudagrass cultivar Tifway (419) 

produces a very dense, fine-textured turf cover 
and has been used predominantly on courses 
throughout much of the South. In the middle to 
upper portion of the transition zone, where 
periodic winterkill can be a problem, more cold­
hardy bermudagrasses such as Vamont and several 
new cultivars can be found; in the desert south­
west, common bermudagrass roughs and fairways 
are frequently encountered.

HEIGHTS OF CUT AND 
ROUTINE MOWING
With any degree of fertilization and supplemental 
irrigation, the hybrid bermudagrasses produce a 

very dense turf cover. The shoot density of the 
common type bermudagrasses is less, but this is 
somewhat relative. The stoloniferous or “stemmy” 
growth habit creates additional resistance to being 
able to make good contact with the ball and 
swing the clubhead through bermudagrass 
roughs. Thus, if the goal is to have the roughs 
result in a half-shot penalty, care and discretion 
must be exercised with heights of cut. This is 
especially true with average- to high-handicap 
golfers who lack hand and arm strength and 
cannot aggressively attack golf balls sitting down 
in bermudagrass roughs. During the summertime 
and when hosting general play, a height of cut in 
the range of 1.25 to 1.50 inches does not produce 
an overly penal play character with hybrid ber- 
muda roughs. Slightly higher heights of cut are 
sometimes practiced with common bermuda, but 
only for the play of professional tournaments or 
national championships is it ever recommended 
to maintain bermudagrass roughs at a height of 
cut of 2.50 inches or higher.

When bermudagrass is actively growing, a 

minimum mowing frequency of once per week is

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

13

driven, pull-behind mowers were used at all 
facilities up until the mid-1980s. Then, coinciding 
with the movement to smaller and lighter-weight 
mowing units for fairways, the top facilities began 
to change over to medium-weight five-gang 
riding mowers with hydraulically driven reels.
In the past five years or so, there has been a 
major shift underway to the use of rotary mowers 
for routine cutting of bermudagrass roughs. 
Although rotary mowers have long been the 
standard in the north, it took innovations such as 
high rpm and multi-blade mulching decks to cut, 
rather than tear, bermudagrass. Providing an 
acceptable quality of cut, it is possible to take 
advantage of the other benefits of rotary mowers, 
such as still being able to mow wet and high 
grass, and more effectively cut tough seed stalks of 
grasses and broadleaf weeds. Furthermore, rotary 
mowers have a lifting or vacuuming effect that 
helps maintain a more upright shoot growth 
character, which in turn produces a more uniform 
cut and smoother surface condition. With a more 
upright shoot growth character, however, golf 
balls are able to settle deeper into the turf. Thus, 
setting up rotary mowers at a slightly lower 
height of cut is a needed adjustment when an 
equipment change is made. It is stressed that 
regular sharpening or replacement of the blades is 
needed to maintain a good quality of cut. Yet, 
compared to the maintenance of reel cutting 
units, there are savings in both time and money.

GROWING GRASS
As with all plants, bermudagrass needs the basic 
ingredients of sunlight, water, and food to pro­
duce a dense and healthy turf cover. Without a 
doubt, the most common growth-limiting factor 
encountered with bermuda roughs is shade. The 
bermudagrasses are the least shade-tolerant turf 
species used, and six to eight hours of direct sun 
needs to be provided. It is simply not possible to 
have heavily treed roughs and a good quality 
bermuda turf cover. The negative impact of trees 
has been extensively documented and will not be 
rehashed here. It should, however, be reiterated 
that tree feeder root competition for nutrients 
and moisture is often an overlooked turf problem, 
and root-pruning operations can produce a 
marked improvement in both rough and fairway 
turf quality.

With regard to irrigation and fertilization of 
bermudagrass roughs, both are needed to main­
tain a uniform, dense, and good quality turf 

Dormant bermudagrass 

roughs can provide a 

striking contrast to 

overseeded fairways 

during the fall, winter, 

and spring months. At 

facilities that host 

moderate to heavy play, 

cart traffic management 

must be an integral and 

ongoing part of course 

management to prevent 

excessive wear and 

damage to the ber­

mudagrass when it is 

not actively growing 

and able to recover.

needed. With bermudagrass roughs that receive 
regular irrigation, or during times of frequent 
rainfall, the height of bermudagrass roughs can 
easily double in a week’s time. At many top 
facilities, a rough mowing frequency of two to 
three times per week is being practiced so that an 
excessively penal play character does not develop 
and to provide consistent conditioning in keeping 
with golfer demands and expectations. Naturally, 
with an increased mowing frequency, additional 
manpower hours and equipment must be made 
available. For budgeting purposes, a good rule of 
thumb is to allow one manpower hour per acre 
for routine mowing of roughs. In an effort to 
control costs, some facilities are maintaining a 
perimeter fme-cut rough that is mowed two or 
three times a week, while the deep roughs are still 
mowed only once per week.

An intermediate rough 6 to 10 feet wide 

beween the primary rough and fairways is main­
tained on courses hosting championships, and it 
has become a common feature on northern cool­
season turfgrass courses. The goal with inter­
mediate roughs is to provide a less severe penalty 
for shots that just miss the fairways. However, 
given the height of cut limitations of bermuda­
grass roughs, it is certainly debatable as to whether 
or not the additional cost of maintaining an inter­
mediate rough is justified. An intermediate rough 
height of cut of 0.75 to 1.00 inch really does not 
provide any degree of visual definition between 
fairways being maintained at 0.50 inch and a 
primary rough at 1.25 to 1.50 inches.

With regard to mowing equipment, it has long 

been thought that reel units are needed to pro­
duce a clean, sharp, and good quality cut with 
bermuda roughs. Large multi-gang, ground- 

14

GREEN SECTION RECORD

cover. To accommodate demands for a lush, green 
aesthetic character, however, some courses use 
more fertilizer than required. In consideration of 
current environmental and economic course 
management issues, employment of a spartan 
rough management philosophy and irrigating 
and fertilizing only to maintain turf coverage is 
encouraged. Unfortunately, at most courses the 
standards of quality have been set, and the golfers 
are unwilling to accept anything less.

WINTERTIME
CONSIDERATIONS
Daytime and nighttime temperatures in the mid- 
80- and 60-degree range, respectively, are needed 
for sustained active bermudagrass growth. In the 
fall, the growth rate of bermuda begins to slow in 
response to cooler temperatures and a shorter day 
length. With the onset of freezing temperatures or 
frost, warm-season turfgrasses such as bermuda­
grass enter into and remain in a semi- to fully 
dormant stage through the rest of the winter. A 
loss of green color coincides with this period of 
dormancy, and this is the driving force behind 
large acreage winter overseeding programs being 
conducted at resort and high-end private courses 
across the sunbelt region. The pros and cons of 
overseeding have been debated over the years, but 
this practice will no doubt continue to be neces­
sary at many facilities. It should be pointed out, 
however, that the negative aspects of overseeding 
are exacerbated in rough areas. Even with the use 
of reduced seeding rates, the higher height of 
cut on roughs significantly increases the amount 
of stress and competition exerted on the base 
bermuda. With the existence of any other 
growth-limiting factors such as shade, poor drain­
age, or concentrated cart traffic, transition prob­
lems in the early summer are almost guaranteed. 
If resodding is not performed, reestablishment of 
the base bermuda can take the entire summer. 
Quite simply, the Green Section staff strongly 
discourages winter overseeding of bermudagrass 
roughs.

When overseeding is not performed, it is 

suggested to raise the height of cut of the roughs 
by 0.25 to 0.50 inch to increase wear tolerance 
and help maintain a degree of definition. At 
facilities that receive moderate to heavy winter 
play, aggressive and ongoing cart traffic manage­
ment must be practiced to prevent the roughs 
from becoming totally beaten down and worn 
out. In the spring, once the bermudagrass breaks 

dormancy and shoot growth begins to occur, 
dropping the height of cut to 1.00 inch is advis­
able to remove damaged, older leaf material and 
reestablish a dense and smooth surface condition. 
In regions where bermudagrass never goes frilly 
dormant, such as Central and South Florida, 
scalping the roughs to a height of cut of 1.00 
inch or slightly less in the late spring to early 
summer is suggested. The golfers do need to be 
made aware that this will cause extensive dis­
coloration, yet within a couple of weeks the 
green color will redevelop along with a dense 
and smooth surface condition.

At a cutting height of 

two inches or more, 

golf balls settle into 

bermudagrass roughs. 

The result is penal play 

for average to high- 

handicap golfers. A 

summertime rough 

height of cut of 1.25 to 

1.50 inches is suggested, 

and while not as pro­

nounced, there is still 

definition between the 

fairways and roughs.

CONCLUSION
Along with having desirable play characteristics, 
the very good wear, drought, heat, and salt 
tolerance of bermudagrass makes it one of the 
best adapted turfgrasses for roughs in warm 
climatic regions. However, and as is the case with 
bunkers, golfer expectations and demands are 
requiring that more effort and time be invested in 
the maintenance of roughs. If it is not possible to 
lower expectations as far as rough turf quality is 
concerned, for the future of the game, reducing 
acreage is encouraged as a compromise. When 
was the last time a golfer talked about how much 
fun he or she had playing out of the rough?

John Foy is director of the Florida Region of the 
Green Section and has spent 20 years trying to stay out 
of bermuda rough.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

15

^Sponsored

Research You Can Use

The Annual Bluegrass Weevil 
Rears Its Ugly Head
New control options worth considering in 
the fight against the annual bluegrass weevil.

BY PAT VITTUM

Typical late spring feeding damage from annual bluegrass weevil larvae is often heaviest in the perimeter region of a green and becomes more diffuse toward 

the center of the green.

he annual bluegrass weevil 
(Listronotus maculicollis), often 
called the Hyperodes weevil, has 

become a major pest for golf course 
superintendents throughout the North­
east and Mid-Atlantic states and shows 
signs of increasing its range further.

LIFE CYCLE
Annual bluegrass weevils (ABW) spend 
the winter as adults in protected sites 
near fairways, greens, or tees. In the 
spring, adults migrate to shorter cut 
turf, where females lay eggs inside the 
leaf sheath of individual grass plants. 
Tiny larvae hatch out after about a 
week and spend five larval stages 

16

GREEN SECTION RECORD

feeding and growing. Small larvae feed 
inside the stem, while larger larvae mi­
grate downward and feed in the crown. 
By late May or early June, feeding 
damage from the larger larvae becomes 
very apparent. The insects pupate in the 
soil for about a week before emerging 
as new young adults in late June or 
early July. These adults mate and lay 
eggs for a second generation. Each 
larval stage in July or August develops 
more quickly than in the spring, nor­
mally resulting in three generations in 
a season. It is difficult to track the 
development of the weevil populations 
in the summer months because of the 
overlap between insect stages. It is 

not uncommon to find small larvae, 
medium larvae, large larvae, pupae, and 
adults all in the same summer sample.

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 
Historically, superintendents in the 
New York metropolitan area have 
scheduled insecticide applications to 
control adult ABW between Forsythia 
full bloom and dogwood full bloom, 
using insecticides such as chlorpyrifos 
(Dursban™) or one of the pyrethroids. 
These chemicals kill many of the adults 
before they have a chance to lay eggs, 
significantly reducing spring larva 
populations. More recently, however, it 
has been increasingly difficult to figure 

out how to manage weevil populations 
in the summer because of the overlap 
in development. In 2004 there were 
limited options and most of the insecti­
cides that were available (i.e., chlor- 
pyrifos and the pyrethroids) were not 
particularly effective against larvae.
In 2004 we tested trichlorfon 
(Dylox™) on ABW larvae on a golf 
course in Westchester County. We 
applied the material on June 2 and 
came back just six days later to collect 
samples.

Treatment

Control

Dylox 80SP

Dylox 80SP

Dylox 80SP

lb.
Al/A
—

Larvae 
per sq. ft.

66.1 b*

control
—

4

6

8

12.7 a

14.2 a

14.2 a

81

79

79

*Numbers followed by the same letter are not 
significantly different from each other, Fisher’s 
Protected LSD, P < 0.05.

These results (which were similar to 
results in 2003) were very encouraging, 
especially because the insecticide had 
been applied only six days before we 
sampled. Field observations in 2005 and 
in previous years also confirmed that 
Dylox can work well against larvae, 
sometimes providing better levels of 
control than we observed in the 2004 
study.

We also tested spinosad (Conserve™) 

in 2005, again targeting the larvae. In 
this case we applied on May 10 or June 
2 and sampled on June 20. The results 
from the early May applications were 
mediocre, but the early June applica­
tions (shown here) were much more 
effective:

Treatment

fl. oz./
1,000 per sq. ft.

Larvae

Control

Conserve

Conserve

Conserve

—

0.8

1.0

1.2

72.2 b*

5.1 a

4.1 a

2.0 a

%
control
—

93.0

94.4

97.2

^Numbers followed by the same letter are not 
significantly different from each other, Fisher’s 
Protected LSD, P < 0.05.

We considered these results to be 
very encouraging and conducted a 
follow-up study on the second genera­
tion of weevils at a second location. 
Unfortunately, the populations crashed 
during the study so we do not know

The annual bluegrass weevil adult pictured above 

is similar in size to black turfgrass ataenius, but it 

varies in its mottled color and characteristic beak.

how effective Conserve™ will be in 
summer conditions. Overall, however, 
the product looks very promising.
During the winter of 2005, the 
labels on Dylox™ and Conserve™ were 
expanded to include ABW larvae. But 
targeting larvae will necessitate a change 
in a manager s mindset — it is not easy 
to wait until larvae are present! We will 
all be learning as we go with this new 
approach. And we may have to be more 
aggressive with cultural strategies, such 
as minimizing the amount of annual 
bluegrass on greens, tees, and fairways.

MONITORING FOR
ANNUAL BLUEGRASS WEEVIL
Monitoring for ABW is fairly straight­
forward and critical for making proper 
management decisions. You can observe 
adults moving on the surface of the 
greens, tees, collars, or fairways on 
sunny days throughout the summer. 
You can also drive them to the surface 
using a soapy flush (one or two table­
spoons of a lemon-scented dish deter­
gent in one or two gallons of water 
spread over an area one or two feet on a 
side). Be sure to rinse the test area with 
irrigation water if it is a hot, sunny day. 
You can find larvae and pupae by 
cutting a wedge in the turf or pulling a 
core out of the turf and inspecting it by 
hand. The larvae look like grains of rice 
with a brown head, while the pupae are 
all white with a diamond shape. Our 
field observations suggest that the toler­
ance level for ABW larvae is between 
30 and 80 larvae per square foot in the 
spring (through mid-June) and 10 to 40 
larvae per square foot in the summer.
So for now, the “recipe” for control 
of ABW includes a spring application 

of a product targeting adults, after 
Forsythia full bloom and before dog­
wood full bloom. The alternative is to 
wait until larvae are active in late May 
or early June and apply trichlorfon or 
spinosad to areas where larvae are 
present in high enough numbers to 
cause damage. Summer management 
must be based on monitoring and 
determining which stages are present. 
When most insects are larvae, apply 
trichlorfon or spinosad. When most 
insects are pupae, wait at least a week 
and then use a material that is effective 
against adults. And when most insects 
are adults, apply chlorpyrifos or a 
pyrethroid. Until we resolve the matter 
of resistance in the pyrethroid group, it 
is wise to minimize the number of 
applications of those products.

Editor’s Note: While trade names have 
been mentioned in this article, no 
endorsement is intended or implied by 
the author or the University of 
Massachusetts.

Dr. Pat Vittum is an entomologist at the 
University of Massachusetts, where she has 
been researching annual bluegrass weevils 
and other insect pests on golf courses 
throughout the Northeast.

Hyperodes weevils spend five larval stages 

feeding and growing. It is difficult to track the 

development of weevil populations during the 

summer months because of the overlap among 

insect stages.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

17

Bonne Etiquette!

Golf course superintendents and the 
Green Committee can lead the way.

BY MATT NELSON

Atopic common 

at USGA Green 
Section Turf 
Advisory Service 

visits is the perceived 
erosion of golf course 
etiquette. Often, this 
topic receives nothing 
more than Bp service, 
such as, “Yes, it would 
be nice if golfers would 
fix their ball marks and replace 
divots.” Over the years there have been 
some excellent articles that showcase 
the efforts of golf course superinten­
dents teaching golfers the proper way 
to repair ball marks on greens; however, 
a comprehensive golf course etiquette 
policy is infrequently discussed. Etiquette 
is an aspect of the game whereby golf 
course superintendents and the Green 
Committee can take the lead. Given the 
various aspects of golf course etiquette, 
including safety, course care, pace of 
play, and consideration of other players, 
the Green Committee may be the 
perfect entity to develop a golf course 
etiquette policy to be ratified by the 
board of directors or owner.

A golf course etiquette policy docu­

ment should include specific criteria 
with respect to each facet of etiquette. 
These would include expected pace of 
play for 18 holes, perhaps with clocks at 
select locations on the golf course to 
inform players of their position. Details 
on searching for a lost ball, parking of 
golf carts, advancing to the next hole, 
flagstick removal and replacement, and 
ball retrieval from the hole (no putters!) 
should be included.

Player and maintenance staff safety 
should be featured prominently. Starting

18

GREEN SECTION RECORD

times in the morning and maintenance 
gaps in the schedule must be abided to
protect employees and safeguard main­
tenance efficiency and quality.

Care of the golf course will include 
procedures for repairing ball marks and 
divots. Divot repair should address divot 
replacement and filling with a soil and 
seed mixture, whichever is the preferred 
policy at the golf course. Bunker 
raking, entering and exiting bunkers, 
and position of the bunker rakes can 
also be set in the etiquette policy. Golf 
cart policy, including path restrictions, 
should be explained and detailed. Trash 
disposal and electronic device use are 
items to include in the etiquette policy.
The golf course superintendent 
has an important role in the process 
of developing an etiquette policy. The 
superintendent should instruct the 
Green Committee on proper ball mark 
repair; the best way to deal with divots 
based upon grass species, growing con­
ditions, and maintenance availability; 
how to rake bunkers; and where the 
rakes should be placed. The superinten­
dent can provide digital images or 
pictures for the document to illustrate 
divot filling, ball mark repair, exiting 
bunkers, controlling carts, retrieving a

FRIENDLY REMINDERS
*Keep up with the group in front of you
♦Please avoid driving down the roughs
♦Use 90 degree rule
* Repair at least 2 pitch marks per green 
♦Carts are not allowed beyond the 75 yard lines/posts

*Please rake all sand traps smoothly and replace rakes 
with illustrated spoke pattern

Tasteful signage and 

creative educational 

reminders encourage 

golfers to contribute 

to the overall quality 

of the golf course.

The pro shop staff and starter can provide reminders about 

specific etiquette items and how to carry them through 

correctly on the golf course.

S' s-

,. V:

The Green Committee and the golf course staff are perfectly 

suited to help golfers take ownership of their golf course and 

respect the game.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

19

Etiquette is an aspect of the game in 

which golf course superintendents 

and the Green Committee can take 

the lead. Developing a golf course 

etiquette policy document should 

include specific criteria, such as the 

Occasionally, golfers need a reminder about the basic prin­

expected pace of play for 18 holes. 

In developing a golf course etiquette policy, the golf course 

ciples of etiquette on the golf course. Bunker raking, enter­

Placing clocks at select locations on 

superintendent should provide pictures that demonstrate 

ing and exiting bunkers, and the position of bunker rakes 

the course helps keep golfers 

proper repair techniques and how to deal with conditions 

should be described in the golf course etiquette policy.

on track.

specific to the golf course property.

ball from the hole, and other tips. Pic­
tures that demonstrate proper technique 
will add significantly to the value of the 
document.

After an etiquette policy document is 

developed and ratified by the board of 
directors or other appropriate authority, 
disciplinary action for breaching eti­
quette rules should be determined. This 
would include a written warning for a 
first offense, a formal admonition from 
the club/committee for a second 
offense, and perhaps a suspension of 
privileges for repeat offenders. The 
USGA website features guidelines on 
golf course etiquette at http://www- 
usga.org/playing/etiquette/etiquette.- 
html. The end of these etiquette guide­
lines includes the following statement 
on enforcement: “If a player consistently 
disregards these guidelines during a 
round or over a period of time to the 
detriment of others, it is recommended 
that the Committee consider taking 
appropriate disciplinary action against 
the offending player. Such action may, 
for example, include prohibiting play 
for a limited time on the course or in a 
certain number of competitions. This is 
considered justifiable in terms of pro­

20

GREEN SECTION RECORD

tecting the interest of the majority of 
golfers who wish to play in accordance 
with these guidelines. In the case of a 
serious breach of etiquette, the Com­
mittee may disqualify a player under 
Rule 33-7.”

At a private club, the etiquette policy 

can be included in the member hand­
book, and new members should be 
expected to read and sign the policy as 
a condition of playing the course. The 
Green Committee should make a 
presentation at the annual meeting, 
educate all golf course staff, and serve as 
ambassadors of etiquette.

Public golf courses usually consist 
of a core group of regular golfers, and 
etiquette should be discussed at the 
annual meeting. In addition to the 
Green Committee serving as etiquette 
ambassadors and educating staff, it may 
prove helpful to include etiquette tips 
on the club’s or Parks and Recreation 
Department s website or in a weekly 
newspaper column or newsletter. Eti­
quette also should be instilled regularly 
in high school and junior golf programs.

At resort courses, information 
dissemination and enforcement will 
present a greater challenge, but eti­

quette tips can be shared. The pro shop 
staff, starter, and player assistants can 
make weekly points of emphasis out of 
specific etiquette items. Creative educa­
tional reminders can be used on video 
displays, scorecards, or tasteful signage. 
Golf lessons also are an avenue for shar­
ing the importance of etiquette and the 
spirit of the game.

The Green Committee is perfectly 
suited to helping golfers take ownership 
in their golf course and respect the 
game. Many new golfers simply have 
not had the exposure to golf etiquette 
and tradition that players growing up 
with the game have. Longtime players 
also can use a reminder periodically to 
further embolden the traditions of the 
game that many hold dear.

The golf course superintendent can 

encourage the Green Committee to 
lead the development of an etiquette 
policy document by setting up an initial 
meeting, offering a sample list of items 
to be addressed, and providing pictures 
for a handbook, website, or other form 
of communicating with golfers.

Matt Nelson is an agronomist in the 
USGA Green Section’s Northwest Region.

ponsored

Research lbw Can Use

Mowing Roughs to
Minimize Runoff
Scientists at Oklahoma State University demonstrate the 
environmental protection value of multiple-height roughs.

BY GREG BELL AND JUSTIN MOSS

Golf course fairways are fertilized to promote good turf cover, high turf density, and minimal weed encroachment.The higher-cut golf course rough acts as a 

vegetative filter strip or buffer that reduces runoff. Oklahoma State University researchers compared the use of multiple barriers with a single-buffer barrier 

in reducing nutrient runoff.

Golf course fairways tend to 

receive more fertilizer than 
most turfgrass areas to promote 
good turf cover, high turf density, and 

minimal weed encroachment. There is a 
slight but nonetheless possible likelihood 
that a small portion of the fertilizers 
applied to golf course fairways can 
dissolve in surface water runoff and 
contaminate lakes, streams, and other 
water features. Given this possibility, it is 

important that turf scientists pursue and 
investigate management methods that 
help superintendents develop environ­
mentally sound practices that reduce 
the potential for nutrient runoff.

The higher-cut golf course rough 
that commonly surrounds fairways acts 
as a vegetative filter strip or buffer that 
reduces runoff.2 Research suggests that 
the higher the buffer, the longer the 
period between rainfall initiation and 

runoff, and the more likely that runoff 
will be eliminated or reduced following 
a particular rainfall event.1 The density 
of the turf on the fairway or in the 
rough also has an impact on runoff.3,4 
Golf course superintendents strive to 
maintain full turf cover and maximum 
turf density, thereby reducing the likeli- 
hood that runoff will occur.

Even under worst-case conditions 
where fertilizer was applied to turf but 

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

21

not watered in and a major storm event 
occurred within a few hours of applica­
tion, the amount of fertilizer nitrogen 
(N) and phosphorus (P) lost to runoff 
was generally less than 10% of applied 
and, more often, only 2-4% of applied.9 
The levels of P that were found during 
studies of nutrient runoff from turf 
were often less than those found in 
natural rainfall.6

Based on previous research, we 
reasoned that it is difficult for water 
to flow through the dense system of 
shoots formed by closely mowed turf3,4 
Consequendy, because turf density tends 
to increase with decreasing mowing 
height, it may be reasoned that a low 
mowing height should be more effec­
tive than a higher one for providing 
resistance to flow. That may be the case 
for turfgrass stands of a single mowing 
height, but it did not prove correct for 
turfgrass stands that include vegetative 
buffers.1 When runoff flows from a 
low-cut turf to a higher-cut turf, its 
passage is further restricted.2 Based on 
the density principle, water flowing 
from a short mowing height to a taller 
mowing height should pass easily 
through the relatively low density of 
the higher height of cut. Research indi­
cates, however, that this does not occur. 
Buffers of 1.5 inches did not restrict 
flow as effectively as buffers of 3.0 
inches.1

When surface runoff from a golf 
course fairway encounters golf course 

rough, it tends to slow and puddle until 
sufficient energy builds to allow the 
water to flow through or over the 
higher height of cut. The higher-cut 
turf forms a barrier to gravitational 
flow that must be overcome before the 
surface runoff continues down the 
slope, providing more time for the run­
off to infiltrate into the thatch and soil. 
Therefore, a graduated system of rough 
such as apron to first cut to primary 
rough would provide three heights of 
cut, resulting in three barriers. Since 
wider buffers do not seem to deter 
runoff with greater effectiveness than 
shorter ones2 and since exceptionally 
high mowing heights could negatively 
affect playability, this multiple-barrier 
strategy could provide the best alterna­
tive for reducing nutrient runoff from 
fairways. The objective of this research 
was to effectively compare this multiple­
barrier strategy with the single-buffer 
strategy that is already known to be 
effective.

THE RESEARCH SITE
The water runoff research site at 
Oklahoma State University consisted of 
three irrigation blocks with two 40 ft. X 
80 ft. plots per block, for a total of six 
plots on 0.44 acre. The site was mature 
common bermudagrass (Cynodon 
dactylori) on compacted silt loam soil 
with a surface infiltration rate of less 
than 0.5 inch per hour. The turf irriga­
tion system delivers a precipitation rate

Researchers at Oklahoma 

State University found that 

using vegetative buffers 

maintained at multiple 

mowing heights improved 

the ability to limit both 

nitrogen and phosphorus 

runoff compared to 

buffers maintained at 

a single height of cut.

22

GREEN SECTION RECORD

Ultrasonic modules (ISCO 710) mounted over 

each Parshall flume used ultrasonic reflection to 

measure water levels and flow rates every five 

minutes for 60 minutes.

of 2 inches per hour. A series of 18 
time domain reflectometer probes 
served to monitor soil moisture so that 
the site could be consistently maintained 
at field capacity. The turf was mowed at 
0.5 inch across the upper sections of 
each plot three times per week to 
simulate golf course fairways.

The fairway sections were 40 ft. wide 

by 62 ft. long and were bordered by 
rough that was 40 ft. wide by 18 ft. long 
at the bottom of the slope. The single­
barrier rough was mowed at 2 inches 
for the full 18 ft. length from fairway to 
collection trough, and the multiple­
barrier rough was mowed at increasingly 
higher heights every 6 ft. down the 
slope. The mowing heights for the 
multiple-barrier rough increased from 
1.0 inch at the highest surface elevation 
to 1.5 inches at the intermediate loca­
tion to 2.0 inches at the lowest elevation.
The buffers were mowed once per 
week.

FERTILIZER, PRECIPITATION, 
AND SAMPLE COLLECTION
To test nutrient runoff, urea and triple 
super phosphate fertilizer were applied 
at 1 lb. nitrogen (N) per 1,000 sq. ft. and 
0.5 lb. phosphorus (P) per 1,000 sq. ft. 
four hours before irrigating and again 
following irrigation events to await 
natural rainfall. The fertilizers were 
applied as granules and were not 
watered-in so that the study represented 
worst-case conditions. Fertilizers were

Table 1
The mean runoff flow rate, amount of N and P.and N and P concentrations (cone.) during 
5-minute intervals in runoff produced by six irrigation events and four natural rainfall events.

Time

Flow Rate

N Lost to Runoff

P Lost to Runoff

N Cone.

P Cone.

Multiple

Single

Multiple Single

Multiple Single

Multiple

Single

Multiple

Single

min

gal/ac/min

Ib/ac/min

ppm

Irrigation Runoff

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

62

151

234

285

313

334

347

348

363

365

354

341

Natural Rainfall Runoff

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

284

512

349

191

153

170

157

126

82

45

18

II

73

182

*286

*345

*381

*398

*412

*422

*423

*412

*406

*406

277

508

409

*266

*195

*198

*218

*194

*143

* 93

* 55

* 33

0.0005 0.0005

0.0018 0.0015

0.0046 0.0042

0.0075 0.0081

0.0093 

0.0112

0.0102 *0.0126

0.0102 *0.0128

0.0097 *0.0126

0.0096 *0.0122

0.0090 *0.0113

0.0082 *0.0105

0.0074 *0.0102

0.0037 0.0034

0.0073 

0.0066

0.0057 0.0057

0.0034 0.0041

0.0027 0.0033

0.0029 0.0035

0.0026 *0.0039

0.0019 *0.0033

0.0012 *0.0023

0.0006 *0.0015

0.0002 *0.0008

0.0001 *0.0005

0.0015 0.0010

0.0050 0.0043

0.0120 0.0122

0.0185 0.0204

0.0215 0.0254

0.0221 *0.0260

0.0207 *0.0243

0.0180 *0.0220

0.0164 *0.0197

0.0144 *0.0172

0.0125 *0.0150

0.0104 *0.0135

0.0090 0.0061

0.0205 0.0145

0.0188 0.0183

0.0124 0.0160

0.0104 0.0127

0.0107 0.0127

0.0091 *0.0130

0.0064 *0.0102

0.0037 *0.0066

0.0017 *0.0038

0.0006 *0.0020

0.0003 *0.0011

1.0

1.4

2.3

3.2

3.5

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.6

1.6

1.7

2.0

2.1

2.1

2.0

2.0

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

0.7

*1.0

*1.7

2.8

3.5

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.3

3.1

*3.0

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

2.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.8

2.9

4.0

6.2

7.8

8.2

7.9

7.1

6.2

5.4

4.7

4.2

3.6

3.8

4.8

6.5

7.8

8.1

7.6

6.9

6.2

5.3

4.6

4.0

3.4

*1.7

*2.8

5.1

7.1

8.0

7.8

7.1

6.3

5.6

5.0

4.4

4.0

*2.6

*3.4

5.3

7.2

7.8

7.7

7.1

6.3

5.5

4.9

4.4

3.9

indicates a significant difference between the multiple-barrier and single-barrier rough (P < 0.05)

applied to the simulated golf course 
fairway area six times in 2001 and six 
times in 2002. Fertilizer was not applied 
to the rough.

Covered troughs collected runoff 
water from each plot and channeled it 
through calibrated Parshall flumes by 
gravity flow. Ultrasonic modules (Isco 
710) mounted over each Parshall flume 
used ultrasonic reflection to measure 
water level. Isco 6700 portable samplers 
(Isco, Lincoln, Nebraska) were secured 
to concrete platforms located between 
each experimental block. The samplers 
were programmed to determine water 
flow rate and collect runoff samples 
every five minutes for 60 minutes. 
Samples were tested to determine the 

amount of N and P in the runoff. The 
time from the beginning of precipita­
tion to the beginning of runoff also 
was measured for each plot during 
each event.

Runoff caused by irrigation was 
collected three times in 2001 and three 
times in 2002. Natural rainfall runoff 
was collected once in 2001 and three 
times in 2002. Each time precipitation 
occurred, multiple samples of the irri­
gation or rainfall were collected and 
the concentrations of N and P in the 
samples were determined. Background 
concentrations were subtracted from 
the nutrient concentrations in the run­
off to determine the actual amount of 
N and P removed from the turf.

RESULTS — 
RUNOFF RATE 
ANDTIMING
During irrigation, the multiple-barrier 
rough reduced the peak runoff rate by 
14% compared with the single-barrier 
rough and reduced the total runoff at 
60 minutes by 16%. In contrast, peak 
runoff occurred more rapidly during 
the natural rainfall events, producing an 
average of 510 gallons per acre per 
minute at 10 minutes after runoff began 
(Table l).The multiple-barrier rough 
did not significantly affect the peak 
natural rainfall runoff rate, but it did 
significantly reduce the cumulative run­
off volume by 19% during 60 minutes 
of runoff.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

23

The multiple-barrier rough signifi­
cantly delayed the time from the begin­
ning of precipitation to the beginning 
of runoff compared with the single­
barrier rough during both irrigation 
and natural rainfall. The multiple-barrier 
rough delayed runoff initiation by 
approximately four minutes during 
irrigation and by two minutes during 
natural rainfall. The average time to 
initiation of runoff during irrigation 
events was 20 minutes for the multiple­
barrier rough and 16 minutes for the 
single-barrier rough. Time to runoff for 
natural rainfall events was 39 minutes 
for the multiple-barrier rough and 37 
minutes for the single-barrier rough.

NUTRIENT LOSSES
The fertilizer application methods that 
were applied to the irrigation experi­
ments in this study were established to 
provide worst-case conditions. Golf 
course superintendents generally do not 
apply fertilizer within 48 hours prior to 
predicted rainfall and nearly always 
water-in the fertilizer immediately fol­
lowing application to minimize possible 
runoff losses. The nutrient losses in this 
study are representative of a worst-case 
scenario and are likely to be more 
severe than what typically occurs.

Fertilizer losses in runoff were small 

compared with fertilizer applied. On 
average, 1.5% of the N applied was lost 
to irrigation runoff and 0.5% to natural 
rainfall runoff during 60 minutes of 
runoff. Irrigation runoff caused a 5.5% 
loss of applied P and natural rainfall 
runoff caused a 3.3% loss of applied P 
during 60 minutes of runoff. These 
results are comparable with the results 
of other researchers and further support 
the contention that turf has a positive 
influence on the reduction of nutrient 
losses from runoff.3,7

The reduced runoff volume resulting 

from the use of the multiple-barrier 
rough compared to the single-barrier 
rough caused a significant reduction in 
the amount of N and P lost to both 
irrigation and natural runoff (Table 1). 
The multiple-barrier rough reduced 

24

GREEN SECTION RECORD

the amount of N lost with 60 minutes 
of irrigation runoff by 18% and the 
amount of N lost with 60 minutes of 
natural rainfall runoff by 17%. The 
multiple-barrier rough reduced the 
amount of P lost to irrigation runoff by 
14% and the amount of P lost to natural 
rainfall runoff by 11% during 60 
minutes of runoff.

The concentration of NO3-N never 
exceeded the recommended EPA limit 
for drinking water of 10 ppm,8 but both 
dissolved N (NO3-N + NH4-N) and 
dissolved P consistently exceeded 1 ppm 
and 25 ppb, respectively, the commonly 
recommended allowances for reducing 
the likelihood of eutrophication.9 The 
N concentrations in both irrigation and 
natural rainfall accelerated rapidly from 
5 to 25 minutes and were highest be­
tween approximately 25 to 35 minutes 
(Table l).The P concentrations also 
accelerated rapidly and were highest in 
both forms of precipitation at approxi­
mately 20 to 35 minutes (Table 1).

The rapidly accelerating nutrient 
losses during the beginning of runoff 
offset the delay in time to runoff 
between treatments and effectively 
neutralized the beneficial effects of the 
multiple-barrier rough during the 
initial stages of runoff. After 20 to 25 
minutes of runoff, nutrient losses were 
nearly equal among treatments in spite 
of the average four- or two-minute 
delay in time to runoff caused by the 
multiple-barrier rough and the greater 
volume of irrigation runoff from the 
single-barrier rough (Table 1). Conse­
quently, the multiple-barrier rough did 
not affect nutrient runoff significantly 
for the first 30 to 35 minutes of runoff, 
but maintained an advantage following 
35 minutes until at least 60 minutes of 
runoff during both irrigation and 
natural rainfall.

RUNOFF REDUCTION
Based on 55 years of precipitation data 
collected at Stillwater, Oklahoma, an 
average of 81 rainfall events occurred 
each year.5 Most of those events did not 
produce adequate precipitation to force 

runoff, but seven events per year pro­
duced at least 0.5 inch of rainfall (the 
amount required to produce runoff at 
the research site) at an average precipi­
tation rate greater than 0.5 inch (the 
surface infiltration rate) for at least one 
hour, and lasted longer than 72 minutes 
(the average time of precipitation 
required to produce significant differ­
ences in nutrient losses between buffer 
treatments). Consequently, the use of 
multiple-barrier roughs could make a 
meaningful difference in the amount of 
nutrients lost in runoff during those 
seven runoff-producing rainfall events 
that are likely to occur each year in 
Stillwater, Oklahoma. The average 
annual rainfall in Stillwater is 37 inches, 
a relatively dry climate compared with 
many regions of the world. The mul­
tiple-barrier rough may well make a 
greater difference in regions where 
rainfall is more plentiful.

A simple observation of turf follow­

ing a severe rainstorm indicates that 
runoff not only occurs through the 
shoots but also occurs over the leaves. 
Areas of severe runoff are identified by 
the prostrate appearance of the turf. 
When runoff water from bare soil 
encounters a grass barrier, the runoff 
slows due to shoot resistance until suffi­
cient volume accumulates to provide 
the force necessary to bend the shoots 
and the lower leaves, allowing the run­
off to flow over or around the plants. 
We hypothesize that when water 
encounters a second mowing height, a 
similar resistance occurs and sufficient 
volume must be accumulated to over­
come this second barrier.

During this study, a puddle of water 
formed each time the runoff encoun­
tered a buffer. The puddling was most 
noticeable at the interface of the fair­
way and initial buffer but also occurred 
at the interface of each height increase 
in the multiple-height buffers. Although 
turf density can be expected to increase 
with lower mowing height and have an 
inhibitory effect on runoff,3,4 the work 
of Baird et al.1 indicated that when a 
buffer strategy is employed, the shoot 

height of the buffer vegetation had a 
greater effect on runoff than turf den­
sity. Baird et al.1 reported that a 3.0- 
inch buffer height was more effective 
for reducing water runoff than a 1.5- 
inch buffer. Accordingly, multiple mow­
ing heights result in multiple barriers 
that slow runoff and reduce runoff 
volume.

Editor’s Note: A more detailed research 
report originally appeared in UNGA 
Turfgrass and Environmental Research 
Online (http://usgatero.msu.edu). 
Readers may visit this Web site for this 
and many other articles reporting the 
results of USGA’s Turfgrass and 
Environmental Research Program.

Wilson, M. D. Smolen, D. L. Martin, and J.T. 
Cole. 2000. Best management practices to 
reduce pesticide and nutrient runoff from turf. 
In J. M. Clark and M. P. Kenna (eds.) Fate and 
management of turfgrass chemicals. American 
Chemical Society. Washington, D.C.

2. Cole,J.T„J. H. Baird, N.T. Basta, R. L. 
Huhnke, D. E. Storm, G.VJohnson, M. E. 
Payton, M. D. Smolen, D. L. Martin, and J. C. 
Cole. 1997. Influence of buffers on pesticide 
and nutrient runoff from bermudagrass turf. 
J. Environ. Qual. 26:1589-1598.

3. Easton, Z. M., and A. M. Petrovic. 2004. 
Fertilizer source effect on ground and surface 
water quality in drainage from turfgrass.
J. Environ. Qual. 33:645-655.

4. Linde, D. T., T. L. Watschke, and J. A. Borger. 
1994. Nutrient transport in runoff from two 
turfgrass species. Pages 268-293. In A. J. Cochran 
and M. R. Farrally (ed.) Science and Golf II: 
Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress of 
Golf. E & FN Spon, London.

LITERATURE CITED
1. Baird, J. H., N.T. Basta, R. L. Huhnke, G.V. 
Johnson, M. E. Payton, D. E. Storm, C. A.

5. NCDC Data Online. 2005.TD3240 hourly 
precipitation data [online]. National Climatic 
Data Center, Asheville, N.C. Available at: 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/station- 
locator.html (verified February 2,2005).

6. Sharpley, A., B. Foy, and P. Withers. 2000. 
Practical and innovative measures for the control 
of agricultural phosphorus losses to water: an 
overview.J. Environ. Qual. 29:1-9.

7. Shuman, L. M. 2002. Phosphorus and nitrate 
nitrogen in runoff following fertilizer applica­
tion to turfgrass.J Environ. Qual. 31:1710-1715.

8. USEPA. 1976. Quality criteria for water. 
U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C.

9. Walker, W.J., and B. Branham. 1992. Environ­
mental impacts of turfgrass fertilization, p. 105- 
219. In J. C. Balogh and W J. Walker (eds.) Golf 
course management and construction: environ­
mental issues. Lewis Publ., Chelsea, Mich.

Greg Bell, Ph.D., Associate Professor, 
and Justin Moss, Graduate Student, 
Department of Horticulture and Landscape 
Architecture, Oklahoma State University, 
Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Covered troughs collected runoff water from each plot and channeled it through calibrated Parshall flumes by gravity flow.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

25

Paying the 
Price for 
Success
An open letter to 
aspiring turfgrass 
professionals.

BY JIM SIMMONS

Today’s students have access 

to more information, but the 

competitive nature of the 

business may mean more 

years of experience are 

needed before becoming a 

golf course superintendent.

Dear Aspiring Turfgrass Professionals, 
My name is Jim Simmons and

I have been working on golf 
courses for almost 40 years. I 
have been the golf course superinten­
dent at the Shoal Creek Club, in 
Birmingham, Alabama, since 1977. 
When I made up my mind to become 
a golf course superintendent, I had a 
goal to become the best superintendent 
in the business at the best course in the 
country. Throughout my career I have 
been fortunate to be in the right place 
at the right time to advance my career, 
but any success I have achieved has not 
come without hard work, long hours, 
and working for demanding employers. 
I have seen all sides of the business dur­
ing my career, and I would like to share 
with you the traits that I believe are 
necessary to be successful in this 
business.

A CAREER IS LAUNCHED
I began working on my hometown 
course in 1966. Two of my friends and 
I were hired for what would turn out 

26

GREEN SECTION RECORD

to be the job of a lifetime, at least for a 
hometown boy. I enjoyed the work and 
being on a golf course. My father, who 
was not known for the art of conversa­
tion, made a single comment to me, 
“Why don’t you consider going to turf 
school?” From that point on, my career 
began.

I enrolled at Michigan State Univer­

sity in their new two-year turfgrass 
management program. I was fortunate 
to be taught by professors such as James 
Beard, John King, Al Turgeon, Ken 
Payne, Paul Rieke, and Joe Vargas. Their 
interest and enthusiasm really motivated 
many of us in the class, and some of us 
needed motivating at that age.

My placement training or internship 
was done under Jack Hart at the NCR 
Country Club in Kettering, Ohio. The 
year was 1969 and the club would host 
the PGA Championship that same year. 
Student interns were unheard of at that 
time. Although Jack Hart was forth­
coming with helpful information, many 
of his assistant superintendents and fore­
men were skeptical of college students.

Most assistants and foremen were not 
turf educated and in many cases did not 
finish any formal education. Needless 
to say, it was difficult to gain the confi­
dence of the assistant superintendents 
and foremen.

During my internship at NCR, 
I worked hard and gained valuable 
insight into the career of a golf course 
superintendent. Jack Hart told me 
something as I was leaving that has 
stayed with me my whole career: 
“Once you feel you do not have to get 
down on your hands and knees to 
evaluate your golf course, you will be 
thrown out of this business.” To this day, 
this statement is the truth.

CLIMBING THE LADDER
Upon graduating, I went back to my 
hometown and worked a year as a so- 
called superintendent. My two friends 
and I made up the entire maintenance 
crew. It was hard work, the budget was 
low, and I earned $2.25 per hour. I 
thought I was doing well. The course 
owners were businessmen who built

Student interns who demonstrate hard work, self­

A mentor once told me,“Once you feel you don’t have to get down on your hands and knees 

discipline, dedication, and patience are developing the skills 

to evaluate our golf course, you will be thrown out in this business.” To this day, this statement 

necessary to be a successful golf course superintendent.

is true.

the course out of love for the game. 
They gambled most of their wealth on 
this course, and they wanted every cent 
spent to be productive, to say the least.
A good friend of my family, Jack 

Welch, became the self-appointed 
guardian angel over my career. He 
brought information back from national 
meetings to me. He even piqued my 
interest in joining the Central Ohio 
Superintendents Association. At one 
meeting I got up the nerve to speak 
with Walter Fuchs, superintendent at 
Scioto C.C., one of the premier golf 
courses in the country. He invited me 
to Scioto to show me his operation. 
During the tour, I was so impressed that 
I asked if he knew of anyone looking 
for an assistant. He mentioned a young 
guy who had just become the superin­
tendent at Brookside C.C. in Worthing­
ton, Ohio. I sent this superintendent, Ed 
Etchells, my resume, was asked to inter­
view, and was soon hired. This move 
really jump-started my career.

Ed Etchells was demanding not only 
of himself, but of his employees as well.

When I arrived at Brookside, it was 
considered the third-best course in the 
Columbus area. After renovating fair­
ways and tees and generally improving 
the grooming of the course, it was con­
sidered right up there with Scioto C.C. 
All this work was done in a short 
period of time. I learned in a hurry to 
be self-disciplined, efficient, and organ­
ized when going about my jobs. Ed 
Etchells lived his life this way, and if one 
paid attention and wanted to progress, 
he would be wise to do the same.

BECOMING A 
SUPERINTENDENT
My father, an employee of Scotts, had 
a meeting with Jack Nicklaus years 
before my start in the business. Jack was 
interested in building a golf course in 
Dublin, Ohio, and he wanted Scotts to 
use the course as a proving ground for 
their products. Though the relationship 
never developed, I never forgot the 
message of that meeting —Jack 
Nicklaus wanted to build a golf 
course.

Eventually Nicklaus s course, Muir- 
field Village Golf Club, was built and 
Ed Etchells became the superintendent. 
I was hired as the assistant superinten­
dent. Now I had two demanding indi­
viduals to answer to. Many of the skills 
I learned from my two previous courses 
paid off as I worked to prove my 
worth. Over the four years I worked at 
Muirfield, I continued to learn many 
valuable lessons and, although I did not 
know it at the time, I was laying the 
foundation for the next challenge in 
my life. The harder I worked and the 
more responsibility I was willing to 
shoulder, the more trust both Ed and 
Jack put in me. I did not sit around 
talking about what I could or could not 
do. Instead, I patiently showed them I 
was able to handle any situation on the 
golf course.

After Muirfield Village was com­
pleted, Jack started designing his own 
courses and Ed Etchells began provid­
ing agronomic consulting on all of 
Nicklaus s courses. Shoal Creek was 
Jack Nicklaus s first course he designed

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

27

FREQUENTLY ASKED 
QUESTIONS
Jim Simmons has more than 30 years of 
experience as a golf course superinten­
dent. Over that time, he estimates that 
he has provided internships for more 
than 150 individuals, many of whom 
are still in the business. Although the 
faces of interns, crew members, and 
assistants change, Jim is asked the same 
questions over and over again. Below 
are a few of these questions along with 
Jim’s responses.

What type of experience can I gain 

from an internship under you? Your 
internship will begin with learning to 
master the shovel and rake. As I observe 
your attitude and your ability to do 
excellent work, you will move up and 
learn additional jobs. If all goes well, 
you will have learned how work is 
done at Shoal Creek and you will be 
skilled at many different tasks.

Why am I initially assigned the 
lowest jobs as an intern? Interns start at 

the bottom for two reasons. First, I am 
able to get comfortable with you, your 
attitude, and your work. Second, if your 
training follows a progression and I am 
in a pinch for a crew member, I have a 
good feel for whether you are up to the 
task or not.

What traits do you look for when 
hiring an assistant superintendent? 
At Shoal Creek, traditionally assistant 
superintendents are hired from within 
the staff. Over time, I am able to 
observe the work ethic, attitude, and 
skills of individuals who will be con­
sidered for assistant superintendent 
positions.

How long can I expect to be an 
assistant superintendent? At Shoal 
Creek, an assistant superintendent is 
expected to remain on staff for approxi­
mately three years before seeking a 
superintendents position.This time 
frame seems to work well for both 
sides. The club has invested a substantial 
amount training the assistant and reaps 

the reward of an experienced assistant 
for three years. The assistant has the 
benefit of three years as an assistant 
superintendent.

I have interviewed at several courses 
and I do not seem to ever get to the final 
interview. I always end up second or 
third. What is happening? You might 
be looking at the wrong type of course. 
Take a good look at yourself, your work 
ethic, and desires and seek a course that 
fits your profile.

When asked in an interview, “What 

kind of money are you looking for?” 
the interview seems to lose its intensity. 
How should I handle this question in an 
interview? You may be asking for too 
much money for your first position. 
Very few assistants leave their present 
position and land that “gold mine” 
salary. There are too many people 
applying for the same position. While 
some may have the experience to 
justify a high salary, others will have 
to prove themselves.

New challenges 

provide anyone 

from course 

worker to 

assistant to 

superintendent 

with an 

opportunity to 

develop new 

skills and show 

their employer 

that they can 

handle the job.

28

GREEN SECTION RECORD

Perfecting all 

the jobs on 

the golf course 

helps lay the 

foundation 

for future 

success as a 

superintendent.

by himself in the United States. The 
story goes that the owner of the course, 
Hall Thompson, asked Jack during one 
of his site visits, “What type of grass are 
we planning for on the putting greens?” 
Without flinching, Jack said, “Bent­
grass.” In the next breath he mentioned 
he had this young man at Muirfield 
Village who was knowledgeable and 
ready to grow bentgrass. This is the 
reason I was hired at Shoal Creek.

BECOMING A 
SUCCESSFUL 
SUPERINTENDENT
To be hired as a superintendent, I had 
proven that I was capable of working 
long hours, organizing and planning 
schedules, and managing employees. I 
had to deliver the results my employers 
desired, and I earned the respect of my 

employers not by telling them what I 
was capable of, but by working and 
providing a result they could relate to.
I can say that the careers of the stu­
dents who work for me are enhanced 
tremendously when they work for an 
entire year on the golf course. They see 
everything from the early season pre­
emergence herbicide applications to the 
end-of-the-season overseeding. Many 
students have not even worked an 
entire year on the golf course, but they 
believe they are ready for an assistant 
position or higher. Taking the time to 
learn all the on-course jobs and the 
changes that occur on the course 
throughout the year builds a foundation 
necessary for success.

It took me nearly ten years to reach 
my goals. I progressed from worker to 
assistant superintendent to superinten­

dent. Today, there are many more 
graduates from turf schools and the job 
market has never been more competi­
tive. It may take a person going from 
worker to intern to spray tech to assis­
tant in training to assistant before being 
hired as a superintendent. No matter 
what the timeline is, however, there is 
a common thread I see in successful 
individuals — hard work, sacrifice, 
self-discipline, patience, and a positive 
attitude. Maybe more important than 
all these other traits is setting a goal to 
work toward. Do you have a goal?

Jim Simmons is the only superintendent in 
the history of Shoal Creek. He has prepared 
Shoal Creek for two PGA Championships 
and the U.S. Amateur, and he has been a 
mentor to many interns and assistant 
superintendents.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

29

Each year the Patuxent Research Refuge hosts a week-long GeoCamp to immerse fifth-grade students in environmental education.The 2005 theme was 

insects, with a specific focus on pollinators. Billy B. led students in a song describing the importance of pollinators in their everyday lives.

GeoCamp Is Here Again!
Golf courses participate in a program to help 
young students become “Habitat Heroes.”

BY JENNIFER HILL

GeoCamp 2005 (July 11-15) has 

come and gone for another 
year. The purpose of this week­
long camp is to immerse rising fifth­

grade students from two District of 
Columbia schools (Thomas Nevel and 
Smothers Elementary) into various 
environments and guide them in be­
coming “Habitat Heroes.” GeoCamp is 
conducted in partnership with National 
Geographic, and the goal is to incorpo­
rate history, culture, and geography into 
the week via environmental education. 
Every year’s session proves to be a new 
and exciting experience.

30

GREEN SECTION RECORD

This year’s theme was INSECTS! — 

focusing specifically on pollinators. 
Students were exposed to the world of 
honey bees, where they tasted honey, 
saw products bees help produce for 
humans, and listened to a song by Billy 
B. entitled “Bee Barf” — describing 

just what honey is. The students then 
discovered the importance of pollinators 
in their everyday lives.

As Habitat Heroes, students partici­
pate in an action project to aid wildlife 
conservation. This year students built 
bee boxes for solitary nesting bees in an 
effort to conserve pollinators. Several 
local golf courses received the bee 
boxes to provide habitat for pollinators.

WHY BEE BOXES?
WHY GOLF COURSES?
Golf courses can be relatively good 
places to see wildlife; however, they are

often divided into “chunks” of habitat 
not suitable for many wildlife species. 
Often, you find beautiful landscaping 
and blooming flowers on a golf course, 
but you will not find fallen trees or 
patches of ground that are suitable for 
bees and other pollinators to nest in. By 
distributing bee boxes to neighboring 
golf courses, it is our hope that the bee 
boxes will help establish more nesting 
space for pollinators and raise awareness 
about their important function. With 
the boxes up, bees have both flowers for 
food and suitable habitat for nesting, 
egg laying, and protection.

Golf courses were selected for bee 
box distribution because the schools 
participating in the camp are very close 
to Langston Golf Course. By distribut­
ing bee boxes to Langston, the students 
learned a little about the history of 
the D.C. area and how Langston was 
historically an all-African-American 
golf course. Other nearby golf courses 
tie in geography (as did several other 
activities on bees/pollinators) and 
habitat enhancement. Our hope is that 
the students will be able to take a field 
trip to the golf course, learn a bit more 
history, observe a bee box made by a 
student, and observe other wildlife 
utilizing patches of habitat on the golf 
course.

Bats also play a role in pollination 
and are another example of an animal 
that may have suitable feeding areas, but 
not proper resting/protection areas, on 
the golf course. Bees pollinate flowers 
that we love to see, but, more impor­
tantly, they pollinate much of the food 
we eat, and bats eat many mosquitoes. 
The ponds or areas of water on a golf 
course draw insects and provide drink­
ing water for bats. Flowers, pole-lights, 
and open fields attract insects, but snags 
(standing dead trees) are needed to 
provide resting habitat and protection 
for bats. To remedy this, a bat box can 
be placed on the side of a building, 
lamp, or telephone pole. Bees and bats 
are species that tend to have a negative 
“rap.” Our hope is that by establishing 
suitable areas for them, the general

Golf course out-of-play areas can provide excellent habitat for pollinators when combined with 

nesting sites and foraging areas. Bee nesting blocks can be made from pieces of water-resistant lumber 

at least 4" by 4" and 8" long. In one side of the block, drill holes between ’A" and %" in diameter, at 

approximately V" centers.The holes need to be closed at one end.

public will learn about their significance 
in our daily Eves.

A valid question about establishing 

bee boxes on the golf course is the 
possibility of bees stinging people. The 
bees housed in these boxes are non- 
aggressive, and several species do not 
even have the capability to sting.

GOLF COURSE’S ROLE 
IN THE ENVIRONMENT
Today, more golf courses are working 
toward habitat restoration for wildlife 
and plants. In creating more wildlife­
friendly habitat on golf courses, bio­
diversity of plant and animal species 
will be aided. Langston Golf Course in 
Northeast D.C. accepted a few bee 
boxes and will coordinate student field 
trips. Opportunities such as these are 
key in reinforcing concepts taught 
during the camp, as well as providing 
a sense of accomplishment for the 
students in seeing their bee boxes 
mounted at a golf course.

In addition to discovering habitats 
in the environment during GeoCamp, 
students celebrated what they learned 
through music. Environmental singer 
and songwriter Billy B. (of “Bee Barf” 
fame) performed a one-hour concert 
in honor of GeoCamp and spent the 
afternoon singing about INSECTS!

GeoCamp is made possible with a 
grant from the National Geographic 

Society in partnership with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, D.C.
Geographic Alliance, and Friends of 
Patuxent. We thank all of these groups, 
as well as the volunteers and staff who 
helped make this event a success. We 
want to also thank USGS Patuxent 
Wildlife Research Center researcher 
Sam Droege, who provided advice and 
supplies to help with student education; 
Kimberly Erusha and Darin Bevard 
from the United States Golf Association; 
and Lloyd Luna, Bart Smith, Carolyn 
Grant, Jill Stevenson, and Joe Brotherton 
from the Bowie-Upper Marlboro Bee­
keepers Association, who provided bee­
keeping demonstrations. We also would 
like to thank the following participating 
golf courses that supported the Habitat 
Heroes of GeoCamp 2005: Baltimore 
Country Club, Timonium, Md;
Baltimore Country Revenue Authority, 
Towson, Md.; Chevy Chase Club, 
Chevy Chase, Md.; Enterprise Golf 
Course, Bowie, Md.; Langston Golf 
Course, Washington, DC.; Red Gate 
Golf Course, Rockville, Md.;Talbot 
Country Club, Easton, Md.; Queens­
town Harbor, Queenstown, Md.

Jennifer Hill is a Park Ranger with the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stationed at 
Patuxent Research Refuge in Laurel, 
Maryland.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

31

On Course With Nature

A Blueprint for Management

Shaping the Audubon program to address golf’s environmental concerns.

BY JEAN MACKAY AND JOELLEN ZEH

The Audubon Cooperative 

Sanctuary Program for Golf 
Courses (ACSP) was born in 
1991 when a few hundred golf courses 

stepped forward to participate in the 
fledgling environmental education and 
certification program. With generous 
funding provided by the USGA, 
Audubon International crafted a pro­
gram to address golf’s environmental 
concerns and take advantage of its 
environmental opportunities.

As it turned out, cooperative was an apt 

part of the program’s title. Audubon’s 
biologists had a crash course in core 
aeration and green speed. Superinten­
dents got smart about wildlife corridors 
and ecological systems. Together, they 
shaped a program that now serves as a 
blueprint for environmental manage­
ment on golf courses around the world.
Today, more than 2,100 golf courses 
in 26 countries participate in the ACSP, 
while an additional 129 golf course 
development projects are enrolled in 
the Audubon Signature Program, a 
spin-off of the ACSP begun in 1993 
that addresses the environmental aspects 
of development. More than half of 
those enrolled have developed an envi­
ronmental plan to guide management 
of the golf course, and 504 have 
achieved certification for their out­
standing best practices. Altogether, that 
represents well over 700,000 acres of 
golf course land, water, and wildlife 
habitats that are managed for the bene­
fit of golfers and the environment.
With the aid of Audubon Inter­
national programs, this progressive 
group of superintendents and golf 
course managers is setting the standard 
for the golf industry. Their successes 

32

GREEN SECTION RECORD

and expertise have raised the bar for 
how golf courses can and should be 
managed. Equally important, they are 
helping golf to achieve its goal of 
educating the public about its commit­
ment to good stewardship. Consider 
these achievements:
• More than 500 conservation organi­
zations are directly involved with golf 
courses as a result of participation in 
the ACSP.
• Birdwatching teams from 63 ACSP 
and Audubon Signature golf courses 
identified 304 different bird species on 
golf courses during the 2005 North 
American Birdwatching Open, a yearly 
tally of birds on golf courses during 
spring migration. Fifty-seven percent 
of participants saw more than 50 bird 
species during the 24-hour event, pro­
viding credible data about the diversity 
of birds that use golf course habitats.
• Case studies and published articles 
highlighting Audubon golf program 
members appear regularly in a variety 
of international, national, and local 
media, including (in 2005): The New 
York Times, Wisconsin Trails Magazine, 
Builder Magazine, Golfdom,TGM, The 
Gainesville Times, Charlotte Daily Progress, 
Platinum Coast Golf, Gold Coast Sun, The 
Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), and 
this publication, the USGA Green 
Section Record, to name a few.
• In 2004, 86 golf courses participated 
in Audubon International’s annual Nest 
Box Survey, reporting a total of 5,069 
birds fledged from nest boxes on golf 
courses.
• More than 50% of classic and 
modern golf courses on Golf Digest’s 
Top 100 List are Audubon program 
members, which provides good evi­

dence that excellence in golf and 
excellence in environmental manage­
ment go hand in hand.

Fifteen years of working cooperatively 
has resulted in exceptional environmental 
management on individual golf courses, 
as well as improved awareness, education, 
and best practices industry-wide. Still, 
there’s more to do. More superinten­
dents need to join the cream of the 
crop and implement comprehensive 
environmental management practices. 
More need to document their environ­
mental outcomes to build a body of 
regional and national data. And, as 
always, more needs to be done to bring 
golfers to the table.

Audubon International is in for the 
long run. We look forward to the next 
15 years of continued progress, on-the- 
ground results, and industry-wide suc­
cesses to improve the quality of our 
environment for the benefit of the 
game of golf and, more importantly, 
for our future.

GET INVOLVED!
Taking part in the ACSP may be easier 
than you think. Here’s a quick look at 
what’s involved:
• Join the program! Submit a simple 
registration form and membership fee 
of $150 (U.S.) to enroll. Register online 
or call Audubon International to 
request a brochure.
• Complete a Site Assessment and 
Environmental Plan. This benchmark­
ing tool helps you evaluate your current 
management practices and develop a 
comprehensive environmental plan to 
guide improvements. Inherent flexibility 
in the ACSP is designed to help any 
golf course take stock of its environ-

mental resources and potential concerns, 
and then develop a plan that fits its 
unique setting, goals, staff, budget, 
and available time.
• Implement your action plan.
Delegate and work with others to 
implement new best practices and 
achieve your goals. The program 
includes these key areas:

♦ Wildlife and Habitat Management
♦ Chemical Use Reduction and Safety 
♦ Water Conservation
♦ Water Quality Management
♦ Outreach and Education

• Become certified. ACSP members 
are often surprised to find that many of 
their day-to-day activities already meet 
certification requirements. Documenta­
tion and reporting for certification have 
been streamlined significantly since the 
early days of the program (thanks to 
feedback from ACSP members). So, if 

Collier’s Reserve 

in Naples, Florida, 

became the first certified 

Audubon Signature 

Sanctuary in 1995. Like 

so many members of the 

Audubon Signature and 

Cooperative Sanctuary 

Programs, its innovative 

practices and commit­

ment to environmental 

quality serve as a model 

for others in the golf 

industry.

you’re lingering under the impression 
that you just don’t have time to participate 
or can’t possibly achieve certification, think 
again.

To find out more, visit www.audu- 

boninternational.org, e-mail acss@- 
auduboninternational.org, or call 
Audubon International Membership 
Coordinator Jen Batza at (518) 767- 
9051, extension 12.

Also check out www. golfandenviron- 

ment.org, a new Web site dedicated to 
the game of golf and the protection of 
our natural environment.

Jean Mackay is the Director of Educa­
tional Services for Audubon International, 
and Joellen Zeh is Program Manager for 
the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary 
Programs.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006

33

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
l
b
u
P

Turf Management for Golf Courses: 2nd Edition
by James B. Beard and the USGA Green Section staff
This comprehensive volume is an invaluable guide to turf cultivation and management. It is designed for golf course 
supertintendents and Green Committee members, and contains hundreds of step-by-step instructions, techniques, and 
methods that cover every important aspect of a successful turf management program. 793 pages. PG 1100 $ 125.00
Building the USGA Green:Tips for Success
by USGA Green Section staff
This 34-page booklet will guide you through the process of building a USGA Green. PG 1112 $4.50
Golf Course Management & Construction: Environmental Issues
edited by Dr. J. C. Balogh and Dr.W. J. Walker
A comprehensive summary and assessment of scientific research on the environmental effects of construction and 
management of golf courses. An excellent reference book for golf course architects, developers, superintendents, and 
Green Committee members. 937 pages. PG5275 $104.95
A Guide for Green Committee Members
This booklet is designed to help guide Green Committees past the common pitfalls, show the opportunities of 
participation in the Green Committee, and assist in making the Committee work as an asset to the golf course. It highlights 
the features of the Green Section, defines common agronomic terminology, and provides a list of references and resources 
for additional information. PG 1715 $2.00
Making Room for Native Pollinators
by Xerces Society
These guidelines help golf course superintendents plan and manage out-of-play areas 
for beneficial pollinating insects. PG5002 $5.00
Bird Conservation on Golf Courses
by Scott Gillihan
Funded through a grant from the USGA’s Wildlife Links Program, this practical, 
hands-on manual is an excellent reference for golf course superintendents, golf 
course architects, and land managers.The book discusses managing habitat areas 
on golf courses and similar settings to benefit birds. 335 pages. PG5250 $34.95
2004 Turfgrass and Environmental Research Summary
& 2004 Executive Summary
The accomplishments of the current research projects funded through the USGA 
Turfgrass and Environmental Research Program are summarized. Also included in 
the document is a list of the ten research projects to be conducted on the 
construction and maintenance of greens. NSI643 and NSI649 No charge

Managing Wetlands on Golf Courses
by Gary Libby, Donald F. Harker, Kay Harker, with jean Mackay
A comprehensive guide to managing wetlands on the golf course. Managing Wetlands on Golf Courses provides the most 
effective techniques for managing wetlands to maintain or enhance water quality, wildlife habitat, and the natural hydrology 
of the golf course landscape. A cooperative publication of the USGA, Audubon International, and the National Fish & 
Wildlife Foundation. 224 pages. PG5000 $60.00
Reviewing Golf Course Proposals: Materials for Local Officials
by Billie Jo Hance and Jim Morris
An informational packet oriented to community land-use planners to assist communities in the crucial planning phase 
of golf course development. Includes basic environmental questions communities should ask when reviewing golf course 
proposals. PG 1718 $5.00

To order publications and for further information, contact the USGA Order Department:
800-336-4446 • Fax:908-234-1472 • www.usgapubs.com
Shipping charges not included

2006 USGA Green Section 
Education Conference 
Golf Industry Show
Friday, February 10, 2006
Atlanta, Georgia

IT’S MORE THAN JUST TURF MAINTENANCE

10:00 a.m.
Welcome
Kimberly S. Erusha, 
Director of Education

10:05 - 10:20 a.m.
Natural Areas: Wild or Wonderful?
Jim Skorulski, Agronomist, 
USGA Northeast Region
Successful natural areas on golf courses 
must walk a fine line between being an 
asset to the property and a burden to 
those who play and maintain the golf 
course.

10:20 - 10:35 a.m.
GMOs — A Crossroads 
for the Turfgrass Industry
Mike Kenna, Ph.D, Director of Research 
Genetically modified grasses have 
arrived. Are they here to stay? A 
historical perspective on the develop­
ment of genetically modified grasses 
and the issues that will shape the future 
of this topic.

11:10-11:25 a.m.
The Truth About Trees
David Oatis, Director, 
USGA Northeast Region 
The economic realities of golf course 
trees are revealed.

11:25 - 11:45 a.m.
USGA Turf Tips
The USGA agronomists see many 
creative ideas in their extensive travels 
across the United States. The best and 
brightest ideas are presented as 
inspiration.

11:45 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
More Than Just a Practice Green
Jim Moore, Director of 
Construction Education 
New products and ideas are introduced 
to the market on a regular basis. A 
newly constructed test green study at 
Ridgewood Country Club in Waco, 
Texas, evaluates some of the new 
technologies and the economics 
involved in their use.

10:35 - 10:50 a.m.
Presentation of the
USGA Green Section Award

12:00 p.m.
Adjourn

10:50-11:10 a.m.
Golf Course Management —
It’s About The People
Bill Griffith,
Walla Walla Community College 
Eessons are shared about successfully 
managing and motivating employees.

2006 USGA
NATIONAL & REGIONAL 
CONFERENCES

National Conference
February 10 

Georgia World

Congress Center

Atlanta, Georgia

Florida Region
TBA

Mid-Atlantic Region
February 27 Greater Pittsburgh Expo Mart

Monroeville, Pennsylvania

March 16 DuPont Country Club 
Wilmington, Delaware

Mid-Continent Region
January 12 Overland Park

Convention Center
Overland Park, Kansas

January 30 Polk County

Convention Complex

Des Moines, Iowa

March 30 Houston Country Club 

September 25 Embassy Suites

Houston,Texas

Hot Springs, Arkansas

Northeast R egion
March 7

Rhode Island

March 16

March TBA

Convention Center
Providence, Rhode Island
Hackensack Country Club 
Oradell, New Jersey
TBA
Albany, New York

Southeast Region
March 14 Grandover Resort

Greensboro, North Carolina

Northwest Region
March 7 Holiday Inn

March 20 

March 21 

March 22 

April 11 

Sheridan,Wyoming
Waverley Country Club
Portland, Oregon
Lakewood Country Club
Lakewood, Colorado

The Country Club
Salt Lake City, Utah
Honolulu Country Club
Honolulu, Hawaii

Southwest Region
January 9 Valencia Country Club 

March 20 

TBA 

Valencia, California
Castlewood Country Club
Pleasanton, California
TBA
Arizona

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2 00 6

35

All Things Considered

Speed Demons

Who’s to blame in the need for speed?

BY MATT NELSON

Whether or not faster greens 

are good for the game of 
golf is a question that has 
and will continue to be debated. Those 

Stimpmeter. But blaming the Stimp­
meter for excessive green speed is 
taking the easy way out. The Stimp­
meter can be, has been, and continues 
to be used to keep speeds reasonable. If 
the USGA had not introduced it to the 
game, someone else would have. Golfers 
and superintendents asked for a way to 
measure green speed and they got it, for 
better or worse.

Often, the most difficult demons to 
confront are those within. The Stimp­
meter instruction manual doesn’t come 
with directions to triple cut at 0.085, 
double roll, groom, and starve the turf 
to increase green speeds. Competitive 
superintendents and course officials led 
the way in increasing green speeds and 
dug themselves and their colleagues 
into a black hole from which they can’t 
escape. The turf industry has responded 
with better mowers, improved cultiva­
tion tools and techniques, better prod­
ucts to regulate growth and keep turf 
alive with barely any leaf tissue, and 
advanced irrigation engineering.

Televised coverage of professional 
golf tournaments (the glamour demon) 
has been the vector for bringing speed 
to the masses. Somehow we’ve all 
arrived at the conclusion that faster is 
better. Speed has become ingrained in 
our collective golf psyche in a very 
short period of time.

Whether or not it’s good for golf’s 
long-term future, the game has evolved 
considerably in the last few decades and 
rolling back the clock isn’t likely. Turf 
managers may think that ever-increas­
ing green speed is plotting a course of 
inevitable agronomic failure, but we’ve 
said that before. It does seem to me, 
however, that we will reach a point 

where a majority of golf courses will 
be forced to present stale setups or 
“goofy golf” unless they absolutely 
flatten the contours and interest in their 
greens, whether designed by Tillinghast 
or Tinkerbell.

Confronting the demons of green 
speed will require nothing more than 
common sense. Additional measure­
ment tools for putting green quality 
probably won’t solve our problems. As 
Bobby Jones once said, “There is little 
room for entertaining the hope that 
putting may be reduced to a science. 
Good putting is at best a fleeting 
blessing. Here today, gone tomorrow.”

Green speed has caused unnecessary 
agronomic problems. Faster speeds have 
created extremely difficult playing con­
ditions for all but the most accom­
plished golfers. Slow play, higher main­
tenance costs and increased pesticide 
use can be attributed to excessive green 
speed. So can lost hole locations and 
putting green renovation.

Whether fast greens are good or bad 
for golf is debatable. The game is plenty 
difficult and time consuming to play 
and doesn’t need to become harder 
or more expensive. Conquering the 
demons of speed will require self­
examination by the industry, arguably 
for the good of the game and its future. 
Whether you blame the abilities of 
competitive superintendents, misguided 
course officials, a speed stick, or tele­
vised golf, we should be focusing on a 
fun, affordable game for the majority 
of golfers.

Matt Nelson is an agronomist 
confronting demons in the Green Section’s 
Northwest Region.

who oppose ever-faster putting surfaces 
cite agronomic problems, increased 
maintenance costs, environmental 
issues, slow play, architecture that has 
become unsuitable or obsolete, and flat 
participation in the game of golf. On 
the flip side, some golfers continue to 
demand fast greens and, in many cases, 
gauge putting green quality on pace 
alone. Championships, televised golf, 
and a majority of local golf events 
regularly showcase smooth and slick 
surfaces that no doubt were achieved 
through weeks or more of special 
preparation. Golfers have become 
accustomed to this level of condition­
ing and now expect it on a daily basis. 
The turf management industry has 
responded with better equipment and 
products, improved management tech­
niques, and very skilled golf course 
superintendents. If we are to identify 
the demons in the need for speed, we 
need not look any further than 
ourselves.

Many in our industry may be quick 

to identify the Stimpmeter as speed 
demon no. 1. While the device was 
introduced to the industry as a means 
of maintaining consistency and to keep 
green speed reasonable throughout an 
event or during the season, it is com­
monly used today as a speed stick for 
some glorified notion of excellence. 
Bragging rights, ridiculous comparisons 
between golf courses, discussion fodder 
for 19th-hole agronomists, and a means 
of gauging superintendent performance 
have become dangerous uses of the

36

GREEN SECTION RECORD

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

Green Section Research
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
770 Sam Bass Road
McGregor, TX 76657
(254) 848-2202 Fax (254) 848-2606
James F. Moore, Director
jmoore@usga.org

904 Highland Drive 
Lawrence, KS 66044 
785-832-2300
JefFNus, Ph.D., Manager
jnus@usga.org

Northwest

•Mid-Atlantic Region 
Stanley J. Zontek, Director 
szontek@usga.org
Darin S. Bevard, Agronomist 
dbevard@usga.org
485 Baltimore Pike, Suite 203 
Glen Mills, PA 19342
(610) 558-9066 Fax (610) 558-1135

Keith A. Happ, Senior Agronomist 
khapp@usga. org
Manor Oak One, Suite 410, 
1910 Cochran Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15220 
(412) 341-5922 Fax (412) 341-5954

•Southeast Region
Patrick M. O’Brien, Director 
patobrien@usga.org
P.O. Box 95
Griffin, GA 30224-0095
(770) 229-8125 Fax (770) 229-5974

Christopher E. Hartwiger,
Senior Agronomist 
chartwiger@usga.org 
1097 Highlands Drive 
Birmingham, AL 35244 
(205) 444-5079 Fax (205) 444-9561

•Florida Region
John H. Foy, Director 
jfoy@usga.org
P.O. Box 1087
Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1087 
(772) 546-2620 Fax (772) 546-4653

Todd Lowe, Agronomist 
tlowe@usga.org 
127 Naomi Place
Rotonda West, FL 33947 
(941) 828-2625 Fax (941) 828-2629

•Mid-Continent Region
Paul H. Vermeulen, Director 
p vermeulen@usga. org 
9 River Valley Ranch 
White Heath, IL 61884
(217) 687-4424 Fax (217) 687-4333

Charles “Bud” White, Senior Agronomist 
budwhite@usga.org 
2601 Green Oak Drive
Carrollton, TX 75010
(972) 662-1138 Fax (972) 662-1168

•North-Central Region
Robert A. Brame, Director 
bobbrame@usga.org
P.O. Box 15249
Covington, KY 41015-0249 
(859) 356-3272 Fax (859) 356-1847

Robert C.Vavrek, Jr., Senior Agronomist 
rvavrek@usga.org
P.O. Box 5069
Elm Grove, WI 53122
(262) 797-8743 Fax (262) 797-8838

•Northwest Region
Larry W. Gilhuly, Director 
lgilhuly@usga.org
5610 Old Stump Drive N.W, 
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
(253) 858-2266 Fax (253) 857-6698

Matthew C. Nelson, Agronomist 
mnelson@usga.org
P.O. Box 5844
Twin Falls, ID 83303
(208) 732-0280 Fax (208) 732-0282

•Southwest Region
Patrick J. Gross, Director 
pgross@usga.org
505 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 121 
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 542-5766 Fax (714) 542-5777

Mid-Continent

Florida

REGIONAL OFFICES

•Northeast Region
David A. Oatis, Director
doatis@usga.org
James H. Baird, Ph.D., Agronomist 
jbaird@usga.org
P.O. Box 4717
Easton, PA 18043
(610) 515-1660 Fax (610) 515-1663

James E. Skorulski, Senior Agronomist 
jskorulski@usga. org 
1500 North Main Street
Palmer, MA 01069
(413) 283-2237 Fax (413) 283-7741

©2006 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 
correspondence 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 
educational institutions (unless specifically 
noted otherwise). Credit must be given to 
the author, the article’s title, USGA Green 
Section Record, and the issues date. 
Copyright protection must be afforded. To 
reprint material in other media, written per­
mission 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.

® Printed on recycled paper

K We heard that a recent 
IRS ruling allows a course 
to depreciate the cost of 
building greens. Is this true? 
(Oklahoma)

Actually, it is now possible 

for some courses to depreci­
ate the cost of building 
greens, tees, and bunkers 
over a 15-year period. This 
ruling can be found on the

Internal Revenue Service 
website by searching for 
Revenue Ruling 2001 -60 
(www. irs. gov/pub / irs- 
drop/rr-01-60.pdf) .You also 

might want to view the 
“February 7,2002, Industry 
Directive to Examiners” 
document and the “February 
25,2002, Industry Directive.”

b Our zoysia fairways often 
become soggier as the winter 
wears on. Carts are restricted 
to paths more often, and as 
we play from less-desirable 
lies, handicaps rise steadily. 
Would overseeding with 
perennial ryegrass in the 
winter be a good idea for us? 
(North Carolina)

EJ Organic matter develop­
ment with zoysia causes 
these sites to retain water. 
This grass can act almost like 
a sponge, especially at sites

with clay soils that don’t 
drain well. Overseeding with 
perennial ryegrass does not 
relieve these symptoms, and 
it could make the problem 
worse. The best solution is to 
add drainage to the fairways, 
which addresses both surface 
water runoff and water soil 
seepage issues. Drainage 
experts are available to out­
line the planning, materials, 
time line, and costs of these 
projects. This planning stage 
is critical for success.

E Several greens on our 
course are susceptible to 
winter injury where water 
from melting ice and snow 
collects after a midwinter 
thaw. We have chipped away 
the ice and taken samples to 
document injury, but the 
process of removing turf 
from a frozen green often 
causes considerable damage 
to the sample. Any hints on 
ways to remove turf without 
damage? (Minnesota)

www.usga.org

tap a flat-head screwdriver or 
chisel into the space around 
the plug until the frozen 
bottom breaks free from the 
green. Remove the sample 
and place it in a Styrofoam 
cup filled with topdressing or 
divot repair mix. A healthy 
sample will begin to grow 
after four or five days on a 
warm sunny windowsill.

Try using a 
battery-powered 
hand drill 
equipped with a 
2" to 3" hole 
cutter. Chip away 
most of the ice 
with a chisel or 
ax and use the bit 
to drill through 
the ice and into 
the first inch or 
so of putting 
surface. Gently