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.

V.

Maryland Phosphorus Regulations

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.

2. History of Maryland Phosphorus Regulations

The Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) is responsible for regulating
agriculture in the state. Through the use of fines, penalties, and enforcement actions, the
MDA ensures compliance with the states regulations and policies. Over the years, the
MDA has established a number of regulations and programs to address water pollution in
the Bay. While the earliest efforts employed a series of voluntary guidelines, today
Maryland primarily uses a mandatory approach to nutrient management.
Marylands first efforts to address nutrient management generally date back to the
1980s. These efforts, however, amounted only to voluntary best management practices
guidelines. Attempts by state legislators to implement mandatory regulations failed in the
early 1990s. State Senator Gerald Winegard sought to introduce legislation that would
have required best management practices to be implemented by the year 2001. This
approach was defeated in succession in the 1992, 1993, and 1994 legislative sessions.iii In
1997, however, an environmental crisis sparked public outcry for a political solution.

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

state sought to address excessive use of phosphorus in fertilizers. Prior to enactment,

recommended application of animal manure was largely based on the nitrogen needs of
crops, without consideration for phosphorus. This often resulted in excessive application
of phosphorus, in which animal manure is rich.viii
Recently, Maryland has added a new voluntary-based approach with its
Agricultural Certainty Program. The program, established under legislation passed in
2013 by the General Assembly and set to take effect in 2015, is a voluntary program that
allows farmers who install best management practices a ten-year exemption from new
environmental laws and regulations. Installation of best management practices, which
must contribute toward TMDL compliance, allows farmers to conduct their businesses in
a more predictable regulatory setting without compromising the states efforts to reduce
the amount of pollutants entering the Bay. It is important to note, however, that the
Agricultural Certainty Program would not apply to certain programs, including the
Phosphorus Management Tool. That is, farmers may not receive an exemption from PMT
regulation compliance by installing best management practices.ix
In order to enroll in the program, a farmer must meet certain eligibility
requirements. First, a farmer must enroll an entire parcel of his land, as identified by the
Department of Assessments and Taxation. Second, farm operations must undergo
certified verification to ensure that the farmer is in compliance with local, state, and
federal environmental regulations, including TMDL compliance. Once approved, an
agreement is written outlining operation and maintenance requirements for the ten-year
duration. After the ten-year exemption period, farm operations must be in compliance
with all current regulations.
Another recently proposed regulation in Maryland is the Phosphorus Management
Tool. The PMT regulation improves an existing model for measuring phosphorus levels
in farm soil, and limits the amount and type of fertilizers that farmers can use on their
crops depending on the levels of phosphorus already in the soil. The regulation requires
that excess animal manure that cannot be applied to crops must be transported to
appropriate waste treatment centers or to other farms that can use the excess manure
without going over the phosphorus limits.

3. Marylands Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Strategies

Maryland has committed to an accelerated implementation date that exceeds the
mandated 60% implementation by 2017 and full implementation by 2025 in the Bay
TMDL. The Plan calls for 70% of the final target goals to be achieved by 2017, and for
Maryland to achieve full TMDL implementation by 2020.x The Phase II WIP divides its
implementation strategies between the five major river basins in Maryland: Eastern
Shore; Patuxent; Potomac; Susquehanna; and Western Shore.xi The implementation
strategies are further subdivided by county and source sector.
Maryland employs a number of approaches in its WIP to meet its Interim and
Final reduction targets, including developing new technology and approaches; increasing
the scope of implementation of existing strategies; and improving regulatory
requirements.xii Because Maryland projects that most of its strategies for point source
reductions will be fully implemented by 2017, the remaining gap filling must occur
within nonpoint source sectors,xiii with agriculture providing the most significance
decrease.xiv Although Marylands strategy for agriculture focuses primarily on nitrogen
reductions,xv additional strategies do exist for proper management of animal waste and
related phosphorus issues and the sound use of crop nutrients and how to apply the
latest refinements in agronomic recommendationsxvi
Maryland continues to encourage expanded utilization of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) among farmers since further load reduction within the agriculture
sector should recognize and reflect the diverse nature of where agricultural loadings are
originating and how to effectively manage themxvii That is, achieving nitrogen and
phosphorus reductions often requires site-specific management through the use of
nutrient management planning and BMP implementation. Of the various BMPs employed
in Maryland, the most significant practices include use of cover crops, development of
soil conservation and water quality plans, conservation tillage, nutrient management
compliance, precision agriculture, and revised P Site Index regulations.xviii

4. Progress Made in Agriculture

Of the 3.3 million pounds of phosphorus entering the Chesapeake watershed
annually in 2010, 1.64 million pounds came from agriculture. The Bay TMDL presently
sets the Final Target for agriculture-sourced phosphorus at 1.451 million pounds.
Encouragingly, Maryland has made significant progress in its overall phosphorus load
reductions. Between 2007 and 2013, Maryland reduced 530,000 pounds of phosphorus
from the watershed, which is nearly 147,000 pounds ahead of schedule to meet the 2017
and 2025 goals, according to Maryland Department of the Environment progress data.xix
Information obtained from Marylands biennial milestones confirms many of
these figures. Of the twelve BMPs that Maryland implements annually, seven
(Conservation Tillage, Cover Crops, Cropland Irrigation Management, Dairy Manure
Corporation, Manure Transport, Nutrient Management, Poultry Litter Incorporation) have
already exceeded the 2015 milestones, and an additional two (Decision Agriculture and
Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plans) reached 67% and 90% of the milestones,
respectively.xx
The following chart shows Marylands targeted reduction goals for phosphorus
within the agriculture source sector under the Phase II WIP.xxi Data are provided for each
major river basin and collectively for the entire watershed.
Geographic

2010

2017

Amount

Percentag

Region

Annual

Interim

of

Loads

Target

Reduction Reduction

2025

2025

Percentage

Final

Final

Reduction

Target

Strategy

from 2010-

from 2010 from 2010- Loads

Loads
2025
(millions Loads
(millions (millions
of lbs/yr) (millions (millions 2017
of lbs/yr) of lbs/yr)
Eastern

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

Maryland Clean Agriculture, 2014, www.marylandcleanagriculture.org/wpcontent/uploads/PMTinfographic020215.pdf.

iii

Ernst, 2003.

iv

Karl Blankenship, Scientists closing in on causes of pfiesteria outbreaks, Bay Journal,

October 1, 1997, http://www.bayjournal.com/article/scientists_closing_in_on_causes_of_pfiesteria_outbreaks .

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Special Report of the Technical Advisory

Committee on Harmful Algal Outbreaks in Maryland: Causes and Significance of Menhaden
Lesions, February 12, 1999, http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/bay/cblife/algae/dino/pfiesteria/98_lesion.pdf.

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

Thomas W. Simpson, PhD, Marylands Regulatory Approach to Nutrient Management,

(paper presented at the Agricultural Outlook Forum, Arlington, Virginia, February 25, 2000),
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/33443/1/fo00si01.pdf.

viii

Simpson, Marylands Regulatory Approach.

ix

Maryland Department of Agriculture, Marylands Agricultural Certainty Program, December,

2014, http://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/counties/AgCertainty.pdf.

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

Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan

for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL- Executive Summary, October 26, 2012,
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/Documents/FINAL_PhaseII_Report_
Docs/Final_Documents_PhaseII/Final_Phase_II_WIP_Executive_Summary_102612.pdf, (iv).

xii

Maryland Department of the Environment, 2010, (ES-5).

xiii

Maryland Department of the Environment, 2010, (ES-11).

xiv

Maryland Department of the Environment, 2010, (ES-11).

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

Maryland Department of the Environment, Appendix A, 2012, (A-35).

xvii

Maryland Department of the Environment, Appendix A, 2012, (A-35).

xviii

Maryland Department of the Environment, 2010, (ES 18-25).

xix

Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Achieved 2012-2013 Pollution

Reduction Targets for Bay Restoration, June 26, 2014,
http://news.maryland.gov/mde/2014/06/26/maryland-achieved-2012-2013-pollution-reduction-targets-for-bayrestoration/.

xx

Maryland Statewide, Agricultural Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan, February 24,

2015, http://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/WIPCountyDocs/statewide150206.pdf.

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

EPA, EPAs Evaluation of Marylands 2012-2013 Milestone Progress and 2014-2015

Milestone Commitments to Reduce Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sediment, Accessed 2015,
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/2014Evaluations/factsheet_MD.pdf.

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