News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Guy Corcoran, Jr

  • Karma: +0/-0
Sebonack Golf Club article in Southampton Press
« on: September 07, 2004, 12:47:15 PM »
Here is an article in the most recent Southampton Press concerning SGC.

After more than a year of review, the Southampton Town Planning Board this week gave the green light to Michael Pascucci’s proposal to build a world-class all-organic golf course at the site of the former Bayberry Land retreat in Shinnecock Hills.

On Thursday, August 26, the board approved Mr. Pascucci’s and his family’s application to build the Sebonack Golf Club on a portion of the 298-acre former union retreat on the north side of Sebonack Road and Cold Spring Point Road that Mr. Pascucci purchased for $45 million three years ago.

Now, as the summer sun sets, the real work on the course begins. The club’s newly appointed crew will toil every day this fall and through next year to construct the waterfront course and prepare for its grand opening in the spring of 2006.

According to Mr. Pascucci, a car leasing magnate and the owner of Channel 55 in Melville, the overall appearance of the course, which is being co-designed by championship golfer Jack Nicklaus and Tom Doak of Renaissance Golf, will be traditional in nature, having the natural and rugged look of the original Scottish courses.

“It’ll be a combination of links and parkland,” he said, adding that the layout will be strategic in nature, offering a number of putting options.

But what will make the course absolutely unique, he said, is its fully integrated, organic system of maintenance.

The future 18-hole private course is being touted as the nation’s first fully organic golf course.

But there is some debate as to what that means—and whether it can be done.

As any golf course manager will tell you, turf maintenance is a complicated task, with golf traffic, climate conditions, maintenance practices, disease, insects, and more, all threatening to damage the grounds.
And tantamount to maintaining a healthy, aesthetic course is the purpose of cultivating greens for the sport of golf. Cut the grass too short and it dies, too tall and it doesn’t play well. Water too much and the grass is soft, too little and the greens can burn.

With all this delicate manipulation, is it possible to organically maintain a successful golf course?

Sebonack Golf Club has promised to try.

“They actually want to demonstrate that golf course construction and operation does not have to be detrimental to the environment,” said Planning Board Chairman Dennis Finnerty. “They’ve bent over backwards to be sensitive to our concerns about groundwater recharge.”

According to environmental consultant Bob Grover of Greenman-Pederson, who has spent three years helping to plan the Sebonack project, modern golf courses pose a great threat to the environment because they use chemical-based treatments to kill disease in plants.

“They put down pesticides and herbicides on a pro-active basis to prevent disease without necessarily any knowledge that it would occur,” he said, noting that such toxins kill natural soil bacteria as well as contaminate groundwater.

“The environmental costs of chemicals are very high,” he continued, noting the carcinogenic effects of pesticides. “Many old golf course superintendents have died of cancer and it’s not a coincidence. There’s already a movement toward significant reduction of chemical use because of that.”

Sebonack’s course managers, Mr. Grover said, will use natural methods to promote healthy vegetation that is more resistant to disease and pests, instead of relying on chemical treatments, which strip turf of its natural defenses.

Turf samples, he said, are already being tested to determine Sebonack’s soil composition. Once the soil is profiled, missing microorganisms will then be added to achieve the proper levels—a process called “soil inoculation.”

“The turf should maintain its own health if you maintain the appropriate balance,” he said.

Despite these organic efforts, some members of the golf industry believe plant disease is inevitable and claim that chemical treatment is a necessary tool for turf maintenance.

According to Dr. Joseph Vargas, a plant pathologist at Michigan State University, organic maintenance cannot prevent plant disease caused by environmental conditions, such as high humidity and temperature.

“We can do things to reduce the severity and help prevent,” he said, “but if the environmental conditions are right, there will be disease. It needs to be treated with some sort of chemical.”

Dr. Vargas also stated that some fungi, such as Pythium, Dollar Spots and Brown Patch, prey on healthy grass and require immediate chemical treatment.

“Under certain conditions, fungi can be devastating,” added Matthew Burrows, assistant superintendent of National Golf Links of America, naming Pythium as an example. “If untreated, you can lose substantial turfgrass in 24 hours.”

“Those things may happen,” conceded Mr. Grover, “and we may have to use a product.”

For those “emergency situations,” Mr. Grover said, all 18 greens will have an underground liner to collect toxins and prevent them from entering the environment, while fairways will use a water collection device called a lysimeter to monitor groundwater seepage in those areas.

The water will be recirculated, preventing it from polluting groundwater under the course.

According to Dr. Frank Rossi, a turfgrass specialist and professor at Cornell University, and who has also consulted on the Sebonack project, while Sebonack’s course managers will occasionally need to spray pesticides, they will avoid severe chemicals.

“To their credit,” he said, “they will be choosing the least toxic materials.”

Although Dr. Rossi commended Mr. Pascucci’s “progressive” efforts at organic maintenance, he said it is simply not possible to naturally maintain a golf course in this region.

“We just don’t have the technology for them to go completely organic,” he said. “The completely organic golf courses that I’m aware of are in climates where the severe pests that we struggle with are not a problem.”

Dr. Rossi also said that total reliance on organic protocols at some international courses negatively affects the playability of putting greens.

“They don’t provide the kinds of conditioning that most people who join or play here would tolerate,” he said.

According to Superintendent Bill Shuford, who uses some organic methods at Laurel Links Country Club on the North Fork, standard golf turf maintenance practices, such as cutting grass down to an eighth of an inch, weaken its natural resistance to disease.

“Grass wants to be around three to four inches,” he said. “When you stress it with maintenance equipment, it is more susceptible.”

Mr. Grover said Sebonack will rely heavily upon monitoring the grounds, citing its plan to use a Global Positioning System to record incidence of disease as well as an on-site laboratory to train staff and keep them informed of advances in organic maintenance.

“The increased level of vigilance and data-keeping will be a huge help,” he said.

While Sebonack may never be fully organic, Mr. Pascucci said he is willing to make it as organic as possible and hopes to establish an environmental standard for other courses.

“We’d like to show that with all the technology now,” he said, “there’s no reason to use an enormous amount of pesticides.”



Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack Golf Club article in Southampton Press
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2004, 01:30:32 PM »
a portion of the 298-acre former union retreat

Anyone know how much the course is using or not using, and what the rest is planned for?
Thank you
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Sebonack Golf Club article in Southampton Press
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2004, 01:48:00 PM »
BigDuke6,

With all of these terrible things that golf courses are alleged to do to the environment, can anyone identify and quantify the damage done by NGLA over the last 80-100 years ?

They are right next to each other, aren't they ?

rgkeller

Re:Sebonack Golf Club article in Southampton Press
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2004, 03:50:39 PM »
BigDuke6,

With all of these terrible things that golf courses are alleged to do to the environment, can anyone identify and quantify the damage done by NGLA over the last 80-100 years ?
 

Is it possible that pesticide contamination from National into the drinking water is the cause of the obsessively strange behavior among the denizens of Long Island's East End?

A_Clay_Man

Re:Sebonack Golf Club article in Southampton Press
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2004, 08:51:29 PM »
No better reason to document the process on film!

Seems reasonable enough to only allow members to join who DON'T expect the conditions Dr. Rossi assumes.

If the members at Shinnecock can accept a dirt cart path, Sebonack's should be able to handle the unpredictable lies associated with "organic" turf. No?

Bravo Sebonack, for at least trying.

If those enviro-nazi's are getting bored watching the weeds grow in dreary old south Hampton, come to New Mexico. There's tons to complain about.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2004, 08:53:04 PM by Adam Clayman »

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack Golf Club article in Southampton Press
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2004, 09:27:49 PM »
This article raises one issue that I would be interested in knowing more about, namely the incidence of cancer among golf course supers and course maintenance personnel.  I have heard that golf course supers have experienced a cancer rate over the years far higher than virtually any other profession and the male population in general.  Does anyone know if this is true or just an old wives' tale?  Have any studies been done on this issue by the supers association?  I cannot imagine any thing more relevant to the use of chemicals and pesticides on golf courses than this issue.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Sebonack Golf Club article in Southampton Press
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2004, 09:35:16 PM »
David Tepper,

Where did you hear that ?

What type of cancer ?

Were they smokers ?

Did they eat fatty foods ?

Was there cancer in their family ?

Is their alleged incidence rate higher then farmers ?
« Last Edit: September 07, 2004, 09:39:34 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack Golf Club article in Southampton Press
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2004, 10:14:51 PM »
Mr. Mucci-

Bob Grover, in this article above on Sebonack, says "Many old golf course superintendents have died of cnacer and it's not a coincidence."  What data he is basing that statement upon I cannot say.

I know I have read at least one article in the past stating that the rate of cancer among golf course supers was unusually high. I cannot recall when or where that article was published. Possibly, it was in the Wall Street Journal.

Bascially, I am asking the same question you are. What studies have been done on this issue and what are their results?  Has the golf course supers association sponsored any research on this matter?

DT  

 

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack Golf Club article in Southampton Press
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2004, 07:23:58 PM »


Mr. Grover said Sebonack will rely heavily upon monitoring the grounds, citing its plan to use a Global Positioning System to record incidence of disease as well as an on-site laboratory to train staff and keep them informed of advances in organic maintenance.



Maybe this explains the big ticket membership fee that is being bandied about.  ;D

Don_Mahaffey

Re:Sebonack Golf Club article in Southampton Press
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2004, 09:00:08 PM »
There was a study done about a decade ago that tried to prove supts died of cancer at a higher rate then the general public. As I recall the study was quickly dismissed because it didn't follow protocol, or something like that, I really don't remember. It was pretty obvious that the folks who released it had an agenda and it wasn't science.

Honestly, that's one of the most disappointing press releases I've read in a long time. And is it just me or is it full of contradictions also? The "expert" condemns chemicals and their use, but then says they will use them if need be?
The course sells itself as organic? Does that mean it will meet the same federal standards as produce which is certified organic? Are they serious or is this just hype? Forget about the architecture, the real story at this project will be how this mess turns out. I guarantee you no one is paying 500K to putt on dirt or greens 1/4 inch long. I'm voting that all the organic talk is warm and fuzzy but this course doesn't come close to meeting the same standards true organic growers meet.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack Golf Club article in Southampton Press
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2004, 09:16:51 PM »
As Don mentions there was a study done around 15 years ago on cancer and supts.  My Father-in-law had been a super at Everglades, Gulfstream and Indian Creek his entire life, died of prostate cancer and always mixed chemicals with no mask or gloves etc.  They had contacted him..This probably was prevalent practice among supers as well as farmers or anyone that mixed chemicals.  So it was not just golf supts.  Don is correct...the project was abandoned.  
But FYI corn and cotton uses 10 times the pesticides per acre as a golf course.  But it is not politically correct to slam farmers.  
And..I have recently heard that airline pilots have a higher risk than supts.   relative to radioactive environment(dash and head phones radios etc) and air at high altitude(chernoyl affects still exist at 30,000 ft)... but a high incidence of brain cancer and lung cancer....had a friend was pilot and died of this...his wife mentions being contacted for the study etc...
« Last Edit: September 08, 2004, 09:19:15 PM by Mike_Young »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

GeoffreyC

Re:Sebonack Golf Club article in Southampton Press
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2004, 10:00:42 PM »
I think its great that Sabonac will emphasize organic techniques.  That can only help the environment.

However, I question why this always becomes such a political issue every time a golf course is built.

Superintendents are highly trained in the use of pesticides and chemicals on the land and they do so using minimal doses. Farmers are also supposed to be trained but does anyone check this constantly and can someone please try to give me the total acreage in the US of farmland that receives pecticide treatment versus golf courses?

Furthermere- as I understand it use of pesticides on home lawns by untrained morons like me  ;D without any idea about doses, timing of treatments relative to weather and other factors is TOTALLY unregulated.  Can someone please tell me the relative acreage of home lawns given unregulated pesticide treatments versus REGULATED TRAINED application by superintendents on golf courses?

Thank you.

OOPS- Mike Young - I just read your post- I agree obviously.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2004, 10:02:08 PM by Geoffrey Childs »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back