Sort of an interesting design dilemma, I guess. On a site 1/3 each of farm, prairie and scrub, and mature woods, are we so dogmatic that we take out the trees on the wooded holes for width, or do those 5-6 holes (with this one being a par 3) go narrower for variety of play value?
Obviously, working for the Prairie Band, who revere nature, it would be harder to explain to them why I was taking down their beautiful trees for width than even explaining to golfclubatlas.com why I didn't take them down!
BTW, I had no trouble making holes 8, 9, 11, 13 (the one above) and 14 narrower than the rest for contrast just on golf design philosophy alone. 11 is still pretty wide for being in the woods, too! 14 is narrow and those are the two par fives on the back nine where most of the big trees are, purposely done so each plays different. 11 is reachable and 15 probably is not, so a three shotter where two shots must thread the needle for absolute control is a nice change of pace here.
Just my thoughts, other than its nice to be in the top 4 out of 12 or 15, given it is an average midwest site, and built on a pretty low budget to make it affordble for a casino course. Also, we didn't shoot for extreme difficulty, knowing that the PGA Tour wasn't showing up (except for the NB3 challenge some day)
To me, that is the takeaway - that you can have a pretty fine course under those conditions.....providing you hire a reasonably talented designer!