JOE VARGAS 
2007 USGA Green Section Award Recipient

Contents

May-June 2007 Volume 45, Number 3

Accommodating 
People with Disabilities
Staying out of court and 
making money in the process. 
BY MARTIN S. EBEL

You Take the 

Hard Road ... and I’ll Take 
the Soft Road
Paved paths near greens are 
simply a fact of life at some 
heavily played courses. Cover 
asphalt with strips of PVC 
matting to soften paved cart 
paths located adjacent to 
greens.
BY BOB VAVREK

News Notes

Turf Twisters

2 Joe Vargas
Green Section Award —
February 2007

Harvesting a 
Valuable Resource
Making the decision to 
undertake a large-scale tree 
management program is only 
half the battle. How to pay for 
it can be a daunting hurdle.

BY DAVID A. OATIS

AND JIM SKORULSKI

Mister and Misses

The survival of seedlings and 
sprigs with adequate moisture 
can be assured with this simple 
technique.
BY LARRY GILHULY

Rootzone Amendments 

for Putting Green 
Construction
So many greens, so many soils, 
so many soil amendments.
Making sense of it all.

BY JAMES A. MURPHY

Two for the Money
Combining fairway mowing 
and clipping dispersal in one 
job saves time and labor, and 
lessens interference with 
golfers.
BY CHRIS HARTWIGER

Dredging Up 

A New Idea
Using remote dredging 
technology for golf course 
ponds.
BY PATRICK J. GROSS

Preparing for Golf at 

the Championship Level
The facts about U.S. Open site 
selection and golf course setup. 

BY MIKE DAVIS

Cover Photo
The 2007 USGA Green Section Award was presented to 
Dr. Joseph M. Vargas for his contributions as a turfgrass 
extension specialist, teacher, and researcher who has touched 
the lives and careers of his students, golf course superinten­
dents and other turfgrass practitioners, and colleagues in 
academia.

COVER PHOTO:© USGA/PHILA.WEVER

GREEN SECTION
EDUCATION 
CONFERENCE

:hs, rads & Fallacies 
Their Impact on the Game

February 23, 2007 • Anaheim, California

For the 26th consecutive year the annual 
Green Section Education Conference was held 
in conjunction with the Golf Industry Show. 
This year, more than 1,000 people attended the
Green Section’s program on Friday, February 23, 
at the Anaheim Convention Center. Matt Nelson,
Northwest Region senior agronomist, served as 
moderator for the morning’s program of eight 
speakers who addressed this year’s theme, “Myths, 
Fads & Fallacies: Their Impact on the Game.”

USGA President
Walter W. Driver, Jr.

Executive Director
David B. Fay

Green Section
Committee Chair
Patrick W. McKinney
37 Legare Street
Charleston, SC 29401

Turfgrass Environmental
Research Chair
Steve Smyers
2622 W. Memorial Blvd.
Lakeland, FL 33815

Editor
James T. Snow

Associate Editor
Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D.

Director of Communications
Marty Parkes

JOE VARGAS

Green Section Award — February 2007

There have been very few turfgrass experts 

who have made the world their laboratory, 
and Dr. Joseph M. Vargas is one of them.

Starting his journey in Fall River, Massachusetts, 
as a worker on the maintenance staff at the Fall 
River C.C., and taking undergraduate and 
graduate degrees at the University of Rhode 
Island, Oklahoma State, and the University of 
Minnesota, Dr. Joe was just beginning a career 
that would take him around the world many 
times.

Vargas joined the faculty at Michigan State 
University in 1968 and for nearly 40 years has 
excelled as a turfgrass extension specialist, 
teacher, and researcher, touching the lives and 
careers of his students, golf course superinten­
dents, and other turfgrass practitioners, and 
colleagues in academia. But it was his accomplish­
ments that brought Dr. Joe the recognition he 
richly deserves and the invitations he receives to 
speak to audiences in every corner of the world. 
For the record, he has published three books, 
written more than 300 articles on turfgrass 
diseases, and has given more than 1,000 presen­
tations in his career thus far. He has traveled to 
every corner of the globe, including Australia, 
Argentina, China, Europe, England, Mexico, 
New Zealand, Japan, South Africa, and other 
countries. In fact, Joe has been instrumental in 
establishing a joint turf educational program 
between Michigan State University and four 
universities in China.

Always searching for an overlooked path that 

can lead to a successful conclusion, Vargas has 
resolved problems that have stumped many other 
experts. In the mid-1970s, for example, he 
recognized that the decline of Poa annua fairways 
during the summer was caused not by heat stress, 
but rather by various disease organisms and other 
factors. This concept was greeted with skepti­
cism from many academics and practitioners 
until Dr. Joe demonstrated that the regular use 
of fungicides could allow Poa annua fairways to

2

GREEN SECTION RECORD

survive the dog days of summer in good condi­
tion. Proper management of Poa annua has been 
a theme of his throughout his career.

Another coup of Dr. Joe’s was his discovery of 
the first known bacterial disease that at the time 
in the late 1970s was causing a severe decline in 
Toronto creeping bentgrass on many golf courses 
in the Midwest. Because of the difficulty and 
cost in controlling this disease with antibiotics, 
Toronto creeping bentgrass was ultimately 
replaced with other cultivars.

In the late 1970s, many courses across the 
country experienced what was referred to as 
black layer in their greens, a situation that could 
cause the turf to thin out or die. It was caused in 
part by poor drainage or overwatering, but why 
the profile turned black was not at all under­
stood. Dr. Vargas investigated this phenomenon 
and discovered that high levels of sulfur caused 
the black color and exacerbated the decline in 
the turf. As it turned out, many courses were 
applying sulfur to their greens turf in hopes of 

suppressing Poa annua and encouraging bentgrass. 
When golf course superintendents reduced or 
eliminated sulfur from their maintenance pro­
grams, the black layer gradually disappeared.

In addition to his many accomplishments, Dr. 

Joe is a great speaker. With his deep voice, self­
confident nature, and persuasive tell-it-like-it-is 
presentation, it’s no wonder that audiences call 
him back many times over to speak. In fact, he 
has been known to perform as Elvis at turf con­
ferences and meetings. It endeared him to his 
audiences, who clearly gave special attention to 
“The King.” Other speakers on the program 
indeed had a very tough act to follow!

Over a period of four decades, Joe Vargas has 
distinguished himself as teacher, researcher, and 
advisor to the turfgrass industry, and you might 
think he’s contemplating a well-deserved retire­
ment. But not Joe! “Why would I ever retire? 
This is what I enjoy doing, and there’s so much 
more to do. We have to find better ways of 
managing grasses!”

Steve Smyers, a member of the USGA Executive Committee and current chairman of the USGA Green Section Award Committee and the 

Turfgrass Environmental Research Committee, was on hand to present the 2007 Green Section Award to Dr. Joe Vargas.

MAY-JUNE 2007

3

HARVESTING A
VALUABLE RESOURCE
Making the decision to undertake a large-scale tree management program 
is only half the battle. How to pay for it can be a daunting hurdle.

BY DAVID A. OATIS AND JIM SKORULSKI

In recent years, many golf courses 

have had to embark upon large-scale 
tree programs to correct prob­
lems created by overzealous tree-plant­

ing programs initiated years earlier. 
Planning and implementing a large- 
scale tree removal project can be chal­
lenging in many ways. The process can 
be lengthy and frequently requires on­
going education of golfers, appropriate 
committees, and boards on the neces­
sity of the program. The prospect of 
tree removal programs often becomes 
an emotional and potentially divisive 
issue.

The analysis, planning, and educa­
tional processes alone can take months 
or perhaps even years to fully develop. 
Depending on state and local ordi­
nances, local officials also may need 
to be convinced that the work is 
necessary. In some areas, permits may 
be required before any trees can be 
removed. Outside consultants often are 
employed for their specialized knowl­
edge of golf course architecture, trees, 
and sun angles. These individuals can 
be invaluable in helping to evaluate the 
condition and relative value of the trees. 
They also can help identify exactly 
which trees need to be removed to 
maximize turfgrass and tree health and 
value. Eventually, tree contractors are 
interviewed and bids to carry out the 
work are obtained. Next come the 
budgeting and scheduling processes. 
Only when all of these steps are com­
pleted can the actual process of remov­
ing trees begin. Many will argue that 

4

GREEN SECTION RECORD

getting to the point of actually remov­
ing trees is the most challenging aspect 
of the process.

Assuming all goes according to plan, 
the trees eventually are cut and carted 
away, the slash is chipped, the stumps 
are ground, and a very sizeable bill is 
paid. The result in most cases is quite 
remarkable. The formerly hidden 
topography comes alive and the 
aesthetic beauty of the course and its 
key features improve. The growth rate 
of any remaining trees usually increases 
dramatically as a result of the reduction 
in competition among trees, and a 
marked improvement in turf health 
and vigor can often be documented. 
However, it must be noted that turf 
accustomed to a very shaded environ­
ment often experiences some extra 
stress for the first season or so after its 
environment is radically altered. The 
grass species that are well adapted to a 
shaded environment frequently do not 
fare as well in full sun, and it may take 
a year or more for the turf to adjust 
and for better-adapted species to get a 
foothold.

Some courses do much of the work 
in-house, and costs are harder to com­
pute; however, some grossly over­
planted courses in the New York 
metropolitan area have spent as much 
as $500,000-$700,000 and more to 
have contractors remove the trees and 
stumps, clean up the debris, bring in 
topsoil, and restore the turf. With such 
a potentially large price tag, it makes 
sense to explore alternative means of 

tree removal in order to control costs. 
It is not practical everywhere, but trees 
can be worth plenty if you happen to 
have enough of the right types of 
mature tree species that are in good 
condition. Geographic location does 
enter into the equation. Distance from 
a potential buyer and the associated 
trucking costs greatly influence the 
financial outcome. Unfortunately, the 
relative quality of golf course trees 
generally is not high, often as a result 
of poor care and maintenance, undesir­
able varieties, or excessive competition 
among trees.

Mature hardwood and softwood 

trees that can provide timber and 
veneer offer the highest values. Smaller 
and lower-quality trees can sometimes 
be marketed for fuel wood and pulp. 
The idea of harvesting trees is not 
original. It is believed that the trees 
removed during the construction of 
Hackensack Golf Club (Oradell, New 
Jersey) were used to construct the 
clubhouse, and this is likely to have 
occurred at other early American 
golf courses.

This turf tip is not a new one, and 
it comes from the many courses that 
have utilized one or more different 
strategies in completing their tree 
work. Most notably, Oak Hill C.C. in 
Rochester, N.Y., and Beacon Hall Golf 
Club in Ontario, Canada, utilized 
portable sawmills to better utilize their 
tree resources and to reduce the costs 
associated with removals. The lumber 
generated was used to upgrade mainte­

nance and storage facilities and to 
build restrooms on the golf course. 
Many other courses elsewhere in New 
Jersey, New York, and Connecticut 
have utilized large-scale logging com­
panies to remove trees quickly and 
efficiently. Riverton C.C., Sleepy 
Hollow C.C., Round Hill Club, Hop 
Meadow Club, Yale Golf Course, The 
Patterson Club, and Concord C.C. are 
just a few that have chosen this route.
Harvesting trees is not practical for 
all golf courses. Many factors need to 
be taken into consideration, such as 
the location of the golf course and its 
proximity to potential markets; the 
volume of mature, marketable timber 
available for harvest; and the availability 
of an adequate area to stockpile the 
logs, and mill and store the lumber 
generated. If the sawmill is too far 
away and the quality/volume of wood 
is not substantial, it may not be possible 
to attract much interest.

For many golf courses, the only 
practical approach is to pay to have 
the trees removed. However, a large 
number of golf courses are defraying 
the removal expense in various ways. 
• Traditionally, courses have used 
local tree contractors who are skilled 
in tree care and pruning. Putting large- 
scale work out to bid can generate 
healthy competition and may lower 
costs substantially.
• A few courses have used land-clear­
ing companies with large-scale logging 
equipment. This type of contractor 
can do the work very quickly and 
with less labor than traditional tree 
companies, ultimately generating 
considerable savings. However, they 
also may cause more damage to the 
course, so the benefits have to be 
weighed.
• Some courses have hired logging 
companies to remove and pay for the 
desirable timber. This money then can 
be used to pay for the removal of addi­
tional trees and restoration of the turf. 
• Other courses have allowed loggers 
to harvest the desirable trees, and, as 
part of the agreement, the logger

Tree work may sound easy, but the resulting debris can be substantial and likely will have a major 

impact on the budget. Tree projects can generate potentially valuable wood that can be sold and used 

to create lumber.

removes other undesirable trees in lieu 
of payment.
• A number of golf courses have made 
agreements with firewood contractors 
to remove hardwood trees in exchange 
for the wood harvested.
• In some cases, golfers and/or the 
public are allowed free access to fire­
wood generated, eliminating the cost 
incurred in disposal.
• Some courses have given their wood 
chips to contractors who produce mulch 
and have received a lifetime supply of 
mulch in return.
• Oak Hill C.C. and Beacon Hall G. 
C. brought in portable sawmills to 
generate usable lumber on-site. The 
lumber was then used for various 
course projects.
• Eastern trees commonly harvested 
for saw timber include: pine spp., oak 
spp., sugar maple, ash, red maple, black 
cherry, hemlock, spruce, yellow/black 
birch, tulip poplar.

A forestry background, although 
helpful, is not a prerequisite to imple­
menting a harvesting program. Infor­
mation and guidance are available to 
help you get started, and a good place 

to begin is with your state extension 
service or state forestry department. 
Most have excellent Web sites devoted 
to forestry and woodlot management. 
There you should be able to locate 
the state or county extension service 
forester who can conduct a site visit 
and provide a preliminary assessment 
of the trees and the potential for har­
vest. The forester will offer advice for 
the best harvesting options and should 
have contacts to private foresters and 
contractors who work in the region.

Clearly, many factors come into play 

in determining whether harvesting 
trees will be a viable approach for your 
course. However, when considering 
the potentially expensive prospect of 
large-scale tree work, it may be worth 
considering alternative methods to 
help control costs and better utilize a 
potentially valuable resource.

David Oatis has been the director of the 
Northeast Region of the USGA Green 
Section since 1990. Jim Skorulski is a 
senior agronomist in the USGA Green 
Section’s Northeast Region based in 
Massachusetts.

MAY-JUNE 2 0 07

5

MISTER AND MISSES
The survival of 
seedlings and sprigs 
with adequate moisture 
can be assured with 
this simple technique.

BY LARRY GILHULY

The principles of grass seed/sprig 

establishment are well known. 
Adequate temperature, fertilizer, 
light, and air are all necessary to start 

and continue the growth process of 
every type of cool- and warm-season 
grass. However, the one variable that 
often determines the success or failure 
of initial establishment is adequate 
water. Over the years, the standard

The Turtle Bay Golf misting system is adapted to larger sites with multiple lines sent from the control 

system. The lines have been pressure reduced from the regular irrigation system.

The low throw angle and precipitation of this type of misting system is ideal for wind-swept sites when growing-in sprigs or seeds.

6

GREEN SECTION RECORD

practice of using the existing irrigation 
system with multiple cycles has been 
used; however, the following problems 
can sometimes occur:
• Wind causes dry areas, which 
requires reseeding/sprigging, 
• Excess water volume at the end of 
the large nozzle causes seed/sprigs to 
move slightly, requiring reseeding/ 
sprigging of small areas.
• Too long between cycles, which 
causes drying of seed/sprigs.
• Excess water during establishment, 
which causes seedling disease.
• Disruption to nearby players.

The establishment of greens, tees, 
and other smaller areas (along with 
large acreage areas) has certainly been 
completed with success by using exist­
ing irrigation systems. Although irri­
gation is a necessity for the grow-in of 
a new golf course, the preceding points 
do not necessarily make them the best 
choice on an existing golf course where 
smaller areas must be established. With 
this challenge in mind, a simple idea 
observed in Hawaii at multiple sites 
during the past decade may be of 
interest if you want to eliminate the 
potential for seed/sprig failure. A 
supplemental form of irrigation that 
provides a “24/7” approach to irriga­
tion coverage is highlighted in this turf 
tip as a sure-fire way to keep your sprigs 
or seed moist enough at all times to 
assure rapid germination and seeding/ 
sprig establishment.

Mike Honma, superintendent at the 

Turtle Bay Resort on the Island of 
Oahu, has been the golf course super­
intendent at Turtle Bay since the time 
of original construction, and he has 
experienced both hybrid bermudagrass 
and seashore paspalum establishment 
on the same golf course. This extremely 
windy site posed the problem associated 
with a regular irrigation system where 
the water from high-throwing heads is 
simply displaced by the wind, resulting 
in inconsistent coverage during estab­
lishment. He also wanted to find a way 
to avoid disturbing golfers when tee 
and cart path renovation work was 

being done. His answer was a simple 
misting system that he has used on 
seashore paspalum sprigs on greens, 
green surrounds, tees, and other small 
areas with very positive results. The 
system covers approximately 9,000 sq. 
ft. at a cost of approximately $0.15/ 
sq. ft., and its components can be 
found in the accompanying sidebar 
table. According to Mr. Honma, this 
method of sprig establishment has been 
more effective and faster than relying 
on his regular irrigation system. For 
more information, contact Mike 
Honma at Turtle Bay Resort at 
808-293-8574.

Milton Nakagawa, superintendent 

at the Mauna Kea/Hapuna Resort, 
has had similar success with hybrid 
bermudagrass sprigs on tees and other 
small areas at both golf courses on the 
Big Island of Hawaii. He also wanted 
to find a way to apply water in nearly 
constant wind while not bothering 
golfers. The components of Mauna 
Kea’s misting system cost an estimated 
$0.15/sq. ft., and it covers approxi­
mately 1,200 sq. ft. Mr. Nakagawa also 

reports a preference for this type of 
small area misting system, as it keeps 
the sprigs moist at all times without 
overwatering and is less affected by the 
persistent wind. Both superintendents 
report no disruption for golfers, other 
than a few cooled-off ankles! For more 
information concerning this system, con­
tact Mr. Nakagawa at 808-880-3131.
The use of this unique form of 
misting system for growing-in sprigs 
or seed offers a simple way to consist­
ently provide needed moisture during 
the critical portion of early establish­
ment. It also is the perfect answer if 
you are concerned about bothering 
golfers who may come in close 
proximity to the renovated location. 
Whether you are a “Mr.” or “Mrs.” 
growing-in new turf areas, this is one 
“mister” that will greatly reduce the 
“misses” that can occur with a regular 
irrigation system when dealing with 
small area establishment of sprigs or 
seed.

Larry Gilhuly 1'5 director of the Green 
Section’s Northwest Region.

TURTLE BAY MISTING SYSTEM

I DC Propagation Controller with I" valve

120 SuperNet Brown Nozzle X Purple LR Swivel, 30" Tube & Stake

I 0.5" x 1,000’ blank RAM tubing, 

.57 inside diameter x .66 outside diameter (17 mm)

I 0.5" x 250' blank RAM tubing, .57 ID x .66 OD (17 mm)

I I" mipt, Air/Vacuum Relief Valve

I 0.75" x 80 mesh disc filter

I 0.75" x 43 psi. pressure regulator

Multiple bushings, elbows, tees, nipples between tubing and water 
connection point

Manifold assembly — outside source

MAUNA KEA MISTING SYSTEM

I DIG Controller I" Single DC

125' Poly tubing 0.75" Roberts
28 EFCO Mini Compact Brown 42 gph I 29' diameter

28 EFCO 36" tube with Cantal assembly

28 EFCO stake 13" press fit

I Senninger PRV 30 psi I" 2-20 gpm

Minor fittings

MAY-JUNE 2 0 07

7

^Sponsored

ResearchYbw Can Use

Rootzone Amendments for 
Putting Green Construction 
So many greens, so many soils, so many soil amendments.
Making sense of it all.

BY JAMES A. MURPHY

Sandy, infertile soils have long been 

recognized as highly suitable for 
golf courses since the earliest days 
of golf course development on the links 

land bordering the sea in Scotland 
(Alister Mackenzie, 1995). Such land 
provides good drainage and low to 
moderate turf growth, both conducive 
to playing the game of golf. As interest 
in the game expanded, golf courses 
were built in locations lacking sandy, 
infertile soil. Thus, the need arose for 
specifications to guide the construction 
of rootzones (soil), particularly for 
putting greens, that were suitable for 
the game. The USGA Green Section 
first published guidelines on rootzone 
construction in 1960, with the most 
recent update being completed in 
2004. These guidelines primarily 
describe the physical parameters for 
constructing a rootzone that will 
create a well-drained playing surface. 
Research has demonstrated that the 
range of properties described in the 
guidelines is large enough to provide a 
notable range in the behavior of the 
rootzone (that is, requirements for 
water and nutrient management). 
Thus, particular combinations of sand 
and amendment(s) can be selected to 
produce a specific influence on the 
vigor of the turf, which, as previously 
mentioned, is often intended to be 
low to moderate for good playing 
conditions.

The selection of amendment (s) for a 
sand mix varies throughout the United 
States and other parts of the world,

8

GREEN SECTION RECORD

This photo shows one grow-in plot location in June 1998 at the Rutgers field station. Among the 

objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of I) sand size distribution, 2) plot locations (poor 

vs. excellent air circulation), 3) rootzone amendments, 4) rootzone depth, 5) options to reduce water 

and nutrient inputs for managing putting greens, and 6) rootzone physical and chemical changes over a 

nine-year period.

and it is often based on the biases of 
individuals involved in the design, 
construction, and future management 
of new or rebuilt putting greens. 
Regardless of personal biases, it is 
important to understand that sand and 
amendments should be selected based 
on climatic and other environmental 
and management conditions that can 
limit putting green performance. Peat 
continues to be the most widely used 
amendment for sand-based rootzone 
construction; however, a number of 

materials have been proposed and 
used over the years as a replacement 
for peat in sand-based rootzones. Many 
involved in the design and construction 
of putting greens do not realize that 
considerable insight has been gained 
from recent research on putting green 
rootzone materials. This article sum­
marizes major findings from a nine- 
year field study of rootzone amend­
ments conducted by the Rutgers 
Center for Turfgrass Science and draws 
from the findings of others as well.

Image I. Profile samples of nine-year-old rootzone plots visually indicate that very little organic matter has accumulated within the original rootzone (note 

yellow sand color of 100% sand profile on left) compared to the large amount of organic matter above the rootzone (note brown colored thatch-mat layer of 

both profile samples). Profile on right is from an 80:20 (v/v) sand-peat rootzone mix, which has a similar accumulation pattern.

100% SAND CONSTRUCTION 
(NO AMENDING)
Constructing putting greens with 
100% sand (non-amended) is popular 
with some architects, builders, and 
superintendents. The cost savings in 
construction associated with not 
blending an amendment into the sand 
is typically the primary justification 
used by advocates for straight-sand 
construction. However, often over­
looked are the increased long-term 
costs associated with maintenance of 
these putting greens, discussed later. 
Construction with 100% sand is also 
rationalized with the misconception 
that problems associated with the 
accumulation or organic matter (thatch) 

will be reduced by this type of root­
zone. Advocates argue that accumulat­
ing organic matter “amends” the sand 
rootzone over time, therefore elimi­
nating the need to amend the sand at 
the time of construction (Hurdzan, 
2004). Research has proven that this 
concept is flawed. Measurements of 
organic matter accumulation in field 
studies clearly indicate that the vast 
majority of organic matter addition 
is not in the rootzone (Table A and 
Image 1). Rather, the majority of 
organic matter accumulates above the 
rootzone in the form of thatch or mat, 
which is thatch plus topdressing. It is 
the thatch-mat layer above the root­
zone that reduces water infiltration and 

increases water retention at the surface 
of putting greens, not the underlying 
rootzone. A rootzone of 100% sand 
does not become “amended” over 
time and will continue to have very 
low (too low) water and nutrient reten­
tion. The end result is putting green 
turf that requires frequent, intensive 
management inputs to avoid drought 
stress and maintain adequate plant 
nutrition.

On the other hand, experience 
demonstrates that the dry, infertile 
condition of 100% sand construction 
does gradually alleviate over time as 
the developing thatch-mat layer 
becomes thick enough to improve 
water and nutrient availability. Never-

MAY-JUNE 2007

9

Table A
Concentration of organic matter and saturated hydraulic conductivity of surface layers of putting green rootzones 
after nine years of growth of L-93 creeping bentgrass maintained as putting green turf in North Brunswick, N.J.

Organic Matter Concentration1

Saturated Water Conductivity2

Profile Layer

100%Sand

90:10 Sand-Peat3

100% Sand 

90:10 Sand-Peat

Thatch-Mat layer above the rootzone
(1.3 inches thick for sand)
(1.4 inches thick for 90:10 sand-peat)

0- to 3-inch depth of the rootzone

% by Weight

Inches per Hour

4.52

0.22

5.38

0.40

7.8 

32.1 

8.3

28.5

'Organic matter concentration determined by combustion (360° C) of 3-inch-diameter cores taken from the respective layer of the 
rootzone plots in 2006.

Saturated water conductivity determined from undisturbed 3-inch-diameter cores taken from the respective layer of the rootzone plots 
in 2006.

Type of peat is sphagnum.

theless, our field trial experience indi­
cates that there are meaningful differ­
ences between a rootzone of 100% 
sand and a sand-peat rootzone even 
after nine years (Figure 1). Turf perfor­
mance on 100% sand plots frequently 
was poorer than turf grown on sand­
peat rootzones. Also, hand-watering 
needs were sometimes greater (more 
frequent) on 100% sand rootzones than 
sand-peat rootzones (Figure 2). The 
author and numerous USGA agrono­
mists have worked with many superin­
tendents in every region of the country 
who struggle with water management 
on 100% sand putting greens during 
dry weather, even during late winter 
months when evapotranspiration is 
low. Thus, it is unreasonable to expect 
thatch-mat layer development on 100% 
sand rootzones to match the perfor­
mance of putting greens constructed 
of a sand-peat mix without an increase 
in maintenance costs. Moreover, there 
will be opportunity costs incurred by 
the superintendent and staff; that is, 
the additional time managing 100% 
sand putting greens will take time 
away from other management needs 
on the golf course. Eventually, the 
unending need to assess and tweak the 
management program of 100% sand 
putting greens can shift from an 
intriguing mental challenge for the 

10

GREEN SECTION RECORD

superintendent to a seemingly infinite 
frustration.

INORGANIC 
AMENDMENTS
Various mineral sources — including 
clay, diatomaceous earth, clinoptilolite 
(zeolite), and volcanic rock — are used 
to produce inorganic amendments 
(I As), which are comprised of hard, 
porous (lightweight) sand-sized par­
ticles. The internal pores of I As increase 
effective surface area within the root­
zone and are small enough to retain 
water against the pull of gravity 
(capillary) as well as increasing cation 
exchange capacity (surface chemistry). 
The amount of CEC depends on the 
mineral source of the IA; generally, 
zeolites have the greatest CEC.

The improved nutrient retention of 
a sand-I A mix can improve turf vigor 
and quality, especially during establish­
ment of new turfs when ample amounts 
of water and fertilizers are being applied 
(Murphy et al., 2004). However, the 
longer-term effects of sand-I A mixes 
on turf vigor and quality are not as 
consistent as those observed during 
establishment (Figure 1). The differ­
ences in turf performance between 
establishment and maintenance pro­
grams on sand-IA rootzones are often 
attributed to water availability. Despite 

greater water retention for sand-IA 
mixes, we only observed sand mixes 
with Axis™ and Isolite™ to reduce the 
need for hand watering compared to 
100% sand rootzones (Figure 2). Sand- 
IA mixes with Profile™ Greenschoice™ 
and ZeoPro™ typically required 
similar hand-watering as 100% sand 
rootzones. At various times during the 
trial, localized dry spot developed in 
some plots of 100% sand, 90:10 sand- 
IA mixes of Profile™ and Greens­
choice™ and 95:5 and 80:20 sand 
mixes with loam. Putting greens on 
golf courses constructed of sand-IA 
mixes have also been observed to suffer 
droughty conditions and localized dry 
spot. Reasons for these observations 
continue to be studied, but it is likely 
that changes in the structure of macro­
pores (air-filled porosity) versus micro­
pores (capillary porosity) within the 
rootzone profile contribute to perfor­
mance issues related to water. Thus, 
our experience indicates that medium 
sand mixed with lAs will be very well 
drained and aerated, but some sand-IA 
mixes can suffer from droughty 
conditions.

The fact that lAs do not decompose 

is another purported benefit. Since 
organic matter can undergo decompo­
sition, it is argued that organic amend­
ments in a rootzone will degrade into 

finer particles and contribute to the 
challenges of managing organic matter 
in a rootzone. Focus on the rootzone 
profile is one important flaw in this 
rationalization. Our research and others 
clearly show that it is the accumulation 
of organic matter above the rootzone 
that is the site of declining physical 
conditions, not the rootzone mix itself 
(Table 1). The physical changes in the 
rootzone of a sand-peat or sand-com­
post mix are relatively small and of 
little consequence compared to the 
changes occurring above the rootzone 
mix. This observation, combined with 
the fact that turf performance on sand- 
IA mixes most typically does not 
exceed that of sand-peat or sand-com­
post mixes, indicates that the agro­
nomic value of a non-decomposing 
amendment in the rootzone profile is 
very limited. Moreover, high-quality 
peat amendments are typically humi­
fied; that is, the organic matter has 
been microbially altered into relatively 
stable organic matter.

Thus, other benefits may be needed 
to justify the greater cost of construct­
ing putting green rootzones with IAs. 
There are some advantages to IAs that 
may be important. The better IA 
products are very uniform and there­
fore make quality control easier, unlike 
peat and compost, which can vary 
considerably in water content, other 
physical attributes, and chemical prop­
erties during the blending operation. 
Inorganic amendments are very dry 
and flowable, making blending much 
easier and more consistent. Inorganic 
amendments will displace a significant

volume within a mix with sand, where­
as peat does not. For example, blending 
7,000 cubic yards of a 90:10 sand-IA 
rootzone mix will require approxi­
mately 10% less sand than a 90:10 
sand-peat mix. This 10% reduction in 
sand (700 cubic yards) will significantly 
reduce shipping costs. If peat were to 
be used, you will still need to haul all 
7,000 cubic yards. Nelson (2003) 
discussed this in a cost analysis of 
materials for constructing 140,000 sq. 
ft. (3.2 acres) of putting green root­
zones using either peat or IAs. This 
analysis demonstrated that use of a

Table I
Data pertaining to Figure I (Quality)

Treatment

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Sand 100%

Sphagnum 10%

Reed Sedge 10%

AIIGro 10%

Profile 10%

ZeoPro 10%

LSD

6.8

7.4

7.3

7.3

5.6

6.2

0.3

6.5

6.5

7.6

8.0

6.6

7.1

0.7

7.0

6.8

7.4

7.6

6.4

7.2

0.4

5.6

5.9

6.4

8.2

5.7

6.2

0.6

4.1

6.0

7.1

7.9

4.6

4.7

0.8

5.3

6.8

7.9

8.5

5.8

6.8

0.7

5.2

6.0

6.5

8.0

6.7

6.9

0.5

Figure I. Average annual turf quality ratings for L-93 creeping bentgrass grown on rootzone plots in North Brunswick, N.J., from 1999 to 2005. All 

amendments were mixed at 10% by volume with medium sand that conformed to USGA guidelines. Error bars represent the least significant difference 

among means (P < 0.05); that is, mean differences greater than the error bar are statistically different.

MAY-JUNE 2007

II

Compost should be free of objection­
able odors. Nutrient content can vary, 
but compost used to amend sand 
should be slightly acidic (pH 6.2-6.8), 
relatively low in salts (EC<10dS/m, 
preferably <5dS/m), and low in 
chemical (arsenic, cadmium, lead, 
zinc, etc.) and biological (pathogens, 
weed seed) contaminants. Composts 
should not contain visible refuse or 
other physical contaminants, substances 
toxic to plants, or sufficient fine par­
ticles such that the specifications for 
particle size distribution and other 
physical properties of a sand-compost 
mix cannot be met. Blending opera­
tions will proceed more easily and be 
more uniform if the compost is moist 
but not excessively wet (not clumpy) 
and capable of passing through a screen. 
Certainly, there should be no visible 
water or dust produced when handling 
compost. More information on com­
post specifications can be viewed at the 
U.S. Composting Council Web page: 
http: //compostingcouncil. org/ pdf/ 
fgcu 4-Characteristics-Parameters.pdf.
The composts evaluated in our trials 

have generally improved soil fertility, 
particularly phosphorus and micro­
nutrient content. Turf performance on 
a 90:10 sand-compost mix was as good 
as or better than sand-peat mixes 
(Figure 1), and hand-watering needs 
were similar to 90:10 sand-peat mixes 
(Figure 2).

These research findings, along 
with an ample supply of consistent 
and high-quality composts within the 
NY/NJ/PA region, have encouraged 
more blenders and suppliers of sand 
mixes to offer compost as a component 
of construction mix products. It 
cannot be overemphasized that the 
quality of compost is essential for 
success. There are unfortunate 
examples where use of an improperly 
composted material had disastrous 
results. Thus, buyers should confirm 
(test) the quality and consistency 
of composts or sand-compost 
mixes available in your region 
before using.

Figure 2. Total water applied to rootzone plots by sprinkler irrigation and hand-held hose based on 

visual wilt stress and low soil water content measurements from April to October of 2001 and 2002. 

Hand watering was done to avoid overwatering plots that were able to retain a greater amount of 

plant-available water and reduce the frequency of watering. Sprinkler irrigation applied 8.7 inches of 

water in 2001 and 8.8 inches in 2002. Error bar for 2002 represents the least significant difference 

among means (P < 0.05); that is, mean differences greater than the error bar are statistically different. 

No differences were observed among root zones in 2001.

Table 2
Data pertaining to Figure 2 (Water input, inches) 

Sand 100%
Sphagnum 10%
Reed Sedge 10%
AIIGro 10%
Axis 10%
Isolite 10%
Profile 10%
ZeoPro 10%
LSD

2001 

14.34
12.87
13.22
13.98
12.52
12.64
16.24
13.74
NS

2002

13.78
10.69
10.44
1 1.66
10.34
10.51
14.72
14.83
2.4

sand-IA (90:10 by volume) mix would 
increase material cost by $86,000 on 
average compared to a sand-peat 
(90:10) mix. The analysis used modest 
values for shipping cost compared to 
today’s costs, and thus would be a 
significant underestimate. A savings 
in shipping cost may be a substantial 
factor for some regions in the United 
States where high-quality sands and/or 
organic amendments are not readily 
available, particularly considering the 
recent increase in fuel costs.

COMPOST
Compost is a very popular organic 
amendment among those interested in 
“organic” or “natural organic” methods 
to manage turf and other plants. Unfor­
tunately, the quality and consistency of 
composts can vary widely, presenting a 
significant challenge when selecting 
composts. The physical, chemical, and 

12

GREEN SECTION RECORD

biological qualities of compost will 
vary depending on the source material 
(feedstock) as well as the composting 
process itself. Unlike fertilizer products, 
there are limited government regula­
tions or certification standards in place 
that provide a guaranteed analysis for 
compost. Thus, the onus of document­
ing compost quality and consistency 
(quality control) often falls to the 
buyer.

High-quality composts for amend­

ing sand rootzones are produced by 
aerobic decomposition of organic mat­
ter and should be mature, stable, and 
weed free. Examples of organic matter 
sources for compost (feedstock) include 
agricultural, food or industrial residuals, 
class A biosolids, yard trimmings, or 
source-separated municipal solid waste. 
Composted biosolids should meet all 
applicable USEPA CFR., Title 40, Part 
503 Standards for Class A biosolids.

FINER-TEXTURED SOIL
Sand can also be amended with a 
finer-textured soil to subtly increase 
the organic matter and fine particle 
size content (silt and clay) of a mix, 
which is intended to improve nutrient 
and water retention. We observed that 
sand-loam mixes were effective at 
improving nutrient retention and turf 
quality in our trials; however, we 
could not demonstrate improvements 
in water availability by amending sand 
with loam. Moreover, we found that 
amending sand with excessive amounts 
of loam (too much silt and clay) resulted 
in a more compacted rootzone and 
turf that was very sensitive to drought 
stress.

Putting green construction using 
finer-textured soil native to the site 
was very common during the early 
years of golf course construction; this 
type of construction is often referred 
to as “push-up” greens. These native 
soils were often mixed with small 
amounts (relative to today’s standards) 
of sand and/or an organic matter 
source such as manure, compost, or 
peat. Additionally, many “push-up” 
greens have been aerated and top- 
dressed for numerous years, developing 
as much as 6 inches of an improved 
rootzone over the original soil profile. 
This improved rootzone in the upper­
most profile is generally much closer 
to current USGA construction mix 
guidelines than the original underlying 
soil base.

Many older golf courses in cooler 
temperate climates have outstanding 
putting greens originally constructed 
and managed in this way. However, 
repositioning, expansion, or recontour­
ing of putting greens is sometimes 
necessary to update older golf courses 
and accommodate modern playing 
standards. Use of sand-based construc­
tion in these cases can produce signifi­
cant inconsistencies in playability and 
turf management that are undesirable. 
As a result, there is interest in mimick­
ing push-up construction on older golf 
courses.

Our research corroborates field 

observations of excellent putting greens 
maintained on sand-topdressed push­
up greens. However, mimicking push­
up construction has two major chal­
lenges: developing a successful profile 
design and identifying a builder 
experienced in construction means and 
methods compatible with manipulating 
and layering of finer-textured soil. 
Detailed specifications for this type of 
construction are not available due to

Dr. Jim Murphy describes results of the compre­

hensive root zone mix project at the Rutgers 

Field Day in August 2005. The USGA, GCSAA, 

and other state and regional associations helped 

fund this landmark nine-year study.

the wide variation in soil textures and 
layering used to construct and manage 
putting greens on older golf courses. 
Thus, it is essential to work with a 
qualified agronomist who can assist in 
rootzone design and the interpretation 
of physical property tests of potential 
construction materials (soils).

Inclusion of an improved sand-based 
layer in the uppermost part of the pro­
file is an essential design element in 
this type of construction. Care must 
be taken to avoid working the native 
fmer-textured soil when it is too wet 
or too dry. It is essential that the 
builder have an understanding of how 
to till and firm the soil so that excessive 
settling is avoided, yet prevent excessive 
compaction during the construction 
process. Lightweight equipment with 
low p.s.i. tracks or turf tires must be 
used to avoid excessive compaction of 
the soil. These can be difficult chal­
lenges for inexperienced builders, so 
diligence in selection is critical.

SUMMARY
Research clearly documents the bene­
fits of properly amending sand for con­
struction of putting green rootzones. 
Justifications for not amending sand 
are clearly based on short-term cost 
savings and not improvements in long­
term management or costs. While IAs 
can improve some characteristics of a 
sand mix, a cost-benefit analysis should 
be considered since IAs are not typically 
cost effective in a sand mix where high- 
quality sand and organic amendments 
are readily available at moderate ship­
ping costs. Compost can also be a 
highly effective amendment in a sand 
mix; however, it is critical that a high- 
quality and consistent supply of com­
post be identified before selecting.
Push-up putting green construction 
may be appropriate in situations requir­
ing expansion, recontouring, or move­
ment of greens on older golf courses. 
Push-up construction requires a thor­
ough understanding of fmer-textured 
soil and layering (i.e. a skilled agrono­
mist) as well as an experienced builder 
to be successful.

REFERENCES
Hurdzan, M. J. 2004. Golf Greens: History, 
Design, and Construction. John Wiley & Sons, 
Hoboken, N.J.

Mackenzie, A. 1995. The Spirit of St. Andrews. 
Sleeping Bear Press, Chelsea, Mich.

Murphy, J. A., H. Samaranayake, J. A. Honig, 
T. J. Lawson, and S. L. Murphy. 2004. Creep­
ing bentgrass establishment on sand-based 
rootzones varying in amendment. Turfgrass 
and Environmental Research Online 3(10). 
http://usgatero.msu.edu/v03/nl0.pdf.

Nelson, M. 2003. Dollars and “sense” to 
improve soil properties. USGA Green Section 
Record. 41 (3):10-13.

USGA Green Section Staff. 1960. Specifications 
for a method of putting green construction. 
USGA Journal and Turf Management. 
13(3):24-28.
USGA Green Section Staff 2004. USGA 
Recommendations for a method of putting 
green construction. Available online at http:// 
www.usga.org/turf/course construction/ 
green articles/USGA Recommendations 
For a Method of Putting Green 
Construction.pdf.

James A. Murphy, Ph.D., is extension 
specialist in turfgrass management at Rutgers, 
The State University of New Jersey.

MAY-JUNE 2007

13

Dredging Up A New Idea
Using remote dredging technology for golf course ponds.

BY PATRICK J. GROSS

The hydraulically powered suction-head dredge vacuums sediment from the bottom 

of the lake and pumps the slurry to the processing area one-half mile away.

From the time a lake is built, it 

slowly becomes contaminated 
with debris. Over a number of 
years, the layer of sediment builds, 

the lake becomes more shallow, and 
increasing problems are experienced 
with algae and water weeds. At this 
point, many courses face the daunting 
task of dredging the lake; however, 
such a project is often very costly, 
disruptive, and time consuming.

The Canyon Lake Golf Community 
in Canyon Lake, California, was facing 
this situation on their 400-acre recrea­
tional lake. An analysis of the lake 
indicated that more than 225,000 
cubic yards of sediment needed to be 
removed to restore the lake. Draining 
the water and removing the sediment 
with large earthmoving equipment 
was not a desirable option due to the 
expense, disruption, and the extended 

14

GREEN SECTION RECORD

time period that such an operation 
would entail. The general manager 
of the Canyon Lake Homeowners 
Association, Paul Johnson, did an 
internet search to investigate various 
options for dredging. He came across 
several references to a remote dredging 
technique that uses a suction head 
dredge that would allow them to 
remove sediment without having to 
drain the lake, while processing the 
sediment and debris in a remote 
location.

The process involves placing a small 

floating dredge in the lake. A flexible 
pipe with a hydraulically controlled 
suction head device is operated across 
the bottom of the lake to vacuum the 
sediment and pump it up to three 
miles away to a processing area on the 
shore. Processing the sediment 
involves the following steps:

• Rocks and larger debris are separated 
through a processing screen.
• Polymers and flocculants are injected 
into the slurry.
• The treated slurry is pumped into a 
dewatering bin, which is essentially a 
large dumpster with a special filter 
fabric liner in the bottom of the con­
tainer. For smaller operations, a belt 
press can be used to remove the water 
from the sediment.
• Clean drainage water flows out the 
bottom of the bin and is collected in a 
storage area and then is pumped back 
into the lake.
• Once the sediment has dried, it is 
hauled to a nearby construction site to 
be used as fill material for a new 
housing development.

The scope of the Canyon Lake 
dredging operation was quite large 
compared to most golf course situations.

The equipment used is capable of 
processing 200 to 250 cubic yards of 
sediment per day. This same type of 
equipment is available in smaller sizes 
and can be hauled with a pickup truck 
and small trailer for use in golf course 
ponds. The equipment can be rented 
(as was the case at Canyon Lake), or 
contractors are available to provide this 
service. The overall cost of processing 
the material ranges from $4 to $7 per 
cubic yard and does not include haul­
ing or disposing of the sediment, 
which is the largest expense of the 
operation.

There are several benefits associated 

with remote dredging technology, 
including:
• Less damage to the golf course and 
areas immediately surrounding the 
lake.
• The material can be pumped and 
processed up to three miles away from 
the dredging site, making it less 
intrusive to the golf operation.
• The lake remains full at all times.
• A significant increase in overall 
water storage capacity.

A simple internet search of “pond 

dredging equipment” will provide 
several references to this type of equip­
ment and various contractors who can 
perform the job. In the case of the 
Canyon Lake Golf Community, state 
and federal grants were available to 
help offset the cost of renting the 
equipment and implementing the 
project.

In the past, pond dredging was a 
messy, time-consuming, and disruptive 
process. This new remote dredging 
technology is ideally suited for golf 
courses and is capable of removing the 
sediment and processing the material 
offsite without disrupting the golf 
course.

Pat Gross is the director of the USGA 
Green Section Southwest Region, where he 
dredges up new and old ideas to assist golf 
courses in California, Arizona, Nevada, 
and Mexico.

Sediment/ 
Dewatering 

Belt-Press/Polymer
Treatment

Diagram of the remote dredging process. The sediment from the lake can be pumped up to three miles 

away to the treatment and dewatering area and the clean water returned to the lake.

After mixing 

the slurry with 

a polymer and 

flocculant, it is 

pumped to a 

dewatering bin 

to separate the 

sediment from 

the clean water. 

From there the 

clean water drains 

from the bottom 

of the dewatering 

bins and is 

pumped back 

to the lake.

MAY-JUNE 2007

15

The overall philosophy of a

U.S. Open setup has not 

changed significantly over the 

last half century. Prior to the 

event, the golf course is 

carefully studied to ultimately 

provide conditions that test a 

player’s accuracy, distance 

control, ability to recover 

from trouble, and overall 

shot-making skills.

Preparing for Golf at the 
Championship Level
The facts about U.S. Open site selection and golf course setup.

BY MIKE DAVIS

he U.S. Open Championship was first 
played in 1895 at Newport Golf Club, 
but, unlike today, preparation for the 

early Opens was minimal. In fact, the inaugural 
National Open Championship was postponed 
by a month when the USGA decided it was best 
not to compete over the America’s Cup yacht 
race dates. Agronomic conditions of the courses 
were substantially different then — consistent 
and near-perfect playing conditions were not 
available. Furthermore, the USGA had little to 
do with the golf course setup; that was left to the 
host club.

Now let’s fast-forward 112 years and see what 

happens in preparation for a U.S. Open.

Before a venue is selected to host a U.S. Open, 

it is carefully examined by the USGA to ensure 
it meets key criteria. First and foremost, the golf 
course must be of excellent quality and design. 
Can it be set up to adequately test the world’s 
best players? If the answer is “yes,” the USGA 
staff then thoroughly study the operational 
aspects of the site and local community. There 
must be enough land surrounding the golf course 

for tents, operational compounds, admission 
entrances, and spectator transportation. The golf 
course must have enough space between and 
around golf holes for grandstands, TV towers, 
concession areas, and for the relatively unimpeded 
movement of thousands of spectators. Outside 
the golf course, we examine the potential space 
for parking upwards of 14,000 to 20,000 vehicles, 
the likely traffic conditions to shuttle spectators 
via bus between parking and the golf course, the 
availability of thousands of hotel rooms and a 
convenient airport, and the anticipated coopera­
tion from the state and local governments, as 
well as the local business community.

The USGA Championship Committee 
generally awards U.S. Open sites six to eight 
years in advance. In addition to having the 
quality of the golf course and logistics analyzed, 
the Committee also takes geography into con­
sideration. The national Open should and does 
move around to different parts of the country. A 
few of these golf courses have required rather 
substantial makeovers, both architecturally and 
agronomically, in order to obtain an Open bid.

16

GREEN SECTION RECORD

For instance, Bethpage Black, site of the 2002 
and 2009 Opens, had a complete facelift in the 
late 1990s, as did Torrey Pines, host of the 2008 
Open.

These two venues aside, the USGA generally 

prefers not to suggest or dictate architectural 
changes at Open venues other than when new 
championship teeing grounds or modifications 
to fairway widths and contours are needed. In 
fact, the USGA recommends widening fairways 
post-Open. Permanent course changes are 
decided and made by the host venue, with 
guidance from its architect of choice. Most of 
the USGA involvement with the Open setup 
revolves around agronomic preparation (e.g., 
determining various mowing heights, how 
much water should be applied to the course, 
etc.) and the selection of hole locations and 
teeing grounds.

So what is involved with a U.S. Open setup? 
What actually is the USGA trying to accomplish 
with this somewhat legendary brutal test of golf? 
The overall philosophy of a U.S. Open setup has 
not changed significantly over the last half 
century. Prior to the 1950s, the Open setup 
varied from year to year and seemed to be based 
on each host club’s desires rather than a USGA 
mandate. Then in the 1950s, Richard Tufts, then 
USGA president and owner of the Pinehurst 
Resort, introduced what to this day is still the 
blueprint of a U.S. Open setup and test of golf. 
This plan called for firm and fast conditions, 
relatively narrow fairways, penal rough, and fast 
putting greens. The idea was to test all aspects of 
player shot-making abilities under difficult setup 
conditions. A by-product of this tough test was 
that players’ mental and course management 
skills also were rigorously tested.

While the overall U.S. Open setup philosophy 

has not changed over the years, the actual setup 
specifications have evolved as the game has 
changed. As clubs have gone from wood to steel 
to titanium, and balls have evolved from gutta­
percha to balata to the modern urethane-covered 
golfball, the game and how it is played by the 
world’s best have changed rather substantially. 
Additionally, the science, technology, education, 
and resources behind golf course maintenance 
also have changed how the game is played. With 
all these changes over the years, the USGA has 
attempted to evolve the U.S. Open golf course 
setup while staying true to Tuft’s vision of a 
stern test of golf.

The first part of an Open golf course setup 

happens a couple of years in advance and 
involves analyzing how each hole should play 
ideally. What was the architect’s intent for the 
hole? Where is the intended drive zone? Is the 
architect’s original intent still valid, given the 
modern changes in golf equipment and agro­
nomic preparation? If not, this change may 
support the cause for a new teeing ground. Was 
the approach shot designed for a long, medium, 
or short iron? Is the putting green open in front 
to allow for a run-in approach, or is it fronted by 
a hazard or some other obstacle? What 
are the ideal hole locations, and how do 
they relate to the overall strategy for a 
hole?

In an ideal championship setup, there 

must be a good balance — balance in 
long, medium, and short-length par 3s, 
4s, and 5s; balance in a mix of holes 
where some are hard and others are 
relatively easy — par ought to be a good 
score on some holes, but the golf course 
most definitely ought to offer some birdie, 
perhaps even eagle, opportunities. Most 
golfers love risk-reward holes and, ideally, 
a championship test would have several 
holes that tempt the player. A par 5 reach­
able in two shots, and, if the course allows, 
perhaps even a drivable par 4, can provide 
interesting options. Winged Foot’s sixth 
hole was a dramatic and drivable par 4 at 
the 2006 Open. In the final round, when 
there was a particularly inviting hole 
location, the majority of the players tried to 
drive the putting green. The result: many 
birdies, several eagles, and quite a few double 
bogies. Oakmont, the site of the 2007 Open, 
will have three risk-reward par 4s that can be 
driven under certain conditions. There should 
be balance in an Open so that both power and 
accuracy are rewarded, but neither overly so. 
Doglegs and different angles of play are 
tremendously underrated in today’s game at 
the highest level. Offering incentive to players 
who can accurately curve their ball in either 
direction is a wonderful aspect of championship 
golf. Gradually bending doglegs mandate that 
shots either be curved or played at a certain 
angle and a certain distance. These types of 
doglegs challenge even Tour-level players. In 
fact, this may be one of the very few areas where 
modern equipment likely has had a negative 

Hole locations are a critical 

aspect of the U.S. Open

MAY-JUNE 2 0 07

17

impact on the players’ ability to score — the 
modern driver and ball make both distance 
control and the ability to “work the ball” some­
what more difficult.

Once the hole-by-hole analysis is done, the 
USGA then formulates a golf course preparation 
letter that is sent to the golf course superintendent. 
This letter outlines the mowing heights for fair­
ways, rough, collars, teeing grounds, 
and putting greens. The letter also 
addresses putting green speeds, 
changes to fairway widths and 
contours, bunker preparation, daily 
maintenance schedules, water 
management, and a myriad of other 
particulars relevant to U.S. Open 
golf course preparation.

The trademark of a U.S. Open 

course setup is difficult playing 
conditions. Perhaps more than any 
other tournament in the world, the 
Open rigorously tests a player’s 
accuracy, distance control, and ability 
to recover from trouble. This is 
accomplished by providing relatively 
narrow fairways, penal rough, and 
firm and fast conditions. In other 
words, the margin of error for shot- 
making is lessened. Depending upon 
the length of the hole, the slope and 
contour of a drive zone, fairway
11 widths for an Open will range from 

22 to 34 yards. On a relatively flat 
and straightaway hole of medium 
length, 26 yards of width would be
| the norm. In the days of persimmon 
I and balata, that norm would have 

been around 32 yards. The advances 
in modern equipment have not only allowed for 
increased distance, but the players also are able 
to hit the ball straighter; thus the reason for the 
gradual narrowing of U.S. Open fairway widths 
over the past 15 years.

In the last couple years, the USGA has given 
considerable thought on how best to prepare the 
rough grass. Ideally and under Tufts’ method, 
the rough should be at a height where players are 
penalized for errant shots, but not overly so. The 
USGA wants to test shot-making and reward 
recovery skills; thus “pitch out” rough really is 
not desirable unless the player misses the fairway 
by a significant margin. Jack Nicklaus, winner 
of four Open Championships, was a master at 

recovery from U.S. Open rough. At Winged 
Foot last year, the USGA slightly altered its 
long-standing tradition of one stand of long, 
penal rough; graduated rough was introduced. 
This stepped-cut rough was adopted with a goal 
of better rewarding accuracy and more equitably 
penalizing inaccuracy. Two, rather than just one, 
heights of cut were used for the primary rough. 
The first cut closest to the fairway was approxi­
mately seven paces in width and was mown on a 
daily basis at 3.5 inches. At this height, the grass 
was low enough so players could play to the 
putting green, but high enough so their ability 
to control distance was lessened. The first cut 
was and is supposed to be a bit less penal than 
past U.S. Open rough. Outside the first cut of 
primary rough was a higher second cut. This 
rough, at 6-plus inches in height, more severely 
penalized the truly errant shots. In addition to 
the graduated roughs, the spectator rope lines 
were moved further away from the fairways so 
players who really hit an errant shot would less 
often get a fortuitous lie in grass trampled by 
spectators.

The putting green speed for each U.S. Open 

is determined by carefully studying the slope 
and contour of each of the 18 greens. This speed 
changes from year to year because the design of 
putting greens varies so greatly from course to 
course. Inevitably, one or two of the greens are 
more severely sloped or contoured than the 
others. Those greens ultimately end up dictating 
overall putting green speeds for all 18 greens. 
Flatter, less-undulating greens are prepped for 
faster speeds. U.S. Open putting green speeds 
vary from 10.5 to 14-plus feet on the Stimp- 
meter, depending upon the design of the greens. 
The USGA wants greens fast, but not so much 
so that good hole locations cannot be used. Fast 
greens require a deft putting touch and a great 
imagination when trying to recover from around 
the greens. The USGA also considers how wind 
might affect playability of putting green speeds. 
Pebble Beach, for example, is typically prepped a 
bit slower than the slopes would otherwise allow 
due to the likelihood of strong winds.

How are hole locations chosen? As anyone 

who has ever picked hole locations knows, 
setting 71 out of 72 good ones is not good 
enough. Fast speeds coupled with undulating 
and sloping putting greens can sometimes, as the 
USGA unfortunately has seen a few times, be 
the recipe for the dreaded bad hole location. The

U.S. Open rough always 

is a topic of discussion 

each June. The under­

lying principle is that

a player should be 

penalized for an errant 

shot, but not overly so. 

In 2006, a step-cut 

graduated rough was 

introduced to more

equitably penalize 

inaccurate shots.

18

GREEN SECTION RECORD

prospective area for a hole location must be care­
fully studied. Knowing the amount of slope 
around a prospective hole, say within a 6- to 7- 
foot radius, is critical. In the last couple of years, 
the USGA has used a digital level to calculate 
the percentage slope. On the higher end of U.S. 
Open green speeds (13 to 14-plus on the Stimp- 
meter), we begin to be very cautious with a 
percentage slope greater than 2.4% or 2.5% 
within a 6- to 7-foot radius of the hole. When 
green speeds are on the lower end (10.5 to 11.5 
on the Stimpmeter), percentage slopes up to 
2.8% or 2.9% seem to be the cutoff mark. We 
also look for ample “roll-out” — the ability to 
stop a golfball within 6 or 7 feet on the low side 
of the hole. More roll-out is given if winds are 
forecasted in the downhill direction.The other 
tricky part in avoiding a bad location lies in 
anticipating possible scenarios where green 
speeds might increase as the day goes on. Will 
conditions dry out? Could it get windy? Is there 
dew on the green in the early morning when the 
holes are being picked that might fool you into a 
dicey location? Was a chemical growth retardant 
used on the green?

Assuming four good hole locations can be 
found per hole, the USGA tries to balance these 
locations for each stipulated round. We are very

cognizant of balancing the lefts and rights, as 
well as fronts and backs, so as not to advantage 
or disadvantage a certain playing style. There is 
no attempt to make the final round any more 
difficult than the first round; however, there 
might be times when a dramatic (i.e., more risk­
reward) location is saved until the final round. 
We also consider the approach shot being played. 
Will it be a long iron or a wedge? Firmness of 
the putting greens also must be strongly con­
sidered. Tucking a hole location right behind a 
front greenside bunker on a long, downwind 
hole may be too difficult, but placing a hole near 
the edge of the green may be fine when mostly 
wedges are being played for approach shots. 
Placing a hole location in the very back of a soft 
green on a short hole may be a great test of shot­
making — can a player take enough spin off his 
golfball to get it close, or will he risk going over 
the green by flying the ball the whole way to the 
back? We also believe it is okay to have one or 
two so-called “sucker” hole locations over the 
course of a championship as long as it doesn’t 
cross over into being unfair or downright goofy. 
These occasional “sucker” hole locations can test 
a player’s course management skills when it 
might be best to play an approach away from 
the flagstick.

Measuring the 

percentage slope six 

or so feet out from a 

prospective hole 

location can better 

ensure a fair setup.

MAY-JUNE 2007

19

Water management is one of the most crucial 

aspects of championship setup. Firm and fast 
conditions are ideal. It brings out a wonderful 
aspect of the game — what will happen when 
the golf ball lands. A player must plan for the 
bounce and roll. Firm conditions require a 
greater ability to control ball flight and spin. 
This is one reason the British Open is such a 
fascinating championship. In an ideal world, 
every U.S. Open would be played on a course 
built on a sandy-loam terrain like Pinehurst, 
Shinnecock Hills, Olympic, and Bethpage. 
These sites allow us to better control firmness 
even when Mother Nature is providing unwel­
come rain. Most U.S. Open sites, however, are 
built on heavier soils that retain moisture much 
longer. That unfortunately means Mother 
Nature sometimes dictates softer playing condi­
tions than wanted. The key with firmness is 
trying to provide fair conditions for the players. 
Ideally, the firmness of putting greens and their 
approaches ought to be consistent. The USGA 
works hard with the superintendent to provide 
firm approaches to the putting greens. Typically, 
every time greens are aerated or topdressed, the 
USGA recommends the same procedure for the 
approaches. It is downright unfair to provide 
greens that are too firm and won’t adequately 
hold well-struck shots. This can be a tremen­
dously fine line, especially when dew points are 
dropping or it gets windy.

The USGA’s philosophy on bunker prepara­
tion for national championships differs somewhat 
from the norm. We still believe in the concept 
that bunkers are hazards. A penalty should be 
paid. Adapting to the look and feel of the sand 
ought to be part of the challenge. Bunkers 
should not always be perfectly prepared with 
firm, consistent sand. In fact, in the last few 
years we have purposely had the grounds staff 
soften up the bunker bottoms by vigorously and 
deeply raking. Softer sand translates into less 
ability to spin and control the ball. Could the 
players get the occasional “fried egg”? Yes, and 
the USGA believes recovering from a buried lie 
is still a skill required for playing the game.

Consistency of the overall golf course from 
day to day is part of the setup plan. For years the 
difficulty of the U.S. Open setup seemingly 
increased as the week progressed. Sunday’s final 
round has many times played more difficultly, 
sometimes significantly so, than during practice 
rounds and early championship rounds. The 

greens were faster, the rough was taller, and 
sometimes the course was firmer. The USGA 
has changed its philosophy a bit of late. We now 
strive for relatively consistent setup conditions 
for the whole event, including practice rounds. 
That is not to say we want the course to play 
exactly the same every day; adapting to changing 
conditions is part of the game. The real influence 
on change ought to come from Mother Nature, 
not from the USGA purposefully giving the 
players a golf course they have not seen before. 
It is the job of the USGA and the course super­
intendent to react to changing weather condi­
tions and modify course setup accordingly. This 
sounds easy in concept, but it can be very diffi­
cult in execution. Sometimes the USGA has 
done an admirable job in this regard; a few times 
we have not. And when a course is set up to be 
as difficult as an Open, the margin for error can 
be razor thin. A wrong weather forecast or poor 
reaction to a good one can potentially push an 
otherwise fair but tough setup into an unfair 
setup where good shots are not rewarded.

There is one final question that often comes 
up about the Open test of golf— Is the USGA 
really after a winning score of even par? The 
simple answer is no. Windy and dry versus soft 
and calm conditions can make for a 15- to 20- 
shot swing in the winning score. The USGA 
obviously cannot control wind or rain. So, while 
an even-par winning total is not a goal, the 
USGA is genuinely focused on testing the 
players’ shot-making and course management 
skills under the most rigorous and challenging 
setup conditions. Some years that test is more 
rigorous than others.

Moving the national open around to different 

courses provides a wonderfully interesting 
variety. It is apropos to say there are different 
courses for different horses. Some are long — 
Torrey Pines next year will be more than 7,500 
yards; some are short — Merion in 2013 will 
play to around 6,900 yards. Some have large, 
relatively flat greens, while others are small and 
undulating. Some are open and subjected to 
strong winds, and others dogleg their way 
through towering trees. But they all end up one 
way or another doing one thing — identifying 
the national champion of golf in the United 
States.

Mike Davis is senior director of USGA Rules and 
Competitions.

20

GREEN SECTION RECORD

Accommodating 
People with Disabilities
Staying out of court and making money in the process.

BY MARTIN S. EBEL

Bob Wilson 

(right) and 

Marty Ebel get 

ready to tee it 

up at Bethpage 

Black (New 

York) in 2006.

Everyone knows that the number of rounds 

of golf per year is stagnant, or even falling. 
There is a big push from industry groups to 
grow the game. The industry is interested in 

building the number of rounds at almost every 
facility. Each year, more and more new courses 
are coming on-line, and almost everyone is 
getting a smaller slice of the pie.

So why is it that with these declining 

numbers, the industry is not making concerted 
efforts to reach the 54 million people in this 
country with disabilities? Why isn’t the industry 
aggressively seeking ways to keep baby boomers 
(now that they are entering their retirement 
years) in the game longer? I suspect the answer 
has lots of facets, but part of it must be that the 
industry doesn’t realize how much revenue it’s 
turning its back on.

According to one research group, the biggest 
reason why people leave the game is that it’s too 
hard to get around — that there’s too much 
walking. These are most likely people who have 
some sort of mobility impairment — people 
with disabilities. Often, these are core golfers — 
golfers with both the free time and the money to 
play the game regularly. Once they reach the 
point where it is too hard, they quit playing. If 
golf courses can keep even one core golfer in the 
game for an additional year, they can generate 
tremendous amounts of additional revenue. So 
let’s look at a great way to keep these people in 
the game longer — the single-rider golf car.

There are at least three reasons to reach out to 

people with disabilities and offer them accom­
modations like a single-rider golf car: (1) It’s the 
right thing to do, (2) it will make you money, 

MAY-JUNE 2 0 07

21

and (3) it’s required by law (and fighting it will 
cost you money). The biggest debate seems to 
turn on whether courses must provide single­
rider cars. It seems clear from a legal perspective 
that courses must supply single-rider golf cars to 
comply with the law.

You know accommodation is the right thing 

to do, and you don’t need anyone to tell you 
this. Just as it was the right thing to do to open 
courses and clubs to people of color and to 
women, it is right (and fair and just) to offer 

accommodations and welcome 
people with disabilities.
It is also not that 

daunting. And all 
the rhetoric 

about people 
with dis­

abilities is 
wrong. 
For 

example, 

there are 
a number 
of incorrect 
positions about 

single-rider golf 

cars in the industry:
(1) The law doesn’t require them.

(2) They damage turf.
(3) It’s too costly to provide them.
(4) There is no demand.
All are dead wrong. Let’s take a look.
Federal law requires accommodation of people 
with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities 
Act explicitly applies to golf courses. Accordingly, 
the ADA requires golf courses to provide access 
to their facilities (clubhouse, pro shop, course, 
and practice facilities) and their programs (play­
ing golf, renting a golf car). There are only a few 
things that will relieve the requirement — if 
there is an undue burden (meaning hugely 
expensive), if the accommodation fundamentally 
changes the program, or if the accommodation 
poses a danger. If an accommodation does not 

pose an undue burden, alter the fundamental 
nature of the facility, or pose a safety hazard, the 
golf course is required to supply the accommodation!

This means that the first rumor is dispelled — 

golf facilities are required to provide accommo­
dations by the plain language of the ADA. 
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court in Casey 
Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc., explicitly said that 
riding in a golf car does not change the nature 
of golf and was a reasonable accommodation. 
Furthermore, the U.S. Access Board, the group 
charged with regulating the design of facilities to 
ensure access for people with disabilities, makes 
clear that using a golf car is reasonable.

The Access Board Guidelines for Recreational 

Facilities requires new course construction to 
include one or more tee boxes that a golf car can 
enter on each hole. It requires a “path of travel” 
from tee to green that a golf car can negotiate. 
It requires that every green have a point of entry 
and exit for a golf car. The Access Board’s 
requirement of construction, allowing a golf car 
to drive on the tees and greens, demonstrates 
that it’s reasonable to drive golf cars over them. 
Couple this with the Department of Justice’s re­
quirement that rental car companies must supply 
adapted automobiles to people with disabilities, 
and it becomes clear that providing a single-rider 
car is required. Anecdotally, no golf course has 
successfully defended against a lawsuit seeking a 
single-rider golf car as an accommodation.

Second, single-rider golf cars don’t damage 
turf, at least if they are operated responsibly. Like 
any other vehicle, reckless operation can cause 
damage. But the standard under the ADA is no 
fundamental alteration (i.e., permanent damage) 
to a facility. And there is no permanent turf 
damage associated with single-rider golf cars. 
They exert less pressure per square inch than an 
adult male at heel-strike. And really, do you 
suppose that Pebble Beach, Hazeltine National, 
Bethpage Black, and every single TPC (just to 
name 28 courses) would have single-rider cars 
in their fleets if they caused damage to their 
hallowed grounds?

Turning to cost, it’s a myth that single-rider 
golf cars’ expense is a defense against purchasing 
them. First, to obviate the need for an accom­
modation, the cost must be extreme in com­
parison to the total assets of the facility, taking 
into account its parents, subsidiaries, and other 
related financial sources. Second, single-rider 
golf cars, just as standard cars, can be in the

22

GREEN SECTION RECORD

operators survive. Today, 
adaptive programs are one 
of the features that ski 
resorts compete with each 
other on. It is a money­
making proposition.
There is money — perhaps 
lots of money — to be 
made catering to this 
segment.

In February at the Golf 
Industry Show, I spoke on 
this topic. The next day, 
the NGCOA published in 
the show’s daily paper the 
following “clarification”: 
“A GIS session yesterday 
has sparked questions 
concerning the legalities 
surrounding single-rider golf cartfs]. Although 
the U.S. Department of Justice is currently 
reviewing the matter, there is no requirement 
that courses provide the cars.”

Yes, the DOJ is looking at the issue of single­
rider golf cars, but their issue is not whether to 
require single-rider cars — instead it is how 
many single-rider cars will be required at every 
course (one or two)! More importantly, these 
regulations will merely codify the existing law — 
law that currently requires reasonable accommo­
dations, including single-rider cars, for people 
with disabilities.

You know it’s the right thing to do. You can 

make money doing it. It’ll cost you money if 
you don’t. Add single-rider cars to your fleet 
now. If you do so and are ever sued for failing to 
accommodate someone, the fact that you put a 
car in your fleet will be presumptive evidence 
that you don’t discriminate! Look for a car that 
has passed the same safety tests as the rest of your 
fleet. It’s the right thing to do.

Martin (Marty) Ebel is a commissioner (and 
formerly the general counsel) of the Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination. Prior to joining 
the MCAD, he practiced discrimination law for more 
than ten years. Ebel’s private practice included employ­
ment law and public accommodation for management 
clients, including a number of golffacilities. He is a 
trustee of the National Amputee Golf Association 
and a longtime instructor in that organization’s First 
Swing/Learn to Golf programs.

regular rotation and generate revenue for the 
course. You don’t need to restrict their use to 
people with disabilities.

Additionally, a significant tax credit awaits 
businesses purchasing adaptive equipment. A 
business with either fewer than 30 full-time 
employees or under $1 million in annual revenue 
is entitled to a 50% credit on the first $10,000 it 
spends each year on adaptations. For most, this 
credit brings the cost of a single-rider car in line 
with a standard car. Those not eligible for the 
tax credit almost certainly fail the financial 
means test and can afford the car(s).
The last refrain heard from those opposing 
single-rider cars is that there is no demand for 
them. This is simply not recognized by the law 
as a reason for non-compliance. The reason that 
Congress enacted the ADA was that it found 
there was systemic, long-term exclusion of 
people with disabilities from all sorts of activities 
in this country. The reason there is no demand is 
because until very recently, most people with 
disabilities were unwelcome at golf courses.

The golf course industry should take a page 
from the snow ski industry’s playbook. About 20 
years ago (pre-ADA!), they decided to embrace 
people with disabilities. These facilities spent 
some money on equipment, training, and mar­
keting. And they found that every person with a 
disability who came brought at least one, and 
sometimes many more, able-bodied people with 
them. They made money from these people and 
more money from their friends. In the lean 
years, this population helped some of the ski 

MAY-JUNE 2007

23

Two for the Money
Combining fairway mowing and clipping dispersal in one job 
saves time and labor, and lessens interference with golfers.

BY CHRIS HARTWIGER

I abor is the largest expense in golf 

course maintenance budgets, 

■mb and in an era of slow growth in 
the game, every golf course is either 
reducing staff or looking for ways to 
increase productivity. Jason Sanderson 
and his staff at Cherokee Country 
Club in Knoxville, Tennessee, are on a 
mission to maximize worker produc­
tivity without compromising on 
quality. Another key tenet of their 

maintenance program is to get as 
much work done on the golf course as 
possible before play each day. This turf 
tip will explore the unique idea of 
mowing fairways and dispersing clip­
pings at the same time.

ORIGIN OF THE IDEA
Fairway mowing and clipping dispersal 
are two important jobs during the 
growing season, and the concept of

mowing and dispersing clippings at the 
same time is not new. Over the years, 
superintendents have equipped fairway 
mowers with nets, hoses, or ropes to 
break up clippings while mowing. 
Although these concepts are effective 
to a point, the staff at Cherokee 
Country Club felt they could improve 
on this idea and further enhance 
worker productivity. The staff found 
that using a Buffalo Turbine blower 

Combining mowing and clipping dispersal allows the staff to get one more job done before play. Best of all, both of these jobs are done with one operator.

24

GREEN SECTION RECORD

was the most effective way to disperse 
clippings. Dragging nets or hoses did 
not produce the desired result.

Several years ago while Chris Sykes 
was the golf course superintendent and 
Jason Sanderson was the assistant 
superintendent, they hypothesized that 
it might be possible to connect the 
Buffalo Turbine Cyclone KB3 blower 
to the back of their John Deere 3235B 
fairway mower. The connection was 
easy to make, but they were left with 
several hurdles to overcome before this 
idea could be put into use with the 
quality they expected.

CHALLENGES TO OVERCOME 
The first matter to address was the 
connection of the blower to the fair­
way mower. Fortunately, the talented 
mechanic at Cherokee fabricated a 
hitch similar to those found on many 
popular utility vehicles. The Buffalo 
Turbine blower can be quickly hitched 
to the fairway mower with a pin.

The next stop was a trial run on the 

fairways. The staff learned that point­
ing the nozzle directly behind the 
blower caused the fairway bermuda­
grass to tuft up and did not provide a 
wide enough swath of wind to disperse 
the clippings. However, when the 
nozzle of the blower was angled to the 
previous pass mowed, the grass did not 
tuft and the swath was wide enough to 
disperse the clippings. At this point, it 
looked like the idea was a success.

Unfortunately, the staff realized that 

the fairway mower’s exhaust pipe dis­
charged directly behind the Buffalo 
Turbine blower. This led to clogging 
of the blower’s air filter after only six 
to eight mowings. With the help of 
the mechanic, the exhaust pipe was 
modified to discharge out the side. 
Today, Deere fairway mowers have a 
side discharge, so this is no longer an 
issue.

STANDARD OPERATING 
PROCEDURE
Mr. Sanderson felt confident enough 
in the results of this experiment to

The mower operator 

has easy access to 

the blower controls.

The blower and fairway 

mower unit are attached 

via a simple hitch.

0

make this a part of the regular mainte­
nance program, and he reports that 
operator training is straightforward. At 
Cherokee Country Club, the fairways 
employ a split or 50:50 mowing pat­
tern. The mower operator has easy 
access to the controls of the Buffalo 
blower. The operator begins with two 
mower passes up and down the middle 
of the fairway. On successive mowing 
passes, the blower nozzle is pointed to 
the previous pass in that direction and 
the clippings are dispersed.

The final two mower passes require 

another pass using the blower only. 
Mr. Sanderson reports that the learn­
ing curve of his operators has been 
quick and the process is not much 
different from mowing fairways only. 
Mr. Sanderson mentioned that with 
the mower and blower configuration, 
the operator cannot make as sharp a 
turn as with the fairway mower only. 
This is beneficial, actually, as it protects 
the turf against injury caused by sharp 
turns.

If the growth rate of the grass is un­
usually fast or if the mowing schedule 
has been interrupted by bad weather, 
Mr. Sanderson advises the operator to 
watch and make sure all the clippings 
are dispersed. If any remain, the 

operator makes additional passes to 
clean off the fairways.

AND THE WINNERS ARE?
Both the maintenance staff and the 
golfers are big winners with this pro­
gram. The maintenance staff benefits 
through reductions in fuel, labor, 
equipment, and improvements in pro­
ductivity. An added benefit is that a 
separate utility vehicle is not needed to 
tow the blower.

The golfer is the real winner with 
this idea, too. The blower is one of the 
loudest pieces of equipment on the golf 
course. When the staff gets the fair­
ways mowed and clippings dispersed, 
golfers enjoy well-groomed surfaces 
and less disruption from noisy, but 
necessary, golf course jobs.

Labor issues and productivity will 
continue to play an important role in 
golf course maintenance for many 
years to come. Implementing this turf 
tip just might be the bargain you have 
been searching for.

Chris Hartwiger, senior agronomist in 
the Southeast Region, is fond of multitask­
ing from his home base in Birmingham, 
Alabama.

MAY-JUNE 2007

25

You Take the Hard Road ... 
and I’ll Take the Soft Road
Paved paths near greens are simply a fact of life at some 
heavily played courses. Cover asphalt with strips of PVC 
matting to soften paved cart paths located adjacent to greens.

BY BOB VAVREK

I ove ’em or hate ’em, 

An option employed 

at some courses is to 
construct the cart path 
near greens from a 
material that can absorb 
the energy of a shot 
better than asphalt or 
concrete. Paths made 
from gravel or wood 
chips are more yielding 
than a hard surface. 
However, these 
materials are susceptible 
to displacement or 
rutting from erosion 
or traffic. Gravel 
and wood chip paths 
need to be repaired 
frequently to maintain 
a level surface.

The need for paved cart paths is obvious at heavily played golf courses that have a 

limited ability to accommodate walkers.

path too close to the green and the path 
will affect a considerable amount of 
play. A slightly errant shot to the green 
that bounces off the path and onto an 
adjacent hole, or worse, bounces out of 
bounds or into a hazard, will generally 
be accompanied by a strongly worded 
complaint to the grounds staff.

The green complexes of most old 
classic courses were not designed to 
accommodate cart paths. Multiple 
green and tee complexes are often 
found in close proximity to each other. 
It may be necessary to place the path 
very close to a green at old courses that 
exist on limited acreage or courses that 
have become landlocked by adjacent 
development. This turf tip discusses a 
way for paved cart paths and greens to 
coexist in close proximity.

Mike Jones, CGCS, superintendent 
of the Lochmoor Club (Grosse Pointe 
Woods, Mich.) softens the cart paths 
near greens by covering the pavement 
with poly extruded matting. The 
green PVC mat absorbs the impact of 
a golfball and blends in well with the 
surrounding turf. The matting is 
available from Eagle One products 
(http://eagleonegolf.com) or directly 
from the manufacturer (http://www. 
pemsurface.com) in 6-foot by 25-foot 
rolls.

Golf cart operators tend to stop 

abruptly, and the process of locking up 
the tires on a moving cart can quickly 
detach a poorly applied cover from the 
path. The key to success is the installa­
tion process that firmly binds the mat 
to the asphalt.

motorized carts are
Imi an integral part of 
American golf. Unlike 
golfers overseas, many 
Americans won’t play 
unless they can ride. In 
fact, a fair number of 
relatively new resort 
courses were designed to 
be played from a cart 
and are practically 
impossible to walk. In 
many ways, carts can be 
both an asset and a 
detriment to the course.
Cart rentals provide a 
significant percentage of 
the cash flow necessary 
to maintain courses at a
level that meets the ever-increasing 
expectations of today’s golfers. Green 
fees and dues at most courses would 
need to be increased significantly 
without cart revenues.

However, the wear and compaction 

of turf caused by concentrated cart 
traffic will always have a negative 
effect on playing conditions. All golf 
shots are directed toward the greens, 
so the turf adjacent to greens and 
approaches suffers the most from cart 
traffic damage. Consequently, cart 
paths are often employed near green 
complexes to keep traffic away from 
these prime areas of play.

Place the path too far away from 
the putting surface and golfers will 
be tempted to drive across the turf 
between the path and green. Place the 

26

GREEN SECTION RECORD

Asphalt is, by far, the most common 

material used for cart path pavement 
in the North. Fresh asphalt contains 
petroleum-based oils that need to 
volatilize before it can be sealed or 
treated with the adhesives used to 
attach a mat to the path. A new path 
should age for a year before attempting 
this procedure.

The 6-ft.-wide mat is cut into 8-ft.- 

long pieces and installed perpendicu- 

prepare the surface for the adhesive. 
Allow time for the path to dry. The 
best success is realized using a combi­
nation of the GE 1800 silicon adhesive 
recommended by the manufacturer 
of the matting and Roberts Premium 
Indoor/Outdoor Carpet Adhesive 
6700 (http://www.robertsconsolidated. 
com).

The Roberts mastic is spread on the 
asphalt using a notched trowel adjacent 

other heavy equipment will certainly 
damage the mat as well as the 
pavement.

If the intent is to minimize the 

bounce of a golfball, then the matting 
does its job very well. Golfers are 
never quiet about the annoyance of 
seeing a cart path in play, particularly a 
path located very close to a green. The 
green color of the mat blends in with 
the adjacent turf and may reduce or

Unrestricted 

cart traffic 

can cause 

considerable 

injury to turf 

during wet 

weather. A well- 

designed paved 

surface can 

accommodate 

carts when the 

soils are 

saturated from 

rain, flood, 

springs/seeps, 

and poor 

drainage.

larly to the direction of the path. Unfor­
tunately, there will be a seam across 
the path every 6 feet. A seam sealer is 
available from the supplier, and taking 
the time to join the seams is well 
worth the effort, especially where carts 
are most likely to stop and start. On 
the other hand, the smaller pieces of 
mat are easier to handle and attach to 
the pavement compared to a single 
long strip of material installed parallel 
to the direction of the path. Further­
more, a 6-foot-wide strip of matting 
would not entirely cover the 8-foot­
wide paths that are commonly seen 
on golf courses.

You must begin with a clean, dry 
surface. A pressure washer is ideal to 

to a bead of the silicone adhesive. The 
process is repeated alternating mastic (8 
inches to 10 inches wide) and silicone 
adhesive (6-inch squiggle) across the 
path. A strip of the mat is placed over 
the adhesive. A sheet of plywood is 
placed over the mat and a vibratory 
plate compactor is operated over the 
plywood to firmly press the matting 
into the adhesive. Allow at least one 
day for the adhesive to cure and the 
path is ready for traffic.

It’s difficult to predict the life span 

of the PVC mat because it has been 
available for only 10 years. Obviously, 
the mat will last longer if the paths 
accommodate nothing heavier than 
cart traffic. Operating large trucks or 

eliminate the need to hide the path 
from view using berms or landscaping.
On a final note, the same process 
can be useful for covering a paved path 
located along a steep slope. The matting 
improves traction across wet pavement 
for golfers who walk or ride. PVC 
mats on a cart path, however, should 
never be considered a substitute for 
using common sense when operating 
carts across the course during wet 
weather.

Bob Vavrek’s path takes him to golf 
courses in Michigan, Wisconsin, and 
Minnesota for Turf Advisory Service visits 
throughout the season.

MAY-JUNE 2 0 07

27

News Notes

NEW PUBLICATION 
AVAILABLE

The 2006 Turfgrass and Environmental

Research Summary is now available free 
of charge through the USGA Order 
Department (800-336-4446). The research 
summary provides a one-page summary of 
each research project currently being funded 
by the USGA’s Turfgrass and Environmental 
Research Program. This publication is 
appropriate for researchers, university 
extension personnel, and golf course 
superintendents who are interested in 
learning about the latest results from the 
program. Request publication NS 1645.

2006
Turfgrass and Environmental 
Research Summary

GREEN SECTION INTERNSHIPS 
AWARDED FOR 2007

For the tenth year, the USGA Green Section has awarded internships to 

outstanding turfgrass management students. During 2007, the Green Section 
will provide the opportunity for 15 students to travel with the Green Section 
staff on Turf Advisory Service visits. Each intern will travel for one week with an 

agronomist in his region between the months of May and August. The goal of the 
internship program is to provide students with a broader view of the golf course 
industry and the opportunity to learn about golf course maintenance through the 
perspective of the Green Section agronomists. More information about the
internship program can be found on the USGA Green Section Web site at 
http://www.usga.org/turf/internship/2007 internship.html.

Intern Name

Year

University

Christian Baldwin

Ph.D. Program

Clemson University

Advisor

Haibo Liu

Jason Frank

M.S. Program

University of Florida

J. Bryan Unruh

Anthony Garzia, Jr.

Junior

Delaware Valley College

Doug Linde

Matt Gourlay

Nicholas Hanson

Senior

Senior

Kansas State University

Jack Fry

California State
Polytechnic University

Sowmya Mitra

Lindsey Hoffman

M.S. Program

University of Massachusetts J. Scott Ebdon

John Inguagiato

Ph.D. Program

Rutgers University

James Murphy

Shaun Knutzen

Junior

Washington State 
University

Bill Johnston

William Kreuser

Sophomore

University of Wisconsin

John Stier

Megan Marcovecchio Senior

Colorado State 
University

James Carey

Brian Schwartz

Ph.D. Program

University of Florida

Kevin Kenworthy

Michael Vysocka

Senior

North Carolina 
State University

Daniel Bowman

John Willis

Joey Young

Ph.D. Program

Virginia Tech

Shawn Askew

M.S. Program

Mississippi State 
University

Gregg Munshaw

28

GREEN SECTION RECORD

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

Brookside Laboratories, Inc.
308 Main Street, New Knoxville, OH 45871
Attn: Mark Flock
Voice phone: (419) 753-2448
FAX: (419) 753-2949
E-Mail: mflock@BLINC.COM

Dakota Analytical, Inc.
1503 11 th Ave. NE, E. Grand Forks, MN 56721 
Attn: Diane Rindt, Laboratory Manager 
Voice phone: (701) 746-4300 or (800) 424-3443 
FAX: (218) 773-3151 
E-Mail: lab@dakotapeat.com

European Turfgrass Laboratories Ltd.
Unit 58, Stirling Enterprise Park 
Stirling FK7 7RP Scotland 
Attn:Ann Murray
Voice phone: (44) 1786-449195
FAX: (44) 1786-449688

Hummel & Co.
35 King Street, RO. Box 606 
Trumansburg, NY 14886 
Attn: Norm Hummel 
Voice phone: (607) 387-5694 
FAX: (607) 387-9499 
E-Mail: soildr I @zoom-dsl.com

ISTRC New Mix Lab LLC
1530 Kansas City Road, Suite I 10
Olathe, KS 66061
Voice phone: (800) 362-8873
FAX: (913) 829-8873
E-Mail: istrcnewmixlab@worldnet.att.net

Sports Turf Research Institute 
hyperlink to www.stri.co.uk 
St Ives Estate, Bingley
West Yorkshire BD16 I AU
England
Attn: Michael Baines
Voice phone: +44 (0) 1274-565131
FAX:+44 (0) 1274-561891
E-Mail: stephen.baker@stri.org.uk

Thomas Turf Services, Inc.
2151 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South, Suite 302 
College Station,TX 77840-5247
Attn: Bob Yzaguirre, Lab Manager
Voice phone: (979) 764-2050
FAX: (979) 764-2152
E-Mail: soiltest@thomasturf.com

Tifton Physical Soil Testing Laboratory, Inc.
1412 Murray Avenue,Tifton, GA 31794
Attn: Powell Gaines
Voice phone: (229) 382-7292
FAX: (229) 382-7992
E-Mail: pgaines@friendlycity.net

Turf Diagnostics & Design, Inc.
613 E. First Street, Linwood, KS 66052
Attn: Sam Ferro
Voice phone: (913) 723-3700
FAX: (913) 723-3701
E-Mail: sferro@turfdiag.com

USGA

GREEN SECTION
NATIONAL OFFICES

Northwest

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

1032 Rogers Place
Lawrence, KS 66049
785-832-2300
Jeff Nus, Ph.D., Manager 
jnus@usga.org

•Mid-Atlantic Region
Stanley J. Zontek, Director 
szontek@usga.org
Darin S. Bevard, Senior 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
Charles “Bud” White, Director
budwhite@usga.org
2601 Green Oak Drive
Carrollton, TX 75010
(972) 662-1138 Fax (972) 662-1168

Ty McClellan, Agronomist 
tmcclellan@usga.org

•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, Senior 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

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

©2007 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 issue’s 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

—

A
With proper construction 
and subsequent management, 
USGA greens can easily 
have an effective life expec­
tancy of 25 to 30 years or 
longer. Thus, resurfacing 
is a viable option. Review 
the article “Rebuild or

Resurface” (by Bud White, 
USGA Green Section Record, 
January/February 2006, 
44(1):l-6). It is available on 
the Turfgrass Information 
File at: http://turf.lib.msu. 
edu/2000s/2Q06/060101.

Turf—

Twisters

In 1990, our greens 
were completely rebuilt to 
USGA guidelines and have 
performed satisfactorily. 
However, the base Tifdwarf 
bermudagrass contains a 
high percentage of “off- 
type” surface contamination, 
and it has become progres­
sively more difficult to pro­
vide consistent and accept-

able playing conditions and 
aesthetic character. We are 
in the initial planning stage 
of renovating the greens and 
converting to an ultradwarf 
bermudagrass cultivar. Our 
obvious question is whether 
or not resurfacing is a viable 
option, or is total recon­
struction necessary?
(Florida)

The USGA says 

“bunker” and I say “trap.” 
What real difference does 
this make to golf course 
maintenance? (Indiana)

Perhaps none, and yet 
there could be significant 
impact. There are activities 
a player cannot do in 
bunkers that are acceptable 
on other areas of the course. 
This means that a defined

edge is important to 
properly apply the rules. 
The use of incorrect terms 
suggests ignorance of the 
rules, which suggests the 
maintenance program may 
not be accommodating 
proper application of the 
rules. Terms and definitions 
provide the foundation for 
the rules, the game of golf, 
and course maintenance.

------------------------------------------------------------------ -

We recently sent disease Proper sampling is

samples off to a diagnostic 
lab. In their response, the 
lab stated that the sample 
that we sent was not in good 
enough condition to provide 
a reliable diagnosis. How 
should samples be sent to a 
diagnostic lab? (Delaware) 

critical to proper diagnosis. 
First, a cup-cutter-size plug, 
2 to 3 inches deep, should 
be taken at the edge of each 
area to be sampled so that a 
combination of damaged 
and healthy turf is provided. 
The plug should be wrapped 

in a moist paper towel and 
then wrapped in foil to pre­
serve the plug. It is critical 
to prevent the underlying 
soil from mixing in the turf 
canopy. Pack the plugs 
securely in a box as if they 
are fragile so that they will 
not be damaged during 

shipping. Finally, use an 
overnight shipping method 
so that the plugs reach the 
lab quickly. Shipping after 
Wednesday could lead to 
samples sitting in a box over 
the weekend because most 
labs are not open on 
weekends.

www.usga.org