Analyzing turf reduction

When it comes to water conservation, the role of the golf course architect is to artfully reduce irrigated area, without sacrificing the quality of golf. We use “Turf Reduction Plans,” either as part of an overall master plan or as a standalone plan.

Turf reduction isn’t really new. Many 1980’s master plans recommended creation of unmaintained areas to reduce mowing. And, western architects, like ASGCA members Damian Pascuzzo, (California) and Forrest Richardson (Arizona) have prepared turf reduction plans for over a decade, based on both mowing and irrigation savings. Like any planning, it starts with an understanding of individual goals, expectations, priorities and circumstance.

• Courses lacking adequate permitted water, or high water cost will be more aggressive in turf reduction than others.
• Low acreage courses can’t remove as much turf as larger courses.
• Public courses typically remove less turf than private courses
• Budgets may vary, affecting design.
• “Stakeholders” vary. If there are residences nearby, they will want input.
   

Turf reduction requires a lot of communication. Pascuzzo notes many members don’t understand how big a change is coming, and they don’t understand plans. He finds it best to field walk all holes, flagging changed areas to increase understanding.

Given the detailed nature of turf reduction plans, good base information is critical. You need as-built and irrigation maps, aerial photos, and topographic mapping. Involving the irrigation designer is important in fitting your turf reductions to the existing irrigation, which is cost efficient. You must know local codes, which may limit native grasses near residential areas for fire and tree protection.
 

Then, the architect prepares concept designs for review. In the plan shown below, all turf removal areas are shown. Each color represents a different treatment.

Richardson stresses that every climate is different, requiring different solutions. Dry regions are different than deserts and even those vary greatly from New Mexico, California, Nevada, and Arizona.

Your basic choices are: bark mulch; adapted native mix/wildflowers; unirrigated areas with new drought tolerant turf areas; lightly irrigated areas where you allow existing turf to go shaggy, with watering only for minimal survival; decomposed granite, either plain or scattered with some “softening vegetation;” and waste bunkers.

Most turf reduction encompass multiple elements, specifically sited to conditions. For example, bark mulch is favored under trees adjacent to fairways, to reduce lost balls, but should be used in flat areas without major drainage flows, or it may wash out.

Decomposed granite is preferred in the desert. However, large expanses of decomposed granite are not attractive, and adding clumps of desert plants for visual relief helps, with heavier concentrations in the out of play areas.

Native turf and flowering mixes can slow play, and should be kept farther from fairways, but away from adjacent residences. Neighbors fear decline in property values and landscape views, and increases in dust, snakes and rodents. Whether legally obligated to respond, most courses try to be good neighbors.

Leaving existing turf untouched, but infrequently mowed and essentially unirrigated often is the least expensive and often works best.

The key to reduction is examining the course. Every course has three areas that are candidates for reduction:

• Out of play zones that few people even see while playing golf.
• Visible areas that are sometimes in play, such as near fairways
• Highly visible areas that shouldn’t be in play, such as near tees.
   

You obviously go for “low-hanging fruit” first, taking areas hardly anyone will notice.

Next comes the fairway areas, which require tradeoffs between water conservation, aesthetics, speed of play and cost. It is always least expensive to fit your new non turf areas to the existing sprinklers, but what if that sprinkler line is simply too close to the line of play, causing an increase in lost golf balls? There is a relationship between the treatment, and the distance from the centerline.

Pascuzzo notes it gets aesthetically repetitive to simply place natives outside the cart path, and turf within. He favors bringing some natives inside the path, and some turf outside to create flowing separation lines, even at the expense of other issues.
 

Tee areas are highly visible, suggesting special aesthetic attention. Extensive turf removal makes sense, because the turf around tees aren’t in play. A traditionally irrigated tee complex has about 6,000 square feet of tee top, but irrigates over an acre of turf. Desert style “tee only” irrigation can reduce by 50–75 percent at each tee, or 9–18 acres per course. At the same time, creating a drought tolerant landscape makes the course more aesthetic in these key areas.

The other things both of these experienced turf reducers mention is:

• The answer to every question related to turf reduction is “it depends,”
• Turf reduction planning is still the experimental stages
• No solution is universal or perfect.
• Use an architect for best results.
• It’s expensive:
  • Upfront, with costs of $10–30,000 per acre not uncommon.
  • In the near future, with wildflower/natives establishment being difficult for 2–3 years.
  • Ongoing basis. “No irrigation doesn’t mean no maintenance.” Maintenance operations may change, but costs will remain similar.
• Often required by code or reduced water resources
• Actual payback is slow.
   

The most important part of a turf reduction plan may be commitment to the cause by course leadership, with communication between architect and golf course a close second, to keep goals and expectations balanced.

Jeffrey D. Brauer is a veteran golf course architect responsible for more than 50 new courses and more than 100 renovations.  A member and past president of the American Society of Golf Course Architects, he is president of Jeffrey D. Brauer/GolfScapes in Arlington, Texas. Reach him at jeff@jeffreydbrauer.com.