Bryon,
To answer your question, I think on some of the holes, the pictures accurately portray the tightness. For example, the tee shots on #3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 16. However these holes with the exception of #5 play as a short Par 4 or short Par 5. So in some sense the tightness seems appropriate to make the player hit a good shot to get par or better.
On other holes the pictures are decieving because there really is a lot more room than it looks. These would be #7, 14, 15, and 18. And appropriately with the exception of #18, these holes play as longer par 4s.
Then there is #9 which really is as wide open as it looks in the photo. Yet it has a very demanding LZ that requires a draw.
Lastly there is #17 which is actually tighter and longer than it looks. It plays as a par 3, over 200 yards, thru a narrow shute.
The greens really are the joy of the course, because you can never totally figure them out. #4, 7, 8, and 14 really are phenomenal greens where a 2 putting is playing well. As for the rest of them while they look flattish, they have way more break to them than looks due to thier position in the canyon.
Sean,
I know many on here are against courses being over-treed, and I feel this way to a large extent as well. However in the context of this course, I think it works really well because the course truly was routed thru a heavily forested area. Hence it really blends in well with its natural surrondings and has a minimalist look to it. In addition, if the course was vastly thinned out, it would lose alot of its natural defenses off the tee...even though the greens can defend themselves perfectly fine.
Another course in the area, Downriver was also done in the same fashion and is fun to play. It just doesn't have near the creativity in fairway and green contouring.