TEPaul,
Usually, when you see a pit with sand in it, you can conclude that it's a bunker. Especially when renderings of the hole confirm its existance.
With respect to # 17, I'll tell you why I oppose it.
Because it favors the big hitter and puts less of a premium on driving accuracy.
Up until a few years ago I could hit a nice draw into the slot of the left rough and center bunker complex 80 yards or so short of the green. This would leave me with a wide open, totally unobstructed view and shot to the 17th green.
It was a dicey drive, but, I probably hit my driver straighter than some of my other clubs.
If you widen the left side, you expand that area such that the risk-reward is diminished on the drive because of the expanded LZ.
There used to be a good sized tree guarding the left side.
With the removal of that tree the entire left side becomes benign to the long hitter. Why give them more of an advantage ? Let them have to run the gauntlet or slot.
If they miss it right, they'll be in the center bunker complex and if they miss it right, let them be in good rough, not perfect fairway, with nothing to challenge them on their next shot.
Moving the gates doesn't alter the golf course.
It would allow the theory of elasticity, a theory widely employed at NGLA, to preserve the angle of attack, so vital to the tee shot on # 18, while at the same time bringing the left side bunker complex into play for today's longer hitter.
One only has to look at # 2, # 8, # 12 and # 14 to see the benefit of utilizing elasticity when it's available.
The moving of the gates would allow for elasticity where it is sorely needed.