Renovation at Rolling HillsRebuilding just a few greens on an older coursecan be tricky and has to be done correctly.BY BOB KINDER, MARK CONDON, DAVE WEISS, RICK PHELPS,GREG BARTOLD, J E F F GAMBLE, AND MATT NELSON

Putting green reconstruction involved minimizing disturbance to the surrounding area.

Notice the putting green turf that has been stripped and set aside on plastic for reuse.

any golf courses across the

I United States are eventuallyfaced with the need to rebuild

one or more putting greens due tocatastrophic events, property sales,design issues, or other reasons. Such wasthe case at Rolling Hills Country Clubin Golden, Colorado. The severe putt-ing green contours of this 1968 PressMaxwell design rendered a majority ofthe hole locations on four of the greensquestionable at best, with green speedsfaster than 8 feet as measured by theStimpmeter. USGA Green Section

reports dating back to 1982 discussedthe possibility of reconstructing thesefour greens to improve playing qualityby diversifying setup possibilities andmore equitably distributing trafficacross the putting surfaces. By 2002, theclub had approved a plan to rebuildthese four greens, but the severe droughtthat had gripped Colorado postponedconstruction until fall 2003.

The following article summarizesthe perspective of the various peopleinvolved with this project, includingthe golf course superintendent, general

manager, green committee chairman,golf course architect, golf coursebuilder, and USGA agronomist. Thisoverwhelmingly successful projectdepended upon a well-conceived plan,thorough education of the member-ship, the selection of experienced per-sonnel, and a talented and diligent golfcourse superintendent.

BOB KINDER, CGCS — GOLFCOURSE SUPERINTENDENTWhen I was hired as superintendentnearly 25 years ago, my green commit-

30

tee chairman told me the club wantedthe greens fast — so fast that when youspit on them, it would roll off. Ourgreens are well known throughout thestate of Colorado as very fast and diffi-cult to putt. As the years rolled on, themembership developed a love/haterelationship with the Press Maxwell-designed greens. About every three orfour years, the golf and green commit-tees would talk about rebuilding thesame four greens due to the prominent4-6% slopes. If you were putting fromabove the hole on any of these greens,you couldn't stop the ball and keep iton the green. The membership eventu-ally approved a putting green renova-tion project scheduled to begin in thefall of 2003.

My first concern was finding aqualified builder and designer for theproject. About a year before the projectwas approved, my green committeechairman and I made several visits totwo other courses in our area withgreens under construction to view theputting green construction proceduresas they were built. I had worked suc-cessfully with Phelps Golf DesignGroup before on several other projectsat our club, and they were hired forthis project.

Because we had purchased puttinggreen topdressing material from thesame sand company for several years,we utilized their products for our peagravel and rootzone mix, hoping tomatch the rootzone of the new greensas closely as possible to the existinggreens and still be within the USGAguidelines. The only problem was thatthey did not want to blend the largequantity of rootzone mix needed forthe project and store it at their plant.

My concern was to ensure rootzoneconsistency among loads. Enoughmaterial was ordered to keep a mini-mum of one green ahead of the builder,and the rootzone material was storedon our parking lot. Each load of root-zone mix was tested for physicalcharacteristics before it was movedto the green site.

Sod seams were the next challenge.Existing turf was cut from the fourgreens, and this supply was supple-mented with nursery turf grown fromaeration plugs. The decision to reusethe existing turf was made to preserveplaying quality consistency among thenew and old greens. The blend of

The putting greens had been topdressed forseveral decades with the same sand used to

build the new greens.

creeping bentgrass and Poa annua turfwas cut into 18" squares for easierhandling. This made for additionalrolling and topdressing to smooth outthe putting surface once the sod waslaid on the new greens.

My last challenge was keeping thegreens closed until they were ready forplay. I was lucky to have strong greenand golf committees to help educatethe membership about the hazard ofopening the greens too soon. As withmy other projects, I was concerned thatwe maintain the integrity of the golfcourse and at the same time make thenew greens more enjoyable to play.

MARK CONDON —GENERAL MANAGERMy role as general manager in theputting green renovation project wasto help develop a process to determineour members' opinions related to aputting green renovation project, gaugetheir support level, build support, andultimately obtain a "yes" vote. We beganthe process with survey and focus groupmethodology. The survey questionsasked the members if they supported aputting green renovation project tolessen the severe grade of our greenswithout changing the design characterand integrity. The responses showedthat about 70% of the members sup-ported the project, and we communi-cated these results to the members. Thenext step was to educate the membersand build stronger support. We pub-lished a very complete educationalpiece that answered the most frequentlyasked questions about the project,such as:• What is putting green renovation?» How do you reduce slope and yetmaintain the putting green designfeatures and character?• Why does it matter that we try toincrease useable hole locations?• We are known for our greens. Whywould we want to change them?

The formal and informal meetingsthat followed the publication of ourinformation booklet went a long wayin overcoming objections and buildingsupport for this project. Our next stepwas to schedule a membership meetingto make a formal presentation on theproject and allow members to askquestions. During the education processwe determined that the increase of holelocations on the greens had become ourrallying point or concept that membersmost supported. We then played to thisstrength. At the town meeting, with thehelp of our architect, Phelps GolfDesign, we visually demonstrated, onthe actual greens, hole locations beforeand after renovation. It was amazingwhat a favorable reaction the membershad to these images. They became a key

S E P T E M B E R - O C T O B E R 2 0 0 f 3 1

factor cementing member support forthe project.

DAVE WEISS —GREEN COMMITTEEEXPECTATIONSAND RESULTSAdvances in turf management havechanged the playing surface of theoriginal Press Maxwell-designed greensat Rolling Hills Country Club. Ourgreen committee wanted to keep theintegrity of this design but allow fairplay at current standards of green speed.Slopes that were acceptable in the 1960snow produced ball speeds that exceededfairness. The hole locations graduallybecame limited to one or two smallareas of the putting surfaces. In the caseof the four greens to be restored, lessthan 25% of each green could be usedfor hole locations. Our board set a goalto improve playing quality and reducetraffic damage from play at these fourgreens. We were experiencing excessivewear and tear due to limited cuppingarea, and we wanted to ensure that anyrestoration done to just four greenswould not change the feel of thegreens' surfaces as they related to therest of the course.

Members were very concerned thatour reputation for difficult greenswould be spoiled by making these fourgreens too easy. We had an obligationand desire to maintain the "PressMaxwell feel." The board and the greencommittee wanted to renovate thesefour greens while preserving ourdistinctive style.

We have had tremendous accep-tance of the project and it has metall of our objectives. The greens arestill very difficult, but they are muchmore interesting and more fun toplay. The members are still trying tolearn all the subtle breaks. We openedthe greens on schedule and withinbudget, and we were pleased with thework of our contractor, Niebur Golf,and architect Rick Phelps of PhelpsGolf Design. They both did asuperb job.

GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTEver since Rolling Hills Country Clubopened at its current location in thelate 1960s, this golf course has beenwell known for its greens. The greensmost definitely displayed the "Maxwellrolls" that he and his father madefamous at places like Prairie Dunes(Kansas), Southern Hills (Oklahoma),Augusta (Georgia), and many of theprivate clubs in the Denver area thatwere built in the 1960s.

As is the case on many coursesthroughout the country, the push forfaster green speeds had rendered someof the greens at Rolling Hills nearlyunplayable and definitely a challengefrom both a playability and maintain-ability standpoint. With the reputableand sometimes feared greens as thecalling card of this club, the golf coursearchitects at Phelps Golf Design weregiven a very specific task on this greenreconstruction project — on the mostseverely sloped four greens, add cuppingspace and restore lost hole locationswithout losing the overall "Maxwell"character. Kevin Atkinson and RickPhelps worked together on this projectrepresenting Phelps Golf Design.

The direction was provided to thePhelps firm via the board of directors,the green committee, and the generalmembership. As they worked their waythrough the planning process, the firmpresented the design work in varyingformats at numerous meetings with allparties to help everyone gain an under-standing of the scope of the work and acomfort level with the planned recon-struction. Although the design firmwas already very familiar with PressMaxwell's work, Kevin Atkinson eventalked with Hodie Maxwell, Press'swidow, to gain as much understandingof his design philosophy as possible.

Once the overall design concept wasprepared for each green, the potentialconstruction methods were discussedwith the superintendent and the greencommittee. Since the overall goal wasto retain as much similarity to the other

greens as possible, the Phelps teamagreed that the club could reuse theexisting sod from the old greens andsimply install it on the newly createdUSGA profile. The existing greens werepredominantly Poa annua push-upgreens, with at least four inches ofaccumulated topdressing in the root-zone. The decision was made to cut thesod in a slightly thicker cut (approxi-mately 1.5") to help maintain the grassduring construction and to assure asimilar playing condition as soon aspossible on the new greens.

On average, the existing greens hadlegitimate cupping space that measuredonly 25% of the green surface, whilethe new greens average closer to 60%.The added cupping space also allowedthe use of one or two lost hole locationsthat were originally part of the strategicoptions on each hole but had beenunuseable for many years due to severeslopes and fast green speeds.

The construction period lasted justover six weeks from start to finish andwas totally complete by the end ofOctober 2003. It has turned out to be atremendous success. The new greenswere opened for play in early May2004, and if you were to play thecourse today, it would be very difficultto tell which four greens were rebuilt.In fact, if it wasn't for the sod used onthe collars, which was predominantlyKentucky bluegrass while collars acrossthe rest of the course contain perennialryegrass and Poa annua, you probablycould not tell the difference.

NIEBUR GOLF —GOLF COURSE BUILDERThe challenge that Niebur Golf en-countered at the Rolling Hills CountryClub putting green renovation projectwas the requirement to maintain con-tinuity with the existing greens. Thefirst step was to save the existing sod sothe renovated greens retained consistentplaying quality with the existing greens.This required stripping the sod andplacing it on plastic while constructionof a USGA green ensued.

32 G R E E N S E C T I O N R E C O R D

After coring and hauling off therootzone material from the existinggreens, the hardest part of the construc-tion took place. Niebur Golf had toconvert greens with consistent 4%-5%slopes to greens with l%-2% slopes.This had to be done while maintainingthe existing elevations of the originalputting green complexes. To accomplishthe necessary grade alterations, thebacks of the greens were lowered andaltered. A large amount of time anddetail handwork was spent on theputting green subgrades, including laserleveling, to insure that the final gradesand tie-ins would be achieved.

The greens were constructed toUSGA guidelines. New drainage, out-fall lines, gravel, and rootzone mix wereinstalled to USGA guidelines. One ofthe trickiest aspects of the constructionprocess occurred as the new puttinggreen grades had to be tied in to exist-ing grades in the surrounds. Great carewas taken to insure that grading allowedfor a consistent tie-in operation.

Once the surfaces were approvedby the architect and the club, the sodwas replaced on the greens and thedisturbed surrounds were sodded withKentucky bluegrass.

MATT NELSON —USGA AGRONOMISTPutting green renovation had been dis-cussed at Rolling Hills Country Clubfor at least 20 years. By the late 1990s,the project had gained momentum andthe club leadership began exploringoptions to implement the desiredchanges. Maintaining architecturalintegrity and consistent playing qualitywere the primary objectives. By 1999,Green Section Turf Advisory Servicereports began discussing the merits ofreusing existing sod and augmentingthe supply with nursery sod grownfrom putting green aeration plugs.Since the existing blend of creepingbentgrass and annual bluegrass had per-formed well agronomically and offeredgood playability there was not a validargument for regrassing all 18 greens.

The new greens were designed to preserve design integrity and character while softening slopes toincrease the number of hole locations.They were built to USGA Guidelines for Putting GreenConstruction.

Saving the existing turf was definitelythe best option for maintaining puttingquality and shot reception consistencyacross the golf course.

The construction method wasanother big decision. Many differentconstruction methods could likely haveprovided acceptable results, but choosingthe USGA method provided the great-est assurance of a successful project.Rebuilding one or a few putting greensat an established golf course can be arisky project, if not a resume update forthe staff, and it is definitely the type ofproject that needs to be done right thefirst time. It was agreed that the USGAmethod was the only one with morethan 40 years of scientific testing andproven results in the field, and it was theonly way to develop clear constructionguidelines with respect to materials andmethodology for a construction con-tract that protected all parties involved.The fact that the existing greens hadbeen topdressed for decades with thesame sand used to build the newUSGA greens alleviated many layeringconcerns by reusing the existing turf,

and it also eased concern about creatingchanges with respect to playability andmanagement.

The putting green renovation atRolling Hills Country Club could nothave turned out any better. These fourgreens look and play exactly like theolder greens and are built with asuperior method that will providequality indefinitely. Thorough planning,excellent communication throughoutthe project, the selection of an experi-enced designer and builder, and atalented, experienced golf course super-intendent made this project a great casestudy for any other golf courses facedwith a similar scenario. The renovationat Rolling Hills is hard to beat.

MARK CONDON, BOB KINDER, andDAVE WEISS are the general manager, golfcourse superintendent, and green committeechair (2002-2004), respectively, at RollingHills Country Club. RICK PHELPS is a golfcourse architect with Phelps Golf Design.GREG BARTOLD and JEFF GAMBLE areemployed by Niebur Golf. MATT NELSONis a USGA Green Section agronomist.

S E P T E M B E R - O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 33