[Steve Lang]

A view from 23 years experience in environmental regulatory matters (on both sides of the fence):

In an uncertain world,  the regulator faces the classical statistical error type problems:  Type I, rejecting something they should accept and Type II, accepting something they should reject. They never want to make the Type II error, and thus ask for more information or stall making a decision.  If all regulatory/technical issues are met, they can't make the Type I error, otherwise they are truly arbitrary and capricious (though those terms are thrown out pretty easily by proponents) and will loose a legal challenge.  They're between a rock and a hard place.

So, how are difficult approvals acccomplished?  It is typically done by a lot of footwork, homework, taking the regulatory and technical high roads, pro-active sharing of information with all stakeholders and the development of the old "win-win" situation.  One has to give the regulator every reason to make a justifiable decision and no reason to accept the inevitable political detractor's position as anything but that.  

Examples

1. You have pre-application meetings with all regulatory and public stakeholders, so all (or as many as possible) of the stakeholders hear the same thing and understand the project scope.  You put out minutes of meetings to all to confirm what was heard and said.  You are creating a record.

2.  You identify with the regulatory bosses who is responsible and what the expected time tables are for regulatory approvals by law, policy, or practical considerations (their backlog) after your expected application submittal date.  You keep them aware of your timetable and keep tabs on their activities too.

3.  You walk through both the draft and final applications with the reviewers in person.  You show them the organization and where everything is to be found.  You bring them up the learning curve, reinforcing that its all there.

4. If you've got a proposed approval, you don't allow the classic 30 day public comment period on a proposed action to end, hoping that no one will request a public hearing that would necessitate another 30 days notice.   You request the agency schedule a public hearing concurrently with their initial public notice.  You get all the proponents to schedule to speak at the public hearing or submit written comments in support of the project noting (new revenue, employment, etc.. improved conditions etc..) to force the record forward.

Yes it can be complicated, yes it will increase costs, but this front end loading approach gets the job done by co-opting uncertainty.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lang,

That seems like a nice orderly process, if you were controlling it, but often times other individuals and forces controll the process, and you're the one who ends up jumping through the hoops.

Some jurisdictions are easier to work with than others.
Some agencies are easier to work with than others.
Location and luck can play a critical part.

[Steve Lang]

Pat Mucci,

I don't disagree that dis-order and luck can prevail and likely does in many approval processes and locations for golf course and other developments.  Situations where every regulator thinks they're "in control" seems like total chaos and anarchy.

I think any proponent is fooling themselves if they don't get some professional help in these matters, someone to focus on, build, and follow the master schedule and drive a project down its "critical path."   Work done out of sequence is likely to get reworked, impact the project budget and if its then additional regulatory or financial gatekeepers holding back a project ,then their concerns should have been recognized and dealt with in the project execution planning.

In my work, I'm usually on the critical path at the very beginning of projects and the very end.  These are stressful periods and we do everything proactively possible that we can to quickly get off the critical path and meet schedule.

I think its the proponent's (or his agent's) responsibility to be in control of the approval processes.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

If you are redesigning an old green complex that lies withing the 100 year flood plain, is it possible the agency will force you to move it? The same with a green adjacent to wetlands? I would think that green would be grandfathered and those conducted the work would simply take extra precautions.

Are there cases where clubs have to go to a local architectural board for approval? For example everything that is constructed in the community of Muirfield Village - from a jungle gym to mailbox - has to be approved.  There are similar regulations in historical neighborhoods like Nantucket; are there cases where altering a historical golf course, like say a Sankaty Head, would also have to approved by the local architectural board? Should changes to historical golf courses be subject to approval, just like historical buildings?

[Tom Doak]

Angst is the right word here.  I actually avoided the topic in two visits here, and could not bring myself to read the details of all the case studies presented.

Generally I would agree with Jeff Brauer that the regulations aren't difficult to anticipate in most cases, and are much easier to deal with if you don't try to push the envelope.  However, as I'm surprised Pat Mucci has not mentioned here, there is a third party involved ... and your CLIENT would frequently love for you to push the envelope of wetlands, if it means that he might have more land left over to develop for housing at a later date.

Like Bill Coore, I tend to avoid projects which will require a lot of pre-approval, if I think we'll wind up trying to build the course with both hands tied behind my back.  (The 18th hole at High Pointe was a good early lesson for me on that subject.)  However, Lost Dunes and Riverfront and Beechtree and Atlantic City all had substantive permitting issues, and we managed to get through all of them with a minimum of headache ... although our clients had to pay a lot more for environmental engineering than they originally expected.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lang,

I'm in complete agreement that hiring a professional to steer the project through the permiting process is a prudent decision.

Tom Doak,

I forgot.  But, you're right, sometimes the directions or mandates from the owner bring you into contact and conflict with agencies you would have and could have avoided.

Tom MacWood,

Prior to undertaking a project that might be fraught with permiting peril, research, one of your favorite topics, should be embarked upon, extensively, and with the help of consulting, PAID PROFESSIONALS.

Each location has its unique issues, and it's better to uncover them prior to starting a project, rather than getting hit with them unexpectedly, in the middle of your project, when they may have you over a barrel and at their mercy.  
And... unexpected requirements/mandates may cost substantial dollars to comply with, that just might not be in the budget or contingency fund, causing the project to stop in its tracks until funding can be arranged.

I find it doubtful, that most classic courses that the group tends to admire, could be built in their present form today.

Modern day architects have a far more difficult task when attempting to design and build a golf course today, and should get credit and appreciation for their accomplishments in today's far more hostile environment.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I'm not sure I would agree with your assessment - each era has their challenges. The old guys had their limitations and difficulties. There are an equal number of golf courses built today that couldn't have been built back then.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I don't know the answer exactly to your question of redesigning a green, for instance, that has been in a hundred year flood plan for years and whether it's grandfathered. Personally, I could not imagine why not!

But if it was me I'd just not say anything to any regulatory agency or entity and do it and if they questioned it (and I can't imagine they'd even be aware of it) I would just say--"restoration"!

[Jeff_McDowell]

As Steve and Jeff B. have talked about, the regulators are people interpretting rules. Sometimes it's just as effective to suck up and kiss a little ass as it is to follow the rules.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I like your thinking, unfortunately, those of us on GCA will only be able to visit you on rainy saturdays and sundays, and I understand, no more than four visitors a day are permited,

A home owner with property on a hole at a club in Florida that I'm familiar with, filled in a portion of a waterway adjacent to his property.  He was arrested, and led away in handcuffs.
This is no longer a casual issue.  But, a lot still rests with the attitude and/or flexibility of the jurisdiction where the work is being done.  Some are more reasonable than others.

Tom MacWood,

I'm quite confident that many great courses could never be built in today's hostile environmental environment.

Let's just start with Pebble Beach, Cypress Point, Maidstone, NGLA and Seminole.

The old guys certainly had adverse conditions to deal with, but nothing like the ABSOLUTE power of active government that could alter or prevent anything and everything about their projects, from routing to hole design.

These are far different times from just 30-40 years ago, let alone 80.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Interesting conjecture. Don't you think there are an equal number of modern course wouldn't have been built back then?

Some of those courses were remodeled recently. Due to prior transgressions, is it your professional opinion that they were in jeopardy of being told by the current agenices to move the offending features? Or are there some exceptions to your no grandfathering rule?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

When I answered Tom MacW's question I wasn't exactly thinking of some homeowner in Florida filling in a section of a waterway. I was thinking more along the lines of redesigning (not moving mind you) a green at something like Gulph Mills that might be in a 100 year flood plan as it's been for 80 years!

I don't see the need to request permission from some regulatory body for that or even any reason to tell them about it. We're doing a restoration of GMGC right now and I'm sure not aware of us having to get permission to do it--except from the members, of course!

[TEPaul]

Tom:

You have to know perfectly well that just because there are certain things that could be done back then that can't be done today that no agency is going to tell some golf course to change things, features, whatever, that wouldn't be allowed to be built in this day and age! Those kinds of things are almost never retrogressive!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I didn't know for certain what the answer might be and that is why asked the question. Pat's answer about a dozen posts back was there was no safe harbor or grandfather clause!

Pat
Do you know if the new 5th at Pebble Beach required approval?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

If you would provide the specific examples that you referenced, I would be happy to render my professional opinion, related to those specific examples, of course.

But, I don't think that's necessary, common sense should provide the answers you seek.  Absent that, I'll do my best to answer the questions for you..

Having had to deal with regulatory agencies on a few occassions, I stand by my statement relative to the old guys and the obstacles caused by the modern permiting process.

With regard to Pebble Beach, I would be amazed if the California Coastal Commission, and many other regulatory agencies weren't involved in the permiting process for the new 5th hole.

In Florida, nothing we did was grandfathered,
and once we started clearing some small areas of vegatation that had grown in over the last twenty years, we were mandated to clear ALL pepper trees, maleuca trees and australian pine trees from the property.  
Acres and Acres of trees had to be cleared.
Then those trees had to be reduced to mulch because we were prohibited from burning them.
Then we had to dispose of them.
Then we had to grass the areas where they previously existed,
Then we had to run new irrigation lines throughout those newly grassed areas.

Seeking that simple little vegatation clearing permit, to do some rather minor clearing, ended up costing us in excess of
$ 600,000 initially, with additional, substantial costs into the future.

As I stated to you, each site, each relationship with the jurisdictional agencies is unique.  

Tom Doak may have had a blissful, hand in glove, relationship with the various jurisdictional agencies in Bandon, Oregon, but might have had an acrimonious, even hostile relationship had he attempted to build a golf course on a similar sight in Palm Beach, East Hampton or Malibu.  Each site has its own unique situation, but overall, it's not a pleasant environment.

There is no romance in the permiting process.

Only ANGST !

[Tom Doak]

Tom P:  I seem to remember that when the club wanted to restore the third nine at Huntingdon Valley, some of the holes had to be delayed because the overgrown fairways were now considered "wetlands."  I don't know how much those holes had to be changed from their original design as a result.

Pat M:  Right you are, there's NO WAY we could have built Pacific Dunes in California.  And I don't even know why, which is the most frustrating part of the process.  Luckily, so far New Zealand is more reminiscent of Oregon than California.

[George Pazin]

Pat M:  Right you are, there's NO WAY we could have built Pacific Dunes in California.  And I don't even know why, which is the most frustrating part of the process.

I think we all know why, it's just really tough thinking of others that way. It's less painful to just think you don't know why people would act that way.

[paul albanese]

I LOVE THE APPROVAL PROCESS!!!!!.  There is nothing better than sitting in meetings or in front of a city hall full of people trying to explain to them why a golf course is not equivalent to a strip mall.........what could be more fun!!!!  Forget spending time  designing great features.........the architects time is much better spent waiting 2.5 hours to be last on the wetland board agenda, only to have them insist on plantings that will never live, but thought would look really nice around the ponds.  

Best question I ever heard during a permit meeting..........."will the golf balls hit into the pond be harmful to the fish if they decide to eat them?"...........I did not know how to answer that one.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

In Minnesota they worry the fish will get hit on the head.

[Derek_L]

It's funny, all the time I spent getting a project approved, probably 6-8 months, the permit fee (from the USACOE) was only $100 and they have not been out to the site in the last 2 1/2 years, the USACOE feels the municipalities will take care of the job themselves.  It's also funny how from one conservation district or watershed to another, in the same state, the rules vary.  What the heck, just when you thought you could read people well you were again dumbfounded.  In the approvals worls nothing is cut and dry, it is the biggest grey or gray area out there!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()