Maryland
Phosphorus in the Chesapeake: Part VI
Part VI of the paper includes our final chapter on Maryland’s Phosphorus Management Tool (PMT), as well as the references and appendix for the entire paper.
Phosphorus in the Chesapeake Part V: Maryland Phosphrous Regulations
Chapter V provides an overview of phosphorus regulations in Maryland.
Phosphorus in the Chesapeake: Part IV
Part IV of Phosphorus in the Chesapeake includes a regulatory history of cleanup efforts in the Chesapeake Bay.
Phosphorus in the Chesapeake: Part III
You can find the third part of our Phosphorus in the Chesapeake paper below. This section deals with nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay- its sources and impact on the watershed. For a full version of the paper, please email 4daleyk@gmail.com, and I will provide you with a copy. Thanks for reading!
Coming Soon: Paper on Phosphorus Pollution in Chesapeake Bay
Over the past several weeks, my colleague and I, Neil Saunders, have written several posts on phosphorus regulations in Maryland. In addition to these posts, we have been working on a paper on phosphorus in the Chesapeake Bay, which looks at the nutrient, how it’s used in agriculture, and how phosphorus acts as a pollutant in underwater ecosystems. I have been researching phosphorus pollution from agricultural activity in Maryland, with a focus on the use of chicken manure as a fertilizer. Neil has been researching the pollution issue from the legislative end, looking at the history of regulations affecting water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and the history of phosphorus regulations in Maryland. He has described Maryland’s proposed regulations, the Phosphorus Management Tool (PMT), and described how the PMT fits in with broader efforts to curb pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.
We will be publishing our paper to this site in segments, likely a chapter at a time, over the next few weeks. Our hope is to increase understanding of the issue of phosphorus pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, and the impact agricultural activities can have on our local watershed. Phosphorus pollution to the Bay can be reduced considerably with the right legislation in place.
Sediment Buildup Behind the Conowingo Dam
On Monday, an article appeared in The Washington Post on the Conowingo Dam in Maryland, and Governor Larry Hogan’s efforts to have the sediment behind the dam dredged. While sediment buildup behind the Dam poses an environmental threat to the Chesapeake Bay, and I think the Dam should be dredged, I don’t think this is the biggest threat to the health of the Bay. I would also like to see Hogan focus on reducing nutrient loads to the Chesapeake, from agricultural and urban/suburban runoff in Maryland. That being said, it’s good to see the current Governor tackling water quality issues for the Chesapeake Bay, and committed to reducing sediment loads to the Bay from the Conowingo Dam.
Located at the Southern end of the Susquehanna River, the Conowingo Dam was constructed in 1929. Since that time, (1929-2012), about 470 million tons of sediment have been transported from the Susquehanna into the Conowingo Reservoir, where 280 million tons of sediment have been trapped by the dam, and 190 million tons have gone on to reach the Chesapeake Bay (USGS, 2014).
Some reports differ on whether the Conowingo Dam has reached storage capacity for sediment. The USGS says yes; a 2010 EPA study said the Dam had not yet reached full capacity, and likely would not for another 15-20 years. However, the EPA stated in this same 2010 report, that, “once the Conowingo Reservoir reaches the sediment trapping capacity, the sediment and nutrient loads delivered to the Chesapeake Bay via the Susquehanna River will equal the load delivered into the reservoir system. Once storage capacity is reached, the nitrogen load will increase by 2%; the phosphorus load will increase by 40%; and the suspended sediment load will increase by at least 150%” (EPA, 2010, T-3).
The Conowingo Reservoir holds nutrients and sediment from the Susquehanna River, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay known for its high loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. The Susquehanna carries runoff to the Bay from agricultural fields, and urban and suburban regions in the upper half of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, from parts of New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. This river delivers half of the Bay’s freshwater, and contributes 40% of the nitrogen, 20% of phosphorus, and a significant amount of sediment to the Chesapeake (CBF, 2006). Should the Conowingo Reservoir reach full capacity, even more nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment will reach the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay from the Susquehanna.
The most significant concern in regards to the Conowingo Dam, is the buildup of sediment. Major storm events cause sediment backed up behind the Dam to overflow directly into the Chesapeake Bay. When the Conowingo Reservoir is at full capacity, this risk of overflow increases. Sediment is an issue for the Bay, when excess loads delivered to the Bay block out sunlight for underwater grasses, which they need to survive. Sediment can also cover oyster beds, suffocating mature and juvenile oysters. Sedimentation can lead to poor water quality, impacting other fish and shellfish species in the estuary.
To reduce the risk of sediment and nutrient overflow from the Conowingo Dam, Governor Hogan is calling for dredging of sediment behind the dam, and wants the dam’s operating company, Exelon Corp., to pay for this estimated $250 million project. Exelon is fighting back, citing studies from the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Army Corps of Engineers that state nutrients are far more harmful to the Bay than sediment. Exelon is also arguing that the sediment from the Dam is only harmful to small sections of the Bay, and contributes a very small percentage of sediment to the estuary, (the Post article says less than 5%).
I agree that nutrients from agricultural practices, and urban and suburban runoff pose a larger threat to the Bay as a whole, and Hogan should focus more energy on reducing nutrient loads from these sectors. However, if the Conowingo Reservoir is indeed at full capacity, the Bay, even a small portion of it, cannot risk a 150% increase of sediment load, which is likely to happen with a large storm event. (For example sediment scour, or removal of sediment from behind the Dam, reached millions of tons for major storm events in the past. Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972 resulted in 13.5 million tons of sediment scour. A more recent major storm event, Tropical Storm Lee in 2011, resulted in 3.5 million tons of sediment scour). An increase in sediment load this large is sure to cause water quality issues in the upper reaches of the Bay, and harm fish and shellfish species in this region.
Manure-to-Energy Plant on the Eastern Shore: A Solution to Phosphours Pollution in the Bay?
The following is a piece from Neil Saunders:
On Monday, March 23rd, the Baltimore Sun published an article about a proposed plan to build a manure-to-energy plant on the Eastern Shore. The plan, teamed by New Hampshire-based AgEnergy USA and local poultry giant Perdue, includes a new $200 million plant to extract energy from chicken manure, which is used heavily as fertilizer on farmland on the Eastern Shore. The proposed plant is believed to provide an economic solution to some of the concerns surrounding the recently announced revised Phosphorus Management Tool (PMT) regulations.
The revised PMT regulations will require farmers to restrict the amount of animal manure that is used as fertilizer based on the levels of phosphorus found in their soils. Excessive phosphorus application can lead to greater amounts of the nutrient reaching nearby surface waters and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay. Too much phosphorus in the Bay causes water pollution and leads to algae blooms and dead zones.
The PMT regulations are part of Maryland’s broader effort to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (Bay TMDL), a regulatory framework to coordinate Bay clean-up efforts across the entire watershed area. Unique to Maryland is the heavily concentrated poultry industry on the Eastern Shore. The PMT regulations have been designed to directly address the excessive levels of phosphorus that are reaching the Bay because of the poultry industry’s reliance on phosphorus-rich fertilizers, such as chicken manure.
Although most of the criticism surrounding the PMT regulations centers on the added costs imposed on farmers who would be required to purchase more expensive inorganic fertilizers, which include less phosphorus, another concern is what to do with the excess chicken manure. One solution, which is part of the framework of the PMT regulations, is to transport excess chicken manure from farmlands that are too rich in phosphorus to those farmlands that can use it. The problem with this is that there may not always be a viably marketable method to transport the chicken manure to where it is truly needed. Alternatively, a plant that can take that excess chicken manure and create alternative clean energy from it would not only make good use of the excess manure, but also remove the phosphorus in it from potentially reaching and polluting the Bay.
Implementation of the PMT regulations also plays an important role in completing this project. Recent advances in manure-to-energy technologies create an economic and environmentally friendly method to creating alternative clean energy. In order to invest in such technologies, however, there needs to be greater certainty at the administrative/legislative level to justify project funding. As James Potter, president of AgEnergy USA, says of his proposal in the Sun, “the timing is perfect.”
The proposal is still in the early stages, so there is still some skepticism as to whether the plan will come to fruition. Indeed, past projects similar to the present one have fallen through before. But given the progress made with the recent announcement of the revised PMT regulations and increased attention to the Bay clean-ups efforts around the state, there is reason to believe that this project will play an important role in restoring the Bay.
To access the Baltimore Sun article, visit: http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/blog/bs-md-poultry-litter-plant-20150320-story.html#page=1
Governor Hogan Moves Ahead with Phosphorus Regulations in Maryland
After taking down former Governor Martin O’Malley’s proposed phosphorus management regulations this past January, current Maryland Governor Larry Hogan has moved ahead with revised regulations. While the most recent regulations will lead to less phosphorus runoff to the Chesapeake Bay, Hogan’s revisions push back implementation of phosphorus management on Maryland farms, and delay the much-needed cleanup of the Bay.
Hogan’s regulations will put into place the Phosphorus Management Tool (PMT), replacing the current Phosphorus Site Index for many of Maryland’s agricultural fields. The regulation will divide Maryland farmland into three tiers, based on the phosphorus fertility index value (P FIV) (phosphorus levels found in the soil). The highest tier (Tier C) will include farmlands with a P FIV of 450 or greater. These farms with the highest levels of phosphorus in the soil will be the first to begin implementation of the PMT. This means that farmers will have to measure and monitor soil phosphorus levels and apply amounts of manure fertilizer dependent on preexisting phosphorus levels. Farms with a P FIV of 400 or greater will likely have to stop using chicken manure (heavy in phosphorus) all together until the P FIV significantly decreases.
The second tier (Tier B) includes farms with an average P FIV of 300 and greater, but less than 450. The third tier (Tier A) includes farms with an average P FIV of 150 and greater, but less than 300.
The biggest difference between O’Malley’s proposed PMT, and the PMT regulations that Hogan has revised and reissued is timing. Hogan allows the farmers a little more leeway with implementation of the PMT. Farms with a P FIV of 400 or greater, while they must transition to the PMT sooner, are allowed the longest time to reach full implementation. These farms will face the greatest cuts, but will have the greatest amount of time to comply. In addition, the regulation will not begin to take effect until later than O’Malley’s original proposed PMT. Now, the PMT will not be fully implemented until 2022, across all three tiers.
It is good news that Hogan’s office has decided to implement the PMT, and was able to reach a compromise between Hogan’s own proposed regulations, and lawmakers who endorsed O’Malley’s former proposed regulations. However, full implementation of the PMT is still a long way off. Transition from the current Phosphorus Site Index for farms with the highest levels of phosphorus in their soils (tier C) does not begin until 2018; tiers B and A do not begin transition until 2019 and 2020, respectively. While Maryland is not the only state contributing to phosphorus pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, their chicken feeding operations, and the tons of chicken manure used as fertilizer on state croplands means that Maryland contributes a significant amount to phosphorus loads in the Chesapeake Bay. (10% of the phosphorus in the Bay is estimated to come from the Eastern Shore alone, where many of these chicken farming operations take place). I would argue that for the Bay, every little bit helps, and it’s never too soon to begin implementing regulations that will improve water quality in the estuary. Bay health is overall still pretty poor – the Chesapeake scored a D+ on the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s most current report card- while populations of blue crabs, underwater grasses, and oysters are still at extremely low levels. Changes need to be made now to improve conditions in the Bay in the years to come.
To read the revised regulations for yourself, please visit the Maryland Department of Agriculture. The Baltimore Sun and The Washington Post have also published stories in recent days, if you would like to read more about this issue.
Chesapeake Bay environment and water quality blog 