The EPA, Architects, Site Selection and feature replacement

[Craig Sweet]

Joe...Patrick said "drinking water" in his challenge...

"Drinking" water is such a minor use of water in this country...

I have seen the studies you mentioned, and obviously if Patirck has seen them he either chooses to ignore them, or disagrees with them so strongly that he refuses to acknowledge them....like I said in my first response...the impact is not as great as people thing, and its greater than HE thinks....

Water hazzards, in my opinion have become nothing more than a place to dump irrigation water and architects work them into the design for that reason only..."if I have to have this irrigation pond I may as well locate it strategically"....in the days before courses had the fancy double row irrigation with lines running into the rough and fancy computer controls etc, the exisiting, natural water features were intregal, strategic  components of the course....considering I have built long, recirculating "creeks" and "streams" that you would be hard pressed to tell were not natural, I don't see why we should be discouraged that we can't use the natural features....

[paul cowley]

I don't contest the grey area of set backs like I used to, having found it an illogical, political, hypocritical, irrational, much of it based on non proven science, and well....it just sucks, and is not a fair experience.....a sorry one really.

Life is too short [as I write this I am thinking of a developer in the Catskills who has invested 10 years of his life trying to permit a course and is now 71, and has no end in site....on a good project that has become a political football between State Agencies......Four+ mil down the tubes so far].

The easy way is to just design around or with the 'givens' or rules.....no matter how illogical or contradictory they might be.

If you can't find a way to do this, then just pass on the property......which is the advice I've given on many an occasion.

Its just not worth the contest.

[Willie_Dow]

Here at Salters we have six holes, with five greens.  We would like to get back to the nine holes prior to the 1938 hurricane.  It would demand that EPA restrictions be waived to accomplish these changes.  Is there any grandfathered clause available to avoid these restrictions ?

[paul cowley]

Sorry Willie, but my guess is that your request will end up in the 'Not a chance in Hell' Department.

Hopefully they won't arrest you for thinking out loud along those lines.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Paul Cowley,
You wound the Orchard Creek course close to or around a river,  streams, a pond and wetlands.   How much trouble was it to get the necessary approvals?
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe...Patrick said "drinking water" in his challenge...

"Drinking" water is such a minor use of water in this country...

I have seen the studies you mentioned, and obviously if Patirck has seen them he either chooses to ignore them, or disagrees with them so strongly that he refuses to acknowledge them....like I said in my first response...the impact is not as great as people thing, and its greater than HE thinks....

How do you know what I think ?[/color]

Water hazzards, in my opinion have become nothing more than a place to dump irrigation water and architects work them into the design for that reason only...

You must be kidding.

Could you cite examples where the sole reason for incorporating a creek/stream into a design was to be the dump for irrigation water ?

Do you feel that that's the only reason that Rae's Creek was incorporated into the design at ANGC ?[/color]

"if I have to have this irrigation pond I may as well locate it strategically"....in the days before courses had the fancy double row irrigation with lines running into the rough and fancy computer controls etc, the exisiting, natural water features were intregal, strategic  components of the course....considering I have built long, recirculating "creeks" and "streams" that you would be hard pressed to tell were not natural, I don't see why we should be discouraged that we can't use the natural features....

How do you reconcile the above statement with the location of the retention pond at The Medalist where it's far removed from the golf course ?

Bandon Dunes ?
Pacific Dunes ?
Friar's Head ?
Hidden Creek ?
[/color]

[paul cowley]

Jim....Orchard Creek was one of the easiest courses to get permitted because it is located inside an active apple growing operation.....and since golf courses use only 25% as much fertilizer and pesticides as an orchard [this was using numbers from the States own studies], the agencies wisely decided it would be a benefit, as it reduced their use by 75%.

This was the only time that I have ever seen a golf course treated as if it was an agricultural operation.

Usually they are held to the same permit standards as a shopping center, or any other commercial venture......of course its not fair, but they don't care, because to admit otherwise would take away their leverage and power to control construction.

When was the last time you saw a farmer putting up silt fence around a field that he was planting twice a year?

Or was only able to work 25 acres at a time without soil stabilization?

Or have to put in storm water runoff or retention areas downhill of areas he was plowing and planting?

Etc.....

[Jim_Kennedy]

Paul,
Thanks for the info. If I ever hit the lotto and want to build a golf course I am going to find the land, plant some apple trees, sow some corn, buy a sow, THEN apply!

 

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick....did Augusta have irrigation when Rae's Creek was incorporated into the design?

Beside's Patrick, I said water hazzards have """become""" dumping grounds for irrigation...implying that MODERN golf course design puts them in for a purpose, not necessarily for "design" and strategic reasons...they have to be there, so they may as well be strategic

Regarding those other courses you mentioned...bandon, Friars head, etc...I have never played them and I have no idea whether they even have water hazzards on them, and no idea whether they have irrigation beyond some quick couplers...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

Other than at Shadow Creek, which is 100 % artificial, I don't know of any golf course where creeks running the length of a hole were thrust upon the golf course.

Perhaps some courses in your area fit the descriptions you've listed.

Could you name the courses and the holes where water features were inserted to capture the irrigation and function like a dump for this water ?

[Craig Sweet]

Sure Patrick, I can name several that I know of. How about you?

Where does the irrigation water on those courses in the northern climates go when they are drained in fall?  

getting back to your original post...

I think it's the best thing to happen in a long time...this buffer around wetlands, streams and ponds....so what if it means an architect has to "work around" setbacks and buffer zones....water is the most precious resource we have, so why not give it some distance....or is doing some extra permitting and spending a few thousand more a big inconveniance?  The world is so harsh and cruel.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sure Patrick, I can name several that I know of.

Then, go ahead and name them.[/color]

How about you?

I'm not the one who made the claim.[/color]

Where does the irrigation water on those courses in the northern climates go when they are drained in fall?  

The same place it would have gone had it not been retained in a holding pond.  Many holding ponds are merely expanded waterways that existed prior to the expansion, hence, the water will go where it has always gone, and, most holding ponds get their water from:
1  Upstream
2  Wells
3  Rain[/color]

getting back to your original post...

I think it's the best thing to happen in a long time...this buffer around wetlands, streams and ponds....so what if it means an architect has to "work around" setbacks and buffer zones....

The "so what" is that it's nearly impossible to work around a 600 foot buffer on a stream.

The "so what" is that natural streams/creeks will NEVER become an integral part of a golf course.

The "so what" is that ponds and creeks can never front or flank greens.

The architectural "so what's" are enormous.[/color]

water is the most precious resource we have, so why not give it some distance

Why, if it doesn't need distance ?

Have the 10th, 11th and 13th holes at The Creek harmed the water or any drinking water ?

Have the 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th and 16th holes at ANGC harmed the water or the drinking water ?

There should be a prudent man approach, not an alarmist or extremist approach to the use of all resources.[/color]

....or is doing some extra permitting and spending a few thousand more a big inconveniance?  

It may be.
It's always easy to spend other people's money casually.
But, cost alone is not the issue, the removal of water features as an integral part of the design is the issue.[/color]

The world is so harsh and cruel.

Especially when extremists try to enforce their views on others, at the others expense.

P.S.  You'll notice that NONE of the Al Queda extremist
        leaders are sending their kids on suicide missions.
[/color]

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick, I won't name any for you, but I'm sure you can use your imagination and come up with some courses...

Many holding ponds are merely expanded waterways that existed PRIOR to the expansion???  Oh, so you admit golf courses are dumping irrigation water into previouosly existing waterways? The very waterways the legislation is trying to protect?

Patrick, NONE of the "so whats" are a problem.  A "man made" pond in front of a green is still allowed...a "man made" creek is still allowed....and natural streams can still exist if the developer can mitigate impacts....

Once again Patrick, I have never seen "The Creek" or "ANGC" much less studied the water or drank from the water...so I have no idea....I can tell you from my experience on the golf courses I have played, that the golf course HAS harmed the water quality...algea blooms, invasive plant species are but two "harms"....they have not harmed me, but I'm sure the fish, insects, birds, turtles, frogs, etc that live in and around these ponds have been impacted...(oh,but you once posted here that ONLY the impacts on humans, and the needs of humans mattered)....

"Why, if it doesn't need distance ?"

Are you saying waterways DO NOT need protection from golf course run off?  

Finally Patrick...you show your true colors...those that promote protecting natural resources are not "prudent men", but are "extremist" trying to enforce "their" view....

George Bush and his lackies use the same language when discribing those against the war...they are "liberals" and the "fringe element"...yet poll after poll show better than 70% of AMERICANS want us out of Iraq now!  Amazing how the majority is a "fringe element" in their mind...

I wonder how many people think protecting watersheds and waterways is important?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, I won't name any for you, but I'm sure you can use your imagination and come up with some courses...

Many holding ponds are merely expanded waterways that existed PRIOR to the expansion???  Oh, so you admit golf courses are dumping irrigation water into previouosly existing waterways?

Not at all.
That's your conclusion, not mine.
If you read my post carefully I stated that there wasn't any dumping, that the water supply came into the retention area, created from expanding an existing waterway, came from upstream, wells and rain.  I don't consider any of those three sources to be "dumping" as you imply.[/color]

The very waterways the legislation is trying to protect?

Protect from what, upstream flow, well supply and rain ?[/color]

Patrick, NONE of the "so whats" are a problem.  A "man made" pond in front of a green is still allowed...a "man made" creek is still allowed....and natural streams can still exist if the developer can mitigate impacts....

That's not true.

Once created the buffer must be in place.

And, if you think it's going to be easy to create a working waterway outside the reach of the regulations, you're dreaming.[/color]

Once again Patrick, I have never seen "The Creek" or "ANGC" much less studied the water or drank from the water...so I have no idea....I can tell you from my experience on the golf courses I have played, that the golf course HAS harmed the water quality...algea blooms, invasive plant species are but two "harms"....

That happens on waterways with NO CONNECTION to golf.
That happens NATURALLY as well.[/color]

they have not harmed me, but I'm sure the fish, insects, birds, turtles, frogs, etc that live in and around these ponds have been impacted...

To what degree have they been harmed ?
And is there a substantive incremental difference between those conditions happening in a non-golf course environment versus a golf environment ?[/color]

(oh,but you once posted here that ONLY the impacts on humans, and the needs of humans mattered)....

Yes, I'm one of those weirdos that thinks that human needs take precendence over the needs of fish, insects, birds, turtles and frogs.

Just to give you a broader sense of my views I'm not an advocate of hunting and fishing unless the hunter or fisherman is doing so to feed his family.

If we applied today's standards, retro active to 1492, America wouldn't be developed much beyond deepest Africa and the standard of living would be abominable compared to today's.[/color]

"Why, if it doesn't need distance ?"

Are you saying waterways DO NOT need protection from golf course run off?  

Essentially, YES.

Which does more harm, farms or golf courses ?
Towns and cities or golf courses ?
Residential lawns or golf courses ?

The issue with golf is what's in the water used to irrigate as it exits the golf course, and what's the identifiable harm it creates ?  And, are the restrictions applied to golf courses applied equally to the three entities mentioned above ?

Has Rae's Creek had a substantive deleterious effect on the water that exits ANGC ?[/color]

Finally Patrick...you show your true colors...those that promote protecting natural resources are not "prudent men", but are "extremist" trying to enforce "their" view....

To deny the extremist element in the environmental movement is either naive or absurd, take your choice.[/color]

George Bush and his lackies use the same language when discribing those against the war...they are "liberals" and the "fringe element"...yet poll after poll show better than 70% of AMERICANS want us out of Iraq now!  Amazing how the majority is a "fringe element" in their mind...

The media has played an enormous part in putting forth that view.
But, Americans speak at the polls, not through polls.

When given the choice between John Kerry who wanted us out, America chose to retain the status quo in Iraq.

What's interesting is that with one exception, Dennis Kucinich (sp?), not one of the Democratic candidates has suggested that we summarily pull out of Iraq.   I guess those candidates must be Bush "Lackies"

By the way, I thought Dodd and Biden did well in the debates, but, to listen to the media and the alleged polls, they weren't even a factor.[/color]

I wonder how many people think protecting watersheds and waterways is important ?

That's a dumb question.
It's not that people are opposed to the general concept, they're apposed to the heavy handed and excessive methods used by the government to bend the people to an agenda.

Essentially confiscating or summarily devaluing private property at the stroke of a misguided pen is not the appropriate method.  Reasoned, prudent approaches are what's necessary, not implementing radical, zealot agendas.[/color]

[Craig Sweet]

Nice work Patrick...you got it all in there from "that's not what I said" to "a misguided stroke of a pen"....you even got to express your opinion that enviromentalist are extremist again!

Not one single admission that golf course run off is harmful to watersheds, and no understanding of the accumualtive impacts on watershed from commercial and residential development...

You must think golf courses exist in a vacuum....if you ever get out here to Montana we'll have to play a round at Old Works....and then take a drive along the Clark Fork River....I'd be happy to point out to you "point sources" of pollution....especially nitrogen....coming from golf courses, resturants, houses, farms, car lots...maybe, if you're real lucky, we can find a pool filled with dead fish....they suffocate this time of year because the algea growing on the river bottom uses all the oxygen....those nasty "point sources" of pollution, ya know....but hey, you don't make your living guiding fisherman on the river, you would rather be golfing at the Rock Creek Cattle Co....another point source?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Nice work Patrick...you got it all in there from "that's not what I said" to "a misguided stroke of a pen"....you even got to express your opinion that enviromentalist are extremist again!

Are you claiming that extremists aren't intricately entwined in the environmental arena ?[/color]

Not one single admission that golf course run off is harmful to watersheds, and no understanding of the accumualtive impacts on watershed from commercial and residential development...

Show me the definitive studies on GOLF COURSES.
We're not discussing commercial ventures.[/color]

You must think golf courses exist in a vacuum....if you ever get out here to Montana we'll have to play a round at Old Works....and then take a drive along the Clark Fork River....I'd be happy to point out to you "point sources" of pollution....especially nitrogen....coming from golf courses, resturants, houses, farms, car lots...

I"m not interested in Restaurants, houses, farms and car lots, I'm focused on GOLF COURSES, something you continually want to avoid discussing.[/color]

maybe, if you're real lucky, we can find a pool filled with dead fish....they suffocate this time of year because the algea growing on the river bottom uses all the oxygen....those nasty "point sources" of pollution, ya know....but hey, you don't make your living guiding fisherman on the river, you would rather be golfing at the Rock Creek Cattle Co....another point source?

Show me the definitive studies that identify the golf courses  responsible for those conditions, not your histerical allegations.

As one views the aerial of the Clark Fork River huge farms come right up to its banks, farms with circular irrigation systems common to farm areas.

Do those systems also apply fertilizer, herbicides and insecticides ?

You keep on ranting about the direct impact that golf courses are having, yet, despite being asked several times, you can't identify one single golf course, and you can't present one definitive study supporting your claim.

In the context of Golf Courses, how mining companies, mills and other industrial operations impacted the water is not germane.  Stick to the subject.[/color]

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
C'mon, you know that there have been and continue to be studies done that look at how pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fetilizers move through the soil or are leached away.

There is accepted, non-agenda driven science available that says these types of products, used by golf courses, orchards, farmers, landscapers, homeowners, etc., can create problems (think ppm) when used incorrectly.

There is accepted, non-agenda driven science available that says these types of products, used by golf courses, orchards, farmers, landscapers, homeowners, etc. are nearly harmless when used correctly.

There are 'best practices' guidelines available from universities, the USGA, GCSAA, etc., for superintendents and anyone else who uses these products in commercial applications.

Golf courses fair well when guidelines for use are followed. If you don't apply these products too heavy, too close to waterways, too close to rain events, etc., you are practicing 'stewardship'. . Go the other way and you practicing 'sewership".

What's better?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

There's no doubt that "application" is a critical factor.

But, abuses or extremes weren't the issue.

The issue was, do golf courses INHERENTLY contaminate the water supply HARMING the drinking water, and does the downstream product have a DELETERIOUS impact on the environment beyond the local level ?

Stated another way, how can streams/creeks continue to be an integral part of a golf course, critical strategic features, when the  regulations don't permit a golf course to come within 300 feet of any side of the waterway ?

Even with responsible stewardship, which I endorse, the regulations DON'T permit integrating these features.

The next question is, what will take their place ?

Craig likes to go "postal" and condemn everyone for isolated abuses, generalizing them, while ignoring prudent policies.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Maybe there will never be another course built in NJ that comes within 300' of a class 1 waterway and its tributaries. or 150' of a class 2, or 75' from a class 3.

Roland Betts has been experiencing what it's like trying to build near a 'headwaters' area just up the road from here in Canaan, CT. He hasn't given up after 5 years of trying.

Brad Klein has written about the environmental difficulties when trying to get Wintonbury approved.
 
In NY, no easy state either, Paul Cowley explained how he was able to do it.

It's being done in other states. You could almost get seasick from the amount of water you can find on some new courses in the south.

As to what will take the place of water in NJ, I don't know, maybe more sandy wastelands? Nah, that's already been used.

 

[Craig Sweet]

Sorry Patrick, but you are the only one going "postal" here.

There have been numerous studies that show how golf course run off contaminates groundwater, ponds, rivers, etc...for you to argue that it doesn't happen is "postal".

The question is to what extent does a particular golf course impact local groundwater and surface water...and the answer to that is "it depends".....

Regulations, on the other hand are not aimed solely at golf course, but rather are aimed at accumulative impacts....the farms you see on the Clark Fork, the mine waste, the residiential and commercial runoff, the effluent treatment plants, and yes, golf courses all have an imapct on water quality DOWNSTREAM...the large superfund site behind Milltown dam, (you can see it from Canyon River Golf Course) did not get its  toxic heavy metal load behind it from an adjacent mine....it came downstream for 150 miles from Butte and Anaconda (home of The Old Works, yet another superfund site)

The days of doing what you please with your property are LONG over because people are generally irresponsible and greedy and people downwind, downstream are tired of dealing with the consequences.

[Steve Lang]

 

Patrick, I implore you again to change the subject from "EPA" to NJDEP.  States create such measures, not EPA.  You are in error to assert otherwise.  

NJ has a long history of either (pick one) over regulating or being progressive regulators.. Why not amend the regulation if its that critical to the future of gca in NJ??

Craig, certainly you must agree that when proper label use and application rates are followed, chemicals on golf courses are really a non-environmental issue.  There was a very well docmented study done on Long Island, which came to the conclusion of no significant impact to groundwater from checmial applications, in a very mixed geological setting where subsurface contamination could travel extensively..

Its certainly people creating enviro problems.. as well as some natural sources.. its part of the regulatory merri-go-round liek having to meet particulate standards in a desert.. when the wind blows..

So in a watershed, parts may become unusable..  



It certainly is a sad state of affairs when an "arbitrary" standard of separation distance is used instead of a reasonable person standard, when proponents can offer support for alternative "protective measures".. or would be willing to accept conditional approvals with third party auditing of mitigations..

But one will always come back to "Its people creating enviro problems.."

Using the ag model.. 15 feet-20 feet separation to watercourses is all that is necessary to keep solids and chemicals from running off  "uncontrolled"   .. NJ farming perhaps more with all the sand..

[Craig Sweet]

Steve are you serious? Using "what" ag model?  15-20 foot seperation between ag use and a water way is ridiculous...I don't know where they apply that....sounds like very, very, old school thinking to me.

And once again, you, like Patrick, are missing the point.  There is NOTHING arbitrary about these buffers. You have different levels of water quality that you are trying to maintain, and landuse that runs the gamut from low to high impact. On top of that states, and feds have spent a lot of money to improve water quality, so lets protectthat investment. They have to be "general" and applied equally to work properly.  The buffer can not be applied to your house and not mine, or your golf course plan and not mine...One golf course has little impact on water quality. One house has little impact on water quality. But a 200 unit housing complex does, and when you have one subdivision after another, interspersed with commercial development, you begin to see cummulative impacts...that's a fact.  

Steve, there is a good reason why we have Audobon "approved" golf courses....good PR and good land stewartship....and the GCSAA has acknowledged that there are impacts...

[Patrick_Mucci]

There have been numerous studies that show how golf course run off contaminates groundwater, ponds, rivers, etc...for you to argue that it doesn't happen is "postal".

Then, it should be an easy task for you to produce the studies that show how harmful the run off water FROM GOLF COURSES is or isn't.  You should be able to prove how harmful it is to drinking water.  If you can't produce those studies, your argument is groundless.[/color]

The question is to what extent does a particular golf course impact local groundwater and surface water...and the answer to that is "it depends".....

Cite me the examples where the drinking water was contaminated from the run off from THE golf course[/color]

Regulations, on the other hand are not aimed solely at golf course, but rather are aimed at accumulative impacts....the farms you see on the Clark Fork, the mine waste, the residiential and commercial runoff, the effluent treatment plants, and yes, golf courses all have an imapct on water quality DOWNSTREAM...the large superfund site behind Milltown dam, (you can see it from Canyon River Golf Course) did not get its  toxic heavy metal load behind it from an adjacent mine....it came downstream for 150 miles from Butte and Anaconda (home of The Old Works, yet another superfund site)

The contamination you reference isn't from golf courses, but, other sites.

Surely, the geniuses who sit in State Legislatures can differentiate between benign and toxic sources, cause and effect.  Why lump everything into one regulation ?   Why not be source specific ?[/color]

The days of doing what you please with your property are LONG over because people are generally irresponsible and greedy and people downwind, downstream are tired of dealing with the consequences.

Another baseless, irresponsible post.
Can you identify a golf course that has been irresponsible and can you identify how they contaminated the run off water, quantify the contamination and the resultant harm, especially to drinking water.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lang,

If it makes you happy, NJDEP

Craig Sweet,

Stop interchanging housing developments and commercial enterprises with golf courses.

I realize that it's the only way you can hope to support your position, but, it's a flawed, if not invalid and irresponsible presentation.

Please, stay on topic.

We're talking about future golf courses in NJ where the offsets are so onerous that routing and designing holes on sites containing natural creeks/streams will now be difficult, if not impossible.

You support the 300 foot offset for golf courses when almost noone in their right mind finds that footage prudent, reasonable or backed by scientific data.

If you have studies to the contrary, please present them.

And, the Audobon Society, and their annointed blessing, doesn't get involved with EPA/DEP issues related to water flow.

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick...

there's little use in discussing this with you because you are right...you are always right...

but I have a few questions

Is your drinking water from a stream? Is it treated before you drink it?

Where do the chemicals applied to golf courses go?

What do you suppose the cummulative impacts of housing, farming, industry, commercial development, golf course, are on ground and surface water?

In the meantime, maybe you should work harder to get more polluters elected to office in NJ.