BROWNFIELDS TO GOLF COURSES:

AS EASY AS SINKING A 6-FT PUTT

Steven C. Lamb, P.E.

Project Manager

SCS Engineers

Presented at:

11^th Annual Arizona Landfill and

Solid Waste Conference

June 7, 2001

This paper addresses known and unknown challenges involved with permitting, designing, and operating a golf course on a brownfield site. The information presented herein is primarily derived from three current projects being performed by SCS Engineers. The three projects include a Phoenix-area closed landfill, a closed landfill in southern Nevada, and a vacant property in Henderson, Nevada.

Permitting, designing, constructing, and operating a golf course on former brownfield sites have several obvious challenges. Depending on whether the brownfield site is a closed landfill or impacted industrial site, these challenges may include:

· Protecting turf from stress resulting from methane gas;

· Protecting golf course structures, such as the clubhouse and maintenance shop, from methane gas;

· Accounting for future settlement of fairways, greens, irrigation pipes, etc.;

· Available soil for use in constructing the course;

· Lack of available infrastructure such as water lines;

· Construction Health and Safety Issues;

· Public perception, and

· Site location and surrounding land uses.

Usually these issues are understood prior to the bid/proposal process and adequately addressed by the developers, designers, and owners.

The above obvious challenges can be quickly transformed into time consuming, costly not-so-obvious challenges. In addition, some overlooked hurdles may arise between the developer’s project award and the contract negotiation/procurement process.

Some not-so-obvious challenges encountered may include:

· Environmental liability insurance requirements;

· Financing requirements;

· Ownership controls such as price structure for daily tee times;

· Multiple permitting agencies with different agendas and criteria, and

· Unknown environmental and site conditions discovered after the developer receives the project award.

Site Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Former Property Use: Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

RFP Awarded: 1996

Challenges Include:

· Landfill gas issues

· Potential leachate generation resulting from turf irrigation

· Surrounding land uses

· Environmental insurance requirements established by owner (and lender?)

· Source of borrow soils

· Permitting and Owner requirements.

Current Project Status: Contract negotiations between owner and developer are still ongoing. Key technical and insurance issues have been resolved. The technical issue involved the potential for irrigation water infiltrating into the landfill and causing additional leachate production at the site. As a result, the project requires an extensive assessment of the existing cover soils and proposed golf course cover soils, including drilling soil borings to assess the existing soil cover depth and geotechnical testing to determine the existing soil cover properties. The insurance problem involved obtaining sufficient environmental liability insurance coverage.

Site Location: City of Henderson, Nevada

Former Property Use: Vacant parcel. Site has been impacted by high water table associated with long term upgradient surface water recharge caused by irrigation.

RFP Awarded: Early 2000

Challenges Include:

· Poor quality surface and subsurface soils due to elevated levels of sodium and potassium caused by high groundwater table.

· Cost to construct water line from the water plant to the site

· Owner price controls regarding fees for resident.

Current Project Status: The project followed the typical qualifications and cost proposal process. The developer was awarded the project over seven other teams. During contract negotiations, the developer initiated some initial investigations of the site to refine the pro forma analysis. This investigation included evaluating site soils and the construction of a water line for irrigation. Results of these preliminary activities revealed that the site soils were unable to sustain turf-quality vegetation without significant admixtures. It was determined that an off-site soil borrow source would be needed to supply over 1 million cubic yards of soil to construct the golf course cover system. The initial investigation also revealed that the installation of the water line had to be performed at night, and that street restoration would require a full-width pavement replacement.

As a result, the cost to construct the golf course was dramatically increased, and the developer was forced to revise his cost estimate.

The developer and owner are now evaluating these cost impacts from a technical and contractual standpoint. The owner hired an independent third party to review the findings of the investigations, and related impacts on the pro forma analysis.

Site Location: Southern Nevada

Former Property Use: Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

Current Project Status: The landfill is being closed in accordance with CERCLA requirements under the direction of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. During the development of the site closure plan, the City awarded a contract to a team of consultants (Golf Course Architect, Landscape Architect, Environmental Engineer, Irrigation Consultant, and Golf Course Consultant) to perform a Golf Course Feasibility Study (Study).

The Study focuses on the needs and wants of the City’s residents pertaining to municipal daily-fee golf course. In addition, the Study recommends a fee structure and provides an economic evaluation. Furthermore, the Study evaluated preliminary course routing configurations, and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating a golf course on a closed landfill.

The first two case studies presented herein are examples of the owner and/or developer not recognizing all the potential problems with a site prior to issuing or responding to a Request-for-Proposal. These problems coupled with the owner-established price controls for green fees did impact the economical feasibility of constructing and operating a golf course at their site.

The third case study has yet to reach the proposal stage. Hopefully the detailed analysis of the site will minimize or eliminate unexpected non-obvious challenges.

Based on the project experiences, and lessons learned, during the three cases presented herein, SCS recommends the following:

· The owner should include a provision in the RFP for the developer (at his expense) to investigate the site and revise his cost proposal, as needed.

· If the owner requires price controls, the RFP should include a provision to allow the owner to subsidize the project if adverse unknown site conditions are discovered.

· The developer should assemble a diverse team of professionals to fully assess and understand the unique challenges of turning a brownfield site into a golf course.