How are courses built at the turn of the 20th century different from courses

[Patrick_Mucci]

built today, environmentally ?

I was thinking about Pine Valley, NGLA, GCGC, Shinnecock, Merion, Southampton, Seminole. Pebble Beach, CPC, Olympic, San Francisco and other courses built at the begining of the 20th century, and how in any way their construction has harmed the environment, then, 50 years later and today.

I may be biased, but, I don't see the harm.

Do any of you ?

Again, I'm talking about construction and the impact those courses had on their particular environments, then, 50 years later and today.

[Kyle Harris]

built today, environmentally ?

I was thinking about Pine Valley, NGLA, GCGC, Shinnecock, Merion, Southampton, Seminole. Pebble Beach, CPC, Olympic, San Francisco and other courses built at the begining of the 20th century, and how in any way their construction has harmed the environment, then, 50 years later and today.

I may be biased, but, I don't see the harm.

Do any of you ?

Again, I'm talking about construction and the impact those courses had on their particular environments, then, 50 years later and today.

I am curious as to how you could even objectively measure any response such that this question could be answered in any meaningful way.

In order to see the any harm, you'd first have to see how the environment existed before the golf course.

[Kyle Harris]

I think, what you're implying here Pat is that the natural world tends to adapt to change relatively quickly in terms of recovery. For example, one can see Bald Eagles sitting atop power line poles in Tampa, FL. Furthermore, the natural recovery and reclamation of the mining areas of Northeastern Pennsylvania significantly re-altered the landscape in your lifetime. My father, born in 1951 in that region, recalls a time when the mountains stood bare of any lumber. Today, they're back to first succession forest and the open pit mines are slowly returning to a more native setting.

This, however, does not preclude such actions from damage or irreparable harm to the environment. It's just that the impact of one event or change does not add up within human time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

built today, environmentally ?

I was thinking about Pine Valley, NGLA, GCGC, Shinnecock, Merion, Southampton, Seminole. Pebble Beach, CPC, Olympic, San Francisco and other courses built at the begining of the 20th century, and how in any way their construction has harmed the environment, then, 50 years later and today.

I may be biased, but, I don't see the harm.

Do any of you ?

Again, I'm talking about construction and the impact those courses had on their particular environments, then, 50 years later and today.

I am curious as to how you could even objectively measure any response such that this question could be answered in any meaningful way.

In order to see the any harm, you'd first have to see how the environment existed before the golf course.

Kyle,

That's easy to do.

If you've been to PV and NGLA prior to Sebonack, you can see exactly how the surrounding area has fared over the last century and make a fairly straight forward assessment.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think, what you're implying here Pat is that the natural world tends to adapt to change relatively quickly in terms of recovery. For example, one can see Bald Eagles sitting atop power line poles in Tampa, FL. Furthermore, the natural recovery and reclamation of the mining areas of Northeastern Pennsylvania significantly re-altered the landscape in your lifetime. My father, born in 1951 in that region, recalls a time when the mountains stood bare of any lumber. Today, they're back to first succession forest and the open pit mines are slowly returning to a more native setting.

This, however, does not preclude such actions from damage or irreparable harm to the environment. It's just that the impact of one event or change does not add up within human time.

I'm not talking about extremes such as the ones you cited, I'm talking about PV, NGLA and the others I mentioned, not coal and open pit mines.
You can easily view the adjacent land, which was unchanged for nearly a century, and make the comparison.

What harm was done at PV, NGLA, Seminole, Southampton, Pebble Beach, CPC and other lands that sited golf courses at the turn of the century. ?

[Kyle Harris]

I think, what you're implying here Pat is that the natural world tends to adapt to change relatively quickly in terms of recovery. For example, one can see Bald Eagles sitting atop power line poles in Tampa, FL. Furthermore, the natural recovery and reclamation of the mining areas of Northeastern Pennsylvania significantly re-altered the landscape in your lifetime. My father, born in 1951 in that region, recalls a time when the mountains stood bare of any lumber. Today, they're back to first succession forest and the open pit mines are slowly returning to a more native setting.

This, however, does not preclude such actions from damage or irreparable harm to the environment. It's just that the impact of one event or change does not add up within human time.

I'm not talking about extremes such as the ones you cited, I'm talking about PV, NGLA and the others I mentioned, not coal and open pit mines.
You can easily view the adjacent land, which was unchanged for nearly a century, and make the comparison.

What harm was done at PV, NGLA, Seminole, Southampton, Pebble Beach, CPC and other lands that sited golf courses at the turn of the century. ?

I'm sorry to say Pat, but it just doesn't work that way.

Golf courses are, for starters, a MONO-culture compared to the surrounding diversity. Cultivars don't count for diversity as they are all the same species and the number of grasses used in turf on those examples can be counted on two hands. This in and of itself is inherently weaker and more harmful to the environment than a natural selection process where life fills specific niches through diversity. All told, every one of those places will ultimately cease to be golf courses and then any number of factors will work for and against the surrounding environment to fill the void left by the golf course's absence. The harm on the environment is almost categorically proven by the level of maintenance required to maintain the golf course for golf. Every natural factor is working against the golf course. What happens to the golf course when maintenance stops?

Pesticides are applied and used in all those places to eliminate the natural elements that are working against the use of the ground for golf. A common fungicide in the early part of the 20th century were formulations of mercury and copper sulfate, both have soil residuals which last well over a century and were therefore banned.

Your question cannot be answered truthfully or factually because the limits of your timeframe are too narrow and the scope of your question will not take into account all necessary variables.

I don't know for sure, but how many potentially invasive and non-native plants are cultivated at the above places that will be free to roam when/if the golf courses ever shut down? What was done to control these plants at the turn of the century? Didn't Pine Valley have serious agronomic issues in part because of seed that almost wholly contained noxious weed plants? Wasn't this the VERY PROBLEM that Piper, Oakley, et. al. sought to eliminate?

Furthermore, you've grossly misrepresented my example by attempting to tie it into your original question. The example was meant to draw a comparison to other instances where man's influence has slowly returned to nature over the course of 50 years - helping the case for the golf course.

Perhaps your question should deal with relative impact to humans as opposed to harm on the environment. The harm is there, it's just not effecting people.

[paul cowley]

Pat...Ii am willing to suggest that nearly all of the courses you list would have major environmental reartictions, and could not be built by our current standerds

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat...Ii am willing to suggest that nearly all of the courses you list would have major environmental reartictions, and could not be built by our current standerds

Paul,

I'd agree with that, but, what harm did their construction do ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Golf courses are, for starters, a MONO-culture compared to the surrounding diversity.


I'm pretty sure that sand quarries are mono-cultures.
And that Pine forests have limited cultures

Cultivars don't count for diversity as they are all the same species and the number of grasses used in turf on those examples can be counted on two hands.

Cultivars, by definition, equate with variety.

This in and of itself is inherently weaker and more harmful to the environment than a natural selection process where life fills specific niches through diversity.

Tell me how the grass fairways, rough, greens and tees have hurt the surrounding environment at PV

All told, every one of those places will ultimately cease to be golf courses and then any number of factors will work for and against the surrounding environment to fill the void left by the golf course's absence.

If you drive on the George Washington Bridge, you can see grass, trees, vines and plants growing out of the concrete and in any spot where dirt can accumulate.

The question is, how has the golf course harmed the environment, not, will any site, left unattended be populated by native speicies.

The harm on the environment is almost categorically proven by the level of maintenance required to maintain the golf course for golf.
That's sheer nonsense or rather, convoluted logic.

Every natural factor is working against the golf course. What happens to the golf course when maintenance stops?

The grass grows higher

Pesticides are applied and used in all those places to eliminate the natural elements that are working against the use of the ground for golf. A common fungicide in the early part of the 20th century were formulations of mercury and copper sulfate, both have soil residuals which last well over a century and were therefore banned.

I think it's safe to say that you're confusing maintainance with construction.
Please, stick to construction.

Your question cannot be answered truthfully or factually because the limits of your timeframe are too narrow and the scope of your question will not take into account all necessary variables.

I disagree, sufficient time has expired that would allow for a prudent analysis.

I don't know for sure, but how many potentially invasive and non-native plants are cultivated at the above places that will be free to roam when/if the golf courses ever shut down?


What non-native plants ?

What was done to control these plants at the turn of the century?


I was under the impression that the area was a pine forest with some swamp areas.

Didn't Pine Valley have serious agronomic issues in part because of seed that almost wholly contained noxious weed plants?
Wasn't this the VERY PROBLEM that Piper, Oakley, et. al. sought to eliminate?

Contaminated seeds aren't the issue, construction is the issue, please stick to the issue.

Furthermore, you've grossly misrepresented my example by attempting to tie it into your original question.

No, I haven't, Your example wasn't germane to the issue, it was an extreme that had nothing to do with golf course construction.

The example was meant to draw a comparison to other instances where man's influence has slowly returned to nature over the course of 50 years - helping the case for the golf course.

Sorry, but, I don't understand the above sentence

Perhaps your question should deal with relative impact to humans as opposed to harm on the environment. The harm is there, it's just not effecting people.

Feel free to start another thread on the impact to humans, this is about golf course construction and the environment.

[Jim_Kennedy]

If the golf courses in question posed no threat (however minimal) to the environment you wouldn't see most of them getting on board the nitrogen reduction program started on LI some years back.

"As the grandson of a local bayman, I grew up swimming, fishing and clamming in the surrounding waters and I have personally witnessed the decline in water quality of our bays. Becoming involved with the Peconic Estuary Program gave me the opportunity to represent golf course superintendents in the effort to clean up and protect the surrounding marine environment. It is my hope that through this cooperative agreement, the sophisticated nitrogen management strategies developed by superintendents will be recognized and adopted for use in other areas. It doesn't take a lot of nitrogen to grow good grass."
Mike Rewinski, Superintendent

As to the harm done during construction, didn't CBM bring wagon loads of fertilizer to NGLA during the construction phase? I don't think they were concerned with the run-off at that time (no silt fence, etc.) so the harm seen by supers like MR began then.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

...and as CBM wrote about the property chosen for NGLA:   "........it abounded in bogs and swamps".

The worth of bogs and swamps is well known, and their reclamation (as was done to create NGLA) would not be seen as something positive in today's environmental climate.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

An interesting question, and one that perhaps some turf student should take on as a master thesis.

Off the top of my head, it may be a wash, although the general impression is that golf increased its environmental footprint over the years. 

Older courses had no troubles in destroying wetlands, etc.  However, they generally had less turf acres, and those were less intensely maintained. Modern courses are the opposite.  Add in that in many cases more of the turf area is "constructed" with imported sands (greens, tees, now even fw) and the total scope of changing, if not harming, the environment has gone way up.  And way more is irrigated, at least in less turf friendly climates of the US.

Even the pavement - a typical cart path system adds 5-6 acres of impervious surface that contributes to drainage flow - can be seen as an environmental negative.

[Steve Burrows]

Pat is probably right in saying that the construction of the golf courses he uses as examples have caused no direct, or real harm to the environment.  

However, in many ways, the issue is not the ACTUAL harm caused by these courses during their construction, but instead the POTENTIAL for harm to their local environment, neighboring environment, or down-stream environments, that limits the construction of similarly bold features and golf courses in the contemporary world.  

The 11th green at Merion, for example, hard by the creek, might not be allowed today without considerable setback requirements that would alter much of the charm of the green site.  However, without current regulation/legislation that prohibits/limits such design strategies, and many others like it, there would open up greater possibility for construction mistakes that might harmful to the environment, especially with respect to erosion, the leaching of chemicals into the water supply, etc.  But again, individual examples are not capable of measuring the issue.  The problem would be if hundreds, even thousands, of golf courses were unregulated.  There would simply be too much room for error.

Additionally, Pat, try though you may, there is no way to separate construction issues from maintenance issues; they are inextricably linked.

[Kyle Harris]

Pat:

I am going to limit my participation on this thread as I feel very strongly about the contents and I think some of the implications made by your questions are going to hurt the future of golf and golf development in this country.

By making statements like cultivar implies diversity you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of what terms like biodiversity and mono-culture really mean. Pine forests such as the Wharton State Forest in southern New Jersey are wonderfully diverse and feature plants living in communities of mutual support, both annual and perennial.

Your statement about the cessation of maintenance simply meaning the grass grows longer also shows ignorance of the environmental forces acting on the golf course all the time. Do the golf courses in your list not get weeds?

The act of constructing a golf course necessitates the act of maintaining it. Ergo, the construction of the golf course causes the environmental impact brought about by maintenance. As Steve just mentioned the two are linked. Furthermore, seeding the golf course is a part of construction.

As for the timeframe, it is both too short and too long. It glosses over any remedial efforts made necessary by the golf course construction (How many trees did Pine Valley have to plant to prevent the golf course from falling into the swamp?), the effects of which you will not consider because of the fundamentally flawed approach to your analysis. The equivalent logic would be for me to say that cancer is not a harm because you are living today, or that I can take up smoking because lung cancer survival rates are increasing.

To touch on construction:

The simple act of clearing a hole corridor through a forest has ramifications on the surrounding land. Shade and sun patterns are different, the soil horizon is changed, new niches are created, etc. Pitch pines that once stood in stands of thousands are suddenly exposed to new winds, full/partial sun and any number of other variables. New niches are created for plants that survive on the edges of forest such as Sassafras. The disruption gives overly competitive invasive plants a foothold to establish ahead of native plants. Think of what happens with a deep wound and no antiseptic - it becomes infected. Take a look at any new golf course construction and notice the parasitic vines making their way up the sides of trees that once stood in the middle of the forest. Pine Valley was NOT immune to such problems during its construction and the impact on the surrounding environment and cost for remediation of the issue cannot be ignored simple because of how the course exists today.

That's all, good luck with the rest of the discussion and I hope the returns are of some value to you.

Be well.

[Tom_Doak]

The 11th green at Merion, for example, hard by the creek, might not be allowed today without considerable setback requirements that would alter much of the charm of the green site.  However, without current regulation/legislation that prohibits/limits such design strategies, and many others like it, there would open up greater possibility for construction mistakes that might harmful to the environment, especially with respect to erosion, the leaching of chemicals into the water supply, etc.  But again, individual examples are not capable of measuring the issue.  The problem would be if hundreds, even thousands, of golf courses were unregulated.  There would simply be too much room for error.

Steve:

That's a great, real-world example.  But since we come from opposite ends of the business, it's not surprising we would draw different conclusions about the long-term implications.

Construction is a limited window, with a limited potential to cause harm.  Building a green next to a creek like that offers the potential for washing sediment into the creek, or washing pre-plant materials into the creek, if the construction schedule is not carefully controlled to minimize potential impacts.

Sometimes, though, at permit hearings, I find myself having to make promises for the long-term maintenance of a course -- a promise which I can't hope to monitor or keep.  The superintendent at Merion has the potential to mess up that creek every so often from now until the end of time.  I am sure he takes that responsibility seriously, but still, he's got a lot more time to make a mistake than we construction rats do.