[JMorgan]

or the Zen of GCA Fluid Dynamics...

A question for the architects:

What sorts of creative engineering have you done or can you point to where either you or one of your past/present colleagues provided a truly otherworldly/elegant solution to stormwater management and/or irrigation (extra points for two-for-one) on a "problem" site?

Can you provide us with pictures, illustrations, descriptions, etc?  Details, please.

[Tom_Doak]

Pete Dye had some very complex drainage systems underneath Old Marsh and Kiawah Island so that all the stormwater would be recirculated on site by some sort of sump pump system.  Both courses are built on sites very near sea level, so the elevation of some fairways is only a couple of feet above water table and the underground pipes are actually below (original) water table.

I didn't work on either of those courses so I never got the full scoop on how it worked, but that's where I would turn if I ever had to deal with the same problem.

There are some other golf courses where recycling all of the stormwater is mandated, but I would hate to see that established as a fundamental principle of design -- not only because every fairway would be full of catch basins, but because it would increase the cost of golf course construction and likely reduce the number of new courses that would be built.  In some parts of the world, water conservation is a priority -- but in others, not so much.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure exactly what you mean, but I am guessing that it relates to the Florida thread, i.e. avoiding lakes everywhere?

For stormwater control, its a quantity issue.  Most areas, we must limit discharge of the site to pre-development rates, meaning we have to have big storage areas - lakes, wetlands, or dry detention areas - somewhere. In housing,the golf usually takes the brunt of the detention since its already in the low areas.

If you don't like golf lakes, you can try to convince the engineer to put at least one near the clubhouse, or off golf course as an amenity for other lots, providing the topo works.  Or, you can put them between holes or just off the tee where they won't come into play as much.

As Tom notes, stormwater quality is also an issue and will be standard soon, if not already.  Basically, you need a pond to dilute pollutants or a wetland to dilute and filter them, again sized to runoff capacity.  Same rules apply, although few think these would make a good front entry feature.

Lastly, there is irrigation.  In most areas, a pond of 3-6 acres is needed. In reality, this pond is better if it doesn't collect storm water (at least until after filtering) since those pollutants can't be great for turf.  Most of us would put it in play for a few holes, unless the character of the course is such that no pond would be better.

There are also some legal considerations as to where to put ponds, esp. if the irrigation ponds contain effluent.  Those must be out of the 100 year flood plain, be well marked, and in some cases, fenced off, which is hardly elegant!  And, I recall a case years ago where the ponds were between golf and housing, and the property line went through the middle of the pond.  While sad, the story was that a kid drowned in the pond and both homeowner and golf course dragged his body to the other side before the police came in an effort to avoid liability!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

Good morning!

I have seen waste bunkers as detention areas. In fact, I think that's why Fazio, JN and others use so many waste bunkers off tees in Florida. I could be wrong.  

The key, of course, is to use waste bunkers in areas where the flood waters will be either backing into the waste bunkers, or at very least, moving very slowly, lest they just carry the sand away in every storm.

[JMorgan]

I guess my real question is, Could one engineer rates of retention, absorption, and release in a cost effective manner where stormwater becomes the means of sustainability for most or all of the course without building retention ponds or lakes?  Even -- and perhaps especially -- on residential and development courses like Jeff points out?  

Are there any instances where this is in fact the case, or are those Pete Dye properties with low water tables the closest anyone has come to this kind of sustainability?

Tom, could you not creatively employ rain garden-esque swales and certain kinds of vegetation in combination instead of catch basins on every hole if recycling 100% stormwater becomes a necessity?  

Kelly, I guess I'd ask the same question in response to the DEP and Soil Conservation issues you point out.  With L.A. heading in the LEED direction -- as you pointed out in a thread not long ago, I believe -- I would think eventually these departments would soon recognize the need to be more creative.  
 

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm really interested in this thread, because there are certain storm-water management issues affecting some of the things we're presently looking at and the need for creative, viable, DEP-approvable solutions is acute.

[TaylorA]

JM

The engineers will tell you that it is impossible to be creative because you must follow the regulations provided by DEP or Soil conservation.  They are either not capable of accepting creative designs within their process or they are unwillingly.  To attempt creative solutions would delay permitting.  Landscape architects will tell you that they can design creative solutions but DEP and Soil Conservation only allow engineers to stamp the drawings, thus effectively keeping LA’s out of that type of work.  LA’s arguments are that they bring more creativity to the issue than engineers and registered LA’s do have a stormwater management component in their licensure exams and continuing education.

Well, let me stick up for the engineers here. (LA's and engineers seem to have a love-hate relationship - but I digress.) It's certainly possible for an engineer to provide a creative stormwater solution - if they haven't been able to, it's for any number of reasons.

First, often times the developer isn't willing to give enough property to allow for a creative solution. Creative solutions are usually expensive!

Prior to the ACoE mandating that on-line detention is not allowable without a 404 permit, creative solutions were easy. Then came the stream buffers, which many states now have. Good luck getting a stream buffer variance AND 404 permit - and even if you do, most clients aren't willing to wait the 12-24 months that it takes to get those.

I'm certainly capable of providing a creative solution, so long as the developer is willing to shoulder the cost! I'm curious what creative solutions to stormwater treatment and management you have in mind, but engineers are unwilling to accept.

I've heard LA's claim they have the ability to do stormwater management, but this is the first I've heard the claim of them being more creative in the solution than the engineer. An LA is usually capable of making a "prettier" pond, but in the world of stormwater management, (and this is especially true in non-golf related developments) form ALWAYS follows function.

[TaylorA]

Are there any instances where this is in fact the case, or are those Pete Dye properties with low water tables the closest anyone has come to this kind of sustainability?

Tom, could you not creatively employ rain garden-esque swales and certain kinds of vegetation in combination instead of catch basins on every hole if recycling 100% stormwater becomes a necessity?  

JM, read this article on another Pete Dye golf course that uses the idea of recycled and treated water.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980720082114.htm

The problem with rain garden-esque solutions is that the soil for the property must have the ability to absorb the water. That's fine in loamy and sandy soils, but rain gardens do not work effectively in clay soils. Regardless of the soils, replacing catch basins with these things means that they're large areas that remain wet for a very long period after a rain - that's not ideal on a golf course. Catch basins are bad enough, but at least they're relatively small.

[Steve_Lovett]

A few thoughts...

Frankly, I don't suspect that many LA's have the technical expertise to develop comprehensive master stormwater drainage solutions for complex projects.  Civil engineers tend to deal with the technical requirements - and usually have a deeper knowledge of the permitting agencies in the particular juristictions where they work.

Civil Engineers tend to have an inside out approach - and rightly so.  There is a tendency toward the simplest "textbook" technical solution - which doesn't usually consider the particulars of the site and often involves straight lines and is less "naturalistic".  This is why, in Florida anyhow, many stormwater retention facilities (ponds) are simple, with consistent bank-slopes, straight edges, and are often unnatural looking.  And - they look especially odd in what should be a naturalistic golf environment.  

The best result is from collaboration - where the civil engineer establishes the technical parameters, and the golf course designer and/or landscape architect (who is looking at the problem from the "outside in") works together to implement those requirements in the most appropriate way possible.

The result can look completely natural (or nearly so), and need not be ugly, or cost much more, or yield uplayable golf or unnatural development.

And - again in Florida - the nature of the topography and  water table limits options to create stormwater treatment facilities in a form other than a pond.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Taylor,

Thanks for that link. I looked at a few other articles, including the study on inhaling golf course pesticides, which reads in part:

Cornell University's Douglas A. Haith and Rebecca R. Murphy report results of the first systematic study of inhalation health risk for 15 pesticides typically applied to golf courses in the northeast.

Their report, scheduled for the Feb. 1 issue of ACS' Environmental Science & Technology, a semi-monthly journal, concludes that the risk of cancer and other long-term health effects from inhaling vapors from the pesticides is "minimal."

The researchers note, however, that a complete risk assessment for the pesticides would have to include ingestion and skin contact -- intake routes not considered in their study.

The scientists also point out that the pesticides could pose significant health risks at other locations in the United States, where golfers may be exposed to higher concentrations of pesticide vapors due to warmer temperatures and lower wind speeds.

So there is science and there is spin....even though the data suggests minimal risk, they have to finish the column by wondering if actually eating pesticides might pose a risk?  Combining this with the lawsuit thread, I wonder how long it will take a lawyer to determine that the course is liable for some kid breaking into the shed and actually snorting or eating a chemical, and at the same time, hold him harmless?

And, would lower wind speeds make an airborn particle more or less likely?

Back On Topic, I think Kelly is right - LA's want collaboration with engineers.  We can rough in detention basin sizes using Rational Formula, even though for big watersheds, and some state laws require more sophisticated methods.  At least, that's what I do, and engineers have some kind of footprint of where the wetlands, dry or wet basins, etc. can fit and then we work together.  And, I rarely miss my calcs by too much, but then all you have to do is read some earlier threads calling me "CB MacBrauer" to know I take golf course drainage very seriously.

I do agree that a local engineer probably has a better in with the permit agencies, although I am well known in the DFW AOCE office.  I also agree that most developers won't sacrifice land or money to do much more than the minimum, unless that land is available at a very low cost basis.  

And, some engineers have gotten away from that traditional mindset of channels of concrete, often because of mandates to use softer solutions.  In the old days, an engineers "sensitivity" could be summed up by an exchange between LA and Engineer:

LA: Its important to save all the trees we can on this project!

Engineer: No problem, just tell us where to stack them.....

[TaylorA]

Jeff, the one thing civils and LAs can probably agree on are lawyers!

Collaboration between the architect and the civil when designing ponds is critical - I can remember the one time I've worked with an architect in the design of a pond for the golf course. I asked a lot of questions - from desired water surface elevation to the release rate. (I wanted to know if he wanted the creek that ran across the fairway to have a trickle of water or constant flow, ala the 13th at Augusta...) It worked out well, but probably because I at least was aware of the goals he was trying to accomplish.

I haven't used the rational formula to design a pond since school. Nearly every jurisdiction that I work in requires a three component pond - water quality, channel protection and detention. We then use HEC-1 for our modeling. For rough sizing, we using 12,000 cf per acre in residential and 10,000 cf per acre in commercial. That usually works OK for the land planning phase of a project.

[Chris_Baynham]

Kelly, sounds like you have had some poor experiences with engineers...that's unfortunate.

We deal with many (about 60-80) water management issues for new and existing golf courses every year.  I can honestly say (without naming names) I have seen plenty of LA's to show "little" desire to collaborate.

I agree, collaboration needs to start immediately for a project to be successful.

Jeff, we like your exchange between the LA and engineer...that's funny  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Taylor and Chris sound like some of the good guys, and I have run across many in the engineering field who do the engineering side with at least an eye to working on the aesthetics.

On the other side, I have recently had a collaboration that shows the "stereotype" engineer and his disdain for landscape/golf course architecture.  He plopped a pond down right in the middle of the golf course and told me he was "giving me that" for the courses own good.  

He was smug, swarmy, and cocksure of himself - all the things that don't make for a good collaborative design professional.

So, its getting better, but we aren't all the way there from the gca POV.  I am sure there are some engineers out there saying the same thing in reverse, since some gca's are remarkably nonchalant about the technical issues facing certain golf designs. I like to get involved technically, mostly because expreience shows that if the detention requirements get too far down the line before my involvement, they tend to be solutions I don't like.

Taylor,

Wow, 10-12K per acre!  Is that for detention purposes rather than pipe sizing?  On golf courses, we often are sizing pipe for about 1CFS per acre, based on budget concerns.  Of course, runoff is 50% or less compared to 80% or more from commercial uses!  But, I usually get a rough ball park on detention requirements from the engineer so I can site, size, and set freeboards for any detention areas, and then give it back to them for tweaking.

[TaylorA]

Kelly/Jeff, thanks for the comments. I certainly think I'm the exception in this case because I'm both a golfer and architecture freak. I was excited to have the opportunity to be involved in the design and to work with the architect. Now, if you talk to a building architect, I bet they'd say my collaboration skills are horrible!

Jeff, that would be for detention pond sizing. Since all drainage is local, that rule of thumb probably doesn't work in the flatlands of Texas.

I couldn't care less about credit for a design - nobody else does in the case of site engineering anyway! The only person who cares about credit of a civil site design is an attorney.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Taylor,

I can't resist this - do you think you care more or less about design credit than Roger Clemens cares about the Hall of Fame?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()