A new perspective on nutrient management plans

If you follow this blog, you have likely seen me write about the importance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the development of statewide BMP models across the country. By now, I hope we understand why these programs are important for advocacy and government relations initiatives. But if not, here is a refresher:

Golf has long been scrutinized as a contributor, even a large contributor, to the deteriorating water quality of the Chesapeake Bay. For that reason, many states in the Bay's watershed have embarked on legislative-driven journeys to create environmental accountability as it relates to golf course maintenance practices. So, how do we create that accountability? We develop statewide BMP models that we can promote to our legislators.

But once we develop these BMP models, how do we validate to our law-makers just how many golf courses are implementing these BMPs? This is where nutrient management plans come into play. Nutrient management plans ARE the validation for BMPs. Last week I had a long conversation with Peter McDonough, superintendent at The Keswick Club in Virginia, about this very topic. Peter has been instrumental in developing BMPs in Virginia, as well as working with the state government to implement nutrient management plans for golf courses.

In regard to the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay, the main "culprits" of interest are nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments. While Virginia state law allows so much of those given nutrients to be applied in a calendar year, the allowable quantity is usually more than what golf courses actually apply. By developing a nutrient management plan for each golf course, it shows that we are staying within our industry's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). And most of the time, even below the allowable thresholds.

Each golf course in Virginia is required to have a nutrient management plan in place by 2017. And the VGCSA even worked with the state to secure funding assistance. Plans have to be written by a certified nutrient management plan writer and are required to be re-written every five years. Now, while this may sound like a huge expense and burden, the cost really isn't too bad - about $10 per acre. And remember, there is state funding to help aid the financial aspect.

Track with me -- nutrient management plans are a way to validate our use of BMPs, particularly in regard to fertilizer application. But, here is where this gets really interesting -- remember how I said we usually apply less fertilizer than our allowable thresholds? Well, imagine a credit system where we could sell TMDL credits to other industries. That's right, creating nutrient management plans could actually be a revenue stream in the future. And this isn't an outlandish, never-going-to-happen, crazy idea either. Peter McDonough is actually working on the approval of selling these credits in Virginia. And the financial gain could be significant, possibly even in the six digit realm.

So, to wrap this up and bring it full circle: We need to create statewide BMP models to illustrate our responsible use of water, resources and nutrient application. Development of nutrient management plans are a way of validating these BMP models, and possibly a future revenue stream. So not only are we bringing golf into the good graces of our state and federal legislators; these programs also help protect us and give us a "seat at the table" when we face future legislative changes. And last, but certainly not least, we could even make some money along the way.