United States ". -: ',. i
Environmental Protection
Agenqy . ." i - . i
Region 3 i r
Philadelphia7, PA19103
EPA/903/R-00/009
July 2001
www.epa.gov
»EPA
Maryland Agriculture and Your
Watershed
felf. 4= &.:,: *;.- K^fMSk
''" '
-------
-------
EPA/903/R-00/009
July 2001
Maryland Agriculture
and Your Watershed
Frederick W. Kutz1
Ray Garibay2
Bruce West2
David Botiimore3
Todd Ferryman3
Salvador Orochena4
'National Exposure Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Science Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
701 Mapes Road
Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350
2Maryland Department of Agriculture
50 Harry S Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401
3Versar, Inc.
6850 Versar Center
Springfield, VA 22151
4OAO Corporation
Environmental Science Center
701 Mapes Road
Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350
Printed on chlorine-free, 100% recycled/
recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer
fiber using vegetable-based ink.
-------
Abstract
Using primarily 1995 State of Maryland agricultural statistics data, a new methodology was dem-
onstrated with which State natural resource managers can analyze the areal extent of agricultural
lands and production data on a watershed basis. The report organized major crop and livestock
data onto the 19 United States Geological Survey hydrologic unit code 8-digit watersheds in Mary-
land. Organizing the data according to watersheds provides a different perspective on agricultural
production, because it helps to understand the potential impacts within each Maryland watershed
and potentially on a regional basis when watershed boundaries overlap state lines. Data on the
overall extent of crop and livestock activity within each watershed are presented in order to provide
a clearer understanding of each watershed's agricultural intensity. Also information on fertilizer and
pesticide use is provided to illustrate the context of issues surrounding environmental concerns and
water quality. In addition, a discussion is presented on the programs and management practices
being implemented in Maryland to reduce the impacts of agricultural production on the environ-
ment.
Keywords: Agriculture, Watershed, Maryland Agriculture, Agricultural Production, Agricultural In-
tensity, Maryland, Statistics, Methodology, Crops, Livestock.
Notice
The United States Environmental Protection Agency through the Office of Research and Develop-
ment funded and managed the research described here under Contract No. 68-D-98-002 to
Technology Planning and Management Corporation, and its subcontractor Versqr, Inc. Partial fund-
ing for this project was provided by Purchase Order Number 6N-0692-NNGXfrom the U.S. EPA to
the Maryland Department of Agriculture. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and adminis-
trative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. This research was
conducted as part of the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA), an interagency, multi-disciplin-
ary research, monitoring and assessment program to develop high quality scientific information on
the mid-Atlantic region's natural resources: current conditions, stressors, trends, and vulnerabilities.
An electronic version of this report and other MAIA products are available on the world wide web at
www.epa.gov/maia.
The suggested citation for this report is:
F.W. Kutz, R. Garibay, B. West, D. Bottimore, T. Perryman, and S. Orochena. 2001. Maryland
Agriculture and Your Watershed. EPA 903-R-00-009. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.
General information on the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment can be found through the World
Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/maia
-------
Introduction
Crops
Livestock
Agricultural Intensity by Watershed
Environmental Concerns
References
Appendix: Methodology
-------
Acknowledgments
The preparation of this document was a result of a productive partnership among the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the National Agricultural Statistical Service of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture and the Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service of the Maryland Department of
Agriculture. Within the U.S. EPA, two organizations participated in this dynamic relationship: the
Office of Research and Development and EPA Region 3.
The preparation of a primer such as this would be impossible without the devoted assistance of
numerous people. Space permits only a few to be mentioned here. The authors gratefully acknowl-
edge the following people. Mrs. M. Patricia Bradley of the MAIA Team, U.S.; EPA, prepared the
extramural vehicles which funded this work. Mr. Bruce West, Mr. Harry DeLong, and Mr. Charles
Less of the Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service assisted with the initial planning of the project. Mr.
Roland Agbede of the Maryland Department of Agriculture assisted with the preparation of some of
the geographic information system portrayals used in this report. Mr. Fred Schenerman of the
Maryland Department of Business and Economics and Mr. James Ahl of the Maryland Department
of Natural Resources assisted with analysis of the livestock data. We would also like to thank Jennifer
Baker, Sandy Paul, and Eric Grape of Versar, for their assistance in the editorial review, design and
layout of this publication. Finally we would like to recognize the efforts and guidance of this report's
four peer reviewers: Mrs. Laurie Adelhardt, Owl Creek Consulting; Ms. Christine Conn and Mr.
John Wolf, Maryland Department of Natural Resources; and Mrs. Ann Pitchford, U.S. EPA.
Special thanks are given to Mr. Thomas B. DeMoss of the MAIA Team (EPA Region 3) for his advice
and guidance throughout this effort. It is with regret that the authors report the untimely death of Mr.
Bruce West in June 1999.
IV
-------
This report presents statistical data repre-
senting environmentally relevant attributes
of the Maryland agriculture production sys-
tem. This report will give readers a better
understanding of the agricultural produc-
tion system within Maryland's watersheds
and its possible environmental impacts. Us-
ing primarily 1995 data from the Mary-
land Department of Agriculture, it discusses
the extent of crops and their environmen-
tally relevant attributes by watershed. Or-
ganizing the data according to the 19
watersheds in the state provides a differ-
ent perspective on agricultural production,
because it helps to understand the poten-
tial impacts within each Maryland water-
shed. While this report does not associate
agricultural protection with environmental
condition, summary data are provided on
the application of agricultural chemicals
(fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) and related en-
vironmental indicators.
The purpose of this document is to trans-
fer information on a demonstrated meth-
odology for estimating the areal extent of
agricultural production on a watershed ba-
sis. It is hoped that other states will utilize
this methodology which takes agricultural
statistics and re-projects them on a water-
shed basis to estimate the extent of agri-
cultural lands and production. Watersheds
often cross the boundaries of two or more
states, therefore having agricultural data
on a watershed basis from each state will
allow resource managers to compare ag-
ricultural data across state lines and gain
a regional perspective. It is important to
reiterate that this report is intended to dem-
onstrate a methodology, not to be a com-
prehensive study of all agricultural activities
of environmental concern in Maryland. It
is hoped that this methodology demonstra-
tion will spur future interest in conducting
more comprehensive analyses of the rela-
tionships between agricultural production
and the environment on a watershed ba-
sis.
This report consists of the following five
major sections and appendix:
Introduction - The introduction section pre-
sents an overview of agriculture in Mary-
land and briefly describes the major sections
of this report.
Crops - This is the major section of the
document, reporting on the areal extent
(acres) of several types of crops produced
within Maryland. Information is presented
on soybeans, corn, wheat, hay, barley, to-
bacco, and oats production, according to
the 19 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
eight-digit watersheds in Maryland.
Many crops produced in Maryland were not
included in this study, such as rye, pota-
toes, apples, peaches, mushrooms, and
forest products, so it is not a comprehen-
sive study. We chose for this analysis some
of Maryland's largest individual crops in
terms of acres harvested, production, and/
or cash receipts. We felt that for the pur-
poses of this study, these seven crops pro-
vided an adequate representation of the
application of this methodology to
Maryland's agricultural production system.
Livestock - This section provides data on
the extent of livestock operations in Mary-
land, including cattle, calves, and milk
cows. These data are summarized on
Maryland's smaller watersheds (the Mary-
land eight-digit watersheds).
INTRODUCTION
-------
What Is a Watershed?
It's the area of land that
catches rain and snow that
drains or seeps into a marsh,
stream, river, take, or ground-
water (U.S. EPA, 1999a).
How are Watersheds
Defined and Organized?
Watersheds are delineated by
the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) based on surface
hydrologic features. Water-
sheds can be defined on very
large scales (such as the
Chesapeake Bay watershed,
which covers five states) or on
smaller scales. Watersheds
delineated by the USGS are
given both names and
hydrologic unit codes (HUCs)
in order to organize and
identify the watersheds. For the
names and HUG of the 19
USGS eight-digit watersheds
within Maryland, see Figure 1.
In this report, crop acreage
data are presented for the 19
eight-digit watersheds in the
state of Maryland. Smaller
Maryland eight-digit water-
sheds, of which there are 138,
are used to present the
livestock data. The term
"watershed" will be used
interchangeably, but we will
clearly state when we are
referring to the larger USGS
eight-digit watersheds and
when we are referring to the
smaller Maryland eight-digit
watersheds.
Although broilers (chickens) are one of
Maryland's largest livestock commodi-
ties, they were not included for analysis
in this study due to the challenges in-
volved in estimating their numbers on
a watershed basis (See Appendix for fur-
ther explanation).
Agricultural Intensify by Watershed -
This section presents an integrated wa-
tershed assessment, including a sum-
mation of the extent of agricultural
production within each watershed.
Environmental Concerns - This sec-
tion describes concerns about water
quality impacts that may result from ag-
riculture. Furthermore, this section pre-
sents summary data on the application
of agricultural chemicals (fertilizers, pes-
ticides, etc.) and provides examples of
environmental programs and manage-
ment practices already in place to re-
duce agricultural impacts on water
quality.
Appendix: Methodology - The sources
and methodologies used to organize and
analyze the data are described in this ap-
pendix. Agricultural data collected by the
Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service are
the result of intensive surveys; they provide
estimates of the areal extent of various crop
types, with known levels of statistical confi-
dence. Also included in this appendix are
the procedures used to apportion the agri-
cultural extent data to watersheds in Mary-
land.
Overall, this document presents data about
agricultural land use and production in the
state of Maryland, primarily based on 1995
data. Such information is useful to many
people who are working to improve agri-
cultural practices and reduce water quality
impacts. In addition, the land cover and
crop type data for each watershed can be
used to estimate nonpoint source loadings
to waterbodies, such as the type needed
by Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
programs. This information is critical for
characterizing current loadings and mea-
suring the efficacy of control efforts.
Figure I. USGS 8-Digit HUCs in Maryland
Lower Susquehanna
Brandywine-Christina
A
WATERSHEDS
HUC NAME
02040205 Brandywine-Christina
02050306 Lower Susquehanna
02060002 Chester-Sassafras
02060003 Gunpowder-Patapsco
02060004 Severn (W)
02060005 Choptank
02060006 Patuxent (W)
02060007 Blackwater-Wlcomico
02060008 Nantlcoke
02060009 Pocomoke
HUC NAME
02060010 Chincoteague
02070002 North Branch Potomac
02070003 Cacapon-Town
02070004 Conococheague-Opequon
02070008 Middle Potomac-Catoctin
02070009 Monocacy
02070010 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan
02070011 Lower Potomac
05020006 Youghlogheny
(W) Watershed wholly within Maryland
INTRODUCTION
2 E
-------
Overview of Maryland Agriculture
Agriculture is a significant sector of the
Maryland economy. As the state's largest
commercial industry, agriculture contrib-
utes more than $17 billion in revenue an-
nually (MDA, 1998a). Today, 14 percent
of the state's workforce, 400,000 individu-
als, are somehow involved in Maryland's
food and fiber sector (MDA, 1998a). The
agricultural production system in Maryland
is diverse, as many different types of crops
are produced. The major crops in Mary-
land include corn, soybeans, tobacco,
small grains, vegetables, nursery products,
and fruit. In 1997, the value of Maryland
crops sold totaled approximately $458 mil-
lion (MDA, 1999). Some of the major crops
discussed in this report (e.g., corn, soy-
beans), had a total value in 1997 of ap-
proximately $278 million (Figure 2). In
addition, Maryland produces poultry, dairy
products, and livestock, with values total-
ing morethaii $850 million in 1997 (MDA,
1999).
In 1997, 12,990 farms in Maryland
accounted for approximately
2,175,004 acres (USDA, 1999b).
Approximately 40 percent of
Maryland's land is in agriculture
(MDA, 1998a). From 31-50% of the
land in the watersheds bordering the
eastern and northern banks of the
Chesapeake Bay are farmland,
based on the 1995 data (Figure 3).
Watersheds surrounding the Chesa-
peake Bay and in central Maryland
have the largest areas of farmland
(Figure 4). Each of these watersheds
contained from 52,000 to 359,000
acres of farmland. The Chester-
Sassafras Watershed (02060002),
bordering the northeastern bank of
the Chesapeake, contained the larg-
est amount of farmland at 359,069
acres. The smallest amount of farm-
land was located in western Mary-
land, where three watersheds each
contained 7,000 to 52,000 acres.
Figure 2. Values of Select Maryland Crops Sold in 1997
$100,000,000
80,000,000
.- 60,000,000
0)
I
40,000,000
20,000,000
Crop Type
USGS 8-digit
Watersheds in MD
Blackwater-Wicomico
Brandywine-Christina
Cacapon-Town
Chester-Sassafras
Chincoteague
Choptank
Conococheague-Opequon
: Gunpowder-Patapsco
Lower Potomac
Lower Susquehanna
Middle Potomac-
_ Anacostia-Occoquan
.. Middle Potomac-Catoctin
Monocacy
Nanticoke
North Branch Potomac
Patuxent
Pocomoke
Severn
Youghiogheny
INTRODUCTION
-------
Figure 3. Maryland Percent Farmland by County
Percent
|H 51+
HI 31 - 50
21
r~io-2o
Data
Maryland Department of Agriculture,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics
Summary-1995.
Figure 4. Farmland in Acres by Watershed -1995
02050306
02040205
Acres
1280001-400000
B 160001-280000
90001 -160000
153001-90000
3 7001 - 53000
;_ 0-7000
Maryland Department of Agriculture,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics
Summary -1995.
HUC
02040205
02050306
02060002
02060003
02060004
02060005
02060006
02060007
02060008
02060009
NAME
Brandywine-Christina
Lower Susquehanna
Chester-Sassafras
Gunpowder-Patapsco
Severn
Choptank
Patuxent
Blackwater-Wicomico
Nanllcoko
Pocomoke
WATERSHEDS
HUC NAME
02060010 Chincoteague
02070002 North Branch Potomac
02070003 Cacapon-Town
02070004 Conococheague-Opequon
02070008 Middle Potomac-Catoctin
02070009 Monocacy
02070010 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan
02070011 Lower Potomac
05020006 Youghiogheny
INTRODUCTION
-------
This section presents information on the
extent of several of Maryland's crops by
watershed. The crops presented in this
document are:
Soybeans,
Corn,
Wheat,
* Hay,
Barley,
Tobacco, and
Oats.
These crops were selected for analysis be-
cause they are some of Maryland's largest
individual crops (Table 1). In 1995, these
crops were in the top nine in terms of acres
harvested, production, and cash receipts.
Collectively, these seven crops acounted for
approximately $233,508,000 in cash re-
ceipts in 1995 (MDA, 1995). In each crop
analysis section, this report discusses the
extent of the crop statewide, and the USGS
8-digit watersheds that contain the largest
and smallest numbers of acres harvested
or planted. Information in the Appendix de-
scribes the procedures used to create these
crop estimates.
Table I. Overview of Major Crops in Maryland (1995)
550,000
440,000
225,000
205,000
65,000
8,500
8,000
$75 million
$60 million
$56 million
$14 million
$6 million
$21 million
<$1 million
CROPS
-------
Figure 5. Soybean Acreage by Watershed -1995
02050306
02040205
HUC
02040205
02050306
02060002
02060003
02060004
02060005
02060006
02060007
02060008
02060009
Acres
ma 100001 -130000
ma 39001 -100000
H113001-39000
m 4001 -13000
L_ 0-4000
Maryland Department of Agriculture,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics
Summary -1995.
Soybeans
£> 550,000 acres planted
in 1995
11,730,000 bushels
produced
|» Cash receipts totaled
$75,442,000
NAME
Brandywlne-Christina
Lower Susquohanna
Chester-Sassafras
Gunpowdor-Patapsco
Sovorn
Choptank
Patuxont
Btackwater-Wlcomico
Nanticoka
Pocomoko
WATERSHEDS
HUC NAME
02060010 Chincoteague
02070002 North Branch Potomac
02070003 Cacapon-Town
02070004 Conococheague-Opequon
02070008 Middle Potomac-Catoctin
02070009 Monocacy
02070010 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan
02070011 Lower Potomac
05020006 Youghiogheny
Soybeans
Between 1980 and 1995, harvested acres
for soybeans in Maryland increased by
120,000 acres. By 1995, soybeans ranked
third after corn and wheat in terms of bush-
els produced and was the largest crop in
terms of acres harvested and cash receipts.
In 1995, approximately 550,000 acres of
soybeans were planted in Maryland. The
map in Figure 5 represents the number of
acres planted by watershed. Several wa-
tersheds bordering the eastern, northern,
and western banks of the Chesapeake Bay
contained a large amount of land used for
planting soybeans, ranging from
13,001-120,727 acres. In addition, sev-
eral watersheds in central Maryland con-
tained a large amount of land used for
planting soybeans, ranging
from 13,001-39,000 acres.
However, the Chester-Sassafras
(02060002) and Choptank (02060005)
watersheds, bordering the eastern and
northeastern banks of the Chesapeake, and
the Pocomoke (02060009) and Nanticoke
(02060008) watersheds, on the eastern
shore of Maryland; contained the most
amount of land used for planting soybeans,
containing 120,727 acres, 112,912 acres,
64,292 acres, and 38,074 acres, respec-
tively. These four watersheds alone con-
tained approximately 60 percent of the
entire land area planted for soybeans in
Maryland. The far western area of the state
contained the smallest amount of land used
for planting soybeans in 1995; the three
watersheds in that area contained less than
4,000 acres. The Youghiogheny
(05020006) watershed contained the
smallest amount of land used
for planting soybeans at 40
acres.
SOYBEANS
-------
Corn
Corn is traditionally one of Maryland's larg-
est crops in terms of acres harvested, pro-
duction, and cash receipts. In 1995, corn
ranked second in acres harvested, first in
bushels produced, and second in cash re-
ceipts.
In 1995, approximately 450,000 acres in
Maryland were harvested for corn. The
map in Figure 6 represents the number of
acres harvested by watershed. Several
watersheds bordering the eastern and
northern banks of the Chesapeake Bay
contained a large amount of land used
for harvesting corn, ranging from 38,001
to more than 106,000 acres. In addition,
several central Maryland watersheds con-
tained large amounts of land used for har-
vesting corn, ranging from 10,001 to
80,000 acres. However, the
Chester-Sassafras (02060002), and
Choptank (02060005) watersheds, border-
ing the eastern and northeastern banks of
the Chesapeake, and the Gunpowder-
Patapsco (02060003) watershed, border-
ing the northwestern corner of the
Chesapeake, contained the largest amount
of land used for harvesting corn at 106,622
acres, 61,641 acres, and 51,519 acres,
respectively. These three watersheds collec-
tively contained almost 50 percent of the
total harvested acreage of corn in the state.
The far western area of the state contained
the smallest amount of land used for har-
vesting corn in 1995; the three watersheds
in that area each contained less than 3,000
acres.
Figure 6. Corn Acreage by Watershed -1995
02050306
r *
Corn
450,000 acres
harvested in 1995
42 million bushels
produced
Cash receipts totaled
$59,903,000
Acres
B 80001-107000
B 38001 - 80000
BB 10001 -38000
S3 3001 -10000
FT 601-3000
P"i 0-600
Maryland Department of Agriculture,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics
Summary-1995.
02040205
A
HUC
02040205
02050306
02060002
02060003
02060004
02060005
02060006
02060007
02060008
02060009
NAME
Brandywine-Christina
Lower Susquehanna
Chester-Sassafras
Gunpowder-Patapsco
Severn
Choptank
Patuxent
Blackwater-Wicomico
Nanticoke
Pocomoke
WATERSHEDS
HUC NAME
02060010 Chincoteague
02070002 North Branch Potomac
02070003 Cacapon-Town
02070004 Conococheague-Opequon
02070008 Middle Potomac-Catoctin
02070009 Monocacy
02070010 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan
02070011 Lower Potomac
05020006 Youghiogheny
-------
figure 1. Wheat Acreage by Watershed -1995
1
02050306
Acres
17001 - 58000
12001 -17000
3701-12000
ID 201-3700
"0-200
Maryland Department of Agriculture,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics
Summary -1995.
. |, . Wheat
02040205 |? 225,000 acres
pn 1995 "
:.ft 14,400,000 bushels"1
- produced ;
-Cash receipts totaled '
_; $56,447,000 }
If"^- ........ .. . - --
HUC
02040205
02050306
02060002
02060003
02060004
02060005
02060006
02060007
02060008
02060009
NAME
Brandywlno-Christlna
Lower Susquohanna
Chaster-Sassafras
Gunpowder-Patapsco
Severn
Choptank
Patuxent
Blackwater-Wicomlco
Nantlcoko
Pocomoko
WATERSHEDS
HUC NAME
02060010 Chincoteague
02070002 North Branch Potomac
02070003 Cacapon-Town
02070004 Conococheague-Opequon
02070008 Middle Potomac-Catoctin
02070009 Monocacy
02070010 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan
02070011 Lower Potomac
05020006 Youghiogheny
Wheat
Although not as large a crop as corn or
soybeans, in terms of acres harvested or
cash receipts, wheat is one of Maryland's
largest and most important commodities.
Between 1980 and 1995, harvested acre-
age for wheat in Maryland increased by
128,000 acres. By 1995, wheat ranked
third in Maryland after corn and soybeans
in terms of acres harvested and cash re-
ceipts. In addition, wheat ranked second
after corn in terms of bushels produced.
Approximately 225,000 acres of wheat
were harvested in Maryland in 1995.
The map in Figure 7 represents the num-
ber of acres planted for wheat by water-
shed. Several watersheds bordering the
eastern, western, and northern banks of
the Chesapeake Bay contained a large
amount of land used for plant-
ing wheat, ranging from 3,701 to 58,000
acres. The Chester-Sassafras (02060002),
Choptank (02060005), Blackwater-
Wicomico (02060007), and Pocomoke
(02060009) watersheds, in eastern and
southeastern Maryland, contained the most
land used for planting wheat at 57,962
acres, 51,974 acres, 16,636 acres, and
16,068 acres, respectively. These four wa-
tersheds alone contained approximately 63
percent of the total number of acres planted
for wheat in Maryland. The far western area
of the state contained the smallest amount
of land used for planting wheat in 1995;
the three watersheds in that area each con-
tained less than 200 acres. The North
Branch Potomac (02070002) watershed
contained the smallest amount of land used
for planting wheat at 20 acres.
-------
Hay
In 1995, hay was the fourth largest crop in
Maryland in terms of acres harvested and
fifth in terms of cash receipts.
In 1995, approximately 205,000 acres in
Maryland were harvested for hay, and ap-
proximately 552,000 tons were produced.
The map in Figure 8 represents the amount
of land used for harvesting hay by water-
shed. Harvested acreage of hay in Mary-
land for 1995 was largest in the central
and western Maryland watersheds, as well
as those surrounding the northern and
western banks of the Chesapeake Bay. The
Monocacy (02070009), Middle Potomac-
Catoctin (02070008), Conococheague-
Opequon (02070004) and Gunpowder-
Patapsco (02060003) watersheds, in
central Maryland, contained the largest
amount of land used for harvesting hay at
56,218 acres, 23,440 acres, 23,098 acres,
and 19,008 acres, respectively. These four
watersheds alone contained almost 50 per-
cent of the total number of acres harvested
for hay in Maryland. Southeastern Mary-
land contained the least amount of land
used for harvesting hay; watersheds in that
area each contained less than 2,800 acres
in 1995. The Brandywine-Christina
(02040205) watershed, in northeastern
Maryland, and the Chincoteague
(02060010) watershed, on the eastern
shore, contained the smallest amount of
land used for harvesting hay at 54 acres
and 413 acres, respectively.
Figure 8. Hay Acreage by Watershed -1995
02040205
Hay
205,000 acres harvested
in 1995
552,000 tons produced
Cash receipts totaled
$14,333,000
Acres
124001 - 57000
16001 -24000
11001 -16000
2801 -11000
601 -2800
0-600
Maryland Department of Agriculture,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics
Summary -1995.
WATERSHEDS \ fc
HUC NAME HUC NAME T" " __£
02040205 Brandywine-Christina 02060010 Chincoteague %_ T-^~*
02050306 Lower Susquehanna 02070002 North Branch Potomac L^^
02060002 Chester-Sassafras 02070003 Cacapon-Town
02060003 Gunpowder-Patapsco 02070004 Conococheague-Opequon
02060004 Severn 02070008 Middle Potomac-Catoctin
02060005 Choptank 02070009 Monocacy
02060006 Patuxent 02070010 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan
02060007 Blackwater-Wicomico 02070011 Lower Potomac
02060008 Nanticoke 05020006 Youghiogheny
02060009 Pocomoke
319
HAY
-------
Figure 9. Barley Acreage by Watershed -1995
02050306
B
Acres
S6501 -14000
3001 - 6500
|1401-3000
t 501 -1400
"o-soo
Maryland Department of Agriculture,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics
Summary -1995.
Barley
65,000 acres planted in 1995
|f 5,022,000 bushels produced
Cash receipts totaled
$6,374,000
HUC
02040205
02050306
02060002
02060003
02060004
02060005
02060006
02060007
02060008
02060009
NAME
Brandywlno-Christina
Lower Susquchanna
Chester-Sassafras
Gunpowder-Patapsco
Severn
Choptank
Patuxont
Blackwator-WIcomlco
Nanticoke
Pocomoka
WATERSHEDS
HUC NAME
02060010 Chincoteague
02070002 North Branch Potomac
02070003 Cacapon-Town
02070004 Conococheague-Opequon
02070008 Middle Potomac-Catoctin
02070009 Monocacy
02070010 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan
02070011 Lower Potomac
05020006 Youghiogheny
Barley
Between 1985 and 1995, total harvested
acreage for barley in Maryland decreased
by 34,000 acres. However, in 1995, bar-
ley was still the fifth largest crop in Mary-
land in terms of acres harvested, fourth in
terms of bushels produced, and sixth in
terms of cash receipts.
In 1995, approximately 65,000 acres in
Maryland were planted for barley and
5,022,000 bushels were produced. The
map in Figure 9 represents the number of
acres harvested for barley by watershed.
Watersheds surrounding the eastern and
northern banks of the Chesapeake Bay, as
well as those in central Maryland, each
contained the largest amount of land used
for planting barley, ranging from
3,001-14,000 acres.
The Chester-Sassafras (02060002),
Choptank (02060005), Nanticoke
(02060008), and Gunpowder-Patapsco
(02060003) watersheds, in northern and
eastern Maryland, contained the largest
amount of land used for planting barley at
13,564 acres, 12,292 acres, 10,926 acres,
and 6,116 acres, respectively. These four
watersheds alone contained more than 65
percent of the total number of acres in
Maryland harvested for barley. In general,
the watersheds bordering the western shore
of the Chesapeake Bay and the watersheds
in western Maryland each contained the
smallest amount of land used for planting
barley as they each contained less than
1,400 acres.
BARLEY
-------
Tobacco
Although the total amount of land har-
vested for tobacco in Maryland declined
by approximately 18,500 acres, or almost
69 percent, between 1982 and 1995, to-
bacco was still Maryland's fourth largest
crop in terms of cash receipts in 1995, ac-
counting for more than $20 million.
In 1995, approximately 8,500 acres in
Maryland were harvested for tobacco and
approximately 11,475,000 pounds were
produced. The map in Figure 10 repre-
sents the amount of land used for harvest-
ing tobacco by watershed in 1995.
Harvested acreage of tobacco was largest
in the four southern Maryland watersheds.
In 1995, the Patuxent (02060006), Lower
Potomac (02070011), Middle Potomac-
Anacostia-Occoquan (02070010), and
Severn (02060004) watersheds contained
approximately 8,468 of the total 8,500
acres of land used for harvesting tobacco
in Maryland. The Lower Potomac
(02070011) and Patuxent (02060006) wa-
tersheds contained the largest amount of
land used for harvesting tobacco at 3,777
acres, and 3,233 acres, respectively. Each
remaining watershed in Maryland con-
tained less than 30 acres of land used for
harvesting tobacco in 1995.
Tobacco
8,500 acres harvested in
1995
11,475,000 pounds
produced
Cash receipts totaled
$20,869,000
Figure 10, Tobacco Acreage by Watershed -1995
02050306
02040205
A
Acres
BB 901 - 3800
El 31 - 900
C"1 Less than 31
Maryland Department of Agriculture,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics
Summary-1995.
Jl
HUC NAME
02040205 Brandywinc-Christina
02050306 Lower Susquehanna
02060002 Chester-Sassafras
02060003 Gunpowder-Patapsco
02060004 Severn
02060005 Chopiank
02060006 Patuxent
02060007 Blackwater-Wicomico
02060008 Nanticoke
02060009 Pocomoke
WATERSHEDS
HUC NAME
02060010 Chincoteague
02070002 North Branch Potomac
02070003 Cacapon-Town
02070004 Conococheague-Opequon
02070008 Middle Potomac-Catoctin
02070009 Monocacy
02070010 Middle PotomaCTAnacostia-Occoquan
02070011 Lower Potomac
05020006 Youghiogheny
TOBACCO
-------
Figure IL Oats Acreage by Watershed-1995
02050306
02040205
Acres
1201-2400
mm 271 -1200
1111-270
161-110
"fl-60
Maryland Department of Agriculture,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service,
Maryland Agricultural Statistics
Summary -1995.
Oats
b 8,000 acres planted in 1995
I 366,000 bushels produced
fc Cash receipts totaled
i;$i40,000 "''"' "' '
HUC
02040205
02050306
02060002
02060003
02060004
02060005
02060006
02060007
02060008
02060009
NAME
Brandywlno-Chrtstina
Lowor Susquehanna
Chester-Sassafras
Gunpowdor-Patapsco
Sovorn
Choptank
Patuxent
Blackwater-WIcomlco
Nantlcoko
Pocomoko
WATERSHEDS
HUC NAME
02060010 Chincoteague
02070002 North Branch Potomac
02070003 Cacapon-Town
02070004 Conococheague-Opcquon
02070008 Middle Potomac-Catoctin
02070009 Monocacy
02070010 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan
02070011 Lower Potomac
05020006 Youghiogheny
Oats
Another important crop within Maryland's
agricultural production system is oats. Al-
though the total number of acres harvested
for oats in Maryland decreased by 13,000
acres between 1980 and 1995, oats was
still the eighth largest crop in terms of acres
harvested and fifth largest crop in terms of
bushels produced in 1995.
In 1995, approximately 8,000 acres in
Maryland were planted for oats, and ap-
proximately 366,000 bushels were pro-
duced. The map in Figure 11 represents
the amount of land planted for oats by
watershed. In 1995, harvested acreage for
oats in Maryland was largest in the central
and western Maryland water-
sheds, as well as those sur-
rounding the northern and
western banks of the Chesa-
peake Bay. The Monocacy
(02070009), Lower Susquehanna
(02050306), and Conococheague-
Opequon (02070004) watersheds in
central Maryland, and the Youghiogheny
(05020006) watershed, in western
Maryland, contained the largest amount of
land used for planting oats at 2,348 acres,
881 acres, 786 acres, and 1,141 acres,
respectively. These four watersheds alone
contained approximately 85 percent of the
total amount of land used for planting oats
in Maryland. Southeastern Maryland
contained the smallest amount of land used
for planting oats; watersheds in that area
contained 0-60 acres each in 1995. No
land was used for planting oats in the
Nanticoke (02060008),
Chincoteague (02060010),
Middle Potomac-Anacostia-
Occoquan (02070010), and
Brandywine- Christina
(02040205) watersheds.
OATS
-------
Another significant part of the agricultural
production system in Maryland is livestock.
In 1995, livestock and its products ac-
counted for $830,526,000 in cash receipts
(MDA,1995). As significant as the livestock
industry is to Maryland's agricultural pro-
duction system, it is also important to un-
derstand the impacts livestock can have on
the surrounding environment. The increas-
ingly concentrated and confined nature of
livestock farm operations has raised many
concerns relating to environmental impacts.
For instance, livestock can trample
riverbanks, destroy vegetation, and stir up
sediments in streambeds, which can lead
to soil erosion and nutrient pollution. In
addition, if not managed efficiently, ani-
mal waste runoff, which contains high con-
centrations of nutrients, can have adverse
effects on nearby rivers and streams.
The data presented for livestock include the
numbers of cattle and calves, milk cows,
and pasture acres. There are many other
livestock commodities in Maryland in ad-
dition to the ones chosen for analysis in
this report, such as broilers, hogs, eggs,
turkeys, sheep, horses, wool, and honey.
However, because this report is not a com-
prehensive study, only cattle and calves,
milk cows, and pasture acres were chosen
for analysis. Cattle and calves and milk
cows represent two of the three largest live-
stock commodities in Maryland in terms of
cash receipts. The largest livestock com-
modity in Maryland in terms of cash re-
ceipts is broilers, which accounted for over
$500,000,000 in 1997. The reason that
broilers were not included in this analysis
is because of the many challenges involved
in estimating their numbers on a watershed
basis (see Appendix for further explanation).
The Maryland livestock data were taken
primarily from the 1992 Census of Agri-
culture (USDOC, 1994) and are presented
by the smaller Maryland eight-digit water-
sheds. Maryland has 138 of these smaller
watersheds, and their sizes vary widely. The
largest of these watersheds is 297,604 acres
(about 465 square miles), while the small-
est is 4,488 acres (about 17 square miles).
Interestingly, both of these watersheds are
located in the mid-Atlantic coastal plain.
Use of the smaller watersheds illustrates
another approach to analysis and display
of these data. It should be noted that cer-
tain data elements could not be displayed
on these small-scale maps because it could
compromise confidentiality safeguards. (See
discussion in the Appendix).
Cattle and Calves
Cattle and calves represent a significant
portion of Maryland's livestock production
system. In 1995, approximately 315,000
head of cattle and calves, and 119,710,000
pounds of cattle and calves were marketed,
accounting for $59,962,000 in cash re-
ceipts. The map in Figure 12 represents the
number of cattle and calves using the
smaller Maryland eight-digit watersheds.
The largest number of cattle and calves were
located in central Maryland, as many of
the watersheds in that area of the state con-
tained 3,001 -7,000+ head each. However,
a significant number of cattle and calves
were located in western Maryland water-
sheds and watersheds bordering the eastern
and southwestern banks of the Chesapeake
f: Livestock
fc» Maryland contained
1^315,000 head of cattle
|L and calves in 1995
|*: Cash receipts for cattle
I and calves totaled
^,$59,962,000
jp Maryland contained
1192,000 milk cows
t» Cash receipts for milk
I: totaled $175,824,000
LIVESTOCK
-------
Bay. In general, the watersheds bordering
the western banks of the Chesapeake Bay
and those in southeastern Maryland con-
tained the least amount of cattle and calves;
many watersheds in those areas contained
only 0-1,000 head each.
figure 12. Cattle and Calves by Watershed
Number of Head
7001-32000
Hi 3001 - 7000
lH 2001 - 3000
IT"! 1001 -2000
I| o -1000
US DepL of Commorco, Economics and
Statistics Admin.. 1992 Census of Agriculture:
Maryland, State and County Data, April 1994.
Milk Cows
Milk is also a significant part of Maryland's
livestock production system. In 1995, more
than 1.3 billion pounds of milk were pro-
duced by 92,000 milk cows, accounting
for $175,824,000 in cash receipts. The
map in Figure 13 represents the number
of milk cows using the smaller Maryland
Figure 13. Milk Cows by Watershed
eight-digit watersheds. Watersheds in cen-
tral Maryland contained the largest num-
ber of milk cows, each containing
1,001-4,001+ head.
Eastern and far western Maryland also con-
tained a significant number of milk cows.
In general, the watersheds
west and southeast of the
Chesapeake Bay contained
the smallest number of milk
cows;, many watersheds in
those areas contained only
0-100 head each.
A
Number of Head
(4001-15000
(1001-4000
(501-1000
(301-500
(101-300
JO-100
US D*pL of CemnMrev, Economics and
Statistics Admhi, 1§92 Census of Agriculture:
Uiijlind. SUH «nd County Dan. April 1994.
LIVESTOCK:
-------
Figure 14. Pasture Acres by Watershed
Acres
4001 -18000
2001 - 4000
1001-2000
501 -1000
0-500
Maryland Department of Planning,
OP 1990 land use, watersheds, 1991.
Pasture Acres
The map in Figure 14 presents the amount
of pasture acres by Maryland eight-digit
watersheds. This map was based on 1990
data from the Maryland Office of Planning
(MOP, 1991). Pastures can include areas
occupied by beef cattle, dairy cattle, horses,
sheep, and/or hogs. Pasture areas can
have a significant impact on the surround-
ing environment.
Livestock can
trample river
banks, destroy veg-
etation, and/or stir
up sediment in stre-
ambeds resulting in
soil erosion and ex-
cess nutrients enter-
ing rivers and
streams. In addi-
tion, inadequate
animal waste stor-
age structures can
lead to animal
waste runoff into
nearby waterways.
The watersheds in central and western
Maryland contained the largest amount of
pasture acres, with areas ranging from
2,001 - 4,001 + acres each. In addition, the
watersheds directly west of the Chesapeake
Bay also contained a large amount of pas-
ture acres; many of the watersheds in that
area contained
1,001-4,000 acres
each. The water-
sheds east of the
Chesapeake Bay, as
well as those on the
eastern shore, con-
tained the smallest
amount of pasture
acres; many water-
sheds in those areas
contained only
0-500 acres each.
LIVESTOCK
-------
-------
This section provides further analysis of the
Maryland agricultural production system by
assessing the overall extent of agricultural
production within the different watersheds.
The purpose of this section is to sum up the
data on the extent of crops and livestock,
provided thus far on a watershed-by-
watershed basis, in order to provide a
clearer understanding of each watershed's
agricultural intensity. As stated earlier, wa-
tersheds often cross state boundaries; there-
fore, having agricultural data on a
watershed basis from each state will allow
resource managers to compare agricultural
data across state lines and gain a regional
perspective.
Table 2 describes the size of each water-
shed, the portion which lies within
Maryland's borders, and the extent of agri-
cultural land use within each watershed.
More specifically, the first column of Table
2 indicates the amount of land area within
each watershed (in acres). The second and
third columns list the amount of each
watershed's land area (in acres and as a
percent) that lies within Maryland's borders.
1
I.J
1 :
El
I
i
ir
li
1
ft
i
i$
fi-
"
p
f~
i
*
e
1
1
i
F
L
Table 2. Area of Watersheds in Maryland and Extent of Agricultural Lands
=USGS
*g?|| ^.^MaMmf^^mssmm^mmmmx
Choptank
Chester-Sassafras
Lower Susquehanna
Monocacy
Middle Potomac-Catodin
Nanticoke
Blackwater-Wicomico
Pocomoke
Conococheague-Opequon
Gunpowder-Patapsco
Brandywine-Christina
Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan
Patuxent
Chincoteague
Lower Potomac
Youghiogheny
Severn
North Branch Potomac
Cacapon-Town
HUC-8
02060005
02060002
02050306
02070009
02070008
02060008
02060007
02060009
02070004
02060003
02040205
02070010
02060006
02060010
0207001 1
05020006
02060004
02070002
02070003
of Watershed
fAcres)
595,326
775,661
1,585,376
630,806
785,530
532,732
342,543
498,813
1,460,096
911,430
511,125
844,928
590,220
547,269
1,179,232
1,133,536
279,121
860,589
771,539
. - , .,! - . -.' r -'.i j.. .,
J-cmd Area^ Percent Farm Area
inMD
(Acres)
492,480
642,445
175,955
494,605
299,204
215,204
310,910
435,283
300,438
882,349
4,165
229,184
590,220
192,568
499,710
264,410
213,768
332,125
124,880
Percent
Land Area jn MD ±arm.. _
inMD
83
83
11
78
38
40
91
87
21
97
1
27
100
35
42
23
77
39
16
(Acres)
279,457
359,069
81,920
223,211
129,867
89545
123,410
155,690
89,220
228,642
1,032
52,012
122,200
35,101
86,320
39,627
30,759
32,346
6,672
Area in MD
57
56
47
45
43
42
40
36
20
26
25
23
21
18
17
15
14
10
5
«K_ i_^_ , , , , _ ^_ ^....i.ik, ,...:< ,i.;i,,-;, ,,»,_; i'.i ,,»^j-^i,ul.i.iJl,i.i^,. ii,w^.--,^.,U;.,,iji:^J,Utfl 1 7 KflM| ( 3 SW
-------
The fourth and fifth columns of Table 2 list
how much of each watershed's land area
within Maryland's borders is used for agri-
culture (in acres and as a percent). The table
ranks each watershed by the percent of land
area within Maryland that is used for agri-
culture. It is hoped that this will provide a
clearer understanding of the agricultural
intensity of each USGS 8-digit watershed
within Maryland.
The next section provides short descriptions
of each watershed in terms of farm acre-
age and livestock products. Table 3, Page
20, compares the extent of crop produc-
tion within each watershed, and Table 4,
Page 21, compares the extent of livestock
within each watershed.
Watershed Descriptions
The following watershed summaries are
based on the relative size of agricultural
activities, comparing the portion of the
watersheds located in Maryland. For each
watershed, the total farm acreage, the
crops with the largest amount of harvested
acreage, and the approximate number of
cattle, calves and milk cows within the wa-
tershed are discussed. It is important to note
that in some instances, the crop with the
largest amount of harvested acreage within
a watershed is a crop not discussed in this
report, (e.g., fruit). However, because those
crops are not included in this report, only
the largest crops out of those selected for
this report are mentioned. In addition, the
number of cattle and calves and milk cows
listed below for each USGS 8-digit water-
shed are approximations, because the data
for those activities were summarized by the
smaller Maryland 8-digit watersheds and
are available only as ranges.
Choptank Watershed - 02060005
This watershed has a very large amount of
agricultural land use; it contains 279,457
acres of farmland, second largest among
the 19 Maryland watersheds. Soybeans has
the largest amount of harvested acreage,
at 112,912 acres. Other large crops in-
clude corn, at 61,641 acres, and wheat, at
51,974 acres. This watershed also contains
a large number of cattle and calves, rang-
ing from 3,001-7,000 head, and milk
cows, ranging from 1,001-4,000 head.
Chester-Sassafras Watershed - 02060002
This watershed has a very large amount of
agricultural land use; it contains 359,059
acres of farmland, more than any other
watershed in Maryland. Soybeans has the
largest amount of harvested acreage within
this watershed, at 120,727 acres. Other
large crops include corn, at 106,622 acres,
and wheat, at 57,962 acres. This water-
shed also contains an average number of
cattle and calves, ranging from
2,001 -3,000 head. In addition, this water-
shed contains a large number of milk cows,
ranging from 1,001-4,000 head.
Lower Susquehanna Watershed - 02050306
This watershed has an average amount of
agricultural land use; it contains 81,920
acres of farmland. Corn has the largest
amount of harvested acreage within this
watershed, at 23,868 acres. Other large
crops include soybeans, at 11,709 acres,
and hay, at 10,342 acres. This watershed
contains an average number of cattle and
calves, ranging from 2,001-3,000 head,
and milk cows, ranging from 501-1,000
head.
Monocacy Watershed - 02070009
This watershed has a very large amount of
agricultural land use; it contains 223,211
acres of farmland, fourth largest among
the 19 watersheds. Hay has the largest
amount of harvested acreage within this
watershed, at 56,218 acres. Other large
crops include corn, at 49,154 acres, and
soybeans, at 29,517 acres. This watershed
also contains a large number of cattle and
calves, at 7,000+ head, and milk cows, at
4,001 + head.
WATERSHED
-------
Middle Potomac-Catoctin
Watershed -02070008
This watershed has a large amount of ag-
ricultural land use; it contains 129,687
acres of farmland. Soybeans has the larg-
est amount of harvested acreage, at
25,963 acres. Other large crops include
hay, at 23,440 acres, and corn, at 19,840
acres. This watershed also contains a large
number of cattle and calves at 7,000+
head, and milk cows at 4,001 + head.
Nanticoke Watershed - 02060008
This watershed has an average amount of
agricultural land use; it contains 89,545
acres of farmland. Soybeans, at 38,074
acres has the largest amount of harvested
acreage. Other large crops include wheat,
at 15,186 acres, and corn, at 14~880
acres. This watershed also contains an av-
erage number of cattle and calves, rang-
ing from 1,001-2,000 head, and milk
cows, ranging from 301-500 head.
Blackwater-Wicomico
Watershed- 02060007
This watershed has a large amount of ag-
ricultural land use; it contains 123,410
acres of farmland. Soybeans, at 22,857
acres has the largest amount of harvested
acreage. Other large crops include wheat,
at 16,636 acres, and corn, at 15,981
acres. This watershed contains a small
number of cattle and calves, ranging from
0-1,000 head, and milk cows, ranging
from 0-100 head.
Pocomoke Watershed - 02060009
This watershed has a large amount of ag-
ricultural land use; it contains 155,690
acres of farmland. Soybeans has the larg-
est amount of harvested acreage within this
watershed, at 64,292 acres. Other large
crops include corn, at 38,996 acres, and
wheat, at 16,068 acres. This watershed
only contains a small number of cattle and
calves, ranging from 0-1,000 head, and
milk cows, ranging from 0-100 head.
Conococheague-Opequon Watershed -
02070004
This watershed has an average amount of
agricultural land use; it contains 89,220
acres of farmland. Corn has the largest
amount of harvested acreage, at 20,220
acres. Other crops include hay, at 19,008
acres, and soybeans, at 9,569 acres. This
watershed does contain a large number of
cattle and calves, at 7,000+ head, and milk
cows, at 4,001 + head.
Gunpowder-Patapsco
Watershed - 02060003
This watershed has the third largest amount
of agricultural land use; it contains 228,642
acres of farmland. Corn has the largest
amount of harvested acreage, at 51,519
acres. Other large crops include soybeans,
at 35,696 acres, and hay, at 23,098 acres.
This watershed also contains a very large
number of cattle and calves at 7,000+
head, and a large number of milk cows,
ranging from 1,001-4,000 head.
Brandywine-Christina
Watershed - 02040205
This watershed has a small amount of ag-
ricultural land use; it contains only 1,032
acres of farmland, lowest of the 19 water-
sheds. Soybeans has the largest amount of
harvested acreage, at 448 acres. This wa-
tershed only contains a small number of
cattle and calves, ranging from 0-1,000
head, and an average number of milk
cows, ranging from 101-300 head.
Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan
Watershed - 02070010
This watershed has a relatively small
amount of agricultural land use; it contains
only 52,022 acres of farmland. Hay has
the largest amount of harvested acreage
within this watershed, at 2,056 acres. The
second largest crop is wheat, at 1,845
acres. This watershed also contains only a
small number of cattle and calves, ranging
from 0-1,000 head, and milk cows, rang-
ing from 101-300 head.
WATERSHED
-------
Patuxent Watershed - 02060006
This watershed has a large amount of ag-
ricultural land use; it contains 122,200
acres of farmland. Soybeans has the larg-
est amount of harvested acreage, at
23,093 acres. Other large crops include
corn, at 20,171 acres, and hay, at 15,126
acres. This watershed also contains an av-
erage number of cattle and calves, rang-
ing from 2,001-3,000 head, and milk
cows, ranging from 101-300 head.
Chincoteague Watershed - 02060010
This watershed has a small amount of ag-
ricultural activity; it only contains 35,101
acres of farmland. Soybeans has the larg-
est amount of harvested acreage, at
12,707 acres. This watershed only contains
a small number of cattle and calves, rang-
ing from 0-1,000 head, and milk cows,
ranging from 0-100 head.
Lower Potomac Watershed - 02070011
This watershed has an average amount of
agricultural land use; it contains 86,320
acres of farmland. Soybeans has the larg-
est amount of harvested acreage within this
watershed at 22,857 acres. Other large
crops include wheat, at 11,534 acres and
corn, at 7,943 acres. This watershed con-
tains an average number of cattle and
calves, ranging from 1,001-2,000 head,
and milk cows, ranging from 0-100 head.
Youghiogheny Watershed - 05020006
This watershed has a small amount of ag-
ricultural land use; it contains only 39,637
acres of farmland. Hay has the largest
amount of harvested acreage, at 13,366
acres. However, this watershed contains a
relatively large number of cattle and calves,
at 7,000+ head, and milk cows, ranging
from 1,001-4,000 head.
Table 3. Extent of Crops by Watershed"
Watersheds
Soybeans
Corn
Wheat
Barley Tobacco Oats Totals
Middle Potomac-Catoctin
Conococheague-Opequon \
*The colors in Table 3 correspond to the colors in the maps where dark green represents a relatively large amount of acreage within the watershed,
and light green and yellow (in descending order) represent relatively smaller amounts of acreage within the watershed.
WATERSHED
-------
Table 4. Extent of Livestock by Watershed^
Conococheague-Opequon
Middle Potomac-Catoctin
Cacapon-Town
gn I'M a^i'
Pocomoke
- * :i
Blackwater-Wicomico
Nanticoke
Chincoteague
Brandywine-Christina
_J
Severn Watershed - 02060004
This watershed has a relatively small
amount of agricultural land use; it con-
tains only 30,759 acres of farmland. Soy-
beans has the largest amount of harvested
acreage, at 4,166 acres. This watershed
contains an average number of cattle and
calves, ranging from 2,001-3,000 head,
and a low number of milk cows, ranging
from 101-300 head.
North Branch Potomac Watershed -
02070002
This watershed has a low amount of agri-
cultural land use; it only contains 32,346
acres of farmland. Hay has the largest
amount of harvested acreage, at 9,937
acres. This watershed contains an average
number of cattle and calves, ranging from
2,001-3,000 head, and milk cows, rang-
ing from 501-1,000 head.
The colors in Table 4 correspond to the colors in the
maps where dark green represents a relatively large
amount of livestock within the watershed, and light green
and yellow represent relatively smaller amounts of live-
stock within the watershed.
Cacapon-Town Watershed - 02070003
This watershed has a very small amount of
agricultural land use; it contains only 6,672
acres of farmland. Hay has the largest
amount of harvested acreage, at 2,098
acres. This watershed contains an average
number of cattle and calves, ranging from
1,001-2,000 head, and a small number
of milk cows, ranging from 101 -300 head.
WATERSHED
-------
-------
As important as the agricultural industry
is, concerns have risen over the last de-
cade about the impacts it can have on its
surrounding environment. Agricultural pro-
duction can have adverse effects on the
environment due to soil erosion, excess
nutrients, animal waste, and pesticides.
Through soil erosion and surface water
runoff, pesticides and excess nutrients, such
as nitrogen and phosphorus, can find their
way into and pollute nearby waterways. In
addition, if not managed efficiently, ani-
mal waste can pollute nearby rivers and
streams, and animals themselves can
trample fragile streambeds, increasing the
likelihood of soil erosion.
This section presents summary data on the
application rates of agricultural chemicals,
such as pesticides and fertilizers, within
Maryland's counties. In addition, this sec-
tion discusses some of the programs and
management practices being implemented
in Maryland to reduce the impacts of agri-
cultural production on the environment.
Pesticide Use in Maryland
Pesticides are used for a variety of agricul-
tural, domestic (home/garden), and pub-
lic health purposes. In general, a pesticide
is an agent used to control insects, weeds,
bacteria, and other organisms. Data were
evaluated to identify the geographic areas
of Maryland with the largest use of pesti-
cides (for all types of uses). Watershed- and
crop-specific pesticide use data were not
analyzed, so only county level data were
used for this purpose (MDA, 1996). (See
Appendix for further information on the
method for collecting pesticide data.) Shown
in Table 5 are the number of pesticides and
total amounts (in pounds) of active ingre-
dients in pesticides used in the Maryland
r
Table 5. Ffesticide Applications by County in Maryland -1994
Number of
:ldesj\pplied
Amount of Pesticides
Applied (pounds
^''WM^l
pm3S&*i'
11
2
3
4
5
i6
|: 7
I 8 -
r 9
[-10
til
F l2
1 13
IT 14
1,15
i 16
! 17
1 18
I 19
f20
i 21
r 22"
i=-23
3SP
Washington
Montgomery
Wicomico
Cecil
Caroline
Queen Annes
Dorchester
Talbot
Kent
Baltimore
Frederick
Worcester
Harford
Carroll
Anne Arundel
Prince Georges
Somerset
Garrett
Baltimore City
Charles
St Marys
Howard
Calyert
Allegany
119
164
132
129
115
105
95
112
85
174
119 . .
115
133
116
128
145
72
58
80
113
96
117
_ _80
41
2,360,151
2,292,499
2,080,090
1,253,188
980,188
853,733
528,320
454,829
432,144
400,628
346,655
305,379
294,405
277,907
198,175
146,262
139,896
97,852
93,404
92,819
91,742
88,704
_ 42,764
26,798
Source: MDA, 1996. This information represents all uses
(e.g., agricultural, home/garden, etc.) and is not limited to
the types of crops analyzed in this report.
* Different types.
** Total amount of pesticides applied includes some chemi-
cals that were reported but not estimated on a county
basis.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS
-------
counties in 1994. More than 13-million
pounds of 252 different types of active in-
gredients in pesticides were used in Mary-
land in 1994. In general, about 80 percent
of the volume of pesticides are used for
agricultural purposes nationwide (U.S. EPA,
1997). Maryland counties with the largest
pesticide use were Washington (2.36 mil-
lion pounds), Montgomery (2.29 million
pounds), Wicomico (2.08 million pounds),
and Cecil (1.25 million pounds). As shown
in Table 6, most of the pesticides used were
herbicides (5.68 million pounds - 41 per-
cent) and wood preservatives (5.64 million
pounds - 41 percent). Almost 1 million
pounds (997,913 pounds ) of insecticides
were used in Maryland during 1994 as
shown in Table 7, including chlorpyrifos
(240,325 pounds), petroleum oils (221,603
pounds), and malathion (121,112 pounds).
The herbicides used in the largest quanti-
ties were metolachlor (2.17 million pounds)
and atrazine (1.66 million pounds) as
shown in Table 8.
ENVIRONMENTAL;
CONCERNS:
Table 6. Pesticide Uses Reported in Maryland in 1994
If*1iiEgp»S
Amount Used
active IngreSent)
ype
Plill 1H
Total
"Pesiidde"Usage {%)
Herbicides
Insecticides
Fungicides
Wood Preservatives
Antifoulants
Others
-: U^j n -J : , --
5,677,775
997,913
301,612
5,642,676
1,154,042
107,611
.*j. v^^^^-^±^~^-i~^-^.
41
7
2
41
8 '
1
-UJ^-Jum . 1 _
M"'
f
| Table 1, Top 10 Reported Insecticides Used in Maryland in 1994
GUllliiRIIlBKPW IS"' rTTFMTHI?
.fe.rimspfi^.if.iHN.Tm-iTW., -isr i*,; f-
!Rank
1 !
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 :
10
SiliiWiUfiiiili ' WiLiM iiBiWIfiWHWf ''IKWi1 WHPHi&E&'f f " Wi
i^-.sr Sf iiI,sT^-*-*C. i5.«MSf.!i!^.W2t': 'SS7.!isS.*l^^^?: rr
W=SSs=^£T=S=5^^H^'j;" ^ra_q,^-^H, ;
Chlorpyrifos
Petroleum_0ils
Malathion
Permethrin
Boric Acid
Carbaryl
Propefamphos
Acephate
Terbufos
Dimethoate
,-*i^^rflir^iBffls5ist^s<,,^---^,rAS-.-:-.-..V: .-^c _'-.-.= .l^ -'
Pounds of Active :
"-1"11" - ^i^MMh-^ir' ^^^^,.,^--. ,|.-; ., - -.i
Ingredient Used
240,325 .;
221,603
121,1 12 ' "
82,985
47,992 '
39,352
30,215 :
28,013 5
20,395 :
20,174
Table 8. Top 10 Reported Herbicides Used in Maryland in 1994
}
1
3
4
:5
.,6
7
8
9
10
IMoms Oi
isssssfsfi Herbicide
Metolachlor
Atrazine
Glyphoate
Alachlor
2,4-D
Pendimethalin
Paraquat
Simazine
Metribuzin
Cyanazine
Jroun
-------
Fertilizer Use in Maryland
Data were evaluated to identify the geo-
graphic areas of Maryland with the largest
use of fertilizers. Watershed- and crop-spe-
cific fertilizer use data were not analyzed,
so data on the county level were used for
this purpose. Shown in Table 9 are the
amounts (in tons) of active ingredients in
fertilizers (nitrogen, phosphate, and potas-
sium) used in the Maryland counties. In
addition, please note that the information
shown in Table 9 only includes commer-
cial fertilizers, not manure. (See Appendix
for further information on the method for
collecting fertilizer data.)
From Table 9, you can see that more than
150,000 tons of the active ingredients in
fertilizers were used in Maryland in 1997.
The counties with the largest fertilizer use
were Caroline (14,833 tons), Carroll
(14,586 tons), Frederick (11,929 tons), and
Harford (11,773 tons). In general, the coun-
ties on the Eastern Shore and in central
Maryland, several of which adjoin the
Chesapeake Bay, had the largest fertilizer
use in the state. Future assessments will in-
clude fertilizer application data for the crops
analyzed in this report. In addition, use of
fertilizers in watersheds will be assessed; this
analysis will facilitate further analyses of fer-
tilizer use and water quality.
Table 9. Fertilizer Application by County in Maryland -1997
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Caroline
Carroll
Frederick
Harford
Queen Annes.
Washington
Kent
Wicomico
Talbot
Baltimore
St Marys
AnneArundel
Baltimore City
Worcester
Prince Georges
Dorchester
Cecil
Garrett
Montgomery
Howard
Somerset
Allegany
Charles
Calvert
Unknown
6,043
7,516
5,353
6,776
4,526
3,294
3,580
3,506
2,959
4,385
2,201
2,606
1,796
2,895
3,046
1,779
1,800
917
1,301
: 979
701
538
543
273
4,542
3,262
2,894
2,142
1,750
3,740
2,655
1,176
1,300
973
1,708
1,391
3,341
842
864
913
1,093
759
501
512
216.
323
207
147
694
6,379
3,808
3,682
2,855
2,620
1,608
2,054
3,108
2,623
852
1,877
1,666
495
1,771
1,127
1,754
1,341
957
547
632
707
472
243
196
648
14,833 _
14,586
11,929
11,773
8,642
8,289
7,790
6,882
6,210
5,786
5,663
5,632
5,508
5,037
4,446
4,234
2,633
2,349
2,123
1,624
1333
993
616
5,884
i
Source: USDA, 1999a This information represents all uses (e.g., agricultural, home/garden, etc.) and is not limited to
the types of crops analyzed in this report. .
25
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS
-------
Mitigation
Besides agriculture being a potential stres-
sor on adjacent resources such as rivers
and streams, it can also be a cumulative
stressor whose impact may be seen some
distance away. Increased loadings of nu-
trients, sediment, and other pollutants in
the rivers and streams that feed the Chesa-
peake Bay can significantly impact the qual-
ity of the resources on which much of the
agricultural industry, the seafood industry,
and many recreational activities depend.
Maryland's agricultural industry is deter-
mined to protect its environment. A num-
ber of goals are set for reducing the amount
of certain types of chemicals and waste
being released into the water and air. For
instance, Maryland was committed to re-
ducing the amount of nitrogen and phos-
phorus entering the Chesapeake Bay by
40 percent of the 1985 loads by the year
2000 (MDE, 1999a). This involves a vari-
ety of programs, some of which are de-
scribed below. In addition to the goals
Maryland has set for itself, all states are
required by the Federal Clean Water Act to
develop Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs). TMDLs are an estimate of the
maximum amount of a given pollutant that
a body of water can assimilate without vio-
lating water quality standards (MDE,
1999b). These TMDLs will give Maryland
a mechanism forformalizing its upper limits
on the amount of nitrogen and phospho-
rus that may enter its waterbodies, and to
help ensure clean waters in the future.
Maryland has taken many other actions to
minimize the impact of agriculture on the
environment. For instance, the Governor
of Maryland appointed various individuals
selected from state agencies, local govern-
ments, industry, environmental groups, ag-
riculture, and concerned citizens to work
on Tributary Teams focused on implement-
ing "Tributary Strategies" developed in
1993 and 1994 (MDE, 1998). These strat-
egies are comprehensive watershed-based
plans to reduce the amount of nutrients en-
tering the Chesapeake Bay from ten key
tributaries. Assisting with this effort is the
Office of Resource Conservation in
Maryland's Department of Agriculture,
which works with citizens, farmers, busi-
nesses, and local governments to help de-
velop these "Tributary Strategies." Among
the pollution control options being imple-
mented are best management practices
(BMPs) and the planting of stream-side veg-
etation to absorb nutrient runoff from farms
(MDNR, 1999).
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS:
-------
BMPs are conservation tools designed to
protect the quality of Maryland's waterways
by preventing and controlling soil erosion,
nutrient runoff, and animal waste runoff.
Local soil and water conservation districts
provide farmers with the technical and fi-
nancial assistance they need to implement
these BMPs. In 1994, soil and water qual-
ity plans were developed for over 113,000
acres of Maryland farmland, and Maryland
farmers installed more than 19,000 BMPs
(MFB, 1999). Soil and water quality plans
have now been developed for more than
40 percent of Maryland's agricultural land
since 1985 (MFB, 1999). BMPs, such as
creating manure storage structures, prop-
erly using commercial fertilizers, farming
with the contour, and stabilizing shorelines,
will all be useful in reducing nutrient run-
off and other forms of pollution.
One program that helps farmers cover the
costs of installing BMPs on their farms is
the Maryland Agricultural Water Quality
Cost-Share (MACS) program. In FY 1998,
MACS helped Maryland farmers install
more than 650 projects, totaling more than
$4 million in grant payments (MDA,
1998b). It is important to mention, that in
addition to these funds, farmers person-
ally contributed significant resources toward
the completion of these projects. These
projects will have positive benefits to more
than 11,000 acres of land by preventing
some 43,000 tons of soil from reaching
Maryland waterways and managing an es-
timated 740 tons of animal waste more
efficiently (MDA, 1998b).
Maryland's Targeted Watershed Project is
another program aimed at protecting the
Chesapeake Bay by reducing the amount
of nutrients and sediment that enters the
rivers and streams that feed into the Bay.
This project focuses on improving the
water quality of four relatively small water-
sheds used heavily for agriculture. Under
this program, a Soil Conservation District
(SCO) nutrient management specialist
works with farmers to implement nutrient
management practices. These targeted wa-
tersheds are the focus of a pilot project dem-
onstration of how state and local
cooperation can have a positive impact
(USEPA, 1999b).
It is also important to mention that in the
spring of 1998, the Maryland General As-
sembly passed the Water Quality Improve-
ment Act (WQIA). WQIA set a time-table
for certain agricultural operations to imple-
ment nitrogen-and phosphorus-based nu-
trient management plans. Agricultural
operations obligated to develop these plans
are those with annual incomes greater than
$2,500, or more than eight animals, and
those using sludge or animal manure as
fertilizer.
Future assessments of environmentally rel-
evant aspects of agriculture in Maryland will
include pesticide application data for the
crops analyzed in this report. In addition,
use of agricultural chemicals in watersheds
will be assessed; this will facilitate further
analyses of relationships between agricul-
tural production and water quality.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS
-------
-------
Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA). 1995. "Maryland Agricultural Statistics."
Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA). 1996. "Maryland Pesticide Statistics for 1994."
September 1996.
Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA). 1998a. "Maryland Agriculture Facts." Avail-
able: http://www.mda.state.md.us/geninfo/aginfo.html. December 29, 1998.
Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA). 1998b. "Conservation Efforts in Progress:
Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Program 1998 Annual Report."
Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA). 1999. "Quick Facts from the Census of
Maryland Agriculture." Available: http://www.mda.state.md.us/agstats/quick.htm. April
13, 1999.
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 1998. "Maryland's Chesapeake Bay
Tributary Nutrient Education Strategies." Available: http://www.mde.state.md.us/environ-
ment/tribstrat.html. January 28, 1998.
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 1999a. "Maryland Environmental Indi-
cators: Introduction." Available: http://www.mde.state.md.us/enpa/1999_enpa/envi-
_indicators/htms/mdieintro.htm. Februarys, 1999.
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 1999b. "TMDLs What It Is and Why
Maryland Is Developing Them." Available: http://www.mde.state.md.us/reference/
factsheets/tmdl.html. Februarys, 1999.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 1999. "Maryland's Tributary Teams."
Available: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/brochure.html. January 20, 1999.
Maryland Farm Bureau (MFB). 1999. "Environmental Issues." Available: http://www.fb.com/
mdfb/enviro/emain.htm. January 21, 1999.
Maryland Office of Planning (MOP). 1991. "Office of Planning 1990 Land Use Water-
sheds."
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS). 1999a. "Frequently Asked Questions About the Census of Agriculture." Avail-
able: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/cenfaqs.htm. April 14, 1999.
REFERENCES
-------
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): National Agricultural Statistics Service
(MASS). 1999b. "1997 Census of Agriculture State Profile." Available: http://
www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/profiles/md/md.htm. April 14, 1999.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1999c. "1997 Census of Agriculture:
Maryland State & County Data." USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).
AC97-A-20. March 1999.
United States Department of Commerce (USDOC). 1994. "1992 Census of Agriculture:
Maryland, State and County Data." April 1994.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USERA). 1997. "Pesticides Industry Sales
and Usage: 1994 and 1995 Market Estimates." U.S. EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances. 733-R-97-002. August 1997.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USERA). 1999a. "Surf Your Watershed."
Available: http://www.epa.gov/surf2/watershed.html. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washing-
ton, DC. April 22, 1999.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USERA). 1999b. "Section 319 Nonpoint
Source Success Stories: Volume II." November 1994. Available: http://www.epa.gov/owow/
nps/success319/MD.html. February 1, 1999.
University of Maryland, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (UM). 1999. "Citizen's
Guide to the Water Quality Improvement Act." Available: http://www.agnr.umd.edu/
waterquality/citizwq.html. February 4, 1999.
REFERENCES
-------
APPENDIX:
METHODOLOGY
The majority of data used in this report
are 1995 data collected by the Maryland
Agricultural Statistics Service and 1992
data taken from the Census of Agriculture.
Employing the most sophisticated sampling
and census techniques, the Service devel-
oped data series for a wide range of crop
and livestock production items, land use,
prices, and data to measure the economic
performance of the agriculture production
sector. The data were collected at the state
level, then special techniques were em-
ployed to re-project the data on a water-
shed basis. Additional methods were used
to estimate potential environmentally rel-
evant attributes of the Maryland agricul-
tural production system, such as
application rates of fertilizers and other ag-
ricultural chemicals for various crops.
Crop Acreage
Data Source/Collection Method
The source of the crop data presented in
this report is primarily 1995 data from the
Maryland Agriculture Statistics Service. A
variety of sampling and survey methods
were used to collect these data, depend-
ing on the nature of the individual popu-
lations. For example, populations of
growers for some products are so small
that their production, the land area de-
voted to the products, and the value of their
sales can only be determined by a com-
plete count of the item in question. Costs
associated with accurate estimates of the
population of other commodities and land
uses frequently dictate the use of complex
sampling techniques. For example, the cost
of a complete inventory of land devoted to
corn in the state is normally prohibitive;
therefore, a statistically-based sampling
approach is used. It is necessary to utilize
area frame methodology or a combination
of area frame and list frame sam-
pling to measure this variable.The
Maryland Agricultural Statistics
Service employs three major data
collection techniques or a combi-
nation thereof. These techniques
are mail surveys, telephone sur-
veys, and face-to-face interviews.
Grower-reported data were re-
viewed for reasonableness and
consistency with general cultural
practices, farm legislation, and
historical estimates. Harvested
acreage estimates were based on
survey estimates and the histori-
cal relationship between planted
and harvested acres.
^Ogtg _____
r^nalysis Methodology
^Maryland Department of
Pv\griculture 1995 Data
The analysis for this project was
carried out by the Maryland Agri-
cultural Statistics Service and the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Office of Research
and Development. Survey methodology
and the resulting data were combined with
geographic information to develop new in-
formation indicating the distribution of crop
data to geographic areas in Maryland. The
Service currently collects annual data suffi-
ciently accurate for the compilation of
county crop estimates for most crops. The
estimates of harvested acreage in this re-
port are based primarily on surveys con-
ducted the first two weeks of December.
These surveys are based on a probability
area frame survey with a sample of ap-
proximately 200 segments or parcels of
land (average approximately 1 square mile)
and a probability list sample of about 1,000
farm operators. Enumerators conducting
the area survey contact all farmers having
Census of Agriculture
Data Jor Livestock
Statistically-based
Sampling
Projection of Data onto
- Watersheds, ..,..,.._.,__^._
Estimates of Agricultural
~f~ Lqnd^Aregjn
L sheds in j
APPENDIX
-------
operations within the sampled segments
of land and account for their operations.
From these data, statewide estimates can
be calculated. Responses from the list
sample, plus data from the area opera-
tions that were not on the list to be sampled,
are combined to provide another estimate
of acreage.
The surveys conducted by the Maryland Ag-
ricultural Statistics Service are designed to
provide accurate state-level estimates of
harvested acres for most crops, but are not
expected to provide sufficient information
for distribution of acreage to counties or
watersheds. Therefore, a technique was
devised to distribute the crop estimates to
the 19 USGS eight-digit watersheds in
Maryland. This distribution was based on
allocating ZIP Codes to watersheds. ZIP
Codes are associated with the operator of
individual farms reporting, and these ZIP
Codes provide the means for the distribu-
tion of the data to watersheds, as well as
counties. The geographic boundaries of the
ZIP Codes and watersheds were available
as spatial geographic information systems
databases. The percentage of each ZIP
Code area located in each watershed was
determined using Geographic Information
System (GIS) procedures. After this step was
completed, statisticians distributed the data
to each of the 19 USGS eight-digit water-
sheds based on the ZIP Code attached to
each of the individual farm reports. The
percentage of acres devoted to each crop
was computed for each watershed. These
percentages were then multiplied by the
estimated acreage of farmland in each wa-
tershed to arrive at an
estimate of the acres
of each crop har-
vested in each water-
shed. The acreage of
the crops in the water-
sheds were then
summed to a state to-
tal for each crop and
scaled to the current
estimate of the acre-
age of the crops in the
state.
^-p-t"Confidentiality of Data
r --Confidentiality is a critical issue when
""collecting data from individual farmers. In
i order to protect the rights of individual
JreTpondents, legal confidentiality provisions
r "apply to all data collection efforts. This
^prevents analysis and presentation of select
"""data sets where individual respondents
Fcould be reyeajerj. Therejpre, agriculture
p^stdtistiqs datg are summar,feecl to a level
yJ^r4JDrJividugl farmers cqnnot be identi-
ified. Jy doing this, the privacy rights of
r individual respondents are protected and
t they are more likely to continue to partici-
^ pate iirdata collection efforts in the future.
Limitations and
Uncertainties
As with all data, there are limitations and
uncertainties in the data collected for this
report. The data presented in this report
are primarily based on statistics utilizing sur-
vey methodology. The surveys used to make
estimates are subject to sampling and non-
sampling type errors that are common to
all surveys. Sampling errors for major crops
generally are between 1 and 6 percent.
Sampling errors represent the variability be-
tween estimates that would result if many
different samples were surveyed at the same
time. Non-sampling errors cannot be mea-
sured directly but may occur due to plant-
ing intentions, incorrect reporting and/or
recording, data omissions or duplications,
and errors in processing. To minimize non-
sampling errors, vigorous quality controls
are used in the data collection process, and
all data are carefully reviewed for consis-
tency and reasonableness.
Some uncertainty results from the proce-
dures used to apportion crop acreage data
to the watersheds. There were instances
when individual ZIP Codes were located in
more than one watershed. Oftentimes, por-
tions of the same ZIP Code area were lo-
cated in two or three different watersheds.
APPENDIX
32HET
-------
For purposes of this study, when determin-
ing acreage numbers for a certain crop in
the different watersheds, it was assumed
that the crop was evenly distributed
throughout the ZIP Code. However, crops
are not usually distributed evenly through-
out a ZIP Code, and this can lead to un-
certainty in the results.
In addition, two of Maryland's watersheds,
Upper Chesapeake Bay (02060001) and
Shenandoah (02070007), are not included
in this analysis. Both of these watersheds
contain a very small amount of agricul-
tural land in Maryland as the Upper Chesa-
peake Bay watershed contains very little
land area, and the Shenandoah watershed
lies only slightly within Maryland's borders.
However, the omitting of these two water-
sheds may result in some small discrepan-
cies when comparing the agricultural data
presented in this analysis to those from
other sources. For instance, when summing
up the crop data for each watershed pre-
sented in this report, the total may not
match the Maryland statewide total.
Livestock
Data Source/Collection Method
The procedures used to estimate data in
the livestock section are similar to those
used in the crop sections, where data on
ZIP Code level were allocated to the eight-
digit Maryland watersheds. Livestock data
are presented for the 138 Maryland eight-
digit watersheds, which are smaller than
the 19 USGS eight-digit watersheds used
to present the crop data. The primary
source of livestock data for this report is
the 1992 Census of Agriculture, conducted
at 5-year intervals by the U.S. Department
of Commerce - Bureau of the Census*
(USDOC, 1994). The Census of Agricul-
ture is a complete accounting of U.S. agri-
cultural production and is the only source
of uniform, comprehensive agricultural
data for every county and state in the Na-
tion (USDA, 1999a). Report forms are
mailed to all farm and ranch operators
who produced and sold, or normally would
have produced and sold, $1,000 or more
*Recently, the responsibilities for the Census of Agri-
culture were transferred from the Department of Com-
merce to the National Agriculture Statistics Service
(MASS) of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA).
of agricultural products during the census
year (USDA, 1999a). As a census, its inten-
tion is to accurately measure the density or
average presence of items of interest at the
county and state levels. The data collected
in this survey from a large majority of the
farming operations are supplemented to ar-
rive at an estimate of the population.This is
accomplished using imputation procedures
based on area farm incompleteness deter-
mination and other sophisticated tech-
niques. Any more detailed levels of data
require more expensive resource intensive
survey efforts, such as complete land in-
ventory techniques.
Limitations and
Uncertainties
The development of estimates of livestock
numbers in watersheds at a point in time
involves problems not critical in cropland
estimating. Livestock can move about, plac-
ing more emphasis on a shorter timeframe
for data collection. In addition, livestock
tend to be located in varying density
throughout the area under study. If the use
of the livestock data requires the exact num-
ber and location of every head of livestock
in an area, then the only way to accurately
estimate these numbers and the impact of
their presence on the environment is to con-
duct a complete census of the areas under
consideration. Sampling procedures gen-
erally are not sufficient to provide the ac-
curacy needed to determine the effect
livestock may have on small areas. For
larger areas, such as a state or, in many
cases, a county, the average number of
cattle per acre being pastured in the area
may provide the information needed for
comparison with other states and counties
and for accurate assessment of their envi-
ronmental impact. If the data user desires
to obtain a general view of the density'of
livestock in various regions in a state, then
sample survey data can provide useful in-
formation of sufficient accuracy. If, on the
other hand, one desired to assess the envi-
ronmental impact of livestock in a small
catchment, the only data development
method providing sufficient accuracy for this
purpose may be a complete enumeration
(census) of the livestock in the area at a
point in time.
333
APPENDIX
-------
Poultry
Broilers are another important part of the
Maryland agricultural production system.
In 1997, Maryland ranked eighth in the
Nation for the number of broilers sold, with
a value of over $500 million (MASS,
1999c). However, broilers were not in-
cluded in this analysis because of the chal-
lenges involved in estimating their numbers
on a watershed basis. As described below,
many under-reporting errors were found
when estimating broiler production at a
state level; therefore, no attempt was made
to re-project the data on a watershed basis.
Historically, the Census of Agriculture has
"undercounted" broilers when compared
with weekly and annual MASS surveys of
hatcheries. This is common in all broiler
estimating states to different degrees, but
in Maryland the difference has been around
a 13-15 percent undercount. Although
NASS generally does not have a complete
list of broiler contractees, and obtaining
these lists is against the policy of most inte-
grators, the census mail list probably con-
tained 90-95 percent of the individual
contractees. Following are two under-
reporting errors found during the 1997
Census:
1) Many broiler growers did not report their
broilers on hand or sold because they did
not consider themselves as the owners; con-
sequently, they assumed the integrators
would report for them.
2) Broiler flocks are turned over on aver-
age 5-6 times per year, so the one-time
inventory number should range from about
16-20 percent of the annual number sold,
unless they are between flocks and have
no current inventory on hand on the cen-
sus reference date. Furthermore, some re-
spondents obviously did not understand
what the census wanted them to report as
the relationship of number sold to inven-
tory was considerably outside of the ex-
pected 5-6 range.
Estimates of Agricultural
Chemical Usage
For pesticides, data were obtained from the
Maryland Department of Agriculture rep-
resenting 1994 (MDA, 1996). The survey
used by the Maryland Department of Agri-
culture to develop the estimates included
sending questionnaires to farmers, com-
mercial applicators, and others. The mass
of pesticide active ingredients (insecticides,
herbicides, fungicides, etc.) was the basis
for this assessment. Data on pesticide us-
age were not available for specific crops
or on a watershed basis; therefore, county-
level data were examined to identify the
geographic areas of Maryland with the larg-
est use of pesticides. As with fertilizers, these
pesticide data represent a variety of uses,
such as agriculture, commercial applica-
tions, and private uses.These uses were very
broad, including wood treatment (the pes-
ticide used in the largest quantity was
chromated copper arsenate); as a result,
not all of these data were included in this
analysis. As presented earlier in this report,
use of more than 250 different pesticides
was reported in 1994 (MDA, 1996).
Fertilizer use data were obtained from
Maryland Department of Agriculture from
the 1997 Census of Agriculture. Fertilizer
use data are presented by county. Crop-
and watershed-specific fertilizer use esti-
mates were not prepared as part of this
analysis. The data represent the mass of
active ingredients used in single- and mul-
tiple-nutrient fertilizers. As such, the
amounts (in tons) of nutrients in fertilizers
(nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium) were
examined to identify the geographic areas
of Maryland with the largest use. It should
be noted that these data represent uses of
fertilizers for many purposes, including
agricultural uses on crops other than those
examined in this report, as well as other
types of uses.
|34i
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for
Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Please make all necessary changes on the below label, ;
detach or copy, and return to the address inthe upper ;
left-hand corner. I :
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE: [~l
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the i
upper left-hand corner. ; I
PRESORTED; STANDARD
POSTAGE^FEES PAID
Efjy^
PERMIT,No.:G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/903/R-00/009
Printed on chlorine-free, 100% recycled/
recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer
fiber using vegetable-based ink.
------- |