By Design - Fall 2012 - (Page 16) EXPERT VIEW Turf reduction | Pat Gross and Todd Eckenrode, ASGCA Less turf, less expense rought and economic issues coupled with the price of water have course owners and superintendents making difficult decisions about shrinking resources. One strategy is to reduce the amount of water and resources evenly over the entire golf course, but a different approach is to take the same amount of resources and apply them to a reduced amount of turf acreage. The question becomes: what to cut and what to keep? A 2007 survey by the Environmental Institute for Golf indicated the average size of an 18-hole course in the United States is 150 acres, of which 100 acres is maintained turfgrass. Of that 100 acres, just over half (51 acres) is designated as rough and out-of-play areas. Reducing the amount of rough and eliminating turf in non-play areas create excellent opportunities to save money on irrigation, turf care products, mowing, and maintenance. Water districts throughout the southwestern US offer attractive rebates to golf courses that pursue turf removal. Primary goals for every turf reduction project should include ensuring no loss of playability, maintaining—if not improving—pace of play, reduction of maintenance and resources needed in out-of-play areas and an improvement in the popularity of the course. Begin with a detailed site assessment. This is best accomplished with the help of a golf course architect who can provide an impartial review of existing conditions along with an assessment of playing characteristics and unique qualities of each hole. 16 | By Design D Next, various design concepts can be sketched and discussed. A map that includes an overlay of the irrigation system is important, so design concepts are coordinated with the existing system. Good opportunities for reducing turf without affecting playing quality include out-of-play areas in the rough, tee banks, the elimination of underutilized tees, green banks, densely shaded areas where it is difficult to maintain turf and perimeter areas. Equally important is designating areas where turf should be preserved so as to not slow pace of play or unfairly penalize weaker players. Remember, golfers’ average driving distance varies widely and is generally within a range of 160-250 yards. Rarely does a tee shot fly straight; therefore, the width of the intended landing zone should be generous, optimally in the range of 80-100 yards, including the fairway and rough from edge to edge. Healthy turf around the putting greens is important for playability. However, rarely are shots hit more than 60 feet beyond greens. Given the fact that the coverage radius of most turf sprinklers is 60 feet, eliminating turf beyond the radius of the sprinklers is viable. Planting and design in turf reduction areas is highly subjective. Sometimes, a specific plant palette and a recommended density are mandated by water agencies offering grants and rebates. In other cases, a committee determines what plants, if any, will replace turf. Replacement vegetation should complement and enhance the golf course landscape. If the main objective is to reduce water consumption, installing a threefour inch layer of mulch material that is playable is one of the best options. Mulching eliminates the need for installing supplemental drip irrigation, helps suppress weed growth, and will provide a clean and attractive appearance. The aesthetic value of large mulch areas with no added landscape should be carefully evaluated. A lack of trees and shrubs will often look stark and not integral to the golf design. Mulch areas tend to work best where a grove of existing trees of the same species can be encircled, with their normal leaf fall adding to the natural appearance. Once areas have been proposed for turf reduction, the next step is making adjustments to the irrigation system. Where practical, adjust the design and position of turf removal areas based on the existing configuration of irrigation heads. Often architect and irrigation designer can work together to make minor modifications that save money. Attempting to make turf reduction decisions in the field without the help of an accurate GPS base map can be more expensive. Redesigning the irrigation system in turf reduction areas should be included in the project budget. In Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of By Design - Fall 2012 By Design - Fall 2012 Digest Alternative Golf John Harbottle III National School Program Less Turf, Less Expense Swing Speed and Distance By Design - Fall 2012 http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/tudorrose/bydesign_2013spring http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/tudorrose/bydesign_2012winter http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/tudorrose/bydesign_2012fall http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/tudorrose/bydesign_2012summer http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/tudorrose/bydesign_2012spring http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/tudorrose/bydesign_2011winter http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/tudorrose/bydesign_2011fall http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/tudorrose/bydesign_2011summer http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/tudorrose/bydesign_2011spring http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/tudorrose/bydesign_2010winter http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/tudorrose/bydesign_2010summer http://www.nxtbook.com/nxteu/tudorrose/bydesign_2010spring http://www.nxtbook.com/nxteu/tudorrose/tudorrose_bydesign http://www.nxtbookMEDIA.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.