News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Keeping landforms after tree removal
« on: February 03, 2020, 12:22:16 PM »
In the past couple years I have played courses that have had significant tree removal and newer courses that were built in the woods that required a lot of tree removal. Most of the time, it would seem, a bulldozer would need to push down the stumps and drag trees away from the site, both of which would create havoc with the natural landforms. Does that mean that a bulldozer would have to come in after the tree removal and recreate the terrain or would it necessitate a newly created terrain or doesn't it matter?
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Carl Johnson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Keeping landforms after tree removal
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2020, 01:30:19 PM »
IMHO most important thing to focus on is drainage.  If the bulldozer, no matter whether it creates or recreates, screws up the drainage, all is lost.  I've seen it happen.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Keeping landforms after tree removal
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2020, 01:46:53 PM »
Tara Iti was entirely covered by planted pine trees when we started.


If the trees are to be harvested for timber, they are logged neatly by machine near the base, but then you have no leverage to get out the stumps and roots and it costs way more to dig/rake them up, negating any earnings from the timber.  So it's generally better to dig up the trees with excavators, which will make getting all the underground stuff easier.


It's still a huge job to clean up from the clearing.  Contours are disturbed and need to be put back together, but if the clearing contractor is good, it won't all be destroyed, you just have to track everything back in.


Figuring out what to do with the remains is another big hassle.  Trucking them offsite is very expensive, so we generally look to bury them in out of play areas.  A bunch of the dunes at Tara Iti are the result of that process.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Keeping landforms after tree removal
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2020, 01:58:40 PM »
And I suppose that as the trees rot and are reduced to near nothing, the man-made dunes collapse somewhat?  Some interesting new land forms probably result over many years, specially if the sand from the newly cleared areas continues to move with the wind.

John Emerson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Keeping landforms after tree removal
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2020, 06:43:42 PM »
Having the ability to burn helps the clean up process, but many counties/cities won’t allow burning, but if you play nice with local fire Departments sometimes they will give you a burn permit. Still dealing with stumps is difficult.  Like others said burying them is the best.  If a new build inland, I’ve seen many times they get buried in a irrigation pond or they’re used to raise an area.
“There’s links golf, then everything else.”

Jonathan Mallard

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Keeping landforms after tree removal
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2020, 07:10:10 PM »
Tommy,


The process is called clearing and grubbing.


https://www.highwayguide.co.in/methodology-for-clearing-grubbing/


I'm not sure how much emphasis is placed on removal of vegetation from the playing corridors away from the trees. I'm sure that there is much more need of suitable soil for plant growth than there necessarily may be in highway construction.


I'm sure that Tom D. and others can expand on how the process is tweaked for golf courses.

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Keeping landforms after tree removal
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2020, 10:45:01 PM »
And I suppose that as the trees rot and are reduced to near nothing, the man-made dunes collapse somewhat?  Some interesting new land forms probably result over many years, specially if the sand from the newly cleared areas continues to move with the wind.


I'm not sure they do, that quickly at least.. I was at Country Club of Orlando with Ron Forse last week, and there's a part of the course where Trent Jones Sr added some holes on new land in the 50s. A load of cedars (I think) were removed and buried in the area that the holes occupied; Ron worked on the course a couple of years ago and apparently the trees were pretty intact when they dug up those holes.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Keeping landforms after tree removal
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2020, 01:56:24 AM »
I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure that for lumber to rot down it requires exposure to air, moisture and microbial activity.


Buried under several feet of sand it is going to enjoy none of these and therefore will not rot down very quickly at all.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Keeping landforms after tree removal
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2020, 03:03:54 AM »
Buried trees or cut lumber does seem able to stay in shape for a long, long time rather than rot or break-up ... old timbers from wooden buildings, wooden ships, forests even etc buried centuries ago are often discovered. I imagine that climate has quite a bit to do with the level of underground preservation.

Some trees of course grow, expand and reproduce though their roots and suckers. I wonder what happens in relation to re-growth when such trees are cut and buried but their roots and suckers are still in place (and alive)?

As mentioned above, there is the burning approach, although it's appropriateness/usefulness in some countries in the 21st century might be less than it once was.

I have seem trees where the trunks are cut a foot or so above ground level 'slow burned'. A hole is drilled down the centre of the stump and 2-3 holes are drilled in from the sides to provide air flow. Something is then dropped down the vertical hole to start a fire. Kind of operates like a chimney. Burns slowly though, more like simmering than with flame. Takes a while but the stump will gradually disappear. Maybe more useful for a small site than a bigger one however.

atb



« Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 03:07:58 AM by Thomas Dai »

Drew Groeger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Keeping landforms after tree removal
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2020, 09:58:42 AM »
If the trees are to be harvested for timber, they are logged neatly by machine near the base, but then you have no leverage to get out the stumps and roots and it costs way more to dig/rake them up, negating any earnings from the timber.  So it's generally better to dig up the trees with excavators, which will make getting all the underground stuff easier.

Can you still harvest the timber from trees dug up with excavators? Cut the stumps off after you've excavated them? Also, when does tree removal make a site non-viable? Is there a max density of trees that would make one say "Yeah, this is a great site for a golf course but it'll cost too much to clear." Does the type of tree coverage make a difference, too? Pine vs. Maple? Aspen? Oak??

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Keeping landforms after tree removal
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2020, 10:56:20 AM »

Tommy,


I think you have a very idealistic view of saving natural landforms!  It is so common to clear trees that we expect to have to smooth things back, perhaps adding topsoil to fill ruts, etc.  and that is if there is no planned grading in the areas where the trees were removed.  To answer Drew, I don't think there is any density of trees that would prohibit clearing technically.  I am sure there can and are protests about the overall environmental desirability to do so, but that is a different story.


Lou,


We normally specify that cleared trees are put in pits in out of play areas.  They don't usually settle a lot, but over time, they settle a little, so you don't want them under tees, greens or irrigation lines.  You may recall the little water fall at Tempest behind the 10th green.  When we dug out to clean that up, it turns out that the dam and road were built right over clearing piles.  It's a wonder the whole thing hasn't collapsed over the years.


We generally build a small (or big, depending) mound over the clearing pits just in case, since level would eventually create small pockets.  We also require the clearing contractor to clean up side branches, and stack the logs criss cross in layers, pushing debris in the voids.  The basic idea is to compact the material as much as possible to reduce settling.


On a fully wooded, 18 hole site, it is sometimes difficult to find an area to do all that!


We also find the biggest issue can be the brushing (i.e., removing the small trees and shrubs under trees to remain).  It's hard to do, usually mechanically with a track hoe reaching as far as possible in the trees.  Topsoil replacement is usually necessary there, and fine grading often has to be done by hand.  For cost reasons, it's often omitted from the contractor's work, figuring the superintendent can do it as winter work.  That rarely happens, as they forget about it.  Over time, those area grow back, encroach, etc., all while causing lost golf balls the entire time.


Drew,


As Tom Doak mentioned, when you cut the logs off, removing the rest of the stump can be more difficult.  In reality, it's one of those things that sounds better to clients (yah, we make money off of trees!) than it really is.  Often, contractors bid the same amount for clearing and burying as they do for harvesting timber and then clearing stumps.  While it's more sustainable, it is also more time consuming and construction personnel are almost always more worried about their schedule than some big picture notion of saving the trees. 


Another problem with tree harvesting?  The harvesters usually want to take the big trees you want to save most!  I find they have a few intentionally accidental "oops" per project for that reason, LOL.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Keeping landforms after tree removal
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2020, 11:14:32 AM »
When I was member at a club outside DC we took down about 500 trees. We mostly thinned out areas of woods. They pushed over the trees then dragged the trees and removed them from the property. It was a big mess for about three months but the course recovered quickly. The contours remained essentially the same.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Keeping landforms after tree removal
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2020, 11:40:51 AM »

Tommy,


Yes, they remain substantially the same, but do require dozers and graders to smooth back out.  Sometimes, they need to bring in topsoil, too.  Wooded sites always seem to be lower on topsoil than farm fields and meadows.  Probably because removing the stumps takes a lot of soil with them.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach