John,
I'm not sure if this is relevant to what you're asking about, but a while after I came on-board here, I realized that I'd been confusing naturalism with minimalism. They're far from mutually exclusive, and in fact I think they usually go hand in hand; but they're not necessarily identical. So I tend to think that an architect trying for naturalism has more to do with his philosophy of the game and the experience he hopes the golfer will have than it does with moving too little/too much dirt or trees. But I do think naturalism a difficult approach, if perhaps not dangerous, i.e. when everything about a course suggests to the eye that it has been manufactured, I think the fair-minded golfer or gca critic can appreciate it on its merits, and accept that some bits of that which is manufactured will look more pleasing and work more effectively than other bits; whereas if you're trying for naturalism, it'll either look natural or it won't. I think there's less middle ground there, or room for error.
Peter