Engineering and Golf Architecture

[Derek_L]

I know we have discussed this topic before but I know there are those out there that always ask engineering related questions.  Is the engineer's role for golf course development, not really design now, except in certain cases, more important than some lend to beleive.  I guess I am referring to the permitting processes, such as wetlands and other environmental concerns.  My little experience has shown that engineers can and should be utilized for certain situations.  But I guess I am curious, especially for projects similar to the Jeff Brauer (maybe Jeff can comment) courses in northern Minnesota that are on Native American Reservations and the USACOE actually has no jurisdiction over them, for projects such as these do architects retain consultants to deal with environmental issues or does there end up being no concern.  I know that projects such as Lost Dunes (Maybe Tom Doak can comment on this) in Michigan had "Sensitive Dunes Areas" to deal with, as an architect how does one deal with these issues.  My overall question is how does an engineer fit into the scope of development and is there much opportunity for this type of work for one.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Derek,

While the Bois Forte Reservation does operate as its own nation, USCOE wetlands rules did apply in some cases at their course - The Wilderness at Fortune Bay.  That is becuase the course (esp. the 13th hole) and reservation sit on the shores of Lake Vermilion, which is waters of the US.  Any water course that emptied into the lake was considered jurisdictional.  Most water courses do in fact, empty into that lake.

Beyond that, the band follows a "good neighbor policy" and voluntarily adheres to all US environmental regulations.  So, typical of other projects, they interviewed and selected a local engineer (SEH) with a good reputation for environmental permitting.  They also have their own in house environmentalist, and hired a few specialized consultants to assist the engineer in identifying specific plants and animals on the site.  Rather than avoid all wetlands, they did take advantage of a Minnesota program of Wetland Banking, and purchased some other existing wetlands for preservation so they could disturb necessary wetlands in building the course in the locations we desired.

As to whether we retain the engineers and enviro consultants, we actually try to have the owner retain them directly, if at all possible.  That more accureately reflects the work situation, and of course, our errors and omissions insurance company doesn't want us taking any responsibility for work of others, even through a good sub contract.  Some owners do request that the golf architect head the team - for the convenience of writing one check and avoiding any project management.  So, we have done that, too.

As for the importance of the engineers role in golf design?  Yes, we can't get started without necessary permits.  And during design, engineers handle any safety or welfare issues in design, like master site drainage plans, flood control and detention, etc.  By law in most places, an engineer must design such things that affect off site property.  We handle all golf course drainage within the context of the master drainage plan.

At the Quarry at Giant's Ridge, about 40 miles south of Fortune Bay, we also have the 18th hole sitting on top of a 120 foot bank down to the old Embarass Mine pit. (now a spring fed lake)  After seeing holes in Michigan and California take slides into the lake/ocean, we requested the owner hire SEH to perform the design for slope stabilization there.  They also did the environmental study, with help for Environmental and Turf Services of Wheaton, Md.  They found possible industrial contaminents in an old rail yard and processing plant, which may have cost millions to clean up under EPA law.  So, we marked off those areas, and shifted the routing to other areas of the site.

So, they do get involved in the design from that aspect.

[Steve Lang]

As a golfnut and my engineering background I’d offer the following generic perspective/comments on the engineering role in any modern (including golf course course) development:

1) Engineers like a specified scope of work with defined tasks.
2) Engineering managers like meeting schedule and budget for the specified scope of work.
3) Every change or deviation from scope creates management and cost impacts and is disliked.   As a result, there is an engineering approach called “Front End Loading”, wherein engineering is divided into conceptual, feasibility and definition phases of work.  Each phase has assessment, technical, and execution deliverables.  The goal is minimizing rework and being able to move forward under a clear and concise plan for detailed engineering and field construction.  Permits are normally deliverables under the Definition phase.
4) Engineering and scientific resources are typically needed in modern permitting activities related to water pollution control.  This is where consulting firm’s strengths lie, in being able to bring the right resources, as needed, to any development project.  120 hours for the Civil, 40 hours for the biologist, 160 hours for the hydrogeologist, 30 hours for the secretary, etc., etc..  
5) Some clients like to have an engineering consultant on their payroll in a multi-faceted manager/interpreter/arbitrator/ombudsman role to keep a rein on project activities and costs and be proactive.
6) Point source pollution has largely been controlled over the last 30 years by the EPA and states under the Clean Water Act and state equivalents.  A renewed focus is on non-point sources, primarily agriculture, but some are trying to point the finger at golf courses as well.  Check out the website http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/facts/point1.htm.  
7) The Coastal zones have some unique water pollution control issues that are driving more EPA involvement in setting best management practices/measures.  This has now gone way beyond silt fences into:

* Preharvest planning
* Streamside management areas
* Road construction/reconstruction
* Road management
* Timber harvesting
* Site preparation and forest regeneration
* Fire management
* Revegetation of disturbed areas
* Forest chemical management
* Wetland forest management

My bottom line..
Engineering types may be needed more to keep "order" a realistic goal, than for their basic tech services.

[Tom Doak]

Derek:

You asked about the "critical dunes act" in Michigan and how it was applied to Lost Dunes.  An interesting case study!

Lost Dunes was for many years a sand mine.  The company dug out as much as 75 feet of sand in some places (which is how the course got its name), and they left steep sand banks going up to the property line on three sides.

The Critical Dunes Act was passed a few years ago to stop such mining, but in trying to find a technical way to specify what they wanted to do, the law specifies that no one may alter or grade any slope greater than 3:1.  Applied to a former sand mine like Lost Dunes, this had the perverse effect of "protecting" the eroded banks on the margins of the course which were left over from mining.

I suggested to our environmental engineers that perhaps we could put some dirt up against one of the banks to build an elevated tee and reduce the erosion potential.  This was rejected, and the engineers forbade me from even asking the field officer for the state if we couldn't make an exception considering the circumstances!  If we wanted to build an elevated tee we would have to tie in below the 3:1 slope and come back up from there.

This is one of the experiences that has made me a bit wary of engineering input.  

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Jeff

Hopefully your owner/developer allowed you to keep the "Embarrass Mine Pit" name for that 18th hole.........

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rich,

We are trying to get them to name all the holes after some of the old mine names in the area.  Of course, I submitted a list with a few groaners, like "Awl" Mine, "Igot Mine", and  "Yourzn Mine."

At Fortune Bay, all the holes are named after animals, which represent the (conveniently) 18 different Chippewa Clans in the area.  A few "odes" to the animals are in process of being worked into the design.

[RJ_Daley]

Here's an interesting case study.  I explored a golf course bankruptcy re-organizaition plan last week.  One of the outstanding issues is that for the entire length of a par 5, there is a dispute as to the boundary of the property.  It seems the owner had a verbal agreement with a lifelong farm neighbor about a questionable encroachment over the property line, or the exact location of the property line.  The well known archie went forth, (apparently in the face of this question) without insisting on a proper land survey.  When the construction was done, the neighbor advised he wanted a lease fee, which he was granted at an rediculous yearly fee.  How can an archie of high professional standing in ASGCA go forth without seeing for himself that such issues are in proper legal order.  Aren't they supposed to do so if for no other reason than to use their experience and knowledge to protect the developer/owner?

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

Most contracts, including the ASGCA standard one (modelled after the AIA agreement, and well tested in courts of law) have Owner's responsibilities, as well as architect responsibilities.  The Owner is responsible for securing the property, and easements, and the architect is entitled to rely on that information, unless he specifically signs a contract to the contrary.  But, what would make a golf course architect an expert on surveying or property law?

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff, I can understand that there is a desire if not need to have a contract that clearly defines whose responsibility it is to have such work like proper survey done.  My question is not who pays to have it done, but whether an archie should insist on seeing the proper legal documentation done, particularly in this case when it was within his knowledge before construction started that there was a cochamaimie verbal agreement between farmers on the boundary line.  I wold think an archie of more than 30 years experience would have had red flags going up all over the place, and insist that the survey be done and no outstanding potential property line disputes were out there to come back and bite them in the butt.  Clearly this owner was naive, if not down right foolish.  But, in your business, I would always want to follow the rule of "measure twice - cut once"   :-/

[Jeff_McDowell]

RJ,

Always be wary of the contractual phase "by others".

I've got a similar story. A local course hired a big name architect to master plan and design a golf course and residential development. During construction, the architect moved a tee box to improve the hole. Unfortunately, the new tee box location is not within the golf course property, so the developer is making the golf club move the tee box. OOPS.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rj,

We usually insist a registered surveyor map for planning, and also that a registered surveyor set the property corners and boundary lines for the contractor, especially in housing projects.  Potential problems usually show up, and the earlier the better.  

You would be surprised at how many property boundary disputes there are, even with a survey, and how many projects get started without actually having all the property fully under control.  The "get it done" mentality of many developers - including some sophisticated ones - makes them think they can/will overcome all "minor obstacles" like not actually having the land!

I feel uncomfortable with unsophisticated owners when they say things like "Oh, we don't need wetland permits here" or the like.  I know its not true, and I know there are penalties for me going along with the deal if they are caught.  But, if an Owner represents he has the property, or that a deal is in progress and wants to go forward, I would probably have to take that at face value.  Each situation is different, and I would probably act differently, depending onthe "vibes" I got from the Owner.  I can't tell exactly what transpired in your example.

And, of course, I would document everthing as best I could.

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff, you've really used good words to describe the mental process and problem with enthusiastic but naive owners.  The mentality of designating "minor problems" and the notion that they will be simply and effectively dealt with, has to be a very big trap, as you indicate.  I indeed almost fell into that mentality while planning a project 10 years ago.  Those minor problems would have mired me down and trapped me because the aren't so minor and can delay progress until the point of failure, particularly if you commit to get underway and think you can deal with them later.  I just think that archies see this so very often, that they should feel ethically bound to insist on these matters being taken care of before the ground is worked.  It has to be a fine line between the archie and construction entities getting to work, and what they insist on seeing from the developer's in the way of legal documentation of the land, and various other aspects.  

I wish I could say more about the example I am alluding to, but I can't...