The EPA, Architects, Site Selection and feature replacement

[Patrick_Mucci]

Will EPA restrictions prevent good to great sites with water features from ever being developed into golf courses ?

Absent water features in play, what other features could be viable substitutes, especially when the need for heroic carries is desired ?

[Joe Perches]

Will EPA restrictions prevent good to great sites with water features from ever being developed into golf courses ?

What a newbie question... ;-)

Probably not.  Even superfund sites are being recycled into golf courses.  Like for instance, the Alameda Naval Air Station.

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pilot/facts/r9_38.htm
http://alameda.wordpress.com/2006/08/13/naval-air-station/

More likely to cause limitations are water rights & animal rights.  Still,  sufficient well placed capital tends over a long enough period to have the monied's desired outcome.

Absent water features in play, what other features could be viable substitutes, especially when the need for heroic carries is desired ?

Quarries come to mind.  I expect to see power lines and windmills come into play soon too.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

New Regulations in New Jersey will prevent any intrusion into a zone within 300 feet of either side of a creek/stream/waterway.

That essentially removes them from serving an architectural purpose and from normal play.

How will those wonderful features be replaced and will the 600 foot buffer zone make many sites undevelopable for golf courses ?

Think about all the great holes that would be elimlinated from existance had these regulations been in place when those holes were being designed/constructed.

Where would you position the 11th green at Merion ?

[JMorgan]

Perhaps more artificial water features and wetland mitigation fields will take their place.

Patrick, I had heard that the new 300 ft. setback laws in NJ are a state gov't reaction to overdevelopment in many neighboring Eastern PA counties.  Is this true?  I know that it is causing huge headaches for architects and landscape architects, as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JMorgan,

I think the new Regulations take advantage of the existing regulations by extending the definition to include tributaries feeding into the originally classified waterways, which was not the original intent, and, they expanded the buffer out to 300 feet.

Someone on this site once said that if you can float a popsicle stick in it, you've now got EPA problems.

I think the issue is akin to "eminant domain" in some ways, where Government has used an Elephant gun to kill a mesquito in a grand rather than specific application.

There are many issues revolving around this issue.

Environmentalists blanketly approve this type of regulation.
Anti-development groups also approve it.

These views can conflict with the issue of affordable housing, which, in a densely populated state, centered in certain areas, is an issue.

However, there are vast tracts of land that aren't developed in NJ.  It is these lands that hold out the most hope for those seeking affordable housing.  If they can't be developed in a responsible way, what will happen to housing costs and where will young or minimal/moderate income families live ?

Rather than apply common sense, or situation specific rules, a blanket regulation was issued.

I know of several situations where a business and homeowner wanted to expand their existing facility, on property they've owned for 50 + years, and they were prevented from doing so because of the recently expanded buffer zone.

But, back to golf.

Think of Pebble Beach, Merion, Augusta, Seminole, Pine Valley, Winged Foot, National, and many other great golf courses that would cease to exist had these regulations been in effect.

Now consider this.

Will courses designed and built subsequent to these types of regulations be without any natural water features ?

Will Fazio's water creations at Shadow Creek become the new wave of water features in golf course architecture ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
The 300' setbacks are for C1 waterways, those described as 'exceptional' in various categories. C2's have a 150' setback and other waterways have 75'.

If I was developing golf, or homes, or any property in NJ, I would not like the regulations. On the other hand, it does put NJ in the forefront of protecting it's watersheds and waterways from surface pollutants. That probably helps the state, as a whole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Perhaps the regulations should be "USE" oriented.

I'm hard pressed to understand how all of the golf courses in the Metropolitan NY area have hurt the environment over the last 100 years or so.

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick, hard pressed to understand?  Golf courses have less impact than the general public believes, and more impact than YOU think.

Considering there have been numerous studies that show a very bad impact of housing on waterways and watersheds, it is not difficult to understand why someone would consider golf courses to have a serious impact.

The other thing Patrick, and you have posted about this several times, water, clean water, is becoming more scarce. Mitigation in advance, though unpleasant to some, is probably cheaper in the long term, and will go a long way to assure we have adequate, CHEAPER, and good quality water in the future. There is no better example of this than the Clark Fork River here in Montana. It is the largest Super Fund site in America, stretching for better than 150 miles. Mitigation of years of mining waste has cost in the hundreds of millions and the surface has barely been scratched. A tributary, Rock Creek, has had landuse restrictions for years (and lots of "friends"), and is a high quailty fishery with tremedous water quality. For miles downstream from where it dumps into the Clark Fork it improves water quality and the fishery on the CF.

[Joe Perches]

New Regulations in New Jersey will prevent any intrusion into a zone within 300 feet of either side of a creek/stream/waterway.

It's a NJDEP question then.

That essentially removes them from serving an architectural purpose and from normal play.

True enough.

I'm a regulatory simpleton when it comes to environmental rules.  Obviously I'm not from New Jersey.

Perhaps insufficient monied capital has been applied?  Perhaps there's a perceived or real statewide environmental need for regulation?

I'd equate golf to farming.  Does the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act have different rules for water encroachment for farmers?  I'd probably find it acceptable to mandate organic farming rules for grading, pesticides, fertilizers and such to golf course use.  That's much more stringent than say soccer fields should get.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I wouldn't be the one to say that they(courses) have, although I wouldn't be the one to say they haven't. Hell, the drippings from all the cars in their parking lots runs off to... where? Wash out the sprayer after applying pesticides and the water goes...where?   But, the trees help clean the air and the vegetation helps clean the run-offs, so go figure.  
I think you know what side I favor, although I can't dismiss the efforts of the other, especially when I take my granddaughter swimming.


 

[Powell Arms]

As a commercial developer, I am face with these situations quite often.  As stated above, the quality of the waterway, as determined by DEP and ACOE determines the required setback, and that clearly is a limitation on options for development.  The result is the forced carry over wetland buffers.

Other local and state regs go well beyond that, and limit intrusion on "high quality" upland forests, flood plains, storm water discharge, and much more.  In short, it will take a lot of patience, expertise and lobbying to accomplish any development, at least in the northeast US.  

I am sure others can comment better than I, but I imagine all of these constraints would limit the routing options of a virign piece of land.

That said, man-made water feautres are probably the only kind that could be easily incorporated into a course today.  Of course, after their wet the ACOE will assume juristiction so hope the design is timeless!

[Kyle Harris]

Perhaps more artificial water features and wetland mitigation fields will take their place.

Patrick, I had heard that the new 300 ft. setback laws in NJ are a state gov't reaction to overdevelopment in many neighboring Eastern PA counties.  Is this true?  I know that it is causing huge headaches for architects and landscape architects, as well.

Not sure where you could develop along the Delaware in Eastern PA. In Bucks County, the canal or large estates are there and north of Easton/Stroudsburg is the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.

[Marty Bonnar]

I'm looking to do some pretty simple coastal defence work at Crail Golf Course. A few gabions to re-inforce some previously made-up ground which is being washed out by ever higher tides.

So far, I am dealing with:

Fife Council:- Planning Dept. for permissions, Engineering Dept. for Design approvals.

SEPA: for environmental considerations.

Crown Estates: Land owners between Low and High Tide marks.

SNH: Coastline is a 'triple S.I.' (a 'Site of Special Scientific Interest') and requires special permissions for adjacent work.

Assorted Lawyers, Planning Supers., Contractors, Consultants, Uncle freakin Tom Cobley and all.

It's a sodding wonder anything gets done at all. Did I mention the Health and Safety Executive yet? Or as I like to call them the H and 'F' S Exec.....

Why did I not become a lawyer or an accountant or something easy like a brain surgeon...?

FBD.

[Patrick_Mucci]

That said, man-made water feautres are probably the only kind that could be easily incorporated into a course today.  

Of course, after their wet the ACOE will assume juristiction so hope the design is timeless!

Powell,

That's a critical point.

Once the man made feature is added it comes under the jurisdiction of a number of agencies and altering or fine tuning it may be impossible, which strikes me as absurd.

Perhaps architects should submit plans, inclusive of future alterations, for approval at the get go.

In other words, variations of the creek/stream/water feature that would be acceptable to the permitting agencies in any one of their forms, present or future.[/color]

[Powell Arms]

That said, man-made water feautres are probably the only kind that could be easily incorporated into a course today.  

Of course, after their wet the ACOE will assume juristiction so hope the design is timeless!

Powell,

That's a critical point.

Once the man made feature is added it comes under the jurisdiction of a number of agencies and altering or fine tuning it may be impossible, which strikes me as absurd.

Perhaps architects should submit plans, inclusive of future alterations, for approval at the get go.

In other words, variations of the creek/stream/water feature that would be acceptable to the permitting agencies in any one of their forms, present or future.[/color]

I think it would be possible to get apporoval of a plan to be constructed in phases, but that would have limitations, such as (i) a defined timeline for the construction of the future phases and (ii) a definition of the future phase, meaning one could not adapt a design to suit future conditions, that needs to be thought of now.   Quite impossible, IMO.

I will do a bit of research on the conversion of man-made water features into regulated waters of the US.  

What strikes me, and I'm sure it has been discussed here before, is that many of the classic courses we all reverewould not be "permitable" today.  So modern architects, while having superior construction technology, are not hamstrucng by "all of the good sites already being improved with golf courses", but rather, "it is [almost] impossible to build a course that interacts with nature today, in the mold of any classic course bisected by a stream, near a coastline, etc."

[Craig Sweet]

Powell...the question is why would the classic courses not be permitible today?  What has happened?

My opinion is you can not blame politicians for responding to consituant pressure...nor can you blame "do gooders" from responding to perceived impacts....yet somewhere along the way something real, or imagined, happened and politician passed laws in response.

Are we more aware of potential impacts on watersheds from development? Have we as a society decided that water quality is more important than golf courses...or certain growth? Have we created a judicial system that makes it easier for all citizens to be a party to litigation?

Once again, if we have figured out that water quality at any cost is more important than growth at any cost then I think we have made an evolutionary leap...and the cost to the economy is not that important...but that is my opinion and I know it is not shared by many that post here.

So what has happened?

[Powell Arms]

Powell...the question is why would the classic courses not be permitible today?  What has happened?

My opinion is you can not blame politicians for responding to consituant pressure...nor can you blame "do gooders" from responding to perceived impacts....yet somewhere along the way something real, or imagined, happened and politician passed laws in response.

Are we more aware of potential impacts on watersheds from development? Have we as a society decided that water quality is more important than golf courses...or certain growth? Have we created a judicial system that makes it easier for all citizens to be a party to litigation?

Once again, if we have figured out that water quality at any cost is more important than growth at any cost then I think we have made an evolutionary leap...and the cost to the economy is not that important...but that is my opinion and I know it is not shared by many that post here.

So what has happened?

I believe we, as a society, have become more focused on water quality and preservation of natural resources, and I believe all these are good goals.  However, I think we are at a time now, at least in the northeastern US, where those concerns have been elevated to such a level that the resultant regulation has taken away a significant amount of private property rights.  When thinking in the context of all development, that regulation is good, preventing dirty industrial development ca. 1920 - 1960.

Certainly, there will always be those that want no development, and there will always be those that want completely unregulated development.  IMO, the real problem in the regulations in not the intent, it is the lack of clarity in individual regualtions and the lack of coordination among all of the various government agencies at the local, state and federal level, making it exrodinarily difficult to satisfy what, in some cases, are mutually exclusive goals from regulatory bodies.

[Steve Lang]

 

Pat,

Please change EPA to NJDEP in your Subject line..  

Yes navigable waters of the USA have been defined with the popsicle stick test.. but I believe matters like you're alluding to are a matter of NJDEP's protection of "waters of the state" of NJ...

Section 303d of the federal Clean Water Act (& Amendments) has required states to define and the EPA to agree with lists of impaired water quality segments across the USA.. states are developing TMDL (total maximum daily load) studies and other mitigation measures (I assume setback distances in NJ) to continue CWA objectives.. this is really not unlike setback distances for farm fields to address non-point source pollution..

as far as hazards.. nothing beats water for finality.. we had some experience wth long grasses at WCC and it was a mess, unless you were a snake or small rodent..  so does an eveil rock filled gully work?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

Are there ANY definitive studies that show that golf courses have had a substantive, adverse affect on water quality, especially drinking water ?

Powell,

It's my understanding in NJ, that the regulations are indifferent to source creation, natural or man made.

In other words, once wetlands is created, it comes under the regulations.

Steve Lang,

I don't see any new farmlands being created in NJ.

The category one (C1) designation was established in 1985.
It was based on TROUT production.
Offsets were created.

Since 1985 many sites were acquired by interested parties interested in developing the property, who clearly understood the regulations and the offsets.

Now, the NJDEP seeks to expand both the definition of a Category One Stream (C1) as well as the offsets, essentially destroying the plans of those who spent considerable sums to develop the land under the 1985 regulations.

In some cases, this is tantamount to confiscation of the land, at a cost borne solely by the owner.

As to golf courses, it essentially sounds the death knell for integrating water features with a golf course and makes many parcels formerly ideal for golf, undesirable, unbuildable and unsalable at any meaningful value.

[Joe Perches]

Are there ANY definitive studies that show that golf courses have had a substantive, adverse affect on water quality, especially drinking water?

Definitive, substantive and adverse are interpretative no?

Discounting the USGA and Turfgrass sites, my google monkey tells me:

Effects of a coastal golf complex on water quality
Export of nutrients from golf courses on the Precambrian Shield
Water-quality and physical characteristics of streams[[...]]

(I modified the link names because the thread layout was difficult to read)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Perches,

Did you bother to read the material you linked, or did you just post it for the heck of it without carefully reading my question ?

The question remains:

Are there ANY definitive studies that show that GOLF COURSES have had a substantive, adverse affect on water quality, especially drinking water ?

[Joe Perches]

Did you bother to read the material you linked

Why, yes I did, and several others.  Did you?

Are there ANY definitive studies that show that GOLF COURSES have had a substantive, adverse affect on water quality, especially drinking water ?

What does definitive, substantive, and adverse mean?  To whom?  It's fundamentally a political question isn't it?

[Powell Arms]

Powell,

It's my understanding in NJ, that the regulations are indifferent to source creation, natural or man made.

In other words, once wetlands is created, it comes under the regulations.

As to golf courses, it essentially sounds the death knell for integrating water features with a golf course and makes many parcels formerly ideal for golf, undesirable, unbuildable and unsalable at any meaningful value.

Agreed, and I believe this extends to waterways and drainage features as well.  As I stated above, I think it unlikely that many of the claasic courses would be able to be permitted today.  Think Pine Valley - probably undevelopable due to pineland regualtions.  Merion - would #11 be permitted today?  It'd be interesting to look at the permitting process for a new classic, and see what cpmpromises, if any, regulations had on the routing.  I think that could help answer the original question.  It would seem that choices of routings are limited by regulation.  Heroic carry over water or wetland would still be applicable, but might lead to a redundancy of hole design as the same feature is traversed numerous times.

And yes, this burden of often contradictory regulatory layers is a governmental taking.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Did you bother to read the material you linked

Why, yes I did, and several others.


Then why post a study that's NOT applicable or doesn't answer the question ?[/color]
 
Did you?

Thoroughly[/color]

Are there ANY definitive studies that show that GOLF COURSES have had a substantive, adverse affect on water quality, especially drinking water ?

What does definitive, substantive, and adverse mean?  


Use your same google search monkey to find out[/color]

To whom?  

Noah Webster[/color]

It's fundamentally a political question isn't it?


Not unless you don't know what the definition of IS, is.[/color]

[Joe Perches]

Then why post a study that's NOT applicable or doesn't answer the question ?

Same references by title:
Effects of a coastal golf complex on water quality
Excerpt of abstract:
mercury, lead, arsenic, and atrazine commonly occurred at all locations. Only mercury and lead exceeded water quality criteria. Concentrations of nutrients and chlorophyll a were greater in fairway ponds and some adjacent coastal areas relative to reference locations and Florida estuaries

Export of nutrients from golf courses on the Precambrian Shield
Excerpt of abstract:
Overall, the mean annual fluxes of K, TN, NO3 and TP from golf courses were greater than from forested areas by 10, 2, 6 and 2 times, respectively.
Golf courses increase nutrient loads in receiving streams.

Water-quality and physical characteristics of streams[[...]]
Excerpts of abstract:
Water samples from the residential and golf-course site contained the greatest number of pesticides (10). Five of six samples collected at this site had detectable concentrations of simazine, atrazine, and pendimethalin-all herbicides used to control weeds in crops or turf.
Orthophosphate accounted for more than half of the phosphorus yield at the residential and golf-course site.

Thoroughly

Perhaps.

What does definitive, substantive, and adverse mean?
Use your same google search monkey to find out

Easy enough:  Note the multiple definitions please.
definite, substantive adverse

I've always thought "definitive study" an oxymoron.  Studies always have a "point of view".  For studies paid for directly or indirectly by the USGA and Turfgrass there is one, studies paid for by Friends of the Earth another.   It's oddly predictable how the study results differ.

I don't think you'll ever get unbiased "definitive studies that show that golf courses have had a substantive, adverse affect on water quality, especially drinking water" as you asked, or the converse positive effect either.  In this thread or in the real world.

cheers,  Joe