TO SAVE OR NOT TO SAVE

[allysmith]

I would like to ask the question of all golf designers. How much should the natural morphology of a region be harnessed to save a golf course? This is especially relevant on Links courses within a receding coastline.

Should the natural supply/demand of a beach envelope be upset by a man-made structure? as many of you will know the erosion of a dune system is not only natural but in many cases essential to the survival of areas up-drift of the erosion point.  
 
 

[Steve Lang]

 

do so at your own peril, it took a while at TOC, but its happening inevitably or ultimately costly like at PB.. what is your time frame of interest?

[Brad Klein]

Great question on the natural life cycle of dunesland. You should consult Robert Price's wonderful book, "Scotland's Golf Courses," which is a detailed geology and geomorphology of all Scottish courses. Interestingly, by his count, only 19 percent of Scottish courses are true links.

Interesting how so many of the fine links are actually set back quite a bit from the sea - Carnoustie, Muirfield, Royal St. Georges, Royal Birkdale. Only the 7th/11th green at The Old Course at St. Andrews is directly exposed, but obviously Cruden Bay, Royal Dornoch, Royal Aberdeen and Ballybunion are far more exposed and at risk.

Stabilizing with gabions is extremely costly. The experience of other coastal stabilization measures along the NJ and NC shores suggests that efforts made in one area can have an accelerating effect nearby by creating eddies and unnatural counterflows of water, sand and debris. Maybe we should simply expect human structures such as golf courses and houses to slide off occasionally. I certainly oppose any federal efforts to insure people for daring nature by building homes so close.

[Marty Bonnar]

Ally
In an essay, discussing the Garden G. Smith quote:

“It is quite certain that, had the ground on which ordinary inland golf is played today been the only available ground for the purpose, the game would never have been invented at all.”,

I hypothesised - "In conclusion, picture this scenario (set in the not-too-distant future): The ill-effects of global warming have raised sea levels all around the world, and there comes a day when the ocean finally breaches the dunes. The Links are inundated and disappear, completely submerged.
Luckily, there is still a golfer somewhere, “playing a ball from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules”.
She plays on an inland course…"

There are some really interesting dune stabilisation projects around where vegetation is being used rather than concrete. My gut feeling is it's probably better to try to 'harness' the erosion rather than to attempt to halt it completely. You're right though. The more we mess about with this planet's global and local ecosystems, the more its natural processes are only going to attempt to redress the balance.

Anything man-made is temporary - Nature is King (Queen?) Like Mongo, we are only "pawns in game of life".

FBD.

PS Brad - I think I remember seeing an article about serious erosion on the 1st fairway at TOC? And in old photos I'm sure the sea is further away than now?

[ForkaB]

Very good question, Ally, although the answers should not be limited to being from "designers" as they constitute less than 1% of this forum.

I am a long standing member at a course that is threatened, and I am ambivalent about what should be done.  Yes, we can continue to bring in rip-rap, in larger sizes and greater quantities, and even contemplate less natural features such as gabions, all at a seemingly geometrically increasing levels of cost (financial, environmental and esthetic).  However, I do wonder if the "end-game" of that strategy is what one sees in Sea Bright, New Jersey, where the land inland of the beaches is "protected" by a 20 foot high wall of concrete.  Alos, I do know that there is ample land available to do a major renovation of the course if necessary (it has been done before--highly successfully--for other reasons).

In the end of the day it does come down to very complicated cost-benefit analysis (where many if not most of the costs and benefits are non-financial).

Stay tuned.

[Brian_Ewen]

Ally
Another point to consider :

I was told by a member at Royal Aberdeen , the reason they were stopped from altering the dunes there , was because it was home to a rare moth .

Brian

[allysmith]

Thanks for the observations gentlemen,

I am heartened to note that there are very few 'save the links at all costs'.

As a 5 handicap Coastal Engineer I have a foot in both camps.

coastal erosion is a natural phenomena and as such I feel strongly that it should be allowed to go unchecked where at all possible. I would, unfortunately, include Golf Courses in that category.

As a source of material for beach accretion both dunes and sea cliffs are a base ingredient. As such I feel any protection of golf courses should have a detailed environmental impact assessment carried out.

The use of stone filled gabion baskets should be banned in coastal regions. Not only are they unsightly, prone to a limited life and difficult to maintain but they also constitue a fairly sterile environment for re-growth (ref Briand Moths)

Rock Armour (Rip-Rap) is probably a little more 'environmentally friendly and can redily form a 'core' for beach regeneration. I have designed a couple of schemes recently which, once covered have promoted significant beach accretion.

Royal Aberdeen, Montrose & Carnoustie Links are all subject to erosion at this time. UKCIP have posthulated that within 50 years sea level and wave height will have increased significantly. This will undoubtedly make our current situation worse.

Is it time for our links to look to the future and like all good boy scouts 'Be Prepared'

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ally, Sorry for the off-topic, but this is something I have been studying as of late with our California coastline, as well as the good the California Coastal Commission does in fact provide in protecting certain areas of rapid destablization. We Californians also need to thank the California Coastal Project for enabling us to further study what is happening to the coastline thanks to man-made sea walls which domuch harm to the ecosystem as well as provide little relief other then protecting someones house or condo from falling into the sea, and even then, it is only a temporary fix for what is eventually going to happen.

Point of reasoning--In the following image taken from the CP website, it is of an area in Encinitas, in North county San Diego. At the condo complex on the right, the 2nd story unit on the right is owned by my former boss of 13 years, who is actually like a second father to me. The entire complex, as well as the complex right next door has been in and out of court for the last fifteen years because of the poor and shoddy planning on the part of the original site engineer to not only maintain a distance away from the cliff, but to prevent putting any "load" on that cliff. Quite obviously, things became even more out of whack for the cliffs when they built the condo complex next door, and its even closer to the cliff! There has been much worry that it too was the product of poor engineering, and that eventually the cliff is going to give way. What do you think?



I also want to recommend like Brad, Robert Price's book. It's a great read and makes one understand exactly the importance of the environment means to Golf. Mankind has made a horrible mess in way too many areas, and it makes the GREAT feasible projects that respect Nature look even worse.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally Smith,

I'm going to disagree with what I perceive is your position.

If the evolutionary process means that the golf course will be lost, then I'm in favor of protecting it through man's efforts.

Should hole's numbered 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17 or 18 at Pebble Beach be in jeorpardy of being claimed by the ocean, I would support man's efforts to preserve them.

The same could be said of a number of holes at Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes.

I also don't know that a restorative cycle exists in those locations.  I think that once those cliffs cave, they're not likely to regenerate themselves again in 10, 100 or 1000 years.  Hence, the golf course is lost forever.

Why not preserve Pebble Beach, Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes ?  Where is the harm ?

With respect to more links like golf courses, like Maidstone, I'd be in favor of preserving them as well, for two reasons.

The first reason is that courses like that, on the ocean can't be created any more.  Environmental constraints prevent them from ever being designed and built.  Hence, they are like museum pieces, priceless and irretreivable if lost.

Why not protect historic, one of a kind, irreplaceable artifacts ?

If Lido existed today, but was threatened by coastal erosion, who amongst you would let it sink into the sea, never again to be replaced

Seminole ?

The second reason is the rarity of these courses, their uniqueness, that can't be duplicated, why allow them to become extinct when man has it in his power to preserve them ?

Time and time again many GCA'ers complain because man has destroyed classic works of art, and now, you want to allow nature to destroy those same works of art.

Sounds like a double standard to me  

[George Pazin]

It amazes me that people aren't allowed to build golf courses on the Cali coast, but they can build housing out the wazoo.

The biggest problem I see with the efforts Patrick describes is simply the amount of effort required to hold back Mother Nature. It's hard to overestimate to power of the ocean.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

George, It is amazing, but once again, I think it was a bit of a little too late for the CCC, and ultimately they are visualized as the bad guy because they are saying no. I'll be the first to admit that too many ruined this for Golf with maintenance practices (I wonder who we can point a finger at there?) but I see this as a complete failure of the system.  It just isn't happening in California either.

But yo have to admit, who wouldn't want to live or stay in a condo like this that over-looks the ocean? There have been many times, I have laid back on that patio in a lounge chair soaking up the rays and enjoying life. I have even slept out there at night! I even feel like an accomplice to some degree! I think of Malibu, where actual tax payer money has fixed so many of these houses of the wealthy because it was the fault of the State that the ocean reclaimed the land their house sits on. I can't tell you of the amount of times that Larry Hagmann is featured in local newscasts when the biggest storm of the winter hits the Malibu Colony, and how he is demanding the State call it an Emergency Disaster area, which of course they do, and in they come on 24 hour shifts to get Pacific Coast Highway, as well as the beach stabilized from further erosion.
 
Once again, it is all Gray Davis fault. (joke)

George, we need you and your common sense out here for governor!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy -

Before I go home for the day, I have to say, I agree with George!  Maintenance Practices?  Please document a real case of golf maintenance disasters that have affected your state and nearby ocean (which we all know will someday be one and the same ).

Its all perception, and here is a recent example from a turf newsletter I recieve:

"The GCSAA should go after the EPA on a restraint of trade accusation, or some such thing, for their making illegal to the golf course business the use of Mercury fungicides to control snow mold when they haven't begun to shut down or regulate the biggest releasers of mercury in the US.  Soft coal plants put 48 tons of mercury a year into the atmosphere (according to the Dallas Morning News, August 31, 2003, pg 1A).  I doubt all the golf courses put together released one ton per year from treating snow mold on greens."  (note, I presume that is 48 tons each)

"This is a case of the government going after the little guy while letting the big guys get away with murder"....a Texas state senator, after geting $27,060 in campaign funds has become a champion of lignite coal. (the soft kind)

Similar stories exist elsewhere.  Why?  Because we don't have clout, not because our maintenance practices truly harm the environment more than other human activities!

So, Does Arnold play golf?

I don't mean to hijack this thread, so if you want to continue environmental debates, we can start another.

Back to the topic at hand, that steep slope with its partial washouts looks typical from everything I've seen about similar banks.  The soils vary, and breaks are to be expected at the weak points.

I am no expert on ocean front dunes and how they change.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I'm not sure that I understand your comment with respect to golf ruining it due to maintainance practices.

Could you elaborate.

I'd also like to know how Pebble Beach, Spyglass, Spanish Bay,
Montery Penisula CC, Torrey Pines, Fort Ord, Sandpiper, Bodega Harbour and Cypress Point have harmed the California Coast line, environmentally or aesthetically ?

I believe there are big hotels, right on the cliffs just south of LA.

Perhaps the building/construction/electricians lobby is stronger then the golf lobby in California.

Has it ever been proven that leaching has a detrimental effect on the coastal environment.  Not polution vis a vis gasoline spills, but leaching ?  If so, at what course was it shown to be detrimental ?  

Thanks

[Andy_Lipschultz]

George: Not always does housing trump golf courses: For example, in regard to Ocean Trails, the CCC did not permit housing but did permit a golf course, because they (as was everyone) aware that the cliff was not stable enough for a housing tract. Guess it wasn't stable enough for a golf course as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Lipschultz,

Would the land that Ocean Trails sits on have collapsed if nothing were there ?

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Patrick: That's been the great debate since the landslide. One side was saying the golf course caused it; the golf course was saying an old runoff pipe sprung assorted leaks and saturated the ground for who knows how long, and the ground eventually "moved."

All I can add to that, is, as a teen, I would go scuba diving in that area and my dad (who grew up in L.A.) would always warn me to be careful hiking down to the ocean because that land was unstable. Don't know if he based that on first hand knowledge or rumor.

[allysmith]

Tommy,

Couldn't agree with you more.

I think George and Pat have missed the point somewhat or are refusing to view the saving of a golf course in the context of natural erosion processes.

Pat came up with the daft quote that a cliff face will not re-generate. Of course it won't thats the whole point. The thing it does do is provide a source of accretive material for an updrift site

Pat,
I find it very alarming that a gentleman of your status is not aware of the morphological and ecological processes involved in building in and around a coastal zone.

The whole point of an ecological assessment is not for the designer and developer to pat each other on the back for actually saving the odd duck or two. Its to assess and verify the sustainability of the development over the passage of time.

Golf courses are included within this. I have no problem about loosing Pebble Beach if it means that another area is being saved. If the loss of pebble beach is not benefiting anywhere else then save it. Thats the point of an EA!!

A golf course is not an Artifact. Any golf course can be re-created or re-developed. Is every hole at Pebble Beach perfect??

Neither is a golf course a work of art in the context you have used. Can you imagine Damon Hirst or Andy warhole adding the odd touch of paint to the Mona Lisa  or throwing in a couple of extra heads to make it harder for the experts to understand.

Golf Courses EVOLVE and as such are works in process. If natural morphology chooses to change the circumstances the let the course EVOLVE once more.

[Tom_Doak]

Ally:

At Pacific Dunes we were allowed to build right up to the edge of the cliffs overlooking the ocean.  As part of that we had a tacit understanding that we were doing so at our own peril.  As the cliff erodes away, whether it's ten years down the road or a hundred, the golf course will have to evolve with it ... I can't imagine anyone would want to "shore up" the clifftop.

In principle this seems a lot better to me than to have someone telling us we have to stay 100 feet back from the cliff edge because SOMEDAY it will erode.

The nice part about Pacific Dunes is that there's nothing but more golf on the inland side, so the golf CAN evolve.  At Pebble Beach and many other courses, there are homes inland of the fairways, so if the coastline changes by 100-200 feet there is no room for a golf course anymore -- and neither the Pebble Beach Company nor the homeowners along the 18th fairway would be happy about that!

[George Pazin]

Ally -

Just to clarify things a bit, I agree with much of what you're saying. I have a general thought process for most things like this that lead to my earlier statement: first, address whether or not something can be done, second, examine whether or not it should be done. My earlier post was meant to indicate that I don't think anything really can be done when it comes to trying to hold back the ocean (see the efforts someone brought up earlier in New Jersey), so the point becomes moot. Small shore ups are one thing, but it seems to me like you're describing a much larger effort that would ultimately prove unfruitful.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally Smith,

...I have no problem about loosing Pebble Beach if it means that another area is being saved....

 Could you tell me what other area is being saved ?

A golf course is not an Artifact. Any golf course can be re-created or re-developed. Is every hole at Pebble Beach perfect??

Do you honestly believe that any golf course can be recreated ?  Especially when agencies such as the CCC prohibit approaching the coastline ??  How can a golf course that sits on the coast be re-created if the current laws prohibit such development ?  Or, are you suggesting that Pebble Beach will work well in Kansas

Try duplicating TOC.

Your perspective seems more then a little naive

Neither is a golf course a work of art in the context you have used. Can you imagine Damon Hirst or Andy warhole adding the odd touch of paint to the Mona Lisa  or throwing in a couple of extra heads to make it harder for the experts to understand.

 Works of art needn't be static, they exist in varying forms, and, where is Tom MacWood when you need him  

Golf Courses EVOLVE and as such are works in process. If natural morphology chooses to change the circumstances the let the course EVOLVE once more.

What you miss is the TERMINAL nature of the evolutionary process due to legal constraints and adjacent, immovable, competing development.  The REAL world.

Your perspective seems more like that of a student's, one of theory versus reality.

Where do you suggest that Pebble Beach be recreated should it be lost to the sea ?

Tom Doak,

As I played the 4th hole at Pacific Dunes, and one of my playing partners hit his drive on the edge of the cliff, I wondered about their stability, shelf life, and impact on the golf course.

I wondered if you had made any adjustment in fairway width, or margin, so to speak, for the impact of the process of erosion ??

I also wondered the same thing about # 11 and # 13, did you build any margins into those holes as well.

I also wondered if there was a contingency plan in place,
in the event one or more of those holes was rendered unplayable ?

[Andy_Lipschultz]

For those you think Pebble should be saved if erosion endangered it, who would pay for any shoring up/repair/restoration?

[George Pazin]

Andy -

The owners of the course. No way the taxpayers, if that's what you're wondering.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

Who paid for it the last time repairs were made ?