G2 ASSOCIATES, INC.

85 River Birch Dr.

Great Falls, VA 22066

Phosphorus in the Chesapeake:

An Overview on Nutrient Pollution in the Chesapeake Bay
and Efforts to Limit Phosphorus Runoff in the Watershed

Kathleen Daley
Neil Saunders
1 May 2015

Copyright2015G2Associates,Inc.,GreatFalls,Virginia,AllRightsReserved.
G2Associatesherebyauthorizesyoutocopythisdocumentfornoncommercialuseswithinyour
organizationonly.Inconsiderationofthisauthorization,youagreethatanycopyofthesedocumentsthat
youmakeshallretainallcopyrightandotherproprietarynoticescontainedherein.

III. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution in the

Chesapeake Bay
1.

Introduction
The Chesapeake Bay is the nations largest estuary. The Bay and its tributaries

cover 64,000 square miles, extending into six states: New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The watershed
includes a mix of urban, suburban and rural landscapes. i Agricultural runoff, urban and
suburban stormwater runoff, vehicle emissions, and wastewater treatment plant
discharges within the watershed result in millions of pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment reaching the Chesapeake Bay each year. An excess of nutrients and sediments
from all this human activity has a negative impact on water quality in the bay, directly
affecting plant and animal species that live in and around the estuary.
Out of all of this human activity, agriculture is the largest single source of
pollution for both phosphorus and nitrogen, contributing 45% of the phosphorus and 38%
of the nitrogen entering the Chesapeake Bay. While agriculture is prevalent throughout
the Chesapeake Bay region, certain states, such as Maryland, have come under scrutiny in
recent months for their handling of waste from chicken production facilities. Hundreds of
millions of chickens are produced annually in the state of Maryland. Manure from these
chickens is used as fertilizer on cropland in the state, which often is already saturated
with phosphorus. The excess phosphorus runs off and leaches into the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, polluting the Bay and its tributaries.

2.

Observed Changes in the Chesapeake Bay from Human

Activity
Humans within the Chesapeake Bay region have had an enormous impact on

water quality in the mainstem of the Bay, and in the numerous streams and rivers that
make up the watershed. Deforestation, urban development, and agricultural activity
contribute millions of pounds of nutrients and sediment to the Bay each year. In the 400

years since European colonization in the region, there have been significant changes to
water quality and species composition in the Bay, as result of human activity and land use
changes. According to a report released by the National Research Council, nitrogen and
phosphorus levels in the Bay in the mid-1980s were 7 and 16 times higher, respectively,
than when English colonists arrived in the region.ii
Since the mid-twentieth century, the population within the watershed has grown at
an accelerated rate, and will continue to grow, according to recent projections.iii Eight
million people lived in the Bay watershed in the 1950s; the current population is 17.8
million people. There are expected to be an additional 1.7 million people in the watershed
each decade.iv Urban development has grown with the population. Between 1982 and
1997, over 750,000 acres in the Bay watershed were cleared to make way for the
construction of infrastructure, and residential and commercial buildings associated with
urban sprawl. Currently, about 35% of private forests in the region are available for
development, which will likely result in greater sprawl, forest fragmentation and
deforestation in the watershed.v
Agriculture, which is needed to feed and support the 17.8 million people who live
within the watershed, takes up almost a quarter of the land within watershed boundaries.
In total there are about 8.5 million acres of farmland, and 87,000 farming operations in
the region.vi All of these human activities- development, deforestation, and agriculturecontribute nutrient and sediment pollution, which has a detrimental effect on fish,
shellfish, and plant species in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
Hypoxia and Dead Zones
Nutrient and sediment pollution can cause hypoxia, or dead zones in the Bay.
Dead zones are underwater areas with low oxygen levels, in which aquatic organisms
find it difficult to survive. Sediment, phosphorus and nitrogen feed algae throughout the
watershed. Excessive loads of phosphorus and nitrogen entering the Chesapeake result in
algal blooms, reducing dissolved oxygen levels in the estuary. This leads to dead zones in
the Bay over the summer months, a problem that has been occurring in the mainstem of
the Bay for decades.vii Hypoxic conditions in the Bay lead to habitat loss for marine
species in shallow and deep waters, fish and shellfish die-offs, and disruptions to energy

transfer and production in the food chain.viii

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

Excess nutrients and sediments in streams, rivers, and the Bay block sunlight from
reaching submerged aquatic vegetation, preventing the growth and survival of these
underwater grasses. Submerged aquatic vegetation, or SAV, act as a source of food for
waterfowl, and as a habitat for fish and shellfish species in the Chesapeake Bay.
Decomposing SAV feed species on the Bay floor. SAV filters polluted runoff by taking up
nitrogen and phosphorus, and improves water quality and clarity in the Bay. Underwater
grasses also absorb wave energy and protect shorelines from erosion.ix
While submerged aquatic vegetation takes up nitrogen and phosphorus, excess
levels of these nutrients impair the ability of underwater grasses to filter polluted runoff.
Sedimentation, and nitrogen and phosphorus pollution have contributed to massive dieoffs of SAV. Poor water quality is listed as the chief threat for SAV by the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science (VIMS).x VIMS estimates that the Chesapeake Bay once had
over 600,000 acres of SAV.xi As of 2012, the Chesapeake Bay Program estimates a total
of 48,191 acres of SAV are in the Bay.xii
Reduction of submerged aquatic vegetation acreage occurred at a steady rate in
the last century. VIMS states: Since the 1950s, there has been a tremendous decline in
SAV due to degraded water quality.xiii Another source claims that SAV beds in the
Chesapeake Bay declined by 50% after 1960.xiv In 1972, Tropical Storm Agnes resulted
in massive amounts of rainfall and nutrient runoff, and killed off many grass beds in the
Bay.xv The reduction of SAV acreage has continued into the present day. Aerial surveys
conducted by VIMS show that acreage of one SAV species in the Bay, eelgrass, has
declined by about 50% since the early 1990s.xvi
Shellfish: Pollutions Impact on Crabs and Oysters
Underwater grass beds are a source of food and habitat for many regional marine
species, including the iconic Chesapeake blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). Juvenile blue
crabs rely on underwater grasses for protection from predators, such as striped bass. SAV

beds have been found to contain 30 times more juvenile crabs than uncovered water
floors. The blue crab is more susceptible to predation in areas where these SAV beds have
been significantly reduced. xvii A loss of SAV habitat, associated with nutrient and
sediment pollution, has led to the decline in the blue crab population in the Bay over the
past several years.xviii
Overfishing and the reluctance of state regulatory agencies to limit crab
harvesting, are also possible explanations for this population decline. However, habitat
loss associated with nutrient and sediment pollution has likely contributed the most to the
blue crab die offs in recent years. The 2014 State of the Bay report from the Chesapeake
Bay Foundation attributes the most recent decline in crab numbers to poor water quality
associated with pollution. They state:
Factors other than harvest are evidently also limiting the crab
population. The large numbers of juvenile crabs produced in 2011 did not
mature into large numbers of adults as expected. Continued low levels of
underwater grasses habitat probably exposed small crabs to high predation
by striped bass and other predatory fish.xix
The blue crab population in the Chesapeake Bay has been declining since the latetwentieth century. Population numbers have fallen to particularly low levels in the past
couple of years. In 2014, the Bays blue crab population dropped to less than half of what
it was in 2012. (See Figure 7 below).

Total Crab Population 2007- 2014

1000
800
600
Millions of Crabs

400 251 293

200

765

663
396

452
300 297

0
2007.0
2008.0
2009.0
2010.0
2011.0
2012.0
2013.0
2014.0
Year

Figure 7: Total crab population from 2007 to 2014 based on winter dredge surveys
in the Bay, (http://virginiaplaces.org/natural.crabs.html).

Annual harvests and winter dredge surveys are indicators of population health in
the Bay. The average annual catch of blue crabs from 1968 to 2001 was 75 million
pounds. xx Although this number fluctuates year to year, crab harvest decline was drastic
in the last decade of the twentieth century, when harvests dropped from 113 million
pounds in 1993 to 49 million pounds in 2000.xxi (See Figure 8 below). More recent
numbers show an even greater decline. According to the Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab
Advisory Report on the 2013 harvest, Bay-wide commercial harvest, including catches
from Maryland, Virginias Chesapeake region and the Potomac River, was only 37
million pounds. The report labeled this harvest the lowest recorded in 25 years. Mirroring
the population drop from 2012 to 2014, Marylands 2013 harvest had a decline in 41%
from 2012 numbers, while Virginias harvest had a 24% drop in the Bay and 44% drop in
the Potomac River from 2012 numbers.xxii The 2014 harvest numbers will be released
later this year, but numbers are expected to be similar or lower to the previous year.

Figure 8: Decline in total crab population (in blue), in millions of crabs, from
1990 to 2007. (http://virginiaplaces.org/natural.crabs.html).

Sediment and nutrient pollution affect the Bays oyster population as well. Since
the mid-twentieth century, the Chesapeake oyster, (Crassostrea virginica), has come back
from numerous set-backs.xxiii Disease, overfishing, sedimentation, and nutrient pollution
contributed to reductions in population numbers in the Chesapeake and its tributaries.
(See Figure 9 below). Nutrient and sediment pollution, associated with changes in land
use and deforestation, contribute to poor water quality in the Bay, which makes oysters
more susceptible to disease. Excess sediment in the water stifles oysters, while excess
nutrients can create oxygen-depleted dead zones, suffocating oysters and limiting the
growth of larvae.xxiv

Figure 9: Virginia and Maryland oyster landings from 1880 to 2000. The
graph, from a report in Chesapeake Quarterly documents the great decline of the
Bays oyster population over the twentieth century. Overfishing and disease are
credited as having the greatest impact on the Chesapeake oyster, however, nutrient
and sediment pollution have played a large role in this decline as well. (Jack Greer,
Killer from Across the Sea, Chesapeake Quarterly 8:2, 2009).

3.

Phosphorus, Nitrogen Loads Entering the Bay

Nutrients and sediment enter the Chesapeake Bay at rates that exceed levels the

EPA deems healthy for the watershed. The EPA determined that annual nutrient loads to
the Bay should not exceed 12.5 million pounds of phosphorus and 185.9 million pounds
of nitrogen. However, average annual loads, calculated from 1990 to 2013, exceed these
levels. Average phosphorus loads during this period were estimated to be over 21.1
million pounds, and nitrogen estimated at 338 million pounds.xxv
In the Chesapeake Bay, the major sources of nutrient and sediment pollution are
agriculture; urban and suburban development; vehicle emissions; and wastewater
treatment and industrial site emissions. For Bay-wide nitrogen loads, sewage treatment
plants, industry wastewater, and private septic systems account for 23% of the nitrogen
entering the watershed. Air pollution, mainly from car and industrial emissions, account
for 21% of the nitrogen polluting the Bay. Stormwater runoff in urban and suburban areas
is another 16%, while agriculture contributes 38% of the nitrogen in the Chesapeakexxvi

(See Figure 10 below).

Figure 10: Sources of nitrogen loads to the

Chesapeake Bay. Image source: CBF,
www.cbf.org/about-the-bay/issues/deadzones/nitrgoen-phosphorus.

Figure 11: Sources of phosphorus loads to the Chesapeake Bay. Image source:
National Research Council, Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in
the Chesapeake Bay, 29.

Percentages of phosphorus loads entering the Bay, divided up by source, are

similar to nitrogen. Urban and suburban stormwater runoff accounts for 31% of
phosphorus entering the Bay, sewage and industrial wastewaster is 21% and forest is
3%.xxvii xxviii Almost 50% of phosphorus in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries comes
from agriculture. Out of this source, 26% is from manure runoff from farms, and 19%
from chemical fertilizers.xxix In 2013, out of 17 million pounds of phosphorus that reached
the Chesapeake, approximately half of the phosphorous load came from agriculture,
according to models created by the Chesapeake Bay Program.xxx (See Figure 11 above).

4.

Agriculture in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, about a quarter of the land is dedicated to farming,
making agriculture the second largest land use in the region, behind forested areas.
Agricultural activities contribute the largest percentage of phosphorus levels in the Bay.
Phosphorus pollution in the Bay can be partly attributed to the over-application of animal
manure to farmlands. The Chesapeake Bay was ranked as one of the highest priority
watersheds in the country needing protection from manure nutrients at the beginning of

this century.xxxi
How Manure Pollutes the Bay
Animal waste is often used throughout the watershed as a fertilizer on croplands.
Whether manure is collected and distributed as fertilizer, or manure is left on fields where
it was naturally deposited, the animal waste poses a major risk to water quality in nearby
streams, rivers, and the Chesapeake Bay.
Plants need nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, to grow. Phosphorus
applied to cropland in the form of manure can meet these needs, however soils can
already have sufficient levels of the nutrient. Phosphorus applied in excess does not help
the plant. Instead, when extra phosphorus is applied, the phosphorus remains in the soil.
Heavy rain and snowmelt cause the excess nutrients in soil to runoff into local streams.
This occurs directly, when manure is applied too close to the edge of a field, or when a
vegetative buffer does not exist along a waterway. Phosphorus can also enter a waterway
indirectly through soil erosion, leaching, or when rain and snowmelt carry soil to
drainage ditches; the phosphorus in the soil gradually makes its way into streams, rivers
and the Bay.xxxii
Manure comes from a variety of animals in the watershed. Animal production of beef
cattle, dairy cattle, swine, and the three main poultry types: layers, broilers, and turkeys,
are most common in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.xxxiii Poultry production is especially
prevalent along the Bay in the state of Maryland and on the Delmarva Peninsula.xxxiv
Chicken litter is a popular form of manure on farms in this region. About 1.5 billion
pounds of chicken manure are produced annually on the Delmarva Peninsula and used on
farms throughout the region.xxxv This manure is a contributor to nutrient pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay. Ten percent of the total phosphorus in the Bay is estimated to come
from the Eastern Shore, as a result of large-scale chicken production and chicken litter
runoff.xxxvi
Chicken production in Chesapeake Bay watershed
The Delmarva Peninsula is home to large national chicken production companies. Perdue
Farms, Mountaire Farms and Tyson Foods run poultry production facilities throughout

the peninsula. In 2010, 786 million chickens were produced regionally, two-thirds of
which came from Delmarva.xxxvii With these production rates, Delmarva is one of the
nations highest poultry producing regions, and two counties on the PeninsulaDelawares Sussex County and Marylands Wicomico County- are listed as two of the
twenty top poultry producing counties in the country.xxxviii

5.

Marylands Contribution to Phosphorus Pollution in the

Chesapeake

Agriculture
97% of Marylands streams, creeks, and rivers empty into the Bay or its
tributaries, making Maryland the state with the highest percentage of its bodies of water
within the watershed (excluding the District of Columbia).xxxix Many of these waterways
carry nutrient and sediment into the Bay from agricultural fields. According to a report
released by the Department of Agriculture, in 2013, there were 12,400 farms, making up
2,050,000 acres in Maryland.xl Runoff from these farms accounts for 41% of the
phosphorus that enters the Bay from Maryland.xli
Chicken farming
Maryland, both on its Eastern Shore, and throughout the state, produces chickens on a
massive scale. The state is currently ranked eighth nationally in the number of broiler
chickens produced, and has one of the highest concentrations of chickens per acre of
farmland, in the country.xlii xliii In 2013, over 300 million chickens were raised in
Maryland.xliv Production results in hundreds of millions of pounds of manure each year.
For instance, 296 million broiler chickens raised in 2007 generated over 1.2 billion
pounds of chicken litter.xlv xlvi Much of the phosphorus from this manure is entering the
Chesapeake Bay, directly or through its tributaries.

Figure 12. : Poultry production for each state in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in 2007. Maryland
produces the greatest amount of poultry compared to the other watershed states.

Perdue Farms, headquartered in Salisbury, Maryland, employs poultry farmers

throughout the state. Many of these farmers produce a variety of other crops, and use
chicken litter as fertilizer on their agricultural lands. Excess manure is distributed to
nearby farms. However, unequal distribution of chicken manure in the state has led to
high levels of phosphorus in Marylands soils. According to recent soil tests, over threequarters of fields on Marylands Eastern Shore, and half of the fields throughout the state
are over-saturated with phosphorus. A 2002 study, which looked at soil samples from four
counties in the state where large-scale chicken production takes place, showed that over
half of samples had phosphorus levels that exceed crop needs, and pose water quality
risks to the Chesapeake Bay.xlvii
Phosphorus levels increased in the Bay in recent years.xlviii The 2014 State of the Bay
report from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) found that phosphorus levels rose in
areas in the Potomac and James River, and off of Marylands Eastern Shore. Given that
large-scale chicken production is prevalent on Marylands Eastern Shore, CBF attributes
higher phosphorus levels in this area to manure-related phosphorus pollution. This same
report awarded the Chesapeake Bay a health index score of D+.xlix The state of the Bay
may be slowly improving, but it is a long way from healthy. Limiting pollution runoff
from agriculture and chicken manure, one of the biggest contributors to poor water
quality in the Bay, will go a long way toward upgrading the Bays health score.
Maryland, with high production levels of poultry and chicken waste, could lead the way
in improving Bay health by enforcing new proposed phosphorus regulations for its farms

and agricultural lands.

Chapter III Endnotes

Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), 2013 estimates,

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators/indicator/chesapeake_bay_watershed_population.

ii

National Research Council, Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the
Chesapeake Bay, 2011, 15-16.

iii

According to the Chesapeake Bay Program, an estimated 17.8 million people lived in the Bay
watershed in 2013, up from 17.7 million in 2012. Population numbers are expected to keep
rising, and by 2040, there will be an estimated 21.4 million people living in the watershed.
Chesapeake Bay Program, 2014,
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators/indicator/chesapeake_bay_watershed_population.

iv

Tom Horton, Growing, Growing, Gone! The Chesapeake Bay and the Myth of Endless Growth,
(Baltimore: The Abell Foundation, 2008), 2.

CBP, 2014, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/issue/development#inline.

vi

CBP, 2014, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/issue/agriculture#inline.

vii

Rebecca R. Murphy, W. Michael Kemp, and William P. Ball, Long Term Trends in
Chesapeake Bay Seasonal Hypoxia, Stratification, and Nutrient Loading, Coastal and
Estuarine Research Federation, 2011,

viii

Murphy, et. al.,

ix

VIMS, 2014, http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/AboutSAV.html.

VIMS, 2014, http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/AboutSAV.html.

xi

VIMS, 2014.

xii

CBP, 2013,
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/presscenter/release/bays_underwater_grasses_decline_for_third_

year.

xiii

VIMS, 2014.

xiv

Virginia Places, Blue Crabs in Virginia, 2014,

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/natural/crabs.html.

xv

VIMS, 2014.

xvi

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 2008,

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/sav/download/grass_beds_capital.pdf.

xvii

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 2008,

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/sav/download/grass_beds_capital.pdf.

xviii

Chesapeake Bay Program, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/issue/bay_grasses#inline.

xix

Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), State of the Bay, 2014, http://www.cbf.org/about-thebay/state-of-the-bay-report-2014.

xx

VIMS, 2002, http://www.fisheries.vims.edu/bcar/.

xxi

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/natural/crabs.html.

xxii Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee, Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Advisory Report,
2014.

xxiii

Catch loads in Maryland, for example, declined from 1884 to 1992, from 615,000 tons to
12,000 tons. (B.J. Rothschild, et. al., Decline of the Chesapeake Bay oyster population: a
century of habitat destruction and overfishing, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 1994). Catch trends in
Virginia were quite similar. It is thought that Bay-wide, less than 1% of the original 17th
century population remains in the watershed. (Newell, R.I.E. 1988. Ecological changes in
Chesapeake Bay: are they the results of overharvesting the American oyster, Crassostrea

virginica? In: M. Lynch and E.C. Krome (eds.) Understanding the estuary: advances in
Chesapeake Bay research, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Solomons MD pp.536-546).

xxiv

CBP, 2014, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/issue/oysters#inline.

xxv

CBP, 2014,
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators/indicator/nitrogen_loads_and_river_flow_to_the_bay1
.

xxvi

CBF, 2014, http://www.cbf.org/about-the-bay/issues/dead-zones/nitrogen-phosphorus.

xxvii

According to the EPA: Sources of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution associated with forestry
activities include removal of streamside vegetation, road construction and use, timber
harvesting, and mechanical preparation for the planting of trees. Road construction and road use
are the primary sources of NPS pollution on forested lands, contributing up to 90 percent of the
total sediment from forestry operations, (EPA, Forestry,
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/forestry.cfm).

xxviii CBP, 2014.

xxix

National Resource Council, 29.

xxx

CBP, 2014, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators/indicator/reducing_phosphorus_pollution.

xxxi

Catma, et. al.

xxxii

Frontier Group, An Unsustainable Path: Why Marylands Manure Pollution Rules are Failing to
Protect the Chesapeake Bay, 2011, p. 9.

xxxiii Catma et. al., 122.

xxxiv The Delmarva Peninsula is on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay, and is made up of
parts of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.

xxxv

Public Broadcasting System, Whos Responsible for that Manure? Accessed 2015,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/themes/chicken.html.

xxxvi EPA, 2010, 4-4.

xxxvii Frontier Group, pg. 8

xxxviii EPA, 2010, 4-29.

xxxix Catma, et. al., 122.

xl

USDA, 2013.

xli

Frontier Group,

xlii

USDA, 2013.

xliii

Frontier Group, 8.

xliv

USDA, 2013.

xlv

Frontier Group.

xlvi

Chicken litter refers to chicken manure mixed with feathers. Waste is collected from chicken
production organizations and often spread on fields as litter.

xlvii

Frontier Group

xlviii

Karl Blankenship, Long Term Improvements of Phosphorus Reduction in Chesapeake Bay

Fading Away, Bay Journal, February 1, 2015,
http://www.bayjournal.com/article/water_quality_monitoring_shows_some_long_term_improvements_fading_awa
y

xlix

CBF, State of the Bay, 2014, http://www.cbf.org/about-the-bay/state-of-the-bay-report-2014.