[Ryan Farrow]

Lets see if this will get some attention:


Merion is not environmentally friendly.

[Brendan Dolan]

This will be the first year that Wisconsin superintendents will have to deal with NR 151.  The goal of NR 151 is to limit the amount of phosphorus used when fertilizing.  Soil tests must be taken for all fertilized areas, and phosphorus can then be applied according to the soil test recommendations.  Phosphorus is often prone to runoff and has caused a lot of problems in lakes and streams.  NR 151 also has a number of suggestions/guidelines for Nitrogen as well.  I believe Wisconsin is the first state to have such regulations, but they may become popular in other states in the coming years.  I

Brendan 

[Tom_Doak]

I was at Cornell on Monday to sit in on a couple of classes (and give a lecture at one), including one grad-level class taught by Dr. Frank Rossi which has been gathering data on carbon output and golf courses. 

They've done some very good work and they took me to task for some design elements which aren't too environmentally friendly -- such as the green-to-tee short grass we've used to great critical acclaim at Ballyneal and Sebonack.  (It's way better on fescue at Ballyneal than on Colonial bent at Sebonack, but it's excessive either way.)  But, as we discussed, the difference is lost on everyone because there isn't anybody in the permitting process who looks at the big picture, just a dozen special interests who want their own veto.

Frank's class found numerous surprising results in their data.  Equipment companies were very averse to sharing their data on fuel usage for various mowers and maintenance vehicles ... the class eventually just had to take the total fuel usage data for the courses they were studying and allocate it to various equipment, because Toro and Jacobsen aren't competing on that basis yet.  More significantly, the class found that the embodied energy in chemicals -- especially pesticides -- dwarfed the fuel from mowers as an overall carbon issue.  So there's another reason to rely less on chemical input.

Unfortunately, the carbon taxes which have been proposed to date will do nothing to stem the tide ... they might make a dent in the operating budgets of affordable courses, but they would easily be written off by someone doing a big development project (at least until the costs could be passed off to a membership).  I've become much more suspicious of the proposed carbon tax as a result of the day; I think it's a great concept, but now I'm convinced that big business is looking to buy the rights to continue polluting at four cents on the dollar.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S. to Ryan:  I'm sure you don't think Rock Creek is properly environmentally friendly, either, but it's more friendly than it is for you to live in Arizona.

[astavrides]

I was at Cornell on Monday to sit in on a couple of classes (and give a lecture at one), including one grad-level class taught by Dr. Frank Rossi which has been gathering data on carbon output and golf courses. 

They've done some very good work and they took me to task for some design elements which aren't too environmentally friendly -- such as the green-to-tee short grass we've used to great critical acclaim at Ballyneal and Sebonack.  (It's way better on fescue at Ballyneal than on Colonial bent at Sebonack, but it's excessive either way.)  But, as we discussed, the difference is lost on everyone because there isn't anybody in the permitting process who looks at the big picture, just a dozen special interests who want their own veto.

Frank's class found numerous surprising results in their data.  Equipment companies were very averse to sharing their data on fuel usage for various mowers and maintenance vehicles ... the class eventually just had to take the total fuel usage data for the courses they were studying and allocate it to various equipment, because Toro and Jacobsen aren't competing on that basis yet.  More significantly, the class found that the embodied energy in chemicals -- especially pesticides -- dwarfed the fuel from mowers as an overall carbon issue.  So there's another reason to rely less on chemical input.

Unfortunately, the carbon taxes which have been proposed to date will do nothing to stem the tide ... they might make a dent in the operating budgets of affordable courses, but they would easily be written off by someone doing a big development project (at least until the costs could be passed off to a membership).  I've become much more suspicious of the proposed carbon tax as a result of the day; I think it's a great concept, but now I'm convinced that big business is looking to buy the rights to continue polluting at four cents on the dollar.

very interesting post.

I always thought the wall-to-wall grass/no rough stuff that this discussion board seems to favor was environmentally unfriendly--mostly for the extra watering issue, but i guess the extra mowing necessary (and extra pesticides) is an issue also.

I am surprised by the 'embodied energy' in pesticides.  I guess they/you are saying that it takes a lot of energy for a chemical plant to produce pesticides (and tranport them to the end user, and for the user to distribute them on the turfgrass)--much more than the gas (and carbon output) that the mowers consume. 

[Dan Herrmann]

I'd love to see somebody do a carbon budget of the cost of golf course construction/maintenance combined with the amount of CO2 that is removed by a golf course versus the net effect of a shopping mall/parking lot development.

Given its location, Pine Valley could well be a PUD with a bunch of McMansions and even a Wawa today - something that isn't environmentally friendly at all.

[Tom_Doak]

Dan:

That's basically what the Cornell study is trying to do.

They did not deal with golf course construction, because it varies so much from one course to another, and because it's a one-shot deal, the effects of which would have to be divided by 50 years of subsequent use.

They are attempting to calculate the cost of turfgrass an the CO2 removed by the golf course and surrounding vegetation.  Turf does remove CO2, but apparently only about half as effectively as trees do, so the more trees you can leave, the better.  (The study is certainly not what every designer wants to hear.)  They were hoping I'd tell them we could do with small island fairways and lots of rough and trees, but I think the more practical approach is to narrow the fairways and make a lot of inch-and-a-half rough which is very playable for higher handicappers.

Turfgrass selection also makes a hell of a large difference, because of the relationship to pesticides and fertilizers used in maintenance.

[Ryan Farrow]

I know, I know. I'm doing my best to get out of Arizona as soon as possible. As a wide eyed freshman at ASU I knew no better at the time.... and the girls. You have to remember I was born and raised in Pennsylvania and spent the last 4 years at an all boys catholic high school. To not move to Arizona would have been a bad, bad choice. Its not like I was getting into an Ivy league school or anything.



Tom, is anyone at Cornell looking into Peak Oil Theory? One my professors is kind of leading a bit of this theory that kind of ignores CO2 and global warming issues and is looking into whats going to happen when our oil supplies have topped off, which they have or will in the next few years, depending on who you ask. Should be interesting to see if our profession will still exist if things really get bad.

But then again, I just read a story today about  3-4 billion barrels of oil in Montana and North Dakota.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911&from=rss

[Jacob Erisman]

Dr. Rossi has always told me that it’s all about limiting the amount of maintained turf. This solution would lower golf’s effect on the environment but it would also limit an architect’s ability to create the best possible course, and to me that’s what it should be all about. For example, reducing areas of tightly mown turf beside greens would lower the amount of necessary chemical applications, irrigation, and mowing slightly, but it would greatly cost a course its strategic variety by taking away a hazard that presents much more playing options than just rough. The cost of hurting a course’s strategic value and variety far outweighs the benefit of slightly lowering its effect on the environment.

What would be a nice solution instead is if golfers could lower their maintenance expectations and learn to accept and even welcome inconsistent turf conditions. This combined with lowering green speeds would reduce chemical use, watering, and mowing without affecting the strategic value of the course. This is certainly a long way off though; especially considering every golfer in America will be watching the Masters on HD this weekend.

[Sean_A]

but I think the more practical approach is to narrow the fairways and make a lot of inch-and-a-half rough which is very playable for higher handicappers.

Sounds like the Augusta Plan!

"What would be a nice solution instead is if golfers could lower their maintenance expectations and learn to accept and even welcome inconsistent turf conditions. This combined with lowering green speeds would reduce chemical use, watering, and mowing without affecting the strategic value of the course."

The above idea sounds very prudent to me.  It is interesting how travelling Americans don't seem to mind less than ideal conditions in the UK, but when they get home its like they have some sort of memory disease.

Ciao

[astavrides]

The cost of hurting a course’s strategic value and variety far outweighs the benefit of slightly lowering its effect on the environment.

The 99% of the planet's population who don't play golf, but do live in the environment, might disagree.

[Joe Hancock]

The cost of hurting a course’s strategic value and variety far outweighs the benefit of slightly lowering its effect on the environment.

The 99% of the planet's population who don't play golf, but do live in the environment, might disagree.

Of course they would. Then again, they won't park their mighty SUV or quit trying to make their own lawn greener, so their whining falls on deaf ears.

Joe

[Scott Witter]

Ryan F.

I feel essentially the same as Kelly in his position re: defense of my work as well and other architects for that matter, but here is a little story I'll share.

My 2nd course was built on old fallow farm land that contained small and large patches of wetlands ranging from .3 acres to 17 acres in size and other interesting, but segregated vegetative habitats.  The land area was relatively tight, only 167 acres so there was a significant challenge to route the course, however, I felt that with a smart approach and other consultants to assist, I could 'fit' the course in and also greatly improve the flora and fauna habitats within the site and at the same time, provide better continuity and significantly less habitat segregation from adjacent sites surrounding the course.  BTW, this did not cost appreciably more $ to the owner, just a willingness on my part to manage it and to find like thinking consultants to 'see' the goal.

During construction, great care was taken preserve the small treed pockets  and to save topsoil from key areas that bordered the wetlands (after evaluation and analysis, it was determined that these soils had almost the same hydric and plant supporting qualities that the wetlands did).  My grading and drainage plans protected (naturally) the existing wetlands and created an additional 2.4 acres of wetlands and out of play grass areas.  I also created ponds, I needed soil for construction, but I placed the ponds within the design to help integrate all the habitats and then graded them such that I created fringe wetland borders (litoral zones) around the ponds, knowing these would soon turn into great habitat for ducks, frogs and all that good stuff.

The additional wetland creation was easy since it bordered existing wetlands and worked well into the design.  Respreading the saved topsoil worked perfectly and when hydrologically connected to the existing wetlands, the new wetlands took off imediately.  More importantly, however, the new wetlands and grass areas allowed me to CONNECT the pre-existing segregated vegetative corridors, thus improving the habitat integrity internal to the site and allowing wildlife to move through the course with protection.  You can check with any Fish and Wildlife agent and they will tell you that segregated habitat is poor for maintaining wildlife within an area and for sustaining long-term environmental  bio-diversity.

I did give up options for a better routing, but the owner was financially committed to the site and the course was going to be built, it was a matter of doing it or doing it better with the right approach.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff, I'm not sure what your getting at here, I thought this was a splendid effort and showed a nice variety of opinions. It actually makes me want to buy a subscription......... but I still wont  . I think the lead they took on changing their course rating criteria is a noble, and necessary step. I don't see anything wrong with "firm yet receptive". I think your digging to deep into the comment. They made their point and position clear on firmness. Do you want to play to concrete hard greens?


I think we should all be proud of Dr. Hurdzan as he proved to be one of the most convincing and knowledgeable voices in this piece. I just wish more architects would carry a least a fraction of the dedication to environmental stewardship that he does.

I would have liked to hear a little more from "THE REGULATOR", Robert Wood about wetlands and wildlife and their role on a golf course, especially constructed wetlands. If only the right questions were asked, we could have gotten a lot of good information from this one.

I must also say that the piece on Ronald Dodson, from Audubon International was horrendous. Did he give us any real information or just try and bash the Audubon Society the whole time?

And kudos to the USGA and James Snow for making us all realize, once again, why golf courses have such a bad reputation for environmental stewardship.


All in all, a wonderful piece that everyone SHOULD READ. Seems like a lot of work and resources went into the piece.

Ryan,
I am not quite the wordsmith as KBM.  But let me just say Bullsh.t as to your above statement re architects.  Mike Hurdzan is a good guy and he has done a tremendous amount towards golf and environment etc....and I think many other architects practice the same things.....I am not here to self promote so I will not go into a bunch of junk here.  Check out  www.cateechee.com  that is about as environmental as one can be.....and I have been on the Audubon international advisory board for years.....but I have no reason to be out saying that stuff....
many others here have the same type or more environmental credits etc.....BUT at the end of the day 95% of this stuff as it relates to golf is pure bullshit and a hype job for selling what the public wants to hear.....corn and cotton are much more environmentally harmful than golf......golf only uses 2.5 million acres in the US.....
Mike

[Ryan Farrow]

Ryan F.

I feel essentially the same as Kelly in his position re: defense of my work as well and other architects for that matter, but here is a little story I'll share.

My 2nd course was built on old fallow farm land that contained small and large patches of wetlands ranging from .3 acres to 17 acres in size and other interesting, but segregated vegetative habitats.  The land area was relatively tight, only 167 acres so there was a significant challenge to route the course, however, I felt that with a smart approach and other consultants to assist, I could 'fit' the course in and also greatly improve the flora and fauna habitats within the site and at the same time, provide better continuity and significantly less habitat segregation from adjacent sites surrounding the course.  BTW, this did not cost appreciably more $ to the owner, just a willingness on my part to manage it and to find like thinking consultants to 'see' the goal.

During construction, great care was taken preserve the small treed pockets  and to save topsoil from key areas that bordered the wetlands (after evaluation and analysis, it was determined that these soils had almost the same hydric and plant supporting qualities that the wetlands did).  My grading and drainage plans protected (naturally) the existing wetlands and created an additional 2.4 acres of wetlands and out of play grass areas.  I also created ponds, I needed soil for construction, but I placed the ponds within the design to help integrate all the habitats and then graded them such that I created fringe wetland borders (litoral zones) around the ponds, knowing these would soon turn into great habitat for ducks, frogs and all that good stuff.

The additional wetland creation was easy since it bordered existing wetlands and worked well into the design.  Respreading the saved topsoil worked perfectly and when hydrologically connected to the existing wetlands, the new wetlands took off imediately.  More importantly, however, the new wetlands and grass areas allowed me to CONNECT the pre-existing segregated vegetative corridors, thus improving the habitat integrity internal to the site and allowing wildlife to move through the course with protection.  You can check with any Fish and Wildlife agent and they will tell you that segregated habitat is poor for maintaining wildlife within an area and for sustaining long-term environmental  bio-diversity.

I did give up options for a better routing, but the owner was financially committed to the site and the course was going to be built, it was a matter of doing it or doing it better with the right approach.

Scott, thanks for your response. This is the kind of story I like to hear about. Ive read a few times about the importance of using hydric soils for constructed wetlands. Did you add any additional plants to those areas or did the seed in the native soil take off right away? One thing that I am quite confused about is when you hear about constructed wetland projects they are all highly maintained, with inlets, outlets controlling water levels and flows, liners etc... I guess the difference is those were used primarily for treating effluent. But are your new wetland systems naturally fed? pretty much a pocket in the ground?

Are there any pictures we can find online?

[Ryan Farrow]

Jeff, I'm not sure what your getting at here, I thought this was a splendid effort and showed a nice variety of opinions. It actually makes me want to buy a subscription......... but I still wont  . I think the lead they took on changing their course rating criteria is a noble, and necessary step. I don't see anything wrong with "firm yet receptive". I think your digging to deep into the comment. They made their point and position clear on firmness. Do you want to play to concrete hard greens?


I think we should all be proud of Dr. Hurdzan as he proved to be one of the most convincing and knowledgeable voices in this piece. I just wish more architects would carry a least a fraction of the dedication to environmental stewardship that he does.

I would have liked to hear a little more from "THE REGULATOR", Robert Wood about wetlands and wildlife and their role on a golf course, especially constructed wetlands. If only the right questions were asked, we could have gotten a lot of good information from this one.

I must also say that the piece on Ronald Dodson, from Audubon International was horrendous. Did he give us any real information or just try and bash the Audubon Society the whole time?

And kudos to the USGA and James Snow for making us all realize, once again, why golf courses have such a bad reputation for environmental stewardship.


All in all, a wonderful piece that everyone SHOULD READ. Seems like a lot of work and resources went into the piece.

Ryan,
I am not quite the wordsmith as KBM.  But let me just say Bullsh.t as to your above statement re architects.  Mike Hurdzan is a good guy and he has done a tremendous amount towards golf and environment etc....and I think many other architects practice the same things.....I am not here to self promote so I will not go into a bunch of junk here.  Check out  www.cateechee.com  that is about as environmental as one can be.....and I have been on the Audubon international advisory board for years.....but I have no reason to be out saying that stuff....
many others here have the same type or more environmental credits etc.....BUT at the end of the day 95% of this stuff as it relates to golf is pure bullshit and a hype job for selling what the public wants to hear.....corn and cotton are much more environmentally harmful than golf......golf only uses 2.5 million acres in the US.....
Mike

Mike, you know what is B.S. saying that corn and cotton and farming is bad for the environment. WE WOULD NOT BE ALIVE IF WE DID NOT FARM. I think most of us could survive if golf ceased to exist.


What exactly do you mean by this: "95% of this stuff as it relates to golf is pure bullshit and a hype job for selling what the public wants to hear"?




And I never once said that no architects care or design for the environment, there is no need to be so defensive. I am sure one of the big motivators for all of us to get into golf is the enjoyment of being outdoors and around nature. I would also think the posters here will be a little more progressive about environmental stewardship since we all like minimalism and scruffy bunkers and all that good stuff.

[astavrides]

The cost of hurting a course’s strategic value and variety far outweighs the benefit of slightly lowering its effect on the environment.

The 99% of the planet's population who don't play golf, but do live in the environment, might disagree.

Of course they would. Then again, they won't park their mighty SUV or quit trying to make their own lawn greener, so their whining falls on deaf ears.

Joe

I rather doubt that many of the 150 million Bangladeshi's, for example, have mighty SUV's; even fewer will once all their roads are underwater.

[Joe Hancock]

You have a point. They don't have the fancy polluters we have in the USA.

Ever been to Hanoi? Millions of motorbikes that have zero pollution control technology on them.

I'm curious what the dinosaurs blame their extinction on......

Joe

[Kalen Braley]

You have a point. They don't have the fancy polluters we have in the USA.

Ever been to Hanoi? Millions of motorbikes that have zero pollution control technology on them.

I'm curious what the dinosaurs blame their extinction on......

Joe

Its not just Hanoi, most of the rest of the world with thier two stroke motor bikes and rickshaws....

The myth about SUV's clogging the earths atmosphere is complete bologna..

[Garland Bayley]

...
The myth about SUV's clogging the earths atmosphere is complete bologna..

Yes the true benefit of SUVs and motorhome RVs is that they will burn all the oil supply before, the motor bikes can do too much damage.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff, I'm not sure what your getting at here, I thought this was a splendid effort and showed a nice variety of opinions. It actually makes me want to buy a subscription......... but I still wont  . I think the lead they took on changing their course rating criteria is a noble, and necessary step. I don't see anything wrong with "firm yet receptive". I think your digging to deep into the comment. They made their point and position clear on firmness. Do you want to play to concrete hard greens?


I think we should all be proud of Dr. Hurdzan as he proved to be one of the most convincing and knowledgeable voices in this piece. I just wish more architects would carry a least a fraction of the dedication to environmental stewardship that he does.

I would have liked to hear a little more from "THE REGULATOR", Robert Wood about wetlands and wildlife and their role on a golf course, especially constructed wetlands. If only the right questions were asked, we could have gotten a lot of good information from this one.

I must also say that the piece on Ronald Dodson, from Audubon International was horrendous. Did he give us any real information or just try and bash the Audubon Society the whole time?

And kudos to the USGA and James Snow for making us all realize, once again, why golf courses have such a bad reputation for environmental stewardship.


All in all, a wonderful piece that everyone SHOULD READ. Seems like a lot of work and resources went into the piece.

Ryan,
I am not quite the wordsmith as KBM.  But let me just say Bullsh.t as to your above statement re architects.  Mike Hurdzan is a good guy and he has done a tremendous amount towards golf and environment etc....and I think many other architects practice the same things.....I am not here to self promote so I will not go into a bunch of junk here.  Check out  www.cateechee.com  that is about as environmental as one can be.....and I have been on the Audubon international advisory board for years.....but I have no reason to be out saying that stuff....
many others here have the same type or more environmental credits etc.....BUT at the end of the day 95% of this stuff as it relates to golf is pure bullshit and a hype job for selling what the public wants to hear.....corn and cotton are much more environmentally harmful than golf......golf only uses 2.5 million acres in the US.....
Mike

Mike, you know what is B.S. saying that corn and cotton and farming is bad for the environment. WE WOULD NOT BE ALIVE IF WE DID NOT FARM. I think most of us could survive if golf ceased to exist.


What exactly do you mean by this: "95% of this stuff as it relates to golf is pure bullshit and a hype job for selling what the public wants to hear"?




And I never once said that no architects care or design for the environment, there is no need to be so defensive. I am sure one of the big motivators for all of us to get into golf is the enjoyment of being outdoors and around nature. I would also think the posters here will be a little more progressive about environmental stewardship since we all like minimalism and scruffy bunkers and all that good stuff.

The pesticides and fertilizers used for an acre of corn or cotton far exceed the same acre at a golf course....
The numbers of acres in golf is so minute that it really has not much bearing at all.  I was once told that the Sierra club did a brochure dissing golf at a place such as Agusta.  A spin doctor obtained it and showed where the overall environmental impact to print the brochure ( trees for paper, ink, etc) had a much greater impact than the golf course......
It is easy for "feel gooders" to slam golf and save whales......I would like to have them give me a fully allocated accounting for all the battieries in the little hybrid cars driving out to the organic strawberry  farms.....

[Ryan Farrow]

Well said Mike. Its a goofy situation, the whole carbon footprint thing is kind of silly. Maybe the Sierra club thought if their attemps were sucessful they could stop every golf course from being built? Who knows.

[Steve Lang]

   When the oil runs out?  I guess they'll be diggin up all the asphalt cart paths and roads to gasify and recover the hydrocarbons as fuel .. for mad hax..

when one realizes that oil isn't necessarily from decomposed dead dinosaurs, trees, and dung, but produced downstairs, you have to wonder..

[Lou_Duran]

"when one realizes that oil isn't necessarily from decomposed dead dinosaurs, trees, and dung, but produced downstairs, you have to wonder."

Steve L,

Can you develop on this a bit?  I think I know what you might be referring to, but please share a little more of your knowledge.

Ryan F,

What do you mean by this?   "Its a goofy situation, the whole carbon footprint thing is kind of silly." 

[Jim_Kennedy]

"The pesticides and fertilizers used for an acre of corn or cotton far exceed the same acre at a golf course....

If farming takes less heat than golf it's because everyone on the planet eats

The numbers of acres in golf is so minute that it really has not much bearing at all.

The first half of this sentence is correct, the second half forgets that everything has a 'bearing'.   

I was once told that the Sierra club did a brochure dissing golf at a place such as Agusta.  A spin doctor obtained it and showed where the overall environmental impact to print the brochure ( trees for paper, ink, etc) had a much greater impact than the golf course......It is easy for "feel gooders" to slam golf and save whales......I would like to have them give me a fully allocated accounting for all the battieries in the little hybrid cars driving out to the organic strawberry  farms....

This type of response is why we all end up polarized on the issues. We'll never sort out what needs to be sorted out if we continue to go forward with this 'you hit me, I hit you back' mentality. This is as true for the Sierra Club as it is for the Golf Club.

The best defense is a good defense.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()