 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Greening the Gold Green
From their faultless fairways to their trim putting greens, golf courses evoke human perception of the ultimate in natural perfection. Over 100 courses entertain golfers in the Bay-Delta region. Maintaining these emerald islands in the midst of the region's naturally golden landscape can mean heavy use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and water. But golf course superintendents claim that a variety of new management methods may now be reducing the game's toll on the Bay-Delta environment.
Critics say badly managed golf courses can cause ground and surface water contamination, nitrogen leaching or runoff, chemical drift from pesticide use, and other detrimental effects. In response, the golf industry recently published guidelines for course managers on how to reduce chemical fertilizer use, dispose of clippings and other wastes, and protect and conserve water. It also launched a $3 million-a-year research effort aimed at developing new turf grasses that thrive on half as much water and require fewer doses of pesticide. An upcoming trade conference will emphasize techniques for environmentally sensitive turfgrass management.
"Golf course superintendents have refocused to ensure they're doing their share of environmental management," says Dr. Ali Harivandi, a turfgrass researcher at the University of California Cooperative Extension.
Manager Tom Thatcher has put some of this theory into practice at the Stanford Golf Course, where two holes play across San Francisquito Creek. "We're using integrated pest management," he says. "We go out and determine what's necessary instead of applying pesticides on a programmatic schedule. As a result, there's no leaching. We've never detected any nitrates going into the water supply. We use water sparingly. There's a computerized irrigation system on the course that's sensitive to weather, so we're only replacing the water that's evaporating."
"Golf courses don't necessarily have to be a bad neighbor to a river or stream," says the Coyote Creek Riparian Station's Mike Rigney, who is helping to develop a watershed management plan for San Francisquito Creek. "As long as there's no contamination from herbicides, I'd rather have a golf course next door than a housing development or industry," he says. Rigney points to other "green" Stanford course management efforts, such as landscaping with native vegetation, leaving tree snags in place, creating protective berms around small drainage areas, and composting with grass clippings, techniques he says benefit the creek's riparian habitat. Indeed, one prominent New York state wildlife protection group has such faith in the habitat potential of golf courses that it has developed a sanctuary program to help course managers enhance habitat, conserve natural resources and protect environmental quality.
Beyond its possible value to wildlife, Harivandi says golf course vegetation, particularly in urban areas, can reduce pollution, glare, noise, dust and heat buildup. Golf courses can also serve as wastewater disposal sites. Harivandi says 15 to 20 Bay Area golf courses currently irrigate with reclaimed water, and that number continues to grow. "Besides reducing the need for fresh water, reclaimed water also has quite a bit of nutrient value, so superintendents can reduce the amount of fertilizer they use," he says.
Many dispute the claim that golf courses can provide a net benefit to the environment. "I think you'll always have some problems because in effect, you're creating an exotic landscape over many acres to achieve what people think of as a golf course," says the S.F. Regional Board's Dale Bowyer.
Barbara Salzman of the Marin Audubon Society agrees. "Golf courses are especially problematic for species like Canada geese. They're grazers, and they've overproduced because there's all this phony food [turf] around. They leave their droppings, so people complain," she says, adding, "Course managers extol the virtues of wildlife until they become pests. You have to realize that a lot of this natural golf courses information comes from the golf course builders themselves."
The lack of independent data hinders regulators' ability to assess success or failure of new management practices. "We haven't done any intensive monitoring of golf courses," says Bowyer. "It's probably a good idea." Adds Rigney, "There are so many proposals for new golf courses. I'd like more good strong evidence of how they impact the environment."
This evidence will surely be needed given the 2,000 new golf courses now in various stages of planning or construction across the U.S. Locally, a combined golf and luxury housing development proposed for the site of the Renaissance Pleasure Faire in Novato has sparked controversy. Although project sponsors say the golf course is being designed to incorporate conservation practices from the ground up, its construction still raises questions about the best use of the Bay Area's remaining open space, not to mention erosion, loss of riparian habitat, streambed alteration and wetland fill. "After all," says Salzman, "they're developing on diked baylands."
"We're getting into regional planning issues here too," says Bowyer. "At some point, we may have to decide that we have enough golf courses." Or that golf courses, no matter how environmentally sound, aren't Nature.
Contacts: Dale Bowyer (510)286-1357, Dr. Ali Harivandi (510)670-5215, Mike Rigney (408)262-9204, Barbara Salzman (415)924-6057, Tom Thatcher (415)327-6595
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project