I was directly involved in the development of the Royal New Kent Golf Course. It was constructed on cut-over timber land using the existing topography to a great extent. As was pointed out - moving earth around is an expensive, time consuming business. Royal New Kent is a links-style course and the amount of manicured area is minimal (much to the chagrin of hackers). Tee boxes, a very small landing area in the otherwise natural fairway, and the greens. Irrigation is provided using treated gray-water from the adjacent horse track. The course was developed using recommendations from the Audobon Society (IIRC) and has had minimal impact. Remember, people that own and operate golf courses are in it to make money - they aren’t in the business to overuse fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, etc. That’s throwing good money down the drain.
My local course also uses reclaimed water for irrigation, and being in Colorado where it is fairly dry, needs little in the way of fungicides or even insecticides. To dress the soil, they often use shredded tires to help break up the clay and keep it aerated and hold moisture better.
Without a doubt, if the golf course wasn’t there, houses would be, and I would bet anything that per square foot of grass, lawns use far more pesticides and fertilizer than golf courses. The added bonus of wildlife habitat pushes the scale in the direction of a good thing for the environment, IMO.
I think that most modern golf courses are environmentally neutral, at worst.
Beaver dams are part of the environment. Concern about the environment generally means concern about things humans do to change it. Since we are the only species with the capacity to rapidly change large parts of a given environment (paving it over, etc) we should probably watch what we do to make sure it’s not too disruptive. If we are too disruptive, it could cause unintended effects that change some of the features of the environment that we depend on. We don’t really have to worry about beavers disrupting things on such a large scale.
Thanks, Ravenman. You get what I was saying. I wasn’t implying anything else at all.
I thought this was interesting.
And, you golfers will be happy to know that your risk of cancers, etc., from playing on golf courses is only minimal… probably.
There are lots of interesting links out there about golf courses, environmental impacts, pesticides, etc. I understand that people want those cites and want to read about this stuff for themselves.
I just want to add two other things you might find intersting, from my perspective.
One: a lot of my work is done administering (with teammates) a partnership program in which generators of hazardous waste are recognized for reducing that waste, voluntarily (they are already in regulatory compliance). Most of these are good people. I don’t view them as nasty, evil polluters who want to destroy the environment (except on my really bad days). However, make no mistake about it… about 98% of them participate in this program for the recognition. It helps their good neighbor image; it makes them look good. They want everybody to know what they have done and some of them milk the publicity endlessly. I think it’s the same thing at any given golf course that has adopted “green” management techniques.
Two: as I said, I welcome and applaud these efforts. If they’re going to maintain a golf course anyway, all I can ask is that they manage it well. Ultimately, the motivation doesn’t matter in that respect. However, I don’t let the positive spin fool me. Creating some wetlands and changing the pesticides they use only mitigates the damage. It doesn’t erase it.
No, I said that. And then, I asked what the threshhold we should not breach is? Humans are part of the environment, just like Bricker’s beavers. Now, unlike beavers, we can appreciate our impact on the environment and to the extent it is harmful to the other creatures we share the environment with while not being necessary to our survival, we can debate minimizing our impact. But to imply that building houses is per se bad for the environment neglects the fact that humans are part of the environment and need shelter. What impact can we have on the environment in securing shelter? That is the questions I asked and that has not been answered.
us and locusts
And those ants they got in Africa that march every so often and pick all the living things clean. Them too.
And the aforementioned beavers.
And, like, coral.
And elephants.
That’s not an unreasonable view, although it’s far from obvious or definitional. Beavers change the environment dramatically where they set up a dam; they simply don’t have the numbers of the ability to dramatically change as much as humans have. I could argue that humans are as much a part of the environment as beavers… but I won’t.
It’s also far from obvious that any change humans make is “bad” for the environment. In the same way that a beaver damn creates a swampy wetland where there wasn’t one before, and we regard that change as environmentally neutral, there are some changes humans make that are enviromentally neutral. I agree with the standard you’ve offered:
That is, of course, a far cry from the suggestions made above:
and
And fire. (Not a species, I grant, but a “natural” event that can rapidly change large swaths of an area.)
Not to mention volcanoes. Fire and volcanoes even have their own specific afterwards-ecosystems. You can make a whole new island with a volcano!
Good point. I think we should boycott volcanos as being ecologically unsound! we demand green volcanos!
So, toxic waste dumps are as natural as beaver dams or anthills?
You say that humans can appreciate the impact they have on the environment – I agree a hundred percent. But because we understand that impact, it is routine that we separate human development and natural environmental factors. In my mind, development activities should not be lumped in with beaver dams because (a) we have control and an appreciation of the impact of building things; and (b) putting human activities in the same category as the natural environment equivocates and renders meaningless the term environment as defining natural phenomena in the absence of human intervention. Of course a 100 story skyscraper is part of Manhattan’s environment, but that doesn’t mean that there is no distinction to be drawn between building a high-rise in New York and building one in Yosemite or some forest somewhere.
What’s more, never have I said that humans cannot or should not do things detrimental to the environment. I didn’t say building roads was bad, I said it was detrimental to the environment. It is a no brainer that development of, say, a housing complex shrinks the habitat of some critter or another – if we only deal with the question of whether shrinking the habitat for flora and fauna is a good or bad thing, I have a hard time seeing how one would come out against plants and animals, or against the natural environment. However, we can balance that cost against the benefits to humans: people do need places to live, so those deer out in the woods are just going to have to make due with less acreage. I need a new place to play golf, so those blue heron are just going to have to move away from hole #14’s water hazard and find somewhere else to fish.
But I can’t pretend that building houses, roads, or golf courses doesn’t have a negative impact on the natural setting of whatever location. It is just that the development ought to be carried out in a responsible way to balance the benefits provided to humans with the consequences to nature. Whats more, there are indeed some human activities that are beneficial to nature, but I have a very hard time seeing freeways, golf courses, and housing developments as giving nature a helping hand. From what little I know, humans occasionally setting fires in prairies or forests can actually be a damn good thing to do, but that doesn’t mean we ought to take carte blanche in being reckless with campfires.
In the end, I think the National Environmental Policy Act sums up the issue quite nicely:
Yes, I will reply to my own reply. I am still looking for a cite that pesticides have had a negative impact on the environment.
I am pro green but also am anti bullshit.
If herbicides harm the environment, please provide provide a cite.
Well, pesticides are designed to kill things - usually (at least on a golf course) bugs and plants. Since “the environment” includes a significant amount of bugs and plants, those pesticides have the potential to negatively impact the environment. They also have the potential to benefit the environment - I’ve used pesticides to kill noxious and invasive weeds and invasive bugs that were outcompeting the native species. The effect, positive or negative, isn’t inherent to the pesticide. Like any tool, the ultimate result depends on the application.
Application of both fertilizers and pesticides can be a real problem in golf courses. The pesticides used on a golf course (on any area, really) can be selected to specifically target the things you want to remove. On a golf course, you’d probably use more broadleaf herbicides than anything else - these won’t affect turfgrasses, but will control the weeds in the area of application. But they have to be applied carefully under good conditions. It’s not always the pesticide itself that’s a danger - it’s the untrained or uncaring applicator.
Even properly applied pesticides can be transported into surface waters, though – especially with the kind of irrigation system typically found on golf courses. Once the pesticide gets off the golf course, it keeps killing whatever it is that it’s designed to kill. Broadleaf herbicides, which are great for killing weeds on a golf course, are also great at killing wetland vegetation. Insecticides that help keep bug populations down on the course will also kill bug populations in the neighboring stream; these bugs are often the basis of the food chain.
Pesticides also have the potential to make their way into the groundwater, but this has historically been a much greater problem in than it is now. Current EPA regulations and testing now focus in part on the pesticide’s persistence in the environment, and many pesticides have been banned because of their potential for groundwater contamination. The pesticides that we were applying 20 and even 50 years ago are still problems that we’re dealing with today, but current regulations are going a long way toward addressing the issue. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen – anytime you use pesticides, you’re assuming the risk of contaminating groundwater supplies.
Fertilizers are a different story. According to this NC State bulletin (warning: pdf), a tall fescue athletic field requires about 43.5 pounds per acre (1 pound per 1000 square feet) of nitrogen (N) twice a year - once in September and then again in November. They recommend sampling the soil to determine the phosphorus (P) need. Once you’ve determined the P requirement, though, you’ve got a problem: you have to select an appropriate fertilizer and application rate to get enough N and P onto the field to keep the grass healthy without putting down excessive amounts of either nutrient.
Commercially available fertilizers are sold in standard concentrations. The numbers you see on a bag of fertilizer (16-4-8, for example) are the percentages by mass of elemental N, P, and potassium (K) in the fertilizer. If you’re lucky enough to find a commercially available fertilizer with the same proportions as your nutrient requirements, then you’re golden - if you apply it in the right amounts, you won’t be leaching significant nutrients into the environment. That doesn’t happen too often, though.
More often, you pick a fertilizer mix and apply it so that you’re delivering enough of both nutrients with the same fertilizer. If your fertilizer has a higher ration of N:P than your grass requires, the excess N that the grass doesn’t take up will leach into the environment; the same thing happens with excess P in the opposite situation. Excess nutrients can have significant impacts on both surface waters and groundwater.
These excess nutrients can make their way into surface waters (streams, lakes, and rivers) in overland runoff (especially with irrigation systems needed for golf course maintenance), or through shallow groundwater that feeds these surface waters. In surface waters, excess nutrients can lead to increased algae growth. After the algae die, they’re decomposed by existing bacteria in the water column. This decomposition consumes dissolved oxygen (DO) from the water. If the DO levels fall too far, the existing populations in the water body will begin to die off. This entire process (from algae bloom to oxygen-depleted stream) is called eutrophication, and it’s observed to some degree or other about half the lakes in the United States.
If the nutrients aren’t washed into surface waters, they have the potential to percolate into the groundwater. Again, the irrigation on a golf course contributes to this pathway - the more water that’s applied to the fertilized area, the quicker contaminants can travel through the vadose zone (the area between the ground surface and the water table). Once nutrients make it into the groundwater, they can cause problems for years to come, and can impact wells for community and individual water supplies for miles around.
Oh yeah…
Another impact that’s already been mentioned is water. The NC State bulletin I cited in my last post recommends 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch of water every 3-4 days. That’s an inch a week, on the low end.
I live in Reno, Nevada. We get 7 inches of rain a year. The closest golf course to me looks to be about 150 acres on google maps. If they’re irrigating only 6 months out of the year, they’re putting 2 feet of water onto that golf course every year - more than three times the amount of precipitation we normally get. That totals about 13,000,000 cubic feet of water a year. Even if they’re using grey water, that’s 13,000,000 cubic feet of water that isn’t being returned to the environment (Reno’s water supply comes out of the Truckee River upstream of the city, and treated effluent is discharged into the Truckee below the city).
Every summer, the Truckee River dries up for a few days to a few weeks downstream of Reno before it enters Pyramid Lake. Of course, it’s not entirely due to this golf course - irrigation diversions can be found every few hundred yards on the river for miles. But 13,000,000 cubic feet (300 acre-feet) of water could make a pretty big difference downstream. Using grey water to irrigate is better than using municipal water supply, but it’s not magic, and it still has quite an impact.
Okay, how about this. We are the only species the capacity to stop ourselves from inflicting widespread damage on the environment. We can’t boycott a volcano, but we can avoid creating one of our own.
ok, one more issue. Seeing wildlife in the woods on the edge of the course doesn’t mean they’re healthy, either. One of the bigger issues in urban wildlife management isn’t just the destruction of habitat, but also the fragmentation of the habitat that does remain.
Say you’ve got 1,000 acres of woods and you clear 400 acres. At first glance, it seems like saving 600 acres is a pretty good plot for preservation. But 600 acres isn’t always 600 acres. You might have 300 acres on each side of the development. There could be some roads going through each of those 300 acres, as well. Maybe there’s a golf course dividing some of the remaining woods. Instead of 600 usable acres, you’ve got six parcels of 100 acres each.
The populations in each one of these 100 acre plots are going to remain relatively isolated. If 1000 acres supported a sustainable breeding population of critters, 100 acres might not be sufficient. You’ll still have the animals, but the smaller gene pool will place artificial limits on natural selection in this population - for example, they may be more susceptible to disease.
There’s also what’s know as the “edge effect” - near the edges of an area, the environment is more susceptible to changes that can then propogate inward. Development, especially in urban and suburban settings, creates small packets of habitat that are sometimes nothing but edges - this kind of habitat likely isn’t sustainable in a populated area.
I thought this one cite, was enough.
To be honest, the answer to your question seems so obvious that I am surprised you are asking it. Yes, pesticides/herbicides, in the many years they have been in use, have had a negative impact on the environment. I suppose I could give you a few pages of links, but all you need to make your own is your computer. I’m not trying to be rude, but I don’t want to waste my time either. I guess it’s just that most of us in the environmental field have moved past the question, “Are pesticides harmful?” to “Okay, we know they’re bad, so what can we do about pesticides, herbicides, fungicides?” It’s kind of like arguing about mercury. Well… we know it’s bad. We have moved on to trying to get rid of it.
Here is something of particular interest. Of the 31 Priority Chemicals that EPA has targeted for reduction, 24 are pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides. Priority chemicals are the worst of the worst. They are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. Even when released in very small amounts, they accumulate and cause environmental problems.
Oops. 24 of the PCs are ingredients in pesticides, herbicides or fungicides. Sorry about that!
I’m not a golfer, but I remember golf courses were a big environmental issue in Hawaii when we lived in Honolulu. I can’t remember the details, but the general consensus was they were very bad.