Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kathleen Daley
Neil Saunders
1 May 2015
Copyright2015G2Associates,Inc.,GreatFalls,Virginia,AllRightsReserved.
G2Associatesherebyauthorizesyoutocopythisdocumentfornoncommercialuseswithinyour
organizationonly.Inconsiderationofthisauthorization,youagreethatanycopyofthesedocumentsthat
youmakeshallretainallcopyrightandotherproprietarynoticescontainedherein.
V.
1.
Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that Maryland is responsible for
twenty percent of the total phosphorus in the Bay watershed, third behind Virginia (43%)
and Pennsylvania (24%). Of that amount, more than half of Marylands phosphorus
pollution comes from agriculture. This is especially significant, considering that
agricultural land comprises less than thirty percent of the Bay drainage basin.iAnimal
manure, in particular, has led to excessive phosphorus levels entering the watershed along
the Eastern Shore, where poultry farming is prevalent. It is estimated that Maryland
produces enough poultry litter every year to fill M&T Bank Stadium twice.ii Proper
oversight of its agricultural production, therefore, is vital to Maryland to sustain its local
economy while also achieving Bay pollution reductions.
In the summer and fall of 1997, an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 fish kills were
observed in the Pocomoke River, Kings Creek, and Chicamicomico River along
Marylands Eastern Shore.iv Additional fish were found with lesions and ulcers on their
bodies.v Subsequent scientific analysis determined that increased levels of the toxic
microbe Pfiesteria piscicida were believed to be a contributing cause. In the areas
surrounding the fish kills, unusually high river flows the previous year resulted in high
nutrient levels and low dissolved oxygen levels, which also were believed to have been a
cause of the fish kills, primarily menhaden, a fish known to feed on algae in the Bay.
Although the Pfiesteria microbe exists throughout the Bay region, scientific research
suggests that increased nutrient levels cause the microbe to turn toxic and kill fish, as
well as presenting a danger to humans.vi
Maryland responded to the Pfiesteria outbreaks, as they were subsequently
referred, with sweeping changes to its approach to nutrient management regulation. In
1997, Governor Parris N. Glendening appointed the Citizens Pfiesteria Piscicida Action
Commission to study the outbreaks and make policy recommendations. The commission
issued a report that linked Pfiesteria populations and excessive nutrient enrichment. At
the same time, agricultural scientists identified high levels of dissolved phosphorus in soil
runoff where phosphorus soil tests were excessively high. A year later, the General
Assembly passed the Water Quality Improvement Act (WQIA), which, among other
things, required mandatory nitrogen- and phosphorus- based nutrient management
plans.vii
The WQIA and accompanying regulations require all agricultural operations with
annual income greater than $2,500 or more than eight animal units (one animal unit is
defined as 1,000 pounds of live weight) to implement a nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient
management plan. Each nutrient management plan must be completed with the assistance
of a certified specialist. The purpose of the nutrient management plan is to require annual
soil tests to determine the level of nitrogen and phosphorus loads in the soil, and allow
farmers to effectively manage their fertilizer application.
The enactment of the WQIA is significant because, as previously mentioned, it
marked a sweeping change in policy in Maryland, and it also was the first time that the
2010
2017
Amount
Percentag
Region
Annual
Interim
of
Loads
Target
Reduction Reduction
2025
2025
Percentage
Final
Final
Reduction
Target
Strategy
from 2010-
of lbs/yr) of lbs/yr)
0.940
0.723
0.217
23.1%
0.844
0.685
27.1%
0.076
0.063
0.014
18.0%
0.064
0.059
23.1%
Shore
Patuxent
River Basin
Potomac
0.513
0.443
0.069
13.6%
0.456
0.432
15.6%
0.046
0.039
0.007
16.1%
0.035
0.037
20.0%
0.065
0.055
0.009
14.6%
0.052
0.053
18.0%
1.640
1.323
.318
19.4%
1.451
1.266
22.8%
River Basin
Susquehann
a River Basin
Western
Shore
Chesapeake
Watershed
(This chart was formatted by the authors using information obtained in the MD WIP II)
Despite Marylands successes, however, several shortcomings threaten to undo
some of these results. Most notably, Maryland has yet to implement the PMT regulations
included in the Phase II WIP. The EPA identified this as one of Marylands shortfalls in
its evaluation of the states 2012-2013 milestone progress.xxii This will undoubtedly affect
future model projections of statewide reduction loads. (The PMT is addressed in more
detail in the next chapter).
Additional shortcomings exist in those parts of the state where agricultural
activities are largest. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundations 2014 State of the
Bay Report,xxiii phosphorus loads increased compared to 2012 levels. Taking a closer look
at progress made at the county level in Maryland, it is apparent that several counties,
particularly those along the Eastern Shore, are falling short of their targeted efforts to
implement certain best management practices that present an opportunity to reduce
phosphorus loads. County annual reports, submitted as part of the statewide Watershed
Implementation Plan (WIP), provide a glimpse at how well (or poorly) each county is
performing towards statewide TMDL compliance. Dorchester County, for example, falls
well short of its 2015 milestone target for acreage utilizing enhanced nutrient
management Best Management Practices. Similar to nutrient management planning, the
enhanced nutrient management BMP specifically aims to identify where nitrogen
application is excessive, to reduce nitrogen use, and therefore also reduce phosphorus
application. The 2013/2014 report shows enhanced nutrient management implementation
on 579.3 acres/year out of a 2015 target of 7647.83 acres/year, or only eight percent.xxiv
The remaining counties along the Eastern Shore report similar progress (or lack thereof)
for enhanced nutrient management: Somerset County reports 275.2 acres/year out of a
2015 target of 4068.19 acres/year, or seven percentxxv; Wicomico County reports 828.3
acres/year out of a 2015 target of 7,389.45 acres/year, or eleven percentxxvi; Worchester
County reports 351.7 acres/year out of a 2015 target of 8433.94 acres/year, or four
percentxxvii; Talbot County reports 373.3 acres/year out of a 2015 target of 16,389.54
acres/year, or two percentxxviii; Caroline County reports 1,363.4 acres/year out of a 2015
target of 21,238.32 acres/year, or six percentxxix; Queens Anne County reports 1,523.6
acres/year out of a 2015 target of 18,062.38 acres/year, or eight percentxxx; Kent County
reports 1,670.4 acres/year out of a 2015 target of 8,341.42 acres/year, or twenty
percentxxxi; and Cecil County reports 4,232.8 acres/year out of a 2015 target of 6,977.66
acres/year, or sixty-one percent.xxxii This information is represented in the chart below:
Counties on the
7/1/13-6/30/14
2015 Milestone
Percentage (%)
Eastern Shore
Progress (acres/year)
(acres/year)
Caroline
1,363.40
21,238.32
6%
Cecil
4,232.80
6,977.66
61%
Dorchester
579.30
7647.83
8%
Kent
1,670.40
8,341.42
20%
Queens Anne
1,523.60
18,062.38
8%
Talbot
373.30
16,389.54
2%
Somerset
275.20
4,068.19
7%
Wicomico
828.30
7,389.45
11%
Worchester
351.70
8,433.94
4%
To the credit of these counties, all are either well on their way or substantially
ahead of pace to meet milestone targets for other major Best Management Practices,
including cover crop, conservation tillage, and ordinary nutrient management. But the
reports also show that little or no progress has been made thus far in other smaller-scale
Best Management Practices, such as alternative crops, forest and vegetative buffers,
poultry litter heavy use concrete pads, and others. The fact that phosphorus loads have
increased recently shows that more needs to be done in those areas that will significantly
reduce phosphorus loads entering the Bay watershed.
Chapter V Endnotes
Howard R. Ernst, Chesapeake Bay Blues: Science, Politics, and the Struggle to Save the Bay,
(Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003).
ii
iii
Ernst, 2003.
iv
vi
Burkholder, Joann, Keeping Pfiesteria in Check, The Baltimore Sun, March 1, 1999,
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1999-03-01/news/9903010242_1_pfiesteria-joann-burkholder-runoff-controlplans.
vii
viii
ix
Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Phase I Watershed Implementation PlanExecutive Summary, December, 2010,
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/MD_Phas
e_I_Plan_Exec_Sum_Submitted_Final.pdf, (ES-3).
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Phase II WIP- Appendix A, October, 15,
2012,
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/Documents/FINAL_PhaseII_Report_
Docs/Final_Documents_PhaseII/APPENDIX_A_PhIIWIP_2017_Strategies_101512.pdf, (A-34).
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xxi
Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Phase II WIP- Appendix B, October 15,
2012,
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/Documents/FINAL_PhaseII_Report_
Docs/Final_Documents_PhaseII/APPENDIX_B_PhIIWIP_Strategy_Results_101512.pdf.
xxii
xxiii http://www.cbf.org/document.doc?id=2289
xxivhttp://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/WIPCountyDocs/dorchester150206.pdf
xxvhttp://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/WIPCountyDocs/somerset150206.pdf
xxvihttp://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/WIPCountyDocs/wicomico150206.pdf
xxviihttp://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/WIPCountyDocs/worcester150206.pdf
xxviiihttp://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/WIPCountyDocs/talbot150206.pdf
xxixhttp://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/WIPCountyDocs/caroline150206.pdf
xxx
http://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/WIPCountyDocs/queenannes150206.pdf
xxxihttp://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/WIPCountyDocs/kent150206.pdf
xxxiihttp://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/WIPCountyDocs/cecil150206.pdf