|
|
|
|
MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
PROPOSED GIRDWOOD GOLF COURSE
By Dr. Michael J. Hurdzan, Golf Course
Architect
1. Would a golf course protect the ecology of the
area? Would degrade the lower valley's healthy
creeks, wetlands, and riparian rainforest?
Without playing a semantics game of "how do you
define "protect?" let me say that the golf course
doesn't threaten any of the critters or species
that are there now, and in fact one sometimes finds
their numbers increase, because the golf course
gives more "edge effect" to a woods or meadow. In
other words, once the golf course is built, the
wildlife there now will either still be there or
return after construction. In fact many find the
grasses on the golf course to be nice food sources,
as well as safe, dry, open areas to be social.
Yes, trees must be removed and underbrush cleared,
but those that remain will have better air and
light, as well as some managed care if they are key
to the golf hole. So in the strictest sense rather
than a protection of the ecology, I would say it is
more of a slight shift, but equally healthy, or
perhaps even healthier, than what exists now.
Consequently there would be no degradation of the
lower valley's creeks, wetlands and riparian
rainforest.
2. Will the flood plain of the lower valley be
protected? Would a golf course remove vegetation
that performs critical flood control functions?
The flood plain of the lower valley would be
untouched or unaffected by a golf course up near
the hotel. For the most part, a golf course in the
lower valley would be built in the woods or along
the alpine meadows and may only occasionally get
near the main streams. Smaller streams would be
protected and buffered appropriately, and drainage
patterns would be unaltered. If anything the golf
course would reduce erosion of banks along short
stretches of the creeks, and there may be a few
less snag trees washed down stream, but otherwise
there would not be a change to the volume,
velocity, or quality of the streams.
3. Will the golf course use chemicals that would
wash off site?
Perhaps 20 or 30 years ago chemicals used on
golf courses may have washed off site, but not
today. The reason is that newer grasses have been
developed that need fewer fertilizers and
chemicals, and the ones that are used are
formulated and act with more sophistication. Years
back most pesticides were called "contact
pesticides" because they would be sprayed on the
plant leaves and would act by being in contact with
whatever pest one was trying to control. Today,
most pesticides are "systemic" which means they are
absorbed by the plant and translocated internally
to their site of action. The window of opportunity
for systemic materials to wash off is measured in
minutes or hours as opposed to contacts, which was
days. Further the type and amount of active
ingredient used in pesticides has become much more
focused and restricted to the target organism,
unlike the older broad-spectrum materials. As a
result of this increase in efficacy the turfgrass
manager doesn't have to make routine protective
applications, he can wait until he positively
identifies the casual organism, it reaches a
threshold of damage, and then spot treat it in a
curative way.
Frankly, I would be surprised if very much
pesticide is used at all given the cool seasonal
temperatures of the upper valley. A golf course we
did in Silverthorne, Colorado has yet to need
pesticides after four years, except for a
winter/spring disease called snow mold.
So the chances of any pesticides leaving the site
are miniscule, and not measurable down stream.
4. Would it require the eventual channelization
of three salmon streams?
As pointed out in question two, the golf course
would most likely only be near the stream for short
stretches at best. There would be virtually no
impact on the streams, let alone any
channelization.
5. Is the golf course economically feasible?
The economic feasibility of the golf course can
be measured in several ways. One way is if the golf
course pays all of its bills and makes a return on
investment. Another way to look at it is, if the
golf course breaks even, or looses a small amount
of money, but provides employment for valley
residents, attracts more golfing hotel guests or
corporate outings, or enhances the cross-country
skiing facilities of the area, it makes economic
sense. City parks, ball fields, hiking or bicycle
trails are not expected to be economically
feasible, so why should golf?
But with that question aside, I believe that a
properly designed, built and maintained golf course
can indeed make a profit, if properly marketed and
managed.
One must not ignore the value of having the golf
course there as a learning center for children and
residents, both for golf as a game of a lifetime,
and/or one of 25 - 30 career paths associated with
golf. Golf teaches personal values of honesty,
integrity, humility, patience, courtesy and
self-satisfaction. It is a family activity for all
ages that is often a healthier environment than
some homes. It teaches community values of sharing
and cooperation, pride and accomplishment. The
point is that to measure the value only in profit
and loss statements is a very myopic view.
6. Is there too much rain for a golf course to
be successful?
First, I have never heard of a place anywhere
in the world that gets too much rain for grass or
golf. But I checked the weather summary for
Girdwood and found the following average rainfalls
during the prime golf months:
May - 3.40 inches
June - 2.22 inches
July - 2.34 inches
August - 4.31 inches
The average is less than one inch per week and that
is barely enough to keep the grass healthy. So,
rain is not an issue and in fact the limited number
of rain days is good for attracting golfers.
7. Have economic studies been done that show the
golf course would be successful?
I do not know of any recent studies, however I
believe that if one were done, it would show lots
of potential golf business. Besides, this could be
one of the most beautiful golf settings in the
world and that is difficult to evaluate in a market
study. I could see it as a midway tourist base
between Anchorage and Whittier.
8. Will the golf course hurt fish and wildlife
populations and therefore affect the value of
Girdwood as an outdoor recreation and
visitor-oriented community?
Going back to question one, the golf course
will in no way diminish the wildlife or fish
populations, and in fact it may enhance it,
especially for grazing animals. In addition to be
able to market fishing and golf in Glacier Valley
may make it a destination adventure. There is a
strong association between traveling outdoorsmen
and women and golf.
9. Is the MOA subsidizing land below fair market
value?
I have no idea of the business dealings and
market values, but I do know that the golf course
is permanent open space, it will attract tourist
dollars, create employment, provide educational
opportunities, protect" the ecology, and become a
source of community pride. Most municipalities
would be happy to subsidize those benefits, and do
to a degree when they create other recreational
amenities.
As an outsider, I respect the community wishes and
individual opinions that are sincere and open
minded to the answers. Golf may not be right for
the Girdwood community, but it will have to find
other reasons why, then those stated above. Golf is
a sport that one can enjoy the outdoors in summer,
and that same golf course can be a venue for
cross-country skiing and snowshoeing in the winter.
The golf course is simply an open space that is
healthy and natural, but managed.
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2006 Girdwood 2020. All rights
reserved
Website by Sundog
Media
& Alaska
Internet Services
|
|
|