"Flipping" the topsoil

[George Freeman]

Question from the ignorant peanut gallery:

I have heard during several interviews that while building the various courses at Sand Valley, the construction crews had/have to undergo the (seemingly painstaking) process of "flipping the dirt" in order to expose the sand and bury the layer of topsoil.  I've had a hard time envisioning a process like this that was also able to maintain any existing "micro" undulations (don't ask me to define "micro").  It seems to me that this process would be pretty destructive to micro undulations.  However, the courses at Sand Valley appear to have these micro undulations in spades.  Does that mean they're all (or mostly) man made?  Or am I missing something?
The picture in the link below, from Brian Schneider's Instagram account, seems to confirm my initial assumption.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B3-HlT_F6gU/

[Tom_Doak]

The very first course I worked on - Long Cove - flip-flopped every inch of turfed surface, per Mr Dye's recommendation.  I had not seen it done for many years since, before Sand Valley.


Such work will destroy any contours smaller than a 2- to 3-foot change.  However, it may also create a bunch of new random contours, and if not, it is easy to shape everything as you please without worrying about getting the soils mixed up.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,


No one really cares about micro undulations.  If they don't get wiped out by topsoil removal, they get changed by irrigation trenchers, then tractors smoothing the seedbed, et.  And, they can be rebuilt, if desired.


When I built Lake Arrowhead next door in 1979, the "topsoil" which was still sandy, and what little of it there was stripped to put into the greens as cheap mix.  It held just enough moisture to perform like the then USGA green spec specified.  That was back when Marvin Ferguson was still running the lab and he was willing to make wider variations for low budget courses to get them to work - the original goal of USGA greens, but I digress. 


Our site was fully wooded, where topsoil is always scarce.  Don't know how much SV has.  The only dune features were near our 5th green. I was the field architect, and left them, as they are doing now at SV, but my boss came out and told me to take them down and smooth them out, mostly because they blocked the bottom of the pin from being seen on the green.  Secondly, he just couldn't understand why we wouldn't want to smooth that out.  Ouch.  He thought homeowners would never buy a lot on such scruffy ground.  And, rightfully to a degree, he was aware that sand can be whipped up by the wind, get in the eyes, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

No one really cares about micro undulations. 

I care, and I think there are others who do, too. 


But I agree with you they are difficult to preserve on most courses.  If they're in the woods, the clearing process will destroy them.  If you have to topsoil, forget about it.  And yes, the irrigation guys will do their best to destroy them.


We fell in love with the micro-contours on the 16th fairway at Pacific Dunes, and roped it off for 3 months to keep any traffic from going through there and messing with them.  The only equipment that hit them was a sand pro, and that's not big enough to change the contour much unless you are very diligent with it.

[Ira Fishman]

No one really cares about micro undulations. 

I care, and I think there are others who do, too. 


But I agree with you they are difficult to preserve on most courses.  If they're in the woods, the clearing process will destroy them.  If you have to topsoil, forget about it.  And yes, the irrigation guys will do their best to destroy them.


We fell in love with the micro-contours on the 16th fairway at Pacific Dunes, and roped it off for 3 months to keep any traffic from going through there and messing with them.  The only equipment that hit them was a sand pro, and that's not big enough to change the contour much unless you are very diligent with it.

I actually have no idea what is the definition of micro-contours, but if they mean the 16th at Pacific Dunes or the 5th at The Island Club, then by all means create and preserve them.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

I gotta ask. 


This seems like a pretty brutal process, how does this work without breaking the bank, and still remaining effective?  How many inches/feet down are we talking about over how many acres of fairway?

[John Emerson]

Can someone please explain “flip-flopping”.  Is this another name for removing organic matter to expose straight sand?  Maybe my jargon it is called something else...??

[George Freeman]

Such work will destroy any contours smaller than a 2- to 3-foot change.  However, it may also create a bunch of new random contours, and if not, it is easy to shape everything as you please without worrying about getting the soils mixed up.

Interesting.  So I assume that in the pictures linked below (posted to Instagram by the resort), all of those cool little ripples, hollows, mumps and bumps inside the fairway are not natural and were crafted by the construction team?  Is that a safe assumption?  While it bursts my bubble a little bit regarding the "naturalness" of the courses, it is very impressive that such random and natural looking micro undulations can be sculpted by the hand of man.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CAfr6DRl3_N/

[Ally Mcintosh]

George,


The minimalists often aren’t as minimalist as you would think.


But it depends on site and native soil. For instance, I’m assuming Tom and team are doing nothing much more than stripping and reseeding most of the fairways at St.Patricks.


Very occasionally (think Hackett), fairways aren’t even stripped. They are just mown out and over seeded.

[Tom_Doak]

Such work will destroy any contours smaller than a 2- to 3-foot change.  However, it may also create a bunch of new random contours, and if not, it is easy to shape everything as you please without worrying about getting the soils mixed up.

Interesting.  So I assume that in the pictures linked below (posted to Instagram by the resort), all of those cool little ripples, hollows, mumps and bumps inside the fairway are not natural and were crafted by the construction team?  Is that a safe assumption?  While it bursts my bubble a little bit regarding the "naturalness" of the courses, it is very impressive that such random and natural looking micro undulations can be sculpted by the hand of man.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CAfr6DRl3_N/

Yep, I would guess that's all shaped, either by Bill's crew or maybe some of it by the wind.

[Tom_Doak]

I gotta ask. 


This seems like a pretty brutal process, how does this work without breaking the bank, and still remaining effective?  How many inches/feet down are we talking about over how many acres of fairway?

They are digging up sand from 4-6 feet below the surface, and then putting the topsoil in the bottom of that hole, one hole at a time all the way up the fairway and back.  And not just in the fairways, but the roughs and bunkers as well.  For Mammoth Dunes you must be talking 100 acres.


I was afraid to ask the cost of it, but I think it is not as expensive as you might imagine . . . six figures not seven.


As for John Emerson's question, it does seem like it would be cheaper to haul away the top six inches, but that would depend on how far you have to haul it.  When we built Sebonack we screened all of the topsoil [to get rid of root materials] and wound up with a pile of topsoil 40 feet high in the middle of #3 fairway!  But then we did not want to put it all back down, as the greenkeeper had intended, because there was too much of it.  If we'd had a mining permit, we could have sold that topsoil for MILLIONS in the Hamptons, but since we did not, we buried most of it at the back of the driving range 

[Tom_Doak]

George,


The minimalists often aren’t as minimalist as you would think.


But it depends on site and native soil. For instance, I’m assuming Tom and team are doing nothing much more than stripping and reseeding most of the fairways at St.Patricks.


Very occasionally (think Hackett), fairways aren’t even stripped. They are just mown out and over seeded.

We are using all of those options at St. Patrick's.  In some places we are just mowing the turf down and overseeding, if there are enough fine grasses mixed in.  In other places we are going down to sand and seeding anew.  And in some places we are transferring sod from some of the old fairways to the new ones.


Mostly, our approach is being driven by not wanting to install irrigation in places where it would never be used after grow-in.


There are a handful of fairways where we needed to do some grading, either because they were too severe to mow or visibility was impaired or they were just too narrow.  [I'm talking about 50 yards out of a 350-yard hole, except the 9th hole which required more.]  But the rest of it just uses the existing contours.  Once we got into it, I was surprised to see how much grading they had done to build the original courses -- more than I had noticed in walking around, and it was not well tied in!

[Forrest Richardson]

George — You received good answers. One of the most common misconceptions is that golf courses "need" to be built on organic-rich soils, or as most people refer, "topsoils." Better draining, more sandy (or porous) soils are preferred because we build up organics as turf roots die and cuttings work their way into soils.

I think Jeff B was relating that "not many people" care about micro-undulations. I did some checking, and there are 7,402 people who care. Thanks to Tom and a bunch of others who have had the attention of people at the top levels of golf (and the media), I think the respect for subtle contours has grown in the past 15 years. So, it may have been that just 2,500 people who cared before this period   

I like Tom's answer. A good "eye" is able to put back subtle forms in the finished land. In my career I have had just a handful of sites where I can honestly say that we went out of our way to retain and preserve "micro-undulations" across the site. And, I had to explain this to nearly everyone — including the client. Most of the time, I have spent time re-creating interesting bumps and ripples. With better success at some projects, not so much at others.

I also recall Arthur Snyder, who caddied for Henry Fownes ...and went on to work on the Grounds Crew at Oakmont — Make Furrowed Rakes — Later becoming a superintendent ... tell me that when they were plowing at Oakmont (Arthur built many of the bunkers c. 1910-15) they worked diligently to create a "perfect and smooth surface from side to side..."  So there! A great classic course where the goal was not (originally) to build in a bunch of "micro-undulations", but to strive for perfection in smoothness. I think many of them occurred by chance, settling and from wash-outs. Perhaps some were by design, at the direction of Fownes. But Arthur would have noted that the small itty-bitty ones — the ones so many now applaud and cherish — were simply mistakes or areas they had not been able to get as smooth as desired.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forrest,


Yes, I changed not many to no one for dramatic effect.  And, it depends on your population, as in "not many in the construction industry care about micro contours."  For that matter, most of the superintendents I have spoke to like them, as they "mess up" their long sought after "perfect cut."  In fact, that might be a good definition of "micro-contours" - if a riding mower can't cut them evenly they are too small, or sharp, i.e. micro contours.


BTW, I think you are inflating the number who appreciate them like Trump inflates the attendance at his rallies.....I put the count at no more than 6,666.

[Tom_Doak]

There may not be that many Americans who appreciate micro contours, but I guarantee you there are more people than that in the UK who do.

[John Emerson]

Exactly what are the agronomic or design  benefits you’re seeking when removing the organic layer?  Is it strictly for drainage and ease of shaping?  Im a little confused about this.  Taking the organic matter out of any soil, especially sand, seems to be a less than ideal if you want to hold on to nutrients and water.  The cation exchange capacity is near zero in straight sand. There’s nothing there for those things (water & nutrients) to hold on to if all organic material is absent.m and everything leaches very quickly.  Is this standard practice when building on sand sites?  Curious about this.

[Tom_Doak]

Exactly what are the agronomic or design  benefits you’re seeking when removing the organic layer?  Is it strictly for drainage and ease of shaping?  Im a little confused about this.  Taking the organic matter out of any soil, especially sand, seems to be a less than ideal if you want to hold on to nutrients and water.  The cation exchange capacity is near zero in straight sand. There’s nothing there for those things (water & nutrients) to hold on to if all organic material is absent.m and everything leaches very quickly.  Is this standard practice when building on sand sites?  Curious about this.

It's not standard practice to flip the soil; as I mentioned above, I have yet to do it on one of my own courses.


If you have a little "top sand" [very sandy topsoil] and you're not going to shape the fairways at all, that's ideal.  That's what we had at Dismal River and Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle and St. Andrews Beach.


If you want fescue fairways, many believe they're better off with pure clean sand [and chicken manure and micronutrient apps to get it going] than with very much topsoil -- for better drainage, and for weed-free turf.  Ballyneal and Tara Iti were planted into nearly pure sand.

[John Emerson]

Exactly what are the agronomic or design  benefits you’re seeking when removing the organic layer?  Is it strictly for drainage and ease of shaping?  Im a little confused about this.  Taking the organic matter out of any soil, especially sand, seems to be a less than ideal if you want to hold on to nutrients and water.  The cation exchange capacity is near zero in straight sand. There’s nothing there for those things (water & nutrients) to hold on to if all organic material is absent.m and everything leaches very quickly.  Is this standard practice when building on sand sites?  Curious about this.

It's not standard practice to flip the soil; as I mentioned above, I have yet to do it on one of my own courses.


If you have a little "top sand" [very sandy topsoil] and you're not going to shape the fairways at all, that's ideal.  That's what we had at Dismal River and Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle and St. Andrews Beach.


If you want fescue fairways, many believe they're better off with pure clean sand [and chicken manure and micronutrient apps to get it going] than with very much topsoil -- for better drainage, and for weed-free turf.  Ballyneal and Tara Iti were planted into nearly pure sand.

Ok yeah I get that.  I’m curious what their fertilizer regimen is after seed planting....so they stick with organic to try and build some organic matter, or are the supers wanting to keep out organic matter similar to usga greens management?  When I spent time with the super at TOC last year they used significantly more organic fertilizer for everything except greens, so I’m wondering if the guys at Bandon, Tara iti etc do the same?  Tom, would it be possible to get me the email for those guys?  I’m super curious how their fertility program is structured to inhibit or encourage organic matter accumulations, and why they’re doing it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,


On the typical site, the process is to strip the top 6-9" (or whatever you can get) set it aside in an area that won't be graded and that doesn't block the architects vision during construction, and after shaping, replace it, again, at least 6" on fairways and maybe 9" on green banks, flaring up to the 12-16" required for the green cavity.  And, a typical problem is not having enough topsoil, especially on wooded sites.  Midwest farms typically have more (although, less as time goes by, with erosion.)


Tom makes a good point on weeds in the topsoil.  Some of those weed seeds have been in that ground too deep to grow for a million years, still viable, and just loving the chance to actually grow in the sunlight, LOL.  The weed problem during grow in is almost enough in and of itself to argue for the minimum grading possible in fairways.


Only slightly related, but speaking of shaping I was able to see a DFW project many years ago where a name architect had it in his contract they could come back and reshape one more time.  Their shaper added a bunch of small mounds around most of the tees.  They didn't worry about moving bunkers or anything that affected play, just the artistry, I guess figuring people would be backed up and have time to appreciate it.  I saw another signature course with a similar situation.  However, it was in a housing project and those perimeter mounds did more to block views of potential home sites than add any flare to the main corridors of the golf course.


It may be true that there "are no rules" in golf course design, but grading extraneously, especially in areas where it does more harm than good, should probably be one of them.

[Forrest Richardson]

"Taking the organic matter out of any soil, especially sand, seems to be a less than ideal if you want to hold on to nutrients and water."

Maybe this helps: Too much organic content is the bane of being able to manage turfgrass properly. It is never the opposite — having too little organic, as we can add that quickly and easily. We are always adding organics with the root death and the aforementioned cutting debris.

Think of it as a big pot of chili...if you start with too much spice (heat) you will never be able to tone it down. It will simply take more content (a bigger pot) to get it back to "perfect". That is where topdressing and sand capping comes in...starting over and getting a medium that you can work with when the soils clog up and become dense and full of too much organics.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forrest,


Well, that was certainly the thought behind the USGA and other sand based greens.  No surprise they came along about the same time automatic irrigation and pelletized fertilizers were becoming reliable enough to replace nutrients and water, with the sand reducing (I think they thought it would eliminate) the other nemesis of compaction.  That said, the USGA did specify peat at 20% back in those days.  In the last decade, I don't think the soil tests and recommendations have come back with anything more than 5% peat and I have put in as little as 2% based on recommendations.


Of course, for the last two decades, tees have followed sometimes exact mix specifications, and sometimes somewhat less, if a locally available "sandy or sandy loam" was available at lesser cost.  Even those have proven to usually lead to compaction and too much moisture retention for the high use areas.  And in both cases, but more often with tee mix, some "experts" have proposed sand/topsoil/organic mixes of about 1/3 each.  The problem usually is, sand+topsoil=concrete, in one of the most unusual math equations of all time.....


Another trend, which I used to joke about in the 1970's and 80's was that at some point, there would be "USGA fairways" and the sand capping and tile draining has become more trendy on expensive courses, and frankly, necessary in some areas of the country where bad water quality means draining it through as fast as possible is best done with sand.  And many sites in Asia sand cap the entire course, again, sometimes as a necessity, but sometimes, I felt, from my limited experience there, that they just didn't have the patience to strip and save the existing topsoil, or had the philosophy that it was worth it to use better material and damn the expense.  Again, some of the topsoil procedures are personal preferences of those in charge as much as agronomic testing.


Starting my career in Illinois, a state with (generally) deep fertile topsoil, for most of my career, the most feasible thing was generally considered to be stripping and replacing the topsoil there and amending it, grade it where necessary for surface drainage, etc..  All of the above just shows how much more technically complicated it has become, sometimes necessary, sometimes still optional or unaffordable. 

[Adam Lawrence]

Another trend, which I used to joke about in the 1970's and 80's was that at some point, there would be "USGA fairways" and the sand capping and tile draining has become more trendy on expensive courses, and frankly, necessary in some areas of the country where bad water quality means draining it through as fast as possible is best done with sand.  And many sites in Asia sand cap the entire course, again, sometimes as a necessity, but sometimes, I felt, from my limited experience there, that they just didn't have the patience to strip and save the existing topsoil, or had the philosophy that it was worth it to use better material and damn the expense.  Again, some of the topsoil procedures are personal preferences of those in charge as much as agronomic testing.

The Olazabal Design course at Education City in Qatar is USGA wall-to-wall.


The thinking was that it would lock in significant water savings through the life of the golf course. And in an environment where capital is not in short supply, but water is, this was thought to be the right course of action. I nearly fell off my chair when it was explained to me.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,


We sand capped the fairways of one course at La Costa.  In theory, the entire project was about reducing turf and mostly water during the drought.  At least initially, the sand capped fairways used a bit more water than the old ones did, but over time, I think it would probably get back to about even.  Time will tell.

[Morgan Clawson]

I went to Sand Valley 2x last month (May 2020) to play and walk a bit of Sedge Valley.


Here's a shot that shows how nicely groomed one of the fairways is after the flipping process.



Here are a couple of pictures of the 16th hole.  These are taken from the end of the hole looking up the hill toward the tee. I think the white pole indicates the approximate location of the green. Brian Schneider's Insta post was taken from closer to the 16th tee at the top of the hill.

[John Emerson]

"Taking the organic matter out of any soil, especially sand, seems to be a less than ideal if you want to hold on to nutrients and water."

Maybe this helps: Too much organic content is the bane of being able to manage turfgrass properly. It is never the opposite — having too little organic, as we can add that quickly and easily. We are always adding organics with the root death and the aforementioned cutting debris.

Think of it as a big pot of chili...if you start with too much spice (heat) you will never be able to tone it down. It will simply take more content (a bigger pot) to get it back to "perfect". That is where topdressing and sand capping comes in...starting over and getting a medium that you can work with when the soils clog up and become dense and full of too much organics.

Yeah I understand this completely, but there’s still questions.  What % organic matter is the threshold to determine when you will flip?  Ideal %’s are 3-5%.  What is the number where you say ok this is too much?  And where is the money savings over time, and roi from flipping it?  The moment you disturb soil is the moment in which many ideal organic components/qualities will be lost.  If you’re going to manipulate the soil with adding organic amendments after the grow-in why not go the other way and remove them (if it’s too high) with verticutting and topdressing?  I’m not sure I see the agronomic or financial benefits?  I want to understand this thinking, I really do.