- 9O3-R-
          CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY REEVALUATION
                  REPORT #8:

          FINANCIAL COST EFFECTIVENESS
          OF POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE
        NUTRIENT REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
           IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN
                   Prepared by:
               Rodolfo Camacho, Ph.D.
                   December, 1992

                  ICPRB Report 92-4
                                              Recycled/Recyclable
                                              Printed on paper thai contains
                                              at toast 50% recycled fiber

-------
            INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
This publication has been prepared by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.  Funds for this
publication are provided by the United States Government, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the
signatory bodies to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed
as representing the opinions or policies of the United States or any of its agencies,  the several states,  or the
Commissioners of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
   The author would like to thank all the members of the Nutrient Reduction Task Force of the
Chesapeake Bay Program Nonpoint Source Subcommittee, for their assistance in data acquisition
and review of portions of the Nonpoint Source Section of this report.  Thanks are also due to
Professor John Cumberland of the University of Maryland for his review and valuable comments
on the draft report.

   The author would like to extend his most sincere gratitude to the many agencies and groups
who provided information and technical reviews of this report:

•  The Chesapeake Bay Program 1991 Reevaluation Workgroup.
•  The Maryland Department of the Environment.
•  The Maryland Department of Agriculture.
«  The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources: Bureau of Soil  and Water
   Conservation.
•  The Pennsylvania  Department of Environmental Resources:  Bureau of Water Quality
   Management.
»  The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation: Division of Soil  and Water
    Conservation.
•   The Virginia State Water Control Board.
•   The District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.
•   The District of Columbia Department of  Public Works:   Water and  Sewer Utility
    Administration.
•   The United States Department of Agriculture: Soil Conservation Service.
•   The United States Environmental Protection Agency: Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
•   Computer Sciences Corporation.

    The author would like also to thank the staff of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin (ICPRB) for reviewing and providing valuable comments and suggestions to the final
draft of this report. Special thanks are also extended to Alan Blasenstein of ICPRB for his help
in analyzing the Watershed Model output files and the Soil Conservation Plans.

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                *

                                                                            Page

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	xi

1.  INTRODUCTION		  1

2.  NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES  	5

    2.1  Chesapeake Bay Basin Nutrient Loading Factors	5
    2.2  Chesapeake Bay Basin Agricultural BMPs	5
    2.3  Nutrient Reduction Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs	9
         2.3.1   Edge-of-Field BMP Effectiveness Reported in Research Studies  	9
         2.3.2   Basin-Scale Agricultural BMP Effectiveness	  12
                2.3.2.1  Conservation Tillage	  14
                2.3.2.2  Nutrient Management	  14
         2.3.3   Summary	  14
    2.4  Financial Costs of Agricultural BMPs   	  17
         2.4.1   Financial Base Costs for BMPs	  18
         2.4.2   Planning and Technical Assistance Costs  	  18
         2.4.3   Operation and Maintenance Costs	  20
         2.4.4   Total Annual BMP Financial Unit Costs	  20
         2.4.5   Animal  Waste Systems Financial Costs	  20
         2.4.6   Combined Unit Costs of Erosion Control BMPs from Soil
                Conservation Plans	  24
         2.4.7   Summary   	  26
    2.5  Cost and Effectiveness of Small Watershed Demonstration Projects	  26
         2.5.1   Conestoga Headwaters	  26
         2.5.2   Owl Run	  28
    2.6  Financial Cost Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs	  30
         2.6.1   Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Soil Conservation Erosion Control BMPs  31
         2.6.2   Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Erosion Control BMPs from  Soil
                Conservation Plans of Typical Farms	  34
         2.6.3   Cost Effectiveness Ratios for  BMPs  Simulated by the Chesapeake Bay
                Watershed Model  	  36

-------
                                                                :"          Page

    2.7   Chesapeake Bay Basin Urban  BMPs	• •"	  39
         2.7.1  Nutrient Removal Effectiveness of Urban BMPs	  39
         2.7.2  Cost of Urban BMPs	  40
               2.7.2.1 Cost of Urban BMPs  (District of Columbia)  . .	  42
               2.7.2.2 Cost of Urban BMPs  (Maryland)  	  42
               2.7.2.3 Summary	• • •	  42
3.  POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES	  44

    3.1  Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Removal Technologies for Municipal WWTPs  ....  44
         3.1.1  Biological Nutrient Removal Processes   	  45
         3.1.2  Non-Biological Nutrient Removal Processes	  49
         3.1.3  Summary of Point Sources in the Chesapeake Bay Basin	  49
    3.2  Nutrient Removal Effectiveness of Municipal WWTPs Technologies	  50
    3.3  Retrofit Cost Studies	  55
         3.3.1  Blue Plains  	  55
               3.3.1.1 Greeley and Hansen Study	  55
               3.3.1.2 McNamee,  Porter & Seeley Study	  58
         3.3.2 Maryland Biological Nutrient Removal Study .	  59
         3.3.3 Virginia Retrofit Study   	•	  59
         3.3.4 Summary  		  68
    3.4  Planning Level Retrofit Cost Estimates	• •  68
         3.4.1 Retrofit Assumptions   	• •  69
         3.4.2 Retrofit Cost Modifications  	• • •  69
         3.4.3 Application of Planning Level Retrofit Cost Equations	  74
         3.4.4  Comparison of Planning Level Cost Estimates using Cost
               Equations  with States' Cost Studies	  74
     3.5  Cost and Effectiveness of Existing Nutrient Removal WWTPs'..-...	  77
         3.5.1  Bowie WWTP (VT2-BNR)	• • •   77
         3.5.2  Patuxent WWTP (BNR)   	  79
         3.5.3  Western Branch WWTP  (Denitrification Filters)	  79
         3.5.4  VIP (Virginia Initiative Plant)	  80
                                         11

-------
                                                                         Page

    3.6  Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Municipal WWTPs	  80
        3.6.1  Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Nitrogen Removal 	  81
               3.6.1.1 Cost Effectiveness Ratios: Chemical Addition 	  81
               3.6.1.2 Cost Effectiveness Ratios: Biological Removal	  83
        3.6.2  Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Phosphorus Removal	  85
               3.6.2.1 Cost Effectiveness Ratios: Chemical Addition 	  85
               3.6.2.2  Cost Effectiveness Ratios: Biological Removal  	  88

4.  SUMMARY AND USE OF COST EFFECTIVENESS RATIOS FOR POINT
    AND NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES	  94
                        \
    4.1  Nonpoint Sources	•  •  94
    4.2  Point Sources   	  96
5.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ---- .........................  99

REFERENCES ............................................. 104
GLOSSARY: NONPOINT SOURCES
GLOSSARY: POINT SOURCES
APPENDICES

    A. Edge-of-Stream -Nutrient Loading Factors, Land Use Acreage and
       Transport Factors ...................................... A"l
    B. Nutrient Reduction Efficiencies for Conservation Tillage and Nutrient
       Management  ......................................... B"l
    C. Rural Clean Water Program Cost Tables  ........................ C-l
    D. Examples of Animal Waste System Costs ........................ D-l
    E. Soil Conservation Farm plans ..... . ......................... E-l
    F. Nutrient Removal Efficiencies and Cost for Urban BMPs  .............. F-l
    G. Chesapeake Bay Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants  .......... G-l
    H. Planning Level retrofit Configurations .......................... H-l
    I. Planning Level Retrofit Cost Equations .........................  1-1

                                       iii

-------
                                LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                                        PaSe

Executive Summary

1.   Nonpoint Source BMP Unit Cost Ranges	  xii
2.   Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Planning Level Retrofit Unit Costs
     for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	xiv
a.   Planning Level Retrofit Unit Cost Ranges (States' Nutrient Removal Studies)  ...  xv
4.   Financial Cost Effectiveness  Ratios for Point and Nonpoint Sources Nutrient
     Removal Technologies	*	xvu>

Chapter 1

1.1  Chesapeake Bay Basin (Major Sub-basins Above the Fall Line)	3
1.2  Chesapeake Bay Basin (Major Sub-basins Below the Fall Line)	4

Chapter 2

2.1  Edge-of-Stream Nitrogen Loading Factors by Land Use Category:
     Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Base Case Scenario	  6
2.2  Edge-of-Stream Phosphorus  Loading Factors by .Land Use Category:
     Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Base Case Scenario	6
2.3  Edge-of-Stream Nutrient Reduction Efficiencies in Surface water for
     Agricultural BMPs	-  U
2.4  No-Till Reduction Efficiencies	^ .	•  13
2.5  Additional Nutrient Reductions  from Soil Conservation Erosion Controls BMPs . .  13
2.6  Conservation Tillage Edge-of-Stream Nutrient Reduction Efficiencies   	,15
2.7  Nutrient Management Scenario  Edge-of-Stream  Reduction Efficiencies	  16
2.8  Chesapeake Bay Soil Conservation Plan Regions	  25
2.9  Agricultural BMP unit Costs and Soil Conservation Plan BMP Costs for
     Typical Farms within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed	  27
2.10 Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Soil Conservation Erosion Control BMPs	  33
2.11 Cost Effectiveness Ratios and Combined BMP Soil Loss Reductions for
     Typical Farms within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed	  35
                                         IV

-------
Figure                                                                       Page

2.12  Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Nutrient Management and
      Conservation Tillage	   37
2.13  Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Animal Waste Systems  	   38
2.14  Nutrient Reduction Effectiveness of Urban BMPs  	   41
2.15  Financial Unit Costs for Urban BMPs  	   43

Chapter 3

3.1 General BNR Process Schematic	   47
3.2 BNR  Processes	•	   48
3.3 Chesapeake Bay Large Municipal WWTPs: Treatment Processes	   51
3.4 Chesapeake Bay Large Municipal WWTPs: Sun of Flows by Basin  	   52
3.5 Chesapeake Bay Large Municipal WWTPs: Flow-Weighted Annual Effluent
    Concentrations  	   53
3.6 Planning Level BNR Retrofit Unit Cost Curves: High Level Nutrient Discharge  . .   72
3.7 Planning Level BNR Retrofit Unit Cost Curves: Low Level Nutrient Discharge ...   73
3.8 Planning Level Retrofit Costs:  Year-Round Nitrogen Removal   	   75
3.9 Planning Level Retrofit Costs:  Seasonal Nitrogen Removal	   76
3.10  BNR Retrofit Cost Estimates Differences: Cost Equations vs. States'
      Cost Estimates	   78
3.11  Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Nitrogen Removal	   82
3.12  Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Phosphorus Removal  	   87

Chapter 4

4.1 Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Nonpoint Sources	   97
4.2 Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Point Sources	   98

Appendix H
                                                                        t
H-l  Low Level Nutrient Discharge (Extended Aeration) 	H-l
H-2  Low Level Nutrient Discharge (Activated Sludge)  	H-2
H-3  Low Level Nutrient Discharge (Activated Sludge with Nitrification)  	H-3
H-4  Low Level Nutrient Discharge (Fixed Film)	H-4
H-5   High Level Nutrient Discharge (Extended Aeration)	H-5

-------
Figure                                   .                                    Page

H-6   High Level Nutrient Discharge (Activated Sludge)	 H-6
H-7   High Level Nutrient Discharge (Activated Sludge with Nitrification)	H-7
H-8   High Level Nutrient Discharge (Fixed Film)  	H-8
                                         VI

-------
                                LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                 '

Chapter 2

2.1   State Agricultural BMP Cross Reference	7
2.2   State BMPs Within Pervious Land Segments(PLS) Watershed Model(Phase n) . . .  8
2.3   Financial Base Cost Ranges of Agricultural BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin  .  19
2.4   Financial Unit Costs of Agricultural BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin
      (Base plus Technical Assistance Costs)	  21
2.5   Total Financial Unit Cost of Agricultural BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin
      (Base, Technical Assistance and O&M Costs)	  22
2.6   Statistics of Examples of Animal Waste System Costs	  23
2.7   Annual Unit Costs of Erosion Control BMPs from Typical Chesapeake Bay Basin
      Soil Conservation Plans	  24
2.8   Total Annual Costs Ranges per Ton of Soil Saved for Agricultural BMPs in
      The Chesapeake Bay Basin  	  32
2.9   Longevity of Urban BMPs  	  4^

Chapter 3

3.1    Effectiveness of Point Source Nutrient Removal Technologies	  54
3.2    Comparison of BNR Process Characteristics	  54
3.3    Expected Effluent Levels:  Monthly Limit vs. Annual Average  Performance  ...  56
3.4    Blue Plains Nutrient Removal Retrofit Costs  	•  57
3.5    Maryland WWTPs Nutrient Removal Retrofit Costs	  60
3.6    Virginia WWTPs Nutrient Removal Retrofit Costs	  62
3.7    Virginia WWTPs Nutrient Removal Retrofit Costs. Alternative 3	  63
3.8    Virginia WWTPs Nutrient Removal Retrofit Costs. Alternative 4	  65
3.9    Examples of Nitrogen Removal Cost Effectiveness Ratios: Chemical Addition  . .   84
3.10  Examples of Nitrogen Removal Cost Effectiveness Ratios: Biological Removal . .   86
3.11  Annual Chemical Phosphorus Removal O&M Retrofit Costs	   89
 3.12  Chemical System Capital Costs	   89
 3.13  Chemical Phosphorus Removal Cost Effectiveness Ratios  	   90
 3.14  Examples  of Phosphorus Removal Cost Effectiveness Ratios: Chemical Addition   91
                                         Vll

-------
Table                                                                       Page

3.15  Examples of Actual Phosphorus Removal O&M Cost Effectiveness Ratios:
      Chemical Addition	.  .	  92
3.16  Examples of Phosphorus Removal Cost Effectiveness Ratios:
      Biological Removal	  93

Appendix A

A-l   Nitrogen Loading Factors: Conventional Tillage, Conservation Tillage
      and Hayland	A-l
A-2   Nitrogen Loading Factors: Pasture, Animal Waste, Forest and Urban	A-2
A-3   Phosphorus Loading Factors: Conventional Tillage, Conservation Tillage
      and Hayland	A-3
A-4   Phosphorus Loading Factors: Pasture, Animal Waste, Forest and Urban   	A-4
A-5   Nitrogen and Phosphorus Transport Factors by Segment	A-5

Appendix B

B-l   Conservation Tillage Nutrient Reduction Efficiencies  	B-l
B-2   Nutrient Management Reduction Efficiencies	B-2

Appendix C

C-l   Conestoga Headwaters (Pennsylvania): RCWP Estimated BMP Costs  	C-l
C-2   Double Pipe Creek (Maryland): RCWP Estimated BMP Costs	C-2
C-3   Appoquinimink (Delaware): RCWP Estimated BMP Costs	 C-3
C-4   Highland Silver Lake (Illinois): RCWP Estimated BMP Costs	C-4
C-5   Prairie Rose Lake (Iowa): RCWP Estimated BMP Costs	C-5
C-6   Garvin Brook RCWP (Minnesota): RCWP Estimated BMP Costs	C-6
C-7   Long Pine Creek (Nebraska): RCWP Estimated BMP Costs	 C-7
C-8   Tillamook Bay Drainage Basin (Oregon): RCWP Estimated BMP Costs	C-8
                            '
Appendix D

D-l   Examples of Evaluation of Alternatives for Dairy Manure  Management Systems . D-l
D-2   Examples of Evaluation of Alternatives for Beef Manure Management Systems  . D-2

                                       viii

-------
Table                                    ,                          '           Page

D-3   Examples of Evaluation of Alternatives for Swine Manure Management Systems  D-3
D-4   Examples of Evaluation of Alternatives for Veal Manure Management Systems  . D-4
D-5   Examples of Evaluation of Alternatives for Poultry Manure Management Systems D-5
D-6   Production and Nutrient Content of Animal Wastes  	D-6

Appendix E

E-l   Maryland Soil Conservation Farm Plans		E-l
E-2   Pennsylvania Soil Conservation Farm Plans	E-2
E-3   Virginia Soil Conservation Farm Plans	E-3
                          \                               .      :
Appendix F

F-l   Nutrient Removal Efficiencies of Urban BMPs	F-l
F-2   Unit Costs of Urban BMPs in the District of Columbia	„	F-2
F-3   Unit Costs of Urban BMPs in Maryland	F-3

Appendix G

G-l   Basin A:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	D-l
G-2   . Basin B:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-2
G-3   Basin C:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-3
G-4   Basin D:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-4
G-5   Basin E:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-5
G-6   Basin F:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-6
G-7   Basin G:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-7
G-8   Basin H:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-8
G-9   Basin I:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-9
G-10 Basin Q:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-10
G-ll Basin R:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-ll
G-12 Basin S:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-12
G-13 Basin T:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-13
G-14 Basin U:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-14
G-15 Basin W: Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-15
G-16 Basin X:  Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	G-16

                                        ix

-------
..Table                                                                          Page

Appendix I

1-1    Planning Level Retrofit Cost Equations: Seasonal TN Removal
       (Phosphate Ban Areas)	 . . . 1-1
1-2    Planning Level Retrofit Cost Equations: Seasonal TN Removal
       (Non-Phosphate Ban Areas)	1-2
1-3    Planning Level Retrofit Cost Equations: Year-Round TN Removal
       (Phosphate Ban Areas)	1-3
1-4    Planning Level Retrofit Cost Equations: Year-Round TN Removal
       (Non-Phosphate Ban Areas)	1-4

-------
                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose:

       This report is one of a series of reports prepared for the Chesapeake Bay Program
Reevaluation of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy.   This report provides  information on the
financial cost effectiveness and nutrient removal effectiveness of point and nonpoint source
technologies  in the Chesapeake Bay Basin.  The report evaluates financial costs of different
nutrient reduction technologies in a uniform way and expresses the costs on an equivalent annual
basis, so that relative comparisons can be made among nutrient removal options.

       Use of the cost information provided by this report with the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Model will allow relative cost  comparisons  of nutrient reduction scenarios to determine cost
effective strategies for point and nonpoint source nutrient reduction.  Unit costs and nutrient
reduction efficiencies presented in this report can also be used in optimization models to identify
cost effective nutrient reduction strategies.

       The report cannot be used  to calculate the absolute cost of implementation of nutrient
removal programs.  Those costs will depend on factors such as local/state/federal government
cost-share programs, schedule  of implementation etc., in addition to site-specific conditions.
Site-specific considerations can significantly affect costs and the application of nutrient removal
technologies. Potential economic benefits of nutrient reduction controls also are not evaluated
but may need to be considered.
Process and Approach:

Nonpoint Source Costs - The report focuses on the financial cost effectiveness of agricultural
Best Management Practices (BMPs). Cost and BMP longevity information have been obtained
from the Chesapeake Bay Program BMP tracking database, BMP longevity studies (Rosenthal
and Urban, 1990), and the states' BMP unit cost data.  Information also is presented  for urban
BMPs.  Capital, technical assistance, and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are expressed
on an equivalent annual basis for comparisons. Nonpoint source BMP unit costs (in equivalent
annual dollars per acre) are shown in Figure 1.
                                          XI

-------
       Figure 1.  Nonpoint Source BMJI» Unit Cost Ranges
   (a) Cropland and Pasture BMP Costs
         Equivalent Annual Costs
250 -j
200 -

10U
60
n





; f
,'/

—
nyw
Li_



T*
ff
S\
f f '.
3
fe




r-j
_ ^°

v
' ft



m

  350

  300

s250
^200 -

I 150

**100

    50

     0
      ijl Y        A *J-*        «•»**	   j—«,
TER       SED       COV      VEG        CT
                      BMP
         (b) Animal Waste Systems
           Equivalent Annual CatU
                                              -1—
                                                                               STR = Strip-cropping
                                                                               TER = Terraoei
                                                                               DIV = Diveniooi
                                                                               SED = Sediment Retention aad
                                                                                       Water Control Stricture*
                                                                               FO.  =  Filter Stripi
                                                                               COV  = CoverCropi
                                                                               GRZ  = Grazing Land Protection
                                                                               VEG  = Permanent Vegetation on
                                                                                        Critical Altai
                                                                               NM  = Nutrient Management
                                                                               CT   = Cooervatlon Tillage
                                                                               CRP  =  CoMervatiooReierve Program
                                                                               Gnued Watermy Annual Unit Cod Range:
                                                                                       $039 - $1 JO per linear foot.
                                                                               Unit com obtained from the Cheiapralff. Bay Program
                                                                                BMP Tracking data bue and state*' unit co«t data.
                                                                                Equivalent annual coiu indudet conftniction,
                                                                                planning, technical auirtance, and O&M com.
                                                                                Cott for CT and CRP are government incentive com.
                                                                     Unit cost ranges obtained from examples of animal
                                                                     waste management systems developed by
                                                                     Pennsylvania (Ritter, 1990).

                                                                     Equivalent annual costs including capital, labor
                                                                     and energy costs forcollection, storage, transport,
                                                                     and utilization of manure.

                                                                     Animal waste system costs
                                                                      (CBPO tracking database):
                                                                        Interquartile range = $1.99/ton - $3.88/ton
                                                                        Median^ $2.81/ton
                                                                        (ton = ton of manure treated)
-^    '    i^        Swtne       V«al       Poutoy
      Animal Waste Management System
    10,000


     8,000


  Si, 6,000

 "2
 .8  4,000

     2,000


          0
              (c)  Urban BMP Costs
             Equivalent Annual Costs
          Maryland
                                             PONDS
                                  District of Columbia.
                                                     SF
                                                                        Retrofits = Dry Pond-> Extended Detention/Wet Pood
                                                                                 Wet Pond- > Extended Detention
                                                                        WP=     Wet Ponds
                                                                        ED/SM=  Extended Detention/ShaUow Mxnh
                                                                        INFIL=  Initiation Trenches
                                                                        ROOF=  Rooftop Detention
                                                                        OIL=    Oil Grit Chambers
                                                                        PONDS= Ponds
                                                                        SF=     Sand Filters

                                                                        Equivaleat annual costs including construction and
                                                                        O&M costs
                                                      Xll

-------
Point Source Costs - The focus is on the financial cost effectiveness of upgrading municipal
wastewater  treatment plants (WWTPs) for  nutrient removal.   Based  on  earlier  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) studies (Hazen and Sawyer Engineers and J. M. Smith
and Associates,  1988),  planning level  cost equations have been developed for retrofitting
WWTPs for two sets  of effluent levels  (TN*=8.0 mg/l,TP'=2.0  mg/1;  and TN=3.0
mg/l,TP=0.5 mg/1) on a seasonal and annual basis. Capital and O&M costs are expressed in
equivalent annual dollars.  Unit cost data ($/mgd/year) from these equations are depicted in
Figure 2. Figure 3 shows retrofit planning level unit  cost ranges from planning level studies
prepared for Maryland (Beavin Co., Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., and Metcalf & Eddy Inc.,
1989), Virginia (CH2M-HILL, 1989) and the District of Columbia (Greeley and Hansen,  1989;
and McName, Porter, and Seeley Engineers/Architects, 1990).

Nutrient Removal - Watershed Model runs will determine nutrient removals for  BMP
implementation scenarios.  Nutrient removal for each scenario is the difference between the
loads generated by that scenario and the "Base Case" model run.  Relative cost comparisons of
scenarios will be made by comparing the product of unit costs (e.g. Figures 1-3) and acres put
under BMPs, plus cumulative costs to retrofit WWTPs for each scenario.

Cost Effectiveness - Cost effectiveness is defined as the ratio of the cost per pound of pollutant
removed per year. It may be expressed in several ways depending on the scale of analysis. For
instance, cost effectiveness  can be  expressed for individual nutrient  reduction controls, or
combination of controls  ("Resource  Management Systems"),  or basin-wide management
scenarios.

Findings and Conclusions:

Based on the cost effectiveness information presented  in this report, and other aspects related
to the implementability of point and nonpoint source nutrient reduction controls, the following
conclusions are presented for the nonpoint and point source nutrient reduction controls examined
in this study:

Nonpoint Sources

•     BMP cost effectiveness should not be judged only on individual BMP nutrient reduction
       performance, but rather on combinations of BMPs or "Resource Management Systems"
       that together more effectively reduce the pollutant loads.

 * TN *= Total Nitrogen
   TP ** Total Phosphorus                    xiii

-------
              Figure 2.  Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Planning Level Retrofit Unit Costs
                              for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants *
                                     (a) High Level Nutrient Discharge
            TP=2.0 mg/1; TN=8.0 mg/l(SeasonaI)
  TP=2.0 mg/1; TN=8.0 mg/l(Year-Round)
350 -I
280-
210
140 -
70 •
n .
L
v^t:

	 PtortTyp* '
FF-RxedRhl
AS'AdvatadStudg*
AaN»AS + NWIe«lon
EA- Extended Aerrtcn


7UU -
600 •
^500
|f 400
I"!300 "
** 200
100 •
0-
I

PtetTypt
FF*RndFlm
AS« Activated Ckidgt
AS/N « AS * Mbfficifion

^IT8"
                    10      IS      20
                     Design Flow (mgd)
                                        25     30
           10
             Design Flow (mgd)
                                      (b) Low Level Nutrient Discharge
   700
         TP=0.5 mg/1; TN=3.0 mg/l(Seasonal)
                                  PlrtTyp.

                               FF'RxedFkn
                               AS»Ac«v«Kidaudoe
                    10     15     20
                     Design Flow (mgd)
TP=0.5 mg/1; TN=3.0 mg/l(Year-Round)
            10     15      20     25
              Design Flow (mgd)
* Adapted from: Hazen and Sawyer Engineers and J.M Smith and Associates (1988).
                                                       XIV

-------
     Figure 3. Planning Level Retrofit Unit Cost Ranges
                  (States' Nutrient Removal Studies)
                     (a) Nitrogen Removal
                TN = 7.0-8.0 mg/1 (Annual Average)
450,000 -I
400,000 •
350,000 -
g 300,000 -
•9 250,000 -
M
a
j- 200,000 -
150,000 -
100,000 •








max
,'/' ' /
"• '„'?.
' S <• ' J /
••"' ,:,
\ - /'-
' < ',
fn^n



median











J°>(™ Chemical Addition BNR
BNR - Biological Nitrogen Removal
               (b) Phosphorus Removal
          TP= 0.1-2.0 mg/1 (Annual Average)
250,000 -|
200,000 -
g 150,000 -
1
-C 100,000 •
50

0 -



TP = 1^

5-2.0 mg/1
, ' ,
".«"„:.,



f f t
i
f

TP = 0.10 -0.18 mg/1
(O&M co&a only)



TP= 1.5-2.0 mg/1

                                         BPR
BPR = Biological Fbosphonu Removal
                             XV

-------
In-field BMPs that reduce runoff and sediment, such as terraces and conservation tillage,
can increase  infiltration, thus increasing the potential of pollutant leaching into the
groundwater. Conservation tillage may increase the concentration of pollutants in the soil
surface.   Therefore,  any reductions achieved through surface runoff and sediment
reductions may be offset by the increase in pollutant concentrations and the potential
leaching of pollutants into the groundwater (Heatwole, et al., 1991).   However, with
nutrient management (i.e.  proper fertilizer  application rates,  timing, and methods)
nutrient losses to both surface waters and groundwater can be reduced.  This accounts
for the favorable cost effectiveness ratios for nutrient management.

Results of the watershed model show nutrient management to be the most cost effective
(Figure 4-a).   Also, from  field-scale research  studies,  nutrient  management  in
combination with in-field BMPs such as strip-cropping, conservation tillage, and winter
cover crops (where appropriate) have been found cost effective management alternatives
for nutrient reduction.

Winter cover crops have been found very effective in removing excess nitrates during the
non-growing season after the main crop harvest.  Excess nitrates accumulated in the soil
may be significant after dry periods during the growing season.

Edge-of-field BMPs that reduce pollutant delivery into streams may be required for cases
where nutrient loads are high due to increased runoff concentrations and sediment loads
in large fields with long slope lengths.  Some of these BMPs are structural BMPs such
as erosion or water control structures,  or non-structural  BMPs such  as filter strips,
riparian zones, etc.  However,  structural BMPs are often expensive (see Figure 1-a), and
despite the cost-share money available, implementation of these can result in a negative
net field income (Hamlett and Epp,  1991).  Also, despite the benefits of some of these
structural BMPs in decreasing the sediment loads delivered into the streams, they should
be accompanied by an in-field BMP to protect against severe soil losses that can have
detrimental effects on the long term productivity of the fields.

Conversion of highly credible land (HEL) to permanent vegetation has been shown to be
cost effective since it can considerably reduce sediment, runoff, and nutrient loads.
                                   xvi

-------
       Figure 4.  Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Point and Nonpoint Source
                                   Nutrient Removal Technologies
                                               (Interquartile Ranges)
                        Nitrogen
                                               (a) Nonpoint Sources

                                            -,75%De
f
|20 •
i -4C
l"
!
•9 ir
r
** 0




t-^d

,""^




'' ' /
'' „''?'





uyj^,^ CooKmlioo Animil Wuto Synems Aninul WtMe
Muureoeot >™««e + Nutrient M«mgen>ent Syttean
Phosphorus
a120 1
s
o
8 100 •
£ 80 •
60 •
•0 y(n
cu 4U
•s
I "
4" n






/ ff "





£*" \
'* S t '
f'tf '.
' fsS :





: ,>i
/'/' ,':
'?*••
&'>i
, f






m
u Nutrient CoMervatioE Anhnil WuK Syitenu Animil Wu«
Mtnigement TOkte + Nutrient Muugemcnt SyfUU
Wtunhcd Model).
                                             BMP cort divided by the pound, of nitrogen or phoiphonii removed per ye«.
                                                             Nutrient Re^v.1. m « U,e cdgex-f--^ (Che-peake B.y
                                                (b)  Point Sources
                          Nitrogen
                                            325*3.
to-
£ »•
C 6 •
8
•g -
1*
0






: ' <





''..„ S-.
;*?•
. . s_.A.






BNR Chemical Addition
                                                             20
                                                             15
                                                             10
                                                                                Phosphorus
                                                                            BPR
                                                                                        Chemical Addition
                                                     nt for nitrogen removal divided by the pounds of nitrogen removed per year.
                                                   . annualized cort for phofphonn removal divided by the pounds of phosphorus
                                                   The information shown in these figures came from the states' nutrient removal
 naront itudiei for municipal WWTPi and »me exiiting fetroGU in Maryland
                                                            xvu

-------
      Animal waste has been identified as a significant contributor of nutrient loads. Animal
      waste management systems should be considered important components of "Resource
      Management Systems." Proper design of animal waste facilities, including collection,
      storage, and transport, together with  waste utilization will make these facilities cost
      effective (Figures 4-a).  Figure  1-b  shows that animal waste management systems
      including collection, storage, transport and labor costs, can be expensive. Nevertheless,
      experiences from thermal Clean Water Program (U.S. EPA,  1990) projects show that
      there also are simple cost effective measures such as  keeping animals away from the
      streams, controlling animal waste runoff, and protecting riparian areas.

      For urban BMPs, wide ranges of cost effectiveness ratios have been reported in the
      literature.  Mostly, these ratios are higher than those shown in  Figure 4, suggesting that
      they are the least cost effective controls for nutrient removal.  However,  urban BMPs
      have other important functions, such as aesthetics, water quantity control, and removal
      of petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals.
Point Sources
       Biological Phosphorus Removal (BPR) can be a cost effective alternative for phosphorus
       removal (Figure 4-b).  It has potential for cost  savings in chemical use and sludge
       handling. However, site-specific economic evaluations as well as the reliability of this
       technology for each plant should be carefully investigated. Also, it is important to point
       out that plants implementing BPR technologies may need chemical phosphorus removal
       facilities as a backup for permit compliance or when the effluent requirements are below
       l.Omg/1.

       Biological Nitrogen Removal has been found cost effective.  Full-scale retrofits of
       WWTPs  have supported this finding. However, planning level studies show, for certain
       facilities, that chemical addition (methanol) also can be cost effective.  Therefore, the
       selection  of chemical addition vs. Biological Nitrogen Removal without the use of
       chemicals would depend on site specific constraints.

       Seasonal  nitrogen removal appears more cost effective than annual removal.  Costs can
       significantly increase for annual removal (see Figure 2) because at lower temperatures
       biological activity is reduced.  Therefore,  longer wastewater retention times are needed
       requiring larger reactor tank sizes, thereby increasing costs.  In addition, selection of the
                                         xvui

-------
months for seasonal nitrogen removal and the permit compliance period can have a
significant impact on the retrofit designs and therefore the costs associated with meeting
the required effluent limitations.

Regulatory  measures such as  the phosphate detergent ban have proven to be cost
effective. Due to lower influent phosphorus levels to WWTPs, the chemical use required
to meet the effluent level limitations and the amount of sludge created will decrease.
Reduction in sludge and chemical use for phosphorus removal can significantly decrease
the O&M costs in a WWTP.  Another example of a regulatory measure being suggested
is the adoption of permitting approaches such  as the "bubble concept" (Virginia Retrofit
Study) where  the combined nutrient discharge of a group of plants are also regulated
within  a tributary,  basin,  etc.   This approach would  allow flexibility in  the
implementation of the most cost effective nutrient removal alternatives to a subset of
plants within  the "bubble".  Nevertheless, individual permit limitations would still be
required according  to a careful examination of the quality of the receiving waters.
                                    xix

-------
                                1. INTRODUCTION
       The purpose of this report is to provide information on the financial cost and nutrient
removal  effectiveness of point and nonpoint source nutrient removal  technologies in the
Chesapeake Bay basin.  This information can be used by the states to evaluate the cost and
effectiveness of a mix of point and nonpoint source nutrient reduction controls.  Financial costs
developed in this report can be used with the watershed model  to evaluate the cost and
effectiveness of  nutrient reduction management scenarios.  Unit cost and nutrient reduction
efficiencies presented in this report can also be used in optimization models to identify cost
effective nutrient reduction strategies.

       This report cannot prdvide the most cost effective nutrient reduction alternative for a
particular farm,  wastewater treatment  plant  (WWTP)  or  watershed.   Other  economic
considerations, the site specific applicability of technologies, the quality of receiving  waters,
etc., may be important issues for the states to consider in their selection of nutrient reduction
alternatives.

       For nonpoint sources, the report focuses  on the  financial cost and nutrient removal
effectiveness of agricultural Best Management Practices  (BMPs).   For point sources, the focus
is on the financial cost and effectiveness of upgrading municipal WWTPs for nutrient removal.
In the Chesapeake Bay the contribution of nutrient loads from agriculture is large (about 40%
of the nitrogen and 50% of the phosphorus of the total nutrient load into the Bay). On the other
hand, urban nonpoint source nutrient loads contribute about 8%  for phosphorus and  9% for
nitrogen.  Forest loads comprise about 19% of the nitrogen and 3% of the phosphorus entering
the Bay (Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report #1, 1992).
Total point sources are approximately 23% of the nitrogen and 34% of the phosphorus loads.
Approximately 90% of the point source nutrients come from municipal WWTPs (Chesapeake
Bay Program, 1988).

       This report compiles  information from various recent sources.  The Chesapeake Bay
Program Scientific and  Technical Advisory Committee report (STAC,  1987) describes the
available point and nonpoint source nutrient reduction technologies. A recent description of point
source nutrient removal technologies and their effectiveness was presented in the Chesapeake
Bay Program Reevaluation  of the  Nutrient Reduction Strategy Report #7 (VWCB-1991).
Effectiveness of nonpoint source nutrient reduction technologies is evaluated with the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Model which uses the FJ»A HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program - Fortran)
computer program.   Also,  background information on agricultural BMP  efficiencies was

                                          1

-------
summarized in two reports (Gasman, 1990 and Camacho, 1990) by the Interstate Commission
on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB).

      This report is divided into two major sections: Nonpoiht Source Nutrient Reduction
Technologies, and Point Source Nutrient Reduction Technologies.  The nonpoint source section
summarizes BMP financial costs for the Chesapeake Bay Basin (Figures  1.1 and 1.2).  A
synthesis of the nonpoint source nutrient reduction efficiencies is presented.  Also, the cost and
effectiveness of some states' small watershed demonstration projects are summarized.

      The second  major section  summarizes  the  cost of point  source nutrient removal
technologies. This section is subdivided into three parts: 1 ) States' nutrient removal retrofit
studies, which summarize the estimated costs of retrofitting several selected municipal WWTPs
for nutrient removal; 2 ) Planning level estimates for retrofitting municipal WWTPs based on
the Hazen  and  Sawyer Engineers and  J.M.  Smith and Associates (1988) report prepared for
EPA. Retrofit cost equations are provided for the two sets of retrofit effluent levels: TN  = 8.0
mg/1, TP = 2.0 mg/1; and TN = 3.0 mg/1, and TP  = 0.5 mg/1.  Also, retrofit cost equations
are given for these effluent limitations on a seasonal or annual basis (year-round); and 3  ) Cost
and effectiveness of some of Maryland's nutrient removal WWTPs in operation are presented.

-------
                                East Branch Susquehanna
  Figure 1.1 Chesapeake Bay Basin
       Major Sub-basins
       (Above the Fall Line)
West Branch Susquehanna
                                             Lower Susquehanna
           Juniata
                                              Lower Susquehanns
                                                     &
      Potomac
James

-------
Figure 1.2 Chesapeake Bay Basin
      Major Sub-basins
      (Below the Fall Line)
                                                           Bohemia
          /      f Potomac
          Anacostla
                                                                      WJccnico
        Chickahominy
                                                                  N
                                             Bizabeth

-------
        2. NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
      This section summarizes  the nutrient reduction effectiveness and financial costs of
nonpoint source Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Chesapeake Bay basin.  Summary
and description of  nonpoint source BMPs can be found in: "Available Technology for the
Control of Nutrient Pollution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed"  (STAC,  1987).  Nutrient
loading  and BMP nutrient  reduction  efficiencies  are  obtained from  the  Chesapeake  Bay
Watershed Model and previous studies on BMP efficiencies.  Sources for the development of
the financial costs included the Chesapeake Bay  agricultural  cost-share program tracking
database, the National Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) projects, and states' BMP unit cost
data including  planning and technical assistance costs.
2.1    Chesapeake Bay Basin Nutrient Loading Factors

       The edge-of-stream nutrient loading factors (pounds of nitrogen or phosphorus per acre
per year) for each land use category and segment were obtained from  the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed  Model Base Case Scenario  (CBPO,  1992).  Tables A^l to  A-4  (Appendix A)
summarizes the loading factors for all the Chesapeake Bay Watershed segments shown in Figure
1.1 and 1.2. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 depict the ranges of nutrient loading factors for each land use
category calculated from the tables of Appendix A. Animal waste loading  factors are in pounds
per manure acre (one manure acre represents a density of 150 animals).

     Table A-5  shows the transport  factors for each segment from the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model Base Case Scenario.   Transport factors are used to determine the amount of
the edge-of-stream nutrient load that reaches the fall line.
2.2    Chesapeake Bay Basin Agricultural BMPs

       Table 2.1 shows a summary of the agricultural BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay basin for
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The BMP classification and cross reference codes were
developed by the Nutrient Reduction Task Force (NRTF) of the Nonpoint Source Subcommittee
of the Chesapeake Bay Program.  Similarly, Table 2.2 shows a classification of these BMPs by
the groups selected by the NRTF for  use  in the Chesapeake Bay  watershed model.  For
modeling purposes, the Nutrient Management (NM) and Farm Plan BMPs (FP) were defined by
the NRTF as follows:

-------
      figure 2.1  Edge-of-Stream Nitrogen Loading Factors by Land Use Category
                  Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Base Case Scenario -.
1
g>10
                    Nitrogen
                                           7S*ile
                    =f


    Conv'lTUl        Hay         Urban
          Conserv'n Till     Pasture        Forest
                                                                    Nitrogen
                                                             2800
                                                             2600
                                                             2400
                                                           §2200
                                                           -5
                                                           "s
                                                           5=2000
                                                             1800
                                                              1600
                                                                    Animal Waste
      Figure 2.2  Edge-of-Stream Phosphorus Loading Factors by Land Use Category
                  Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Base Case Scenario
 I
 &
 60
                  Phosphorus
     Conv'lTill        Hay
          Conserv'n Till      Pasture         Forest
                                                                     Phosphorus
3 -

3

-



-
n .













; •"
,.
"—I







'
,•



















:**,*



— d





»„,,,•



b —


















'•!/
.,
J







* ^ ;
f*:
i



•



1
i ..,......X........j
BJBi ^^ _
jju
500
3.™
o 450
?
§_
^
s

350

300













J^*?
'.'''.'...
f f *







'v;<

'* 4\





-------
Table 2.1 State Agricultural BMP Gross Reference ||
BMP

Crooland Protection
In Field:
Strip-cropping
Buffer Strip-cropping
Terrace System
Sod Waterways
Protective Cover for
Specialty Crops
No-till Cropland
Legume Cover Crop
1 Contour Farming
Minimum-till Cropland
Field Wind Breaks
Edge of Field:
Diversions
Sediment Retention, Erosion,
or Water Control Structures
Grass Filter Strips

Water Control Structures
Woodland Buffer Filter Area
Pasture/Grazine Land Protection
No-till Pasture and Hayland
Grazing land Protection
Intensive Rotational Grazing
Systems
Spring Development,
Trough/Tank.
Stream Protection
Stream Bank Protection
Vegetative Stabilization

of Marsh Fringe Areas
Nutrient Management (NM)
Small Grain Cover Crop for NM
Animal Waste Control Structure
Soil and Manure Analysis
Transport of Excess Manure
Fertilizer Management
Nutrient Management
ILand Conversion
Permanent Vegetative Cover
of Critical Areas
Reforestation of Erodible
Crop and Pastureland
Conservation Reserve Program
Forest Land Protection
Woodland Erosion Stabilization

Code


SL-3

SL-4
WP-3

. SL-8
SL-15

SL-13
SL-14
SL-7
SL-5
WP-1
WC-1
SL-11





SCS382



SL-6

WP-2





WP-4
SCS680

SCS680
NM


SL-11

SL-11
CRP


Pennsylvania
Code


BMP-3

BMP-4
BMP-7

BMP-8
BMP-9


BMP-9

BMP-5
BMP-12







BMP-6





BMP-10





BMP-2
BMP-13
BMP-14
BMP-15
BMP-16

BMP-1
BMP-11


CRP


Virsinia
Code


SL-3
SL-3B
SL-*
WP-3

SL-8
SL-15
WQ-4



SL-5
WP-1

WQ-1
WQ-2
WQ-5
FR-3

SL-1
SL-6

WQ-3



WP-2

err i 11
*" 	

SL-8B
WP-4
NMP
NMP
NMP
NMP


SL-11
I
FR-1
CRP

FR-4 J

-------
Table 2.2 State BMPs Within Pervious Land Segments (PLS). Watershed Model (Phase II)
BMP
1-Conventional Tillage
2-Conservation Tillage
No-till Cropland
Minimum-till Cropland
3-Conventional Tillage with NM
Fertilizer Management
Nutrient Management Plans
Soil and Manure Analyiii
Small Grain Cover Crop for NM
Legume Cover Crop
^-Conservation Tillage with NM
Fertilizer Management
Nutrient Management Plani
No-till Cropland
Minimum-till Cropland
Soil and Manure Analysis
Small Grain Cover Crop for NM
Legume Cover Crop
S-Conventional Tillage with NM and FP
6-Conservation Tillage with NM and FP
PLS 3 or 4 BMPs, plus:
Strip-cropping
Buffer Strip-cropping
Contour Farming
Terrace Systems
Sod Waterways
Diversions
Sediment Retention, Erosion,
or Water Control Structures
Water Control Structure
Grass Filter Strips
Protective Cover for Specialty Crops
Field Wind Breaks
7-Havland with NM
8-Havland wilh NM and FP
9-Pasture
Permanent Veg. Cover on Critical Areas
Conservation Reserve Program
10-Forest
Woodland Buffer Filter Area
Reforestation of Erodible
Crop&Pastureland
Conservation Reserve Program
11-Mamire Acres
Animal Waste Control Structure
Transport of Excess Manure
Maryland


SL-15
SL-14

SCS680
SCS680
- -SCS680



SCS680
SCS680
SL-15
SL-14
SCS680





SL-3

SL-I3
SL-4
WP-3
SL-5
WP-1
WC-1

SL-11
SL-8
SL-7
Pennsylvania


BMP-9
BMP-9

BMP-IS
BMP-16
..BMP-13



BMP-IS
BMP-16
BMP-9
BMP-9
BMP-13





BMP-3


BMP-4
BMP-7
BMP-5

BMP-12


BMP-8

Virginia

•.
SL-15


NMP
NMP
NMP
SL-8B
W(M

NMP
NMP
SL-15

NMP
SL-8B
WQ-4



SL-3
SL-3B

SL-4
WP-3
SL-5

WP-1
WQ-5
WQ-1
SL-8
WQ-2
same as in PLS-4
same as in PLSs 5 andfi

SL-11
CRP



SL-11
CRP

WP-4

BMP-1
BMP-11
CRP




CRP

BMP-2
BMP-14

SL-11
CRP

FR-3

FR-1
CRP

WP-4
NMP
NM = Nutrient Management
FP «• Farm Plan
CRP = Conservation Reserve Program
                                                      8

-------
Nutrient Management - A management practice that provides recommendations on optimum
nutrient application rates, nutrient application times, and nutrient application methods based on
soil and manure analysis results and expected crop yields.

Farm Plan - For the purposes of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, a resource management
system for a farm consisting of soil conservation erosion controls for cropland.  These controls
may include:  contour farming, strip-cropping, terraces, cover crops, grassed waterways, filter
strips, diversions, and sediment retention, erosion, or water control structures. The "Farm Plan"
does not include conservation tillage and nutrient management which are covered in other
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model BMP categories.
2.3    Nutrient Reduction Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs

       This section provides a summary of the edge-of-field nutrient reduction effectiveness of
agricultural BMPs compiled by Camacho (1990) from research studies.  In addition, nutrient
reduction efficiencies  at  the  edge-of-stream for BMPs  modeled by the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model are summarized. The edge-of-field nutrient reduction efficiencies have been
presented to provide modelers with some background information on the expected edge-of-field
nutrient reduction efficiencies of the BMP groups simulated  by  the model.   Some of this
information has been used for modeling certain BMP scenarios.  Ultimately, evaluation of basin-
wide agricultural BMP nutrient reductions is performed by simulation of different BMP scenarios
with the Chesapeake Bay  Watershed  Model.

2.3.1   Edge-of-Field BMP Effectiveness Reported in Research  Studies

        Edge-of-field BMP nutrient reduction efficiencies based on small watershed research
 studies, field plots, and CREAMS modeling were reported by Camacho (1990). The efficiencies
 were calculated as: Efficiency(%) = [1 -post-BMP/pre-BMPJxlOO v/h&r&pre-BMP is the nutrient
 load before BMP installation or base case and post-BMP is the nutrient load after BMP
 installation. Although over 150 sets of efficiencies were reported from over 30 research studies,
 this was insufficient to accurately characterize BMP nutrient reduction efficiencies in both
 groundwater and surface waters  for some regions in the Chesapeake Bay basin.  Nevertheless,
 the study provided valuable information to modelers on the expected edge-of-field BMP nutrient
 reduction efficiencies and the expected nutrient reduction capabilities of the BMP groups were
 confirmed.

-------
 ,  Some of the important factors to be considered when examining the BMP nutrient reduction
efficiencies from this study are:
                                                                   j
    •   Many studies focused on short term efficiencies from single rainfall events.
        Therefore, extrapolation of these efficiencies to annual or long term efficiencies
        is questionable due to annual hydrologic, crop, and farm activity changes within
        a year.

    •   Many studies were carried out in small field plots using artificial rainfall. Use
        of artificial rainfall in small field plots may not represent actual field conditions.

    •   Sampling techniques may be different for each study which make  comparisons
        between studies difficult.

    •   Studies analyzing BMP  nutrient reduction efficiencies from a combination of
        BMPs are usually the result of mathematical modeling. Unless the models are
        properly calibrated, efficiencies derived can only be considered  at best to be
        educated guesses.

    •   In general there was a lack of research studies analyzing both surface and
        groundwater nutrient changes.

        With the acknowledgement of the limitations described above, Figure 2.3 shows ranges
 of literature values for nutrient reduction efficiencies in surface water runoff for selected groups
 of BMPs. Again, the nutrient reduction efficiencies were derived from a variety of research
 studies and the efficiencies are at the edge-of-field (Camacho, 1990).  Figure 2.3 shows that
 nutrient management, when accompanied by soil conservation BMPs such as conservation tillage
 or any other erosion control BMP under the  "farm plan" category,  is effective in reducing
 nutrient loss to surface water.

        Figure 2.4 gives interquartile  ranges of nutrient,  runoff and soil  loss reduction
 efficiencies in surface and groundwater for no-tillage.  From this figure, it can be concluded that
 reduction  in soil loss is effective in reducing  phosphorus as  the transport of sediment-bound
 phosphorus decreases.  Reduction in runoff results in a reduction in the transport of dissolved
 nutrient in surface waters. However, leaching of nitrates reduces the efficiencies in groundwater
 as shown by the interquartile range of -9% to 18% for total  nitrogen in groundwater.  Also,
 conservation tillage may increase the concentration of nutrients hi the soil surface (and therefore

                                            10

-------
Figure 2.3 Edge-of-Field Nutrient Reduction Efficiencies in Surface Water
            for Agricultural JSMPs (Literature Values)
                      Nitrogen
100 -r
•
90 -
80 -
/"•\
^ 70 -
$ (0:
O 50 -
§ jn
•s *°.
«C "
m „,
*" 20 -
.2 10 -
o 0
•3
£.,0-
-20 -
-i/l



















;>

,
•'













,'-;
X
. -^








-1















82








•^7
' ,






	 — __
1

1 p?fe^_

t^ipj
_L

f s '•

\m




-314
                                                   CNT=Conventional Tillage
                                                   CST=Connervstion Tillage
                                                   NM='Nutrient Management
                                                   FP=Farm Plan
          CST            CST+NM         CST+NM+FP
                CNT+NM        CNT+NM +FP
                        Phosphorus
100 -r
90 -
80 -
» 70-
.23 ,,,
o oo -
g'
— 50 -
Si ^A
iti "°:
WJ 30 -
C 20
t3 10 -i
9
3 °"

-20 -
-30 -
-All .













-]

f
f
' f











f j.
"",'








-2C












)4





X,J'
"^
/*
'•:









,/'',
t ff
fT,
*}
/,

f


-i:
-J=-
^
; ^^
	 i 	 mmm 	
mm...... .








J7
                                                    CNT=Conventional Tillage
                                                    CST^Conservation Tillage
                                                    NM=Nutrient Management
                                                    FP=Fann Plan
          CST
                 CNT+NM        CNT+NM+FP
                                     11

-------
in surface runoff), offsetting any reductions achieved by the reduction in runoff volume. For
instance, Heatwole et al. (1991) reported from Erbach (1982), that the concentration  of
phosphorus in a no-till corn-soybean rotation was 67% higher than in a conventional tillage field.

       From the literature review on BMP efficiencies (Camacho, 1990), it was concluded that
adding soil erosion control BMPs to conventional tillage with or without nutrient management
can reduce the amount of nutrient loss to surface water.  However, although there is a net
improvement in the nutrient reductions efficiencies in surface water, the efficiency for nitrogen
in groundwater decreased by an average of 10 percentage points when adding these practices.
This decrease in surface water may be due to the increase in the leaching of nitrates into the
groundwater.  It was also shown that adding soil conservation erosion controls BMPs (such as:
terraces, contouring, waterways, etc.) slightly increases the nutrient reduction efficiency. This
is mainly because conservation tillage with nutrient management has already accounted for most
of the nutrient reduction. However, this conclusion does not diminish the importance of erosion
control BMPs.  For instance, a large field with long slopes may require an erosion control BMP,
in addition to conservation tillage and nutrient management, if there is a severe erosion problem.
In such cases, other erosion control BMPs may be necessary and can significantly improve the
efficiencies above those obtained only with conservation tillage and nutrient management.

       Figure 2.5  shows  the  additional  nutrient  reductions above  no-till  with  nutrient
management when adding soil conservation erosion control BMPs.  The additional reductions
in nutrient loads are expressed as a percentage of the conventional tillage load. These reductions
were summarized by  Camacho  (1990) from CREAMS  modeling in four major subbasins in
Pennsylvania by Shirmohammadi and Shoemaker (1988) and field plot simulations in Virginia
reported by  Ross et  al.  (1990).   BMPs analyzed included contour tillage,  strip-cropping,
diversions, grassed waterways and filter strips. From this figure, it is observed that the addition
of these BMPs can slightly increase the nutrient load reductions.
2.3.2  Basin-Scale Agricultural BMP Effectiveness

       This section describes the nutrient reduction effectiveness for agricultural BMPs obtained
by the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. Results of the watershed model are summarized for
the conservation tillage and nutrient management BMPs.  Nutrient reduction efficiencies are
calculated at the edge of stream for each of the watershed model segments of the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed (Figure 1.1 and 1.2).
                                          12

-------
                  Figure 2.4  No-till Reduction Efficiencies*

                -20
                      TN-SW
                                                               75*Be
                                  Reduction Efficiencies
                                  (Interquartile Ranges)
                                   median
                                                               25%ile
                              TN-GW
                                     TN-SW&GW
                       RUNOFF
                TP-SW            SOE,
             TN= Total Nitrogen
             TP= Total Phosphorus
           SOEL= Soil Loss Reduction
         SW=  Surface water
         GW=  Groundwater
         Figure 2.5  Additional Nutrient Reductions from Soil Conservation
                     Erosion Control BMPs
                         Reduction Above No-Till&Nutrient Mgmt
                       PA-A
 PA-E    PA-C     PA-F
Ei Nitrogen   M Phosphorus
                                                            VA-RS
         PA-A to F Creams Model Runs in Pennsylvania (Shirmohammadi & Shoemaker, 1988)
          VA-RS = Virginia Rainfall Simulator Studies (Ross etal., 1990)

* Source: Agricultural BMP Nutrient Reduction Efficiencies:
 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model BMPs (Camacho, 1990)
                                             13

-------
2.3.2.1 Conservation Tillage

       Table 6-1 (Appendix  B) shows a list of the nutrient  reduction efficiencies  for
conservation tillage from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model.  Figure 2.6 depicts the ranges
of nutrient reduction efficiencies from Table B-l.  From this figure, it is observed that the
ranges for nitrogen and phosphorus are similar but the median for phosphorus is higher (about
25%) than nitrogen (about 20%). Nitrogen reduction efficiencies ranged from about 2% to 32%
with interquartile values of  17%  to 23%.  It is  noted that edge-of-field efficiencies from
research studies for no-till shown in  Figure 2.4 are close to the high end of this range.
                                                                   !
       Li general,  conservation tillage has been found to be an attractive BMP for farmers, with
many studies reporting net increases in farm income (Epp and Hamlett, 1990). Conservation
tillage has been found in most cases to be cost effective because it can reduce production costs
as well as increase the soils long-term productivity and yield (Heatwole, et al. 1991). On the
other hand, other edge-of-field structural erosion control BMPs (such as sediment ponds) with
higher costs, usually reduce the farm income  despite the availability of high cost-share rates (Epp
and Hamlett, 1991).  Moreover, although these structural BMPs can significantly reduce the
sediment delivered to streams, they do not stop erosion from the fields.  This must be controlled
by an in-field erosion control BMP.
2.3.2.2 Nutrient Management

       Table B-2  (Appendix B) shows the nutrient reduction  efficiencies  for the nutrient
management scenario simulated by the Watershed Model.  Figure 2.7 shows the ranges of
nutrient reduction  efficiencies  from this table.  The ranges shown in Figure 2.7 reflect the
regional impacts on different nutrient applications rates and changes throughout the basin.

2.3.3  Summary

       Agricultural BMP nutrient reduction efficiencies from the literature, as well as nutrient
reduction  efficiencies for conservation tillage and nutrient  management modeled by the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, have been summarized.  Edge-of-field efficiencies shown
in Section 2.3.1 should be used with caution.  Limitations on the use of these numbers has been
summarized earlier, and again it is important to note that the efficiencies were obtained from a
variety of field and modeling research studies in different physiographic regions under different
BMP installation conditions. BMP efficiencies for a particular physiographic region, crop, soil,

                                          14

-------
Figure 2.6  Conservation Tillage Edge-of-Stream Nutrient Reduction Efficiencies
           Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
           is
            g
           •§
Nitrogen
P
D •
n
0 •
c
0 •
u -
r
u
•
•



•, <- •• x-w ,. ^_ * ' ••
f ' f






1:^:-:-
I


" 75»ifc
Mroedkn
:•;<*:•>!
5n








              40
            T
            «20
               15
                           Phosphorus
                                15

-------
figure 2.7 Nutrient Management Edge-of-Stream Reduction Efficiencies
          Watershed Model Nutrient Management Scenario
60

£
4U •
'§
g
f°
10 -







0.


Nitrogen


••

'
, A : x.
1
Conv'l Till









-Y ;-4
- %





Ts
~ 7S*iIe
in
[
•• ffft ff \
' " I











Conserv'n Till Hay
                         Phosphorus
en


.§30
S
W
.« '
1







	



•

- 4-sQ..
s/ •, '••IJ'v


Conv'l TiU




, , >'''"' ' '









T
'
' •'/,



>''%.
"&
-*/|








Conserv'n Till Hay
                              16

-------
fertilizer application, and period of simulation should be examined from each particular study
summarized by Camacho  (1990).  Although it is very difficult to generalize the efficiencies
shown in the last sections for all regions in  the Chesapeake Bay basin, there  are some
conclusions that can be drawn from these efficiencies which agree with most of the findings of
current studies on BMP effectiveness:
        Nutrient management together with soil conservation erosion control BMPs are
        effective in reducing the total nutrient loads from the field for both surface
        waters and groundwater.

       Erosion control BMPs reducing, both runoff and sediment leaving the field reduce
       the transport of sedinient-bound pollutants.  In particular, where transport of
       sediment attached phosphorus  is  the main path for the  phosphorus losses,
       significant phosphorus reductions can be achieved.

        Although erosion control BMPs reduce both  the runoff and the transport of
        sediment-bound pollutants,  they can increase  infiltration, causing  a potential
        increase in the transport of soluble nutrients into groundwater.  In particular,
        nitrate losses can increase,  offsetting the nitrogen reduction achieved through
        erosion control BMPs that reduce surface runoff.  This is one of the reasons
        that nutrient management should be couple with erosion control  BMPs.
2.4 Financial Costs of Agricultural BMPs

       This section summarizes the financial costs for agricultural BMPs. In Table 2.5, total
BMP financial costs are expressed in equivalent annual dollars per acre benefitted ($/acre/year).
Total costs include planning, technical assistance and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

       The costs do not include potential cost savings to the farmer or other economic benefits.
Therefore, besides the financial costs  there are other factors that need to be considered to allow
proper selection of BMPs.   Such factors may include changes in farm  income, suitability of
different BMPs for a particular physiographic region,  cost-share  rates, and other site-specific
constraints.
                                           17

-------
2.4.1  Financial Base Costs for BMPs

       Financial base costs for BMPs were obtained from the total cost-share costs compiled by
the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBPO) BMP tracking database.  Costs in the tracking system
do not include planning, technical assistance and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs which
are discussed in the following sections.  From these data, the cost, acres benefitted, and the
erosion reduced in tons per year were obtained for each BMP.  This information was also
supplemented with the states' BMP cost tables.  Table 2.3 shows the interquartile BMP unit base
cost ranges for Agricultural BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin.
2.4.2  Planning and Technical Assistance Costs

       Besides the BMP installation base cost, planning and technical assistance  (PT)  costs
should be considered for the full implementation of a BMP in the farm.  Total BMP installation
costs are obtained by the following relationship:
       Total BMP Installation Cost ($/acre) = BMP Base Costx (PT-Factor)

where:

        BMP Base Cost  =  BMP base cost from Table 2.3.
        PT-Factor =       Escalation factor  to account for planning and technical
                           assistance costs.

        The escalation factors were derived from the states' planning and technical assistance
cost rates, and other sources of information such as 1989 BMP implementation cost tables from
the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) projects (see Appendix C).  Table 2.4 shows the
escalation factors for each BMP and the adjusted BMP unit cost including planning and technical
assistance costs.
                                          18

-------
Table 2.3 Financial Base Cost Rai
=====================
BMP Type
Strip-cropping
Terraces
Diversions
Sediment Retention and
Water Control Structures
Grassed Filter Strips
Cover Crops
Grazing Land protection
Permanent Vegetative Cover on
Critical Areas
iges of Agricultural BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin1
#
of
BMPs
393
64
88
165
213
366
274
239
BMP
Life
(years)
5
10
10
20
5
1
1
5
BMP Base Cost
($/acre)
25%ile
15
136
107
256
14.60
10
49
134
	
median
30
326
214
523
23.80
10
95.30
240
75%ile
30
564
477
1209
35.30
20
194
778
Nutrient Management?
Conservation Tillage3
2,004
                                                                           15
Conservation Reserve Program3
(CRP)
5,881
52-71/year*
Animal Waste Systems5
      1.  Interquartile unit cost ranges obtained from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) BMP tracking
         database and States' unit cost data.  Dashes under the # of BMPs analyzed column indicates that the
         costs where derived from the states' unit cost data information.
      2.  Nutrient Management Plan Cost.
      3.  Government incentive costs which do not reflect actual practice costs.
      4.  Average annual rental rate for MD, PA, and VA (USDA-CRP, 1990). Does not include costs of BMPs.
      5.  Units for animal waste are given as $/Ton of manure treated.
      6.  Unit cost range per linear foot of waterway.
                                              19

-------
2.4.3  Operation and Maintenance Costs  ,
                                      T t
                                                                        I
       There is little information on the O&M costs mainly because they are not cost-shared.
Also, these costs may vary for different practices and local conditions.  Sometimes the O&M
activities may not include major costs but mainly depend on fanner diligence (Rosenthal and
Urban, 1990).  Nevertheless, O&M annual costs expressed as a percentage of BMP base cost
have been reported by the Soil Conservation  Service (North Carolina State University, 1982).
Table 2.5 shows these percentages and the total BMP costs including the O&M cost for several
BMPs.
2.4.4  Total Annual BMP .Financial Unit Costs
                          i
       The total annual BMP unit costs are calculated by annualizing the total BMP installation
costs and adding the O&M costs as shown by the following expression:

Total annual BMP cost =   Annual Total BMP Installation Cost +
                          (O&M)factor x BMP Base Cost
where:

 Annual Total BMP Installation Cost  =  Annualized Cost for the BMP life period
                    (O&M)factor    = Operation and Maintenance Cost factor  (Table 2.5)
2.4.5  Animal Waste Systems Financial Costs

       The annualized animal waste management cost per ton of manure treated is given in
Table 2.5.   These costs reported to the Chesapeake Bay Program tracking  system are the
combination of the costs of many different systems to control animal wastes.  These include
management systems  for dairy,  beef,  swine,  poultry,  etc.   Besides  the tracking system
information, some costs in this section were estimated based on examples given by a manual
prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Soil and
Water  (Ritter,  1990).   This manual is a guide  to aid in the economic evaluation of manure
management plans for fanners.  Costs of alternative manure management systems for dairy,
beef, swine, veal and poultry operations were presented in this manual.  Detailed cost tables,
cost estimation assumptions, and advantages and disadvantages of the different systems can be
found in the manual.

                                         20

-------
Table 2.4 Financial Unit Costs Ranges of Agricultural BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin1
(Base plus Technical Assistance Costs)
BMP Type
Strip-cropping
Terraces
Diversions
Sediment Retention and
Water Control Structures
Grassed Filter Strips
Cover Crops
Grazing Land protection
Permanent Vegetative Cover on
Critical Areas
Escalation Factor
(Planning and
Technical
Assistance costs)
1.43
1.31
1.19
1.25
1.012
-
1.25
1.10
Total BMP Installation Cost
($/acre)
25%ile
21.40
178
127
321
14.80
10
61.40
147
median
42.80
427
255
655
24.00
10
119
263
75%ile
42.80
739
567
1515
35.70
20
243
856
Nutrient Management2
Conservation Tillage3
Conservation Reserve Program3
(CRP)
-
1.156

6
17.30
52-71/year4
Animal
Waste
Systems5
1
.17
10
.50/ton
14.90/ton
20.60/ton
Grassed Waterways6
1.25
1.90-7.40/lf
     1. Interquartile unitcost ranges obtained from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) BMP tracking
        database and States' unit cost data.
     2. Nutrient Management Plan Cost.
     3. Government incentive costs which do not reflect actual practice costs.
     4. Average annual rental rate for MD, PA and VA  (USDA-CRP, 1990). Does not include BMP costs.
     5. Units for animal waste are given as $/Ton of manure treated.
     6. Unit cost range per linear foot of waterway.
                                               21

-------
Table 2.5 Total Annual Costs Ranges of Agricultural BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin1
(Base plus Technical Assistance plus O&M costs)
BMP Type
Strip-cropping
Terraces
Diversions
Sediment Retention and
Water Control Structures
Grassed Filter Strips
Cover Crops
Grazing Land protection
Permanent Vegetative Cover on
Critical Areas
Annual O&M
Cost Factor2
(% of BMP Base
Costs)
1.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
-
5.0
3.0
Total Annual BMP Cost3
EAC ($/acre/year)
25%ile
5.80
35.70
26.10
50.50
4.30
10
18.60
38.90
median
11.60
85.80
52.20
103
7.10
10
36.30
69.50
75%ile
11.60
148
116.20
238
10.50
20
73.80
225.70
Nutrient Management*
Conservation Tillage5
Conservation Reserve Program5
(CRP)
-
-
-
2.40
17.30
52-716
Animal Waste
Systems7
10.0
2/ton
2.80/ton
3.90/ton
  Grassed Waterways8
5.0
0.39-1.50/lf
1.  Original interquartile BMP installation costs ranges obtained from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO)
    BMP tracking database and States' unit cost data.
2.  Annual operation and maintenance cost.  Source: North Carolina State University (1982). Annual O&M costs
    are determined multiplying these percentages by the BMP base costs on Table 2.3.
3.  Total annual BMP costs.  Costs include planning, technical assistance and O&M costs. EAC= Equivalent
    annual costs in dollars per acre benefitted.  Interest rate = 10%, practice life from Table 2.3
4.  Does not include potential cost savings to the fanner.
5.  Government incentive costs which do not reflect actual practice costs.
6.  Average annual rental rate for MD, PA and VA (USDA-CRP, 1990).  Does not include BMP costs.
7.  Units for animal waste are given as $/Ton of manure treated.
8.  Unit cost range per linear foot of waterway.
                                                  22

-------
       The tables in Appendix D show typical annual costs of different alternatives for manure
management of dairy, beef, swine, veal, and poultry operations. Table 2.6 shows maximum,
minimum and median costs from these examples.  Also, included are the annual costs per ton
of manure treated.  The animal waste systems shown in the examples in Appendix D represent
a small subset of possible combinations of different collection, storage and application systems
on a farm.  The Ritter (1990) manual provides individual costs for different components of
collection, storage and utilization of animal waste operations of different sizes.  Also, guidelines
for selecting alternatives were provided in the manual.    Therefore, the examples given in
Appendix D are only for illustrative purposes.  It is likely that costs of animal waste systems
may vary significantly depending on site-specific conditions. The annual costs per ton of manure
treated shown in Table 2.6 are much higher than the ones shown in Table 2.5 from the BMP
tracking system ($2.81/ton). The main reason  for this difference is that costs under the BMP
tracking system include other animal waste BMPs such as fencing, filter strips, runoff control
etc. which have lower costs than total systems including collection,  storage,  and utilization. In
addition, annual labor and  energy costs are not considered  in the BMP tracking data costs.
Table 2.6 Statistics of Examples of Animal Waste System Costs1
Animal
Waste
System
Dairy
Beef
Swine
Veal
Poultry
Minimum
($/ Animal)
209.63
57.19
15.06
24.28
0.44
($/Ton)
18.30
6.80
6.34
14.30
2.00
Median
($/ Animal)
272.39
77.27
22.83
43.24
0.51
($/Ton)
23.70
9.20
9.60
25.40
2.90
Maximum
($/Animal)
303.93
97.34
38.01
62.2
0.64
($/Ton)
26.50
11.60
16.00
36.60
11.40
    1.  Statistics from the examples of animal wastes shown in Appendix D.  Assumptions for the calculation of
        the tonnage of manure treated are described in the footnotes of the tables in Appendix D. Annualized costs.
        Interest rate = 10%.
                                            23

-------
2.4.6  Combined Unit Costs of Erosion Control BMPS from Soil Conservation Plans

       The costs of soil conservation erosion controls BMPs are evaluated for combinations of
BMPs within a farm from selected soil conservation plans.  A soil conservation plan representing
a "typical" farm was selected by the states  for each region shown in Figure 2.8.  The BMP
annual unit cost ranges from Table 2.5 are applied to the BMPs of each soil conservation plan.
Interquartile unit cost ranges (annual BMP costs per acre of cropland or pasture) for each typical
farm in each region are shown in Table 2.7. Detailed BMP descriptions for  the farms in each
region and the tons of soil saved after BMP implementation are shown in the Tables E-l to E-3
(Appendix E).
Table 2.7 Annual Unit Cost of Erosion Control BMPs from
Typical Chesapeake Bay Basin Soil Conservation Plans
State




Maryland




Pennsylvania


Virginia


Farm
Location
I
n
m
IV
V
VI
vn
A+B
D+E
C+F
1
2+4
3
5
Annual Costs per Acre
25%ile
14.94
31.57
74.76
37.85
39.76
42.84

23.93
16.45
20.18
29.52
18.64
21.46
20.85
Median
19.88
41.06
96.08
49.73
55.03
56.23
27.54 -67.88
35.08
24.24
27.25
34.06
36.27
33.42
25.88
75%ile
19.88
46.56
122.41
52.58
70.03
69.38

48.95
31.30
38.79
38.58
73.78
40.87
30.83
                                           24

-------
Figure 2.8   Chesapeake Bay Basin
            Farm Soil Conservation Plan Regions
                                                               N
                                25

-------
2.4.7  Summary

       Figure 2.9 shows the total annual BMP unit cost ranges from Table 2.5, and the
interquartile cost ranges for BMPs within each farm in the Chesapeake Bay watershed from
Table 2.7.  Figure 2.9 shows wide cost ranges for terraces, diversions,  sediment retention
structures, grassed waterways, and permanent vegetation on critical areas. Therefore, wide
ranges of cost for some farms are due to the use of structural practices with a wide range in the
unit cost.  In conclusion, from  Figure 2.9 and the tables in Appendix E, it is observed that the
combined cost of BMPs for a farm can significantly vary depending on the type, amount and
density of BMPs within the farm.  For instance, the costs for the farm on region MD:HL are
higher than all the other farms. Examining Table E-l for this region, it is observed that the
farm selected contains BMPs with wide unit cost ranges over a relatively small area resulting
in a wide and high unit cost range.
 2.5   Cost and Effectiveness of Small Watershed Demonstration Projects

       The states have been conducting small watershed  studies for the assessment of the
effectiveness of BMPs. Among these studies, the Conestoga Headwaters, Double Pipe Creek,
and the Nasemond-Chuckatuck RCWP projects are reported for Pennsylvania, Maryland and
Virginia respectively.  The Owl Run and Nomini Creek demonstration projects provide similar
data in Virginia.   In this section, the Conestoga Headwaters  and Owl Run projects  are
summarized, where information on both cost and BMP nutrient reduction effectiveness has been
reported.

2.5.1  Conestoga Headwaters

       The Conestoga Headwaters RCWP project started in the early  1980s with the main
objective of reducing  the water pollution from agricultural sources.  Another objective of the
project was to investigate the effects of agricultural BMPs on groundwater pollution abatement
(Pennsylvania-RCWP, 1989).

       Nutrient management for both manure and commercial fertilizer has been identified as
one of the most important factors in improving the water quality. Nutrient management plans
are expected to eliminate approximately 2/3 of the excess nitrogen and phosphorus.  The entire
area of the Conestoga Headwaters is approximately  120,320 acres.  Water quality monitoring
has been conducted in  this area with detailed monitoring of a small watershed and more intensive

                                         26

-------
  Figure 2.9 Agricultural BMP Unit Costs and Soil Conservation Plan BMP Costs
               for Typical Farms within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

250

200

150

100

 50

   0
                    Agricultural BMP Unit Costs
                        (Interquartile Ranges)
                                                               75*He

                                                               median

                                                               25 Site












12223





•"*:






	 '















— I—






f
f 1
* -v


















— \-

• '
.
,
^y

^
/•"

/










\





cssa ^^
"4'"LL_ 1






















fVf '•";
^ ;
tt'r:
















1




jffS'
yf>




',












ty^yij
EiSSI


1 	 1 1

                                                                           STR — Stfip-cmppioc
                                                                           TER — Temoea
                                                                           IMV - Dnenkni
                                                                           SED •• Sediment Rc4cntloo ttxl
                                                                                Water Control Suudm
                                                                           FIL —  Fihcr Strip*
                                                                           COV « CowrCropt
                                                                           GRZ - Gnzmf L«nd Protection
                                                                           VEG ™ BljiiMmrf V«-y*^jrpqB
                                                                                CriticmlAicu
                                                                           NM -
                                                                           CT ••
                                                                           CRP - CoDjervtlkn Raeive Picfnm

                                                                           Gnued W*lerw»y Anul Unit Gut (UatP :
                                                                               J0.39 • $1 JO pet linou feet
                                                                           Unit cotts **^ftn*xj firan '^ CboncAkB B>y pfryam
                                                                           BMP Tirnddm dalm buc «nd sialea' unt oo«t d*l*.
                                                                           ptamnfe ledmcal iMaUnci, ml O4M eat*.
                                                                           Con for CT, CRP md REF UB (neoxnail mea
        STR        DIV        FIL
              TER       SED       COV       VEG        CT
                                   BMP
   140
   100
03
*
§
«o
     0
              Soil Conservation Plan BMP Costs
            Chesapeake Bay Watershed Typical Farms






..1 	 L_

„ :
TP"!
"sSs,







1

-1 	 : 	 1-



Fl
™








-i-



'.'<,
\ f








-4-



~

-J







-4-




r— ,
ft=^






B
H 	 f-





i_i






fed
-i 	 1-



'f f'.
-„
f






t g
H 	 1 	
                 MD:Iti    MD:V    MD:Vtt   PA:D+E
             MD:H     MD:IV    MD.-VI   PA:A+B   PA:C+F   VA:2+4    VA:5
                                   Region
                                                 27

-------
monitoring on two small  fields  of 23 and 48 acres,  respectively.  It was found that the
effectiveness of nutrient management was dependent on the reduction of nutrient application rates
(Pennsylvania-RCWP, 1991).

      From one of the field sites, it was found that terraces were effective in reducing the
amount  of sediment loss, but ineffective in reducing the nutrient loads in both surface and
groundwater.    Simultaneous implementation of terracing  and nutrient management was
recommended, due to the potential increase in nitrate concentrations in the groundwater after
terracing.

      For the Conestoga area, it was found that areas underlain by carbonate rock discharge
most of their water as groundwater and base flow. Therefore, these areas are highly susceptible
to agricultural nonpoint source pollution (Pennsylvania-RCWP, 1992) .

     Total soil loss reductions during the entire project period were 110,000 tons.  Nitrogen
reductions were about 1.3 million pounds and phosphorus reductions were about 0.57 million
pounds. The nutrient reductions were estimated using the CREAMS model results of nutrient
reductions by BMP for 1984.  These reductions were then applied to the entire project period.
Table C-l in Appendix C summarizes the BMP costs including planning, technical assistance
and water quality development plan costs for 1989.

2.5.2 Owl Run

     The  Owl  Run watershed  is located in Faquier  County VA within the Piedmont
physiographic region.  It has an area of approximately 2,800 acres.  Land use in this watershed
is described as follows:

                    Corn:        723 acres (300 acres no-till)
                    Hay:         573 acres
                    Pasture:      500 acres (active)
                                 190 acres (idled)
                    Woodland:    575 acres
                    Developed:    250 acres

     The  soils in the watershed are predominantly  of the Penn-Croton-Buck Soil association
whose physical characteristics are highly variable.  These  soils are not in general  of the
productivity expected of soils for dairy operations. The soils on the Perm series have a low "T"

                                         28

-------
(soil loss tolerance) of 1 ton/acre/year at which productivity can be affected by erosion.  In the
Owl Run watershed, 75% of the soils have "T" values between 1 and 2. This low "T" value can
have negative impacts on the application of animal wastes which are recommended to be applied
to soils eroding less than "T" (VA-DSWC, 1991).
     BMP implementation in Owl Run has focused on animal waste management facilities.
Estimated installation costs of these facilities are summarized as follows:

             Site                Herd Size           BMP        Installation Cost

             Dairy A            475 cows            earthen pit          $65,000
                                                     2 reception
                                                     pits and pumps

             Dairy B             65 cows            earthen pit          $10,000
                                                     & concrete
                                                     pushing ramp

             Dairy C            175 cows            concrete upright     $45,000
                                                     gravity load & unload

             Dairy D            145-165 cows       concrete upright,    $40,000
                                                     pump load
     Some of these structures may seem expensive. However, due to the soil characteristics and
site specific conditions, the facilities shown above are necessary. Also, it has been reported that
animal waste management at the Owl Run watershed may also indirectly contribute to soil
erosion control. The main reason for this indirect benefit is that, without storage facilities, the
current practice is to leave some fields without any vegetation for winter application of manures.
It was reported that these fields may erode at an average of four times the acceptable soil loss
tolerance (T). In addition, manure applied to frozen ground is available for increased transport
by runoff and snow melt which has  a negative impact on the water quality of the receiving
waters.
                                          29

-------
     Besides the animal waste facilities, there are also other BMPs installed in the basin which
include:
                    Animal waste storage facilities:
                    Strip-cropping:
                    Waterways (16 units):
                    Watering troughs (6 units):
                    Fencing (4,000 ft.):
                    Filter Strips
                    Cropland converted to grass
                    Diversion (400 ft.):
                    Conservation tillage
6 units
78 acres
16 acres
350 acres rotational grazing
350 acres rotational grazing
13 acres
99 acres
 5 acres
315 acres
     The total estimated cost of BMP implementation at Owl Run watershed is $267,000, with
costs due to planning, technical assistance, and administration around $100,000.

     The post-BMP monitoring to assess the effectiveness of BMP implementation has recently
begun and results from this monitoring are expected in the future.  Hession, et al. (1989) used
the  AGNPS water  quality  model to  simulate expected  nutrient  reductions  due to the
implementation of BMPs.  Since, AGNPS is designed to simulate single rainfall events, input
parameters reflecting average annual conditions were selected, and storm events ranging from
1 to 6 inches were simulated.   The model was validated with observed data showing results
within ranges  of observed average conditions.  Expected nutrient reductions from the above
BMPs and 50% fertilizer application reduction averaged 42% for the storm events simulated.
2.6  Financial Cost Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs

     The previous sections summarized the unit costs of different agricultural best management
practices and their nutrient reduction effectiveness. In this section, cost effectiveness ratios are
provided for these BMPs.   The cost effectiveness ratio for  BMPs can be generally defined as
the ratio of the cost to the pounds or  tons of pollutant removed.  For instance, if the cost
effectiveness is evaluated solely on the ability of BMPs to remove nitrogen or phosphorus, the
cost effectiveness ratio for a BMP may be defined as the ratio of the equivalent annual cost
(EAC) to the pounds of nitrogen or phosphorus removed per year.  On the other hand,  for soil
conservation erosion controls BMPs, a cost effectiveness ratio could also be defined as the
equivalent  annual  cost (EAC)  divided by the tons  of soil  saved.  Cost effectiveness can be
                                          30

-------
evaluated for individual BMPs or for combinations of BMPs ("Resource Management Systems")
in a farm.  For large watersheds, cost effectiveness  of combinations of pollutant removal
technologies ("Pollutant Reduction Strategies") can be evaluated using the total costs of BMPs
for the watershed and the nutrient, soil loss reductions,  and other benefits achieved at the edge
of the stream or at the outlet of the watershed.
2.6.1  Cost Effectiveness Ratios for SoU Conservation Erosion Control BMPs

     In this section, cost effectiveness of soil conservation erosion control BMPs are analyzed.
The cost effectiveness for these BMPs is calculated as the ratio of the cost to  the tons of soil
saved.

      Table 2.8 shows the cost effectiveness ratios for these BMPs.  Again,  original costs and
tons of soil saved were obtained from the Chesapeake Bay BMP tracking system (CBPO, 1990).
For CRP the tons of soil saved were  obtained from "The Conservation Reserve Program"
(USDA, 1990).  Figure 2.10 depicts  the interquartile  cost effectiveness ratios  for  the soil
conservation erosion controls BMPs shown in Table 2.8. This figure shows that, in general,
structural practices such  as grassed waterways, water and sediment control  structures and
diversions  show a wide range of cost effectiveness ratios.

      To track progress on nutrient reductions associated with sediment reduction by individual
BMPs, soil nutrient content factors (1.1 pounds of phosphorus and 5.4 pounds of nitrogen per
ton of soil, Chesapeake Bay Program, 1988) have traditionally been used   Therefore, cost
effectiveness ratios such as the ones shown in table 2.8 have been converted to annual costs per
pound of nitrogen or phosphorus removed.  However, this method has some limitations due to
 1-) the potential wide range of nutrient content factors associated with different soil types and
farm practices, and 2-) the lack of consideration of soluble nutrient forms.  Moreover, if this
approach is used, it is also important to properly account for the transport of soil between the
 edge-of-field and the receiving waters (delivery ratio concept) so reductions in nutrients are not
 overestimated.  These limitations are further explained as follows:

      1-)  Soil nutrient content factors may be affected by many factors such as the amount and
 type of fertilizer application, method, time, tillage treatment, soil characteristics etc. (Mclsaac,
 et al. 1991; R.E Wright and Associates, 1990). Therefore, it is expected  that these nutrient
 content factors may vary  through the Chesapeake Bay Basin.
                                           31

-------
Table 2.8 Total Annual Costs Ranges per Ton of Soil Saved for
Agricultural BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin1
BMP Type
Strip-cropping
Terraces
Diversions
Sediment Retention and
Water Control Structures .•
Grassed Filter Strips
Cover Crops
Grazing Land protection
Permanent Vegetative Cover on Critical
Areas
Grassed Waterways
Conservation Tillage3
Conservation Reserve Program4 (CRP)
#of
BMPs
Analyzed
393
64
88
415
213
366
274
239
261
2,004
5,881
Total Annual Cost per Ton of
Soil Saved2
EAC ($/ton/year)
25%ile
0.50
4.40
5.10
14.20
0.90
1.90
2.30
2.50
1.80
2.70
median
0.90
9.30
11.20
29.90
2
3.60
7.40
4.80
10.20
4.80
75%ile
1.70
15.40
22.50
46.90
4.40
5.80
24.50
9.50
24.30
6.40
3.10-7.10
1.  Original interquartile BMP installation cost ranges obtained from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO)
    BMP tracking database and states' unit cost data.
2.  Costs include planning, technical assistance and O&M costs. EAC= Equivalent annual costs in dollars per ton
    of soil reduced.  Interest rate = 10%, practice life from Table 2.3
3.  Government incentive costs which do not reflect actual practice costs.
4.  Average annual rental rate for MD, PA and VA (USDA-CRP, 1990). Does not include BMP costs.
                                                   32

-------
  Figure 2.10  Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Soil Conservation
                  Erosion Control BMPs
7556 DC
Cost Effectiveness Ratios for BMPs J ^^^
Annual Cost per Ton of Soil Saved , i
2S*Oe
50 -
40 -
§ 30 -
"c
O A/\
< 20 -
n .




ESS.

f"


-\-

X




/!
X
^ X''

-1 	


n n
-"• 	 — * 	

, ifi ^ - i i i i
                                                                 TER  — TemoM
                                                                 WV  - Dnenxn
                                                                 SED  - SalxnMftaeaxBfid
                                                                      Wu« Conn) Suueoaw
                                                                 FIL  - FihcrSlrip*
                                                                 COV - Cover Ctop«
                                                                 CRZ - GnzinUnd Protection
                                                                 VEO - Rinmm^VeteulionCD
                                                                       CrhkmlAreu
                                                                 GW  - CnmdWUeraayt

                                                                 CRP - ComervUionRMCTvePro,
                                                                 Unit e»u obuincd fromihB Choupcato B«y Prafnm
                                                                 BMP Truiir* du« toe snl HHe*' vat oort dila.
                                                                 Eqdnktf KBud erti iuchide* cciKUuctioa,
                                                                 parmn(, tccteiol uulnxe, md O&M co«ti.
STR
      TER       SED       COV
                           BMP
CT
                                                                 iooodhBootU.
                                                  33

-------
 •  2-) Using soil nutrient content factors to estimate nutrient reductions does not account for
soluble nutrient forms.  Although reducing the amount of soil loss reduces transport of sediment-
bound nutrients in surface waters, for some BMPs, the reduction in runoff is accompanied by
an increase in water infiltration.  Therefore, the transport of nitrates in subsurface flows may
increase and it would not be accounted for in the cost effectiveness ratio.  Nevertheless, in many
cases  for surface water, most of the nutrient losses are associated with sediment loss (Laflen
and Tabatabai,1984), with phosphorus losses better correlated to sediment loss than nitrogen.


2.6.2  Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Erosion Control BMPs from Soil Conservation
       Plans of Typical Farms

       In this section,  the cost effectiveness ratios of soil conservation erosion controls BMPs
 are evaluated using typical soil conservation plans for farms within the different Chesapeake Bay
 physiographic regions shown in Figure 2.8. The BMPs for the farms in each region and the tons
 of soil saved after BMP implementation are tabulated in Tables E-l to E-3 (Appendix E). These
 tables show typical BMPs for farms in each region and the expected soil loss reductions after
 full implementation of BMPs.

       Figure 2.11 shows  the soil loss reductions (in percentage)  after full implementation of
 BMPs and the cost effectiveness ratio ranges for each farm. The cost effectiveness ratios shown
 in Figure 2 11  are calculated as the equivalent annual cost of all the BMPs installed within a
 farm divided by the tons of soil saved. Therefore, BMP unit costs from Table 2.5 were applied
 to the typical farms selected for each region, and the total soil saved was obtained from SCS
 estimates of  expected soil loss reductions after full implementation of BMPs.   The first figure
 shows cost effectiveness ratios ranging from $2/ton to $20/ton with some farms showing wide
 interquartile ranges.  The wide range in the cost effectiveness ratios shows the potentially wide
 range of costs  and associated soil loss reductions of BMPs  throughout the Chesapeake Bay
 Watershed.  Nevertheless, it is noted that cost effectiveness ratios for individual BMPs shown
 in Tables E-l to E-3 are within the interquartile ranges of ratios determined  from the BMP
 tracking system (Table 2.8 and Figure 2.10).  Also, the second plot of Figure 2.11  shows the
 total soil loss reductions in percentage for each region.  A median soil loss reduction  of about
 73% with interquartile range between 63 and 83 is calculated for all the regions.
                                            34

-------
Figure 2.11 Cost Effectiveness Ratios and Combined BMP Soil Loss Reductions

           for Typical Farms within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

                        (Interquartile Ranges)
Cost Effectiveness Ratios
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Typical Farm
2? on
^20
> A C
5 15 -
O9
1m
,10
g r
"^ ^
r\
•, f
w medii
S _ 25«i



— i






[ — I

u MD:I MD:ril MD:
MD:H MD:IV

-

— -1



.• :


FH ~~ r
LJ LJ
LJ ^
, i i i — i _ _ i —


**-
F^j fem)
t
V MD:Vh PA:D+E VA:l' VA:3
MD:VI PA:A+B PA:C+F VA:2+4 VA:5
Region
         1
         on
         en
         C<3
         <4-l
         o
         o


         I
         H
         £
                         Combined BMP Soil Loss Reductions


                       Chesapeake Bay Watershed Typical Farms
uu -
90 -
80 -
*7n
/U -
bO -
50 -

40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -




7™!
*




,.
~ pf '
_ "?






—
-

w—~i
'f\


*:

"•


* •
f :
' *:
f
' "











—
—
—

"'\
* ;



"•r

L
/ '
' ff









—




'
•„
•y


,

'
,
,'<










—

~
ju


- "

*
-
'i






—
—
. /:



, ':



,
„,


"


-








-
--
—

'' :



*
't

',"






-

-•

f
,"

' '
,.
f



f '

.
:»,










_
—
Tl
'';
*** ;




- -
jf f
75%Ue


25%Ue







MD:I ' MD:in ' MD:V ' MD:VH 'PA:D+E' VA:1 ' VA:3
MD:H MD:IV MD:VI PA:A+B PA:C+F VA:2+4 VA:5
                                     Region
                                     35

-------
2.6.3  Cost Effectiveness Ratios for BMPs Simulated by the Chesapeake Bay
       Watershed Model

       In this section, cost effectiveness ratios calculated using basin edge-of-stream nutrient
removals from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model are provided.  Cost effectiveness ratios
are calculated for conservation tillage, nutrient management and animal waste systems.

       Nutrient management and conservation tillage cost effectiveness ratios were calculated
using the unit cost for nutrient management and conservation tillage (Table 2.5) and the edge-of-
stream nutrient reductions from the Watershed Model.  Figure 2.12 shows  the interquartile
ranges of cost effectiveness ratios for these two BMPs. From this figure it is observed that, for
nitrogen and phosphorus,  nutrient management  has  lower cost effectiveness  ratios than
conservation tillage.  Although nutrient management has a positive water quality benefit, there
is still much uncertainty over the quantitative effect and water quality response time  of the
receiving waters after its implementation. Nevertheless, a combination of nutrient management
with appropriate soil erosion control BMPs in the complete planning of a farm can be cost
effective and should have, in the long-term, a positive water quality benefit.

       For animal waste systems, two sets of costs are used:  1-) interquartile cost ranges from
the CBPO BMP tracking system as shown in Table 2.5 and 2-) median costs from examples of
animal waste systems developed by Pennsylvania (Table 2.6 Ritter, 1990).  The latter has the
advantage that the use of the unit costs ($/animal) would  better reflect the relative costs among
basins according to their animal type distributions  (i.e dairy, beef, swine etc.).

       The nutrient reduction effectiveness of animal waste systems was obtained by conversion
of 75% of the manure acres to pasture (Watershed Model: Limit of Technology Scenario). The
representation of the costs for animal waste systems that achieve this reduction will depend on
site-specific conditions and therefore, cost effectiveness ratio ranges are provided for both cost
sources. Figure 2.13 shows the interquartile ranges for animal waste systems using the two sets
of costs. Cost effectiveness ratios are calculated for animal waste systems alone and for  animal
waste systems and nutrient management  combined.  This combination is  important when
evaluating a total "Resource Management System"  for a farm where both animal waste systems
and nutrient management are important components of this system.
                                          36

-------
Figure 2.12 Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Nutrient Management
            and Conservation Tillage (interquartile ranges)
                                    Nitrogen
8
*&* c
I5
ff >l
I4
fi
r
iT
o 1 "
0.
** n .
75SD.
	 '' -V - 	

'•„ , '; / •> /?
¥*,•?»;£' 'f
5S*'ifc


	 ; ,,,,f,...:

	 __ 	 1— 	 	 	
                                    Phosphorus
S3 5O "
5 ^€A
^ 40 -

ZO -
o
r
*^ n .


-



f f f f*
,

:^ r«?-. .-1
'"" -''^In r *
'ff'f f jrff J f <• *"






	 1 	 	 	 	 —
                                            37

-------
Figure 2.13  Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Animal Waste Systems
                              (interquartile ranges)
                                           Nitrogen
25 i
1
13 20 •
O
S»
2
2
o
"° c
S,
n .
Animal waste systems cost* n%yn
using the Ritter (lo(5n) nwniiVI IIIIPII M

/ ">*""--— "*£?j
/ ^' r
/ ' • ;
' rS 2S«ik>
: ".-:
S»'; t^^^t
— 	 .;...:...;.-..?.. A
— 	 TT^' T
<^\ Anjmnl f »SI« oyanmx cnsts

	 from the CBPO tracking datab




ase
                             Nutrient Management
                             Animal Waste Systems
Animal Waste Systems
                                         Phosphorus
u 120 i
1
U loo -
§
s cn
g 80 •
•S An
p, 4U •
"8
ton
20 •
^ n .
Animal waste systems costs
using the Ritter (1990) manual ___^
/ ^^^



^
:.i.^
-.,, '-&


75SBC
¥f '
f
f
ffff f




25%De
^
*'«"••••••">•' *^ 	 	 — ______ Animal waste systems costs
from the CBPO tracking database
                           Nutrient Management +
                           Animal Waste Systems
Animal Waste Systems
                                                  38

-------
2.7    Chesapeake Bay Basin Urban Best Management Practices

       This section briefly describes the costs and nutrient reduction efficiencies of urban BMPs.
There is limited information compiled on urban BMP costs and nutrient reduction efficiencies
within the Chesapeake Bay basin.  Cost information provided in this section has been compiled
from the District of Columbia and Maryland. It is very difficult to generalize urban BMP costs
and nutrient reduction efficiencies of urban BMPs due to site specific conditions. For instance,
urban BMP costs can significantly vary among locations (inner-urban or suburban) due to real
estate values.   Costs are also different  between retrofits and  new  facilities.  Moreover,
maintenance costs, which are directly correlated to the long term pollutant removal  efficiency
of BMPs can be highly variable depending on the type of BMP and urban landuse draining into
the facility.  Finally,  it is important to  note that urban BMPs offer multiple benefits besides
nutrient removal such as stormwater management (water quantity control), detention of sediment,
heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons. Therefore, cost effectiveness of these BMPs should
not be judged only on their potential for nutrient removal.

        A recent report by the Metropolitan Washington Council,of Governments (Schueler et
al.,  1992) summarizes the characteristics of eleven urban BMP types or "options".  Table 2.9
lists these BMPs along with their longevity. Detailed  information on the characteristics of each
of these BMPs is  found in the MWCOG report.
 2.7.1 Nutrient Removal Effectiveness of Urban BMPs

       Since the beginning of the  1980s there have been  studies for the assessment of the
 pollutant removal effectiveness of urban BMPs.   However, these studies have reported wide
 ranges of pollutant removal for these BMPs.  The wide range of pollutant removal efficiencies
 may be attributed  to the different physical characteristics  for each site as well as sampling
 techniques to determine removal efficiencies.  For instance, Schwartz and Velinsky (1992) point
 out that sampling techniques to determine BMP  pollutant removal efficiencies need to be
 carefully defined since they determine the type of removal efficiency obtained (i.e. event-based,
 base flow, seasonal, annual or  long term).  In addition, they noted the potential differences
 between long-term average annual removal efficiencies and  short term seasonal or event-based
 calculations of removal efficiencies.  For instance,  a study on the Mays Chapel Wetlands Pond
 in Baltimore County (Baltimore City, 1989) has shown phosphorus removal efficiencies around
 40% for storm events but about 16% when both storm events and baseflow are considered.
                                           39

-------
                                 Table 2.9 Longevity of Urban BMPs1
               BMP Options
                      Longevity2
     Extended Detention Ponds
     Wet Ponds
     Stormwater Wetlands
     Multiple Pond Systems
     Infiltration Trenches
     Infiltration Basins
     Porous Pavement
     Sand Filters
     Grassed Swales
     Filter Strips
     Water Quality Inlets
20+ years, but frequent clogging and short detention common
20+ years
20+ years
20+ years
50% failure rate within five years
60-100% failure within five years
75% failure within five years
20+ years
20+ years
Unknown, but may be limited
20+ years
1. Source: Schueler et. al  (1992).
2. Based on current designs and maintenance practices.
       Table F-l (Appendix  F) shows summary statistics of nutrient reduction efficiencies
reported by Schueler et al. 1992. This table shows a wide range of removal efficiencies for each
BMP type. Therefore,  this information should be used with caution. Original sources of each
study should be carefully examined for the methodologies used to determine the efficiencies.
Figure 2.14 summarizes the nutrient reduction efficiency statistics  shown in Table F-l.
2.7.2  Costs  of Urban BMPs

       Urban BMP costs are summarized from available cost data, on retrofits and new facilities
completed or planned within Maryland and the District of Columbia.  For initial cost estimates
of urban BMPs, planning level cost equations are available from Weingand et al. (1986) which
are also summarized by  Schueler (1987).
                                           40

-------
                      Figure 2.14 Nutrient Reduction Effectiveness of Urban BMPs *
                    I
                    w
cti
                    OS
IS) (O -fc. O) 00 0
OOOOOOO
Nitrogen
                                                                             75»ile
                                                                             I mulim
                                                                          MEn
                                                                             25*ile
                                                                              -3=
                            DRY/ED    WP     WP/ED    WET    WET/ED  WET/NT POND/WET
                                             Phosphorus
1UU
fin
x-^ OU
tS
N^X

1
«g .,«
iS 40
g
•j3 on
o ^U

^ 0
u
tn
'



\f'



|:j:|:j;:J:|:|$S:j
i






-
' f\

nf




































ff
f

\ <









,r
*•
,s
s
ff •






























~^
f
y-*


f, .
f




	


,
,

'",.
s *





L














                            DRY/ED    WP     WP/ED    WET   WET/ED  WET/NT POND/WET
            DRY/ED =  Dry extended detention ponds
            WP=       Wet Ponds
            WP/ED =    Wet ponds/extended detention
            WET=     Stonnwater wetlands
    WET/ED =  Extended detention wetlands
    WET/NT=  Natural wetlands
    POND/WET Pond wetlands Systems
* Nutrient reduction statistics calculated from "A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices" , (Schueler et. al, 1992)
                                                       41

-------
                                             *
2.7.2.1   Cost of Urban BMPs (District of Columbia)
                                       ', -.                          !
   Table F-2 shows ranges of BMP costs  for the District of Columbia.  Cost information
provided in this table was obtained from the District of Columbia BMP tracking database. This
table shows that the type of BMPs used in  the District of Columbia generally serves areas
smaller than two acres.  Only ponds benefit areas greater than 2 acres.
2.7.2.2   Cost of Urban BMPs (Maryland)

    Table F-3  shows ranges of total costs, acres benefitted, and unit cost ranges for urban BMP
types compiled from Maryland. Unit cost statistics are given for four BMP categories:  1-) new
extended detention ponds with shallow marsh  2-) new wet ponds, 3-) retrofit of dry ponds to
wet ponds , and   4-)  infiltration structures.  In contrast to the BMPs summarized for the
District of Columbia, the type of urban BMPs in Maryland serve larger areas (up to 800 acres
in some cases). This is mainly due to the availability of land in suburban areas compared to
inner-urban areas.  Land availability in suburban areas allows the  construction or retrofit of
regional facilities using BMPs that can benefit larger areas at a lower unit cost.
 2.7.2.3   Summary

    Figure 2.15 depicts the unit cost ranges for Maryland and the District of Columbia.  This
 figure shows that sand filters and infiltration structures have the highest unit costs.  However,
 it is important to point out that these structures may be the only alternative for on-site treatment
 at smaller sites where other BMPs such as ponds may not be  cost effective.   It is also noted
 that ponds within the District of Columbia show higher unit costs than in Maryland.  As pointed
 out before, most of the BMPs analyzed for Maryland are located in suburban areas where BMPs
 serving larger drainage areas can be more cost effective.
                                           42

-------
Figure 2.15 Financial Unit Costs for Urban BMPs
                   (Interquartile Ranges)
                                          TSXfo
                  Urban BMP Unit Cost Ranges
                          Maryland
                                          25XQe
33UU •

3UUU -

Z3UU "
9? tAATI
>>2000 -
g 13UU •
ff\
1000 -

500 J

0 -

_,
V
f





^mSZJjj{
|.M......i.l.l.j 1 r 1 _ 	 f
PocdRdiont,: WrtPood. EaodedDeteakn/ tratntioo
DortoWrt StaHo»M«h Trench-
Dry to Extended Del.
Wet to Extended Del.
              Urban BMP Unit Cost Ranges
                  District of Columbia
10UUU -
8000 -
OWU "
4000 •
2000 •

median




**'ftff-y


Rooftop
Detention


f f ;
'




,' /


Infihiatkn OUGrit
Treocbe* Cbamben




', ' , '
'' ' ; >
-;--,


7S*ae
-
/ f s ' f
ff Jft f

—
25»Do

Pcodi Sand
Fihen
                            43

-------
           3. POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES
      This section summarizes the nutrient removal retrofit studies conducted by Maryland,
Virginia, and the District of Columbia that include biological nutrient removal technologies
(BNR).  Planning level retrofit cost estimates for municipal WWTPs are developed for two sets
of effluent levels: TN = 8.0 mg/1, TP = 2.0 rng/1; and TN = 3.0 mg/1, and TP = 0.5 mg/1.
Retrofit cost equations are provided for these effluent levels for both seasonal and annual (year-
round) nutrient removal.  Also, cost and effectiveness of selected existing nutrient removal
WWTPs in Maryland are summarized.
3.1    Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Removal Technologies for Municipal WWTPs

       A summary of technologies for point source nutrient  removal  controls is found in
"Available Technologies for Control of Nutrient Pollution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed"
(STAC, 1987) and Report #7 of the Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Reevaluation  (VWCB, 1991).  Chapter m (Background to BNR) of the Maryland Nutrient
Removal Study prepared by the Beavin Co., Camp Dresser & McKee  and Metcalf & Eddy
(1989) also reviews nutrient reduction technologies in WWTPs.

       The effectiveness, advantages and disadvantages of the different technologies  were
described in  the 1991 Reevaluation  Report #7 (VWCB,  1991).  Among these, Biological
Nutrient Removal (BNR) has increasingly become a good candidate for nutrient removal. The
Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions have focused their  efforts on studying the feasibility of this
relatively new technology to upgrade existing WWTPs or to build new BNR facilities in the
future.  In this section, point source nutrient reduction technologies are briefly enumerated
following the format presented in Chapter m of the Maryland Nutrient  Removal Study.
Wastewater nutrient removal processes within a WWTP can involve a combination of physical,
biological and chemical processes.   However, for nutrient removal,  these processes may be
classified into two major categories as described in the Maryland Nutrient Removal Retrofit
Study:

       • Biological nutrient removal processes
       • Non-Biological nutrient removal processes
                                         44

-------
3.1.1  Biological Nutrient Removal Processes

   Biological nitrogen removal can be classified  into nitrification processes and  biological
denitrification processes.  Nitrification is the first step in a biological nitrogen removal process
where ammonia and organic nitrogen are converted to nitrate. This process occurs under aerobic
conditions.  Processes listed under this category in  the Maryland Nutrient Removal Study are:

Nitrification Processes

   •  Separate stage aeration reactors
   •  Combined carbon oxidation/nitrification reactor
   •  Attached growth processes
       •  Trickling filters
       •  Rotating biological contactors
       •  Biological activated filters (BAF)
       •  Suspended fixed growth media
       «  Combined attached growth/suspended growth

   Within these categories, many of the conventional secondary aerobic processes are found.
In the Chesapeake Bay basin,  secondary treatment plant total nitrogen (TN) effluent levels can
vary between 15 and 25 mg/1 depending on the plant type.

Denitrification Processes

   In the biological denitrification process, nitrates  are converted into nitrogen gas under anoxic
conditions with dissolved oxygen concentration less than 0.5 mg/1.  Processes listed  under this
category in the Maryland Nutrient Removal Study  are:

    »  Post-aeration anoxic reactors
    •  Separate sludge, post aeration anoxic reactors
    •  Anoxic/aerobic process (Modified Ludzack-Ettinger Process)

    •  Attached growth processes
       •  Rotating biological  contactors (RBCs)
       •  Fluidized beds
       •  Stationary media
               •      Deep bed denitrification filters

                                           45

-------
             •      Upflow, fluidized bed reactors
             •      Suspended, fixed growth media

Combined Biological Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal (BNR) Processes

   For both nitrogen and phosphorus removal combined, the following processes are listed:
       A/O™ and A2O™
       Bardenpho™ and modified Bardenpho™ processes
       Lagoon systems (Biolac™)
       Operationally-modified activated sludge process
       Oxidation ditches
       Phostrip™
       Sequencing batch reactors (SBRs)
       University of Capetown (UCT) process
       Virginia Initiative Plant (VIP)
   Removal of both nitrogen and phosphorus using biological processes has increasingly become
an attractive alternative due to its cost effectiveness. For some of these processes the wastewater
passes through a system of anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic compartments as shown in the
simplified diagram shown in Figure 3.1 (Freudberg and Lugbill, 1990).  There  are different
variations of this concept that are shown in Figure 3.2 for the A/O, A2O™, Bardenpho™ and
the VIP (Virginia Initiative Process) process  (Morales,  et  al.,  1988).  Design, removal
efficiencies, and costs can vary for each of these processes (VWCB, 1990).

Other Biological Nutrient Removal Processes

   Other biological nutrient removal processes may include land application of wastewaters by
overland flow, rapid infiltration basins over permeable soils, and slow-rate application methods
such as irrigation, and ponds and wetlands.
                                         46

-------
                                     Figure 3.1
                          Generic BNR Process Schematic
PHOSPHORUS RELEASE
SOLUBLE BOO UPTAKE
ORGANISM SELECTION
                                DENITRIFICATION
   NITRIFICATION
   BOO REMOVAL
PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE
PRI
EFF w
(Q) i
,r
>

c

"I
0

W

ANAEROBIC '
ZONE
1
/
t
c:

Z>


/
^
°o ° ° o°
0 0 • 0 • 0

kANOXIC AEROBIC ZONE
ZONE
NITRIFIED RECYCLE ^
RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE (RAS)




	 >> EFF
f
-C^i '
WASTE
. ACTIVATED
           (Source: Freudberg and Lugbill, 1990)
                                          47

-------





f
L
o
tl
1









N
P

f y




"I


i

• • o
i
e ••
>


t


i

\
\
h
.
VI
I
T
j
i
f)
I)
^

Itb
" /
(

i
Ul
o 6
X •»
§ c>
03*
C
2
CD
g
i

i
t

•*\
?
w
CL
9





r
                    t
                    I
                      e
                     f»» O*


                     -7T
                      o •

                       0
                    4^
                    4
                      «
r
               5

               >,
                                       03

                                     .  S
                              IK
                                              48
                                                         •.1*1

                                                          • •»*o-|
                                    •>*
                                     ~8
                                                                M
                                                 P
                                                 o
                                                 II
                                                  a



                                                  O
                                                  R
                                               g
                                               CO
                                                                                 8
                                                                                    V)
                                                                                    tf}
                                                                                 «  2
                                                                                 «- £*
                                                                                 9 PM
E

                                                       ^ 125 D_




                                                       
-------
3.1.2  Non-Biological Nutrient Removal Processes

       In the Maryland Nutrient Removal Study the following physical and chemical methods
for nutrient removal were listed:

   •   Breakpoint chlorination
   •   Chemical addition for phosphorus removal
   •   Ion exchange
   •   Electrodialysis
   •   Reverse osmosis
   •   Electrochemical treatment
   •   Chemical denitrification
   •   Distillation
   •   Air stripping

       Of all these  treatments,  chemical  addition for phosphorus removal  has  been most
commonly used within the Chesapeake Bay basin.  For total phosphorus (TP), typical effluent
concentrations  are between 2.5 mg/1 and  8.0 mg/1 without any chemical removal faculties.
Effluent levels achieved by secondary WWTPs without chemical removal depend on the plant's
wastewater influent characteristics. For instance, in phosphate ban areas, TP effluent levels of
25  mg/1 may be achieved without  chemical  addition with  influent levels ranging from
approximately 4.0 mg/1 to 6.0 mg/1.
3.1.3 Summary of Point Sources in The Chesapeake Bay Basin

       A computerized database of the Chesapeake Bay point sources can be found in the
Chesapeake Bay Program Point Source Atlas (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1988). This database
contains information on 1,345 municipal and 4,651 industrial point source discharges. From the
point source atlas, municipal point source discharges account for 94% of the total phosphorus
load and 88% of the total nitrogen point source load.  Also, municipal WWTPs with design
capacities greater than or equal to 0.5 mgd accounted for nearly 97% of the flow, with about
97% of the total nitrogen load and 93%  of the total phosphorus load.  Therefore, the analysis
of this report focuses on municipal wastewater treatment plants with design discharges greater
than or equal to 0.5 mgd Qarge municipal WWTPs).
                                          49

-------
       Appendix G summarizes the major Chesapeake Bay Basin Municipal WWTPs by major
basins.  In these tables, the flows and effluent concentrations reflect the most recent average
annual nutrient effluent and flow data that could be compiled through 1990.  Design capacity
flow information includes  expected  expansion of  WWTPs before  the year 2000.   This
information was  only obtained for 51 out of 265 WWTPs.  However, the combined flow for
these WWTPs account for nearly 70% of the total design flow capacity of large (design flows
greater than 0.5  mgd) municipal WWTPs in the Chesapeake Bay region (about 1,500 mgd).
Data for these expansions came mainly from the retrofit studies conducted by the states and the
District of Columbia.

       Figure 3.3 shows the distribution of WWTPs by basin and treatment process. This figure
shows  that activated sludge processes followed  by fixed film processes are the most common
treatment types within the basin.  Although this figure shows a significant number of plants
(about 50%) in the Susquehanna River basin (A through E), Figure 3.4 shows that the combined
flow of these plants is relatively small (about 20%). Large WWTP flows are in the Potomac
(F and T), James (X and I) and West Chesapeake Bay basin (S), accounting for approximately
73% of the total municipal point source flow (large WWTPs) into the Chesapeake Bay basin.

       Average annual effluent concentrations for total nitrogen and phosphorus are depicted in
 Figure 3.5.  The nutrient effluent concentrations by basin have been weighted by each WWTP
average annual flow. The tables in Appendix G show the flow-weighted average annual effluent
concentrations for each treatment process and basin. Overall, total effluent concentrations varied
between 12 and 22 mg/1 for nitrogen and between 0.14 mg/1 and 6.7 mg/1 for phosphorus. The
average flow-weighted concentration for the entire Chesapeake Bay basin was 17 mg/1 and 2.1
mg/1 for nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively.

3.2    Nutrient Removal Effectiveness of Municipal WWTPs Technologies

       Effectiveness of point sources was summarized in the Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient
Reduction Strategy Revaluation Report  #7  (VWCB,  1991).   Table 3.1 summarizes  the
effectiveness of the different point  source nutrient  reduction controls for both nitrogen and
phosphorus, and Table 3.2 provides  a qualitative assessment of BNR point source technologies
(VWCB, 1991).  Report 7 also highlighted the significance of the expected effluent levels based
on average annual performance when compared to the monthly effluent permit limits.  It was
found that plants with monthly effluent limits showed average annual performance effluent levels
better than the ones specified in the monthly permit limit.  Table 3.3 summarizes the expected
effluent levels for both monthly limits and expected average annual performance (VWCB, 1991).

                                          50

-------
                      Figure 3.3
OH
(4-1
 o
35



30



25



20



15



10
     Chesapeake Bay Large Municipal WWTPs:

                   Treatment Processes
                                             Primary
                                             Lagoons
0  U-
                                             Fixed Film
                                             grtended Aeration



                                             Act. Slud. & Nitri.




                                             Activated Sludge
                           51

-------
                      Figure 3.4
     Chesapeake Bay Large Municipal WWTPs:


              Sum of Flows by Basin
  800
  600
"CJ
  400
I
  200
    0
       AB CDEFGH
I

II

Sf
t& OT
 . fc
& I
a 5
co »-<


I
           ctf
    3 •£ ^ 8

    i S *
•S -8

&&
ca c/3
S 9
CO CO


.-s-g
             PQ CQ
ii
                     1
                                       ^]	Design Flow
                                           Average Flow
             •
             d)
                         52

-------
Figure 3.5  Chesapeake Bay Large Municipal WWTPs
         Flow-Weighted Annual Effluent Concentrations
                      Nitrogen
9^ ^
^*
tr 90 -
bb^-v
^— ^
lis
r
e in .
o 1U
1 =
s -> •
«
n .


i
.J'l
ji
".






4-


-
*•?
"j
«





4-


T
•;







4-


"1
'";
\
X





4-


-

'-






4-



1
:i
.





4-


r
i,'
v
'





4-


iv
"f"
^
-.





4-



7
Is,
jl
'1





4-



f
*
;, ,





4-



?!:
r:






4-



-
(•
'





4-



i!'
'T
-'





4-



^
}'
i'





4-



fi
C-=
,f





4-

'/!
;;,
tf
j,
r,1
':i
r
         ABCDEFGHI  QRSTUWX
                    Phosphorus
J •
•&*
Effluent Concentral
3 H- K) t

i!-*
I,!!

-
n


1



3
.j!
',"
tf'
j[
\r
L

-

!.
-1
±



•'jv
\*<
^


J
y


!

•j.

T
'%
*'•*".



u A B c D E'F'G HI' Q'
1
R
/•
S

T-
,j
r1*"

r


FT
'j1
'T'U'W'X'
                   rt O J^  >•» ««  O •!«
                   § 1 83 I  2 §
§> „	„
               8 *S 3 JS X .si
1|5||||||C02C°
a
^
sr
3
CO

1
        P S
  CO   CO CO

                              -2s *73
                              1 g ^
                          53
                                   £

-------
Table 3.1 Effectiveness of Point Source Nutrient Removal Technologies
Technology
Chemical Addition (pre and simultaneous
precipitation)
Chemical addition (post-precipitation)
Biological Phosphorus Removal
Separate Stage Biological
Nitrification/Denitrification ,
Breakpoint Chlorination
Ion Exchange
Ammonia Stripping
Biological Nitrogen Removal
Effluent Nutrient Levels1
TP = 1.0 to 2.0 mg/1
TP < 0.2 mg/1
TP < 0. 1 mg/1 using lime treatment
TP = 2.0 mg/1 or less if standby chemical addition
is available to ensure permit compliance
TN = 3.0 mg/1
NH3-N = 1.0 mg/1; TN level depends upon
whether nitrification occurred prior to chlorine
addition and the amount of organic-nitrogen that is
unaffected by the process.
TN = 2.0 mg/1 depending upon the composition of
the wastewater.
NH3-N =1.0 mg/1 can be achieved in combination
with breakpoint chlorination.
TN = 3.0 - 12.0 mg/1
1. Adapted from the Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report #7 (VWCB, 1991)
Table 3.2 Comparison of BNR Process Characteristics2
Process Name
Bardenpho
A2/O
UCT
VIP
A/O
Nutrient Removal Capability
Phosphorus
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Nitrogen
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Operational
Flexibility
Low
, Low
Medium
Medium
Low
New Plant
Costs
High
Low
Medium
Low
Low
2. Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report #7 (VWCB, 1991)





                                                54

-------
3.3 Retrofit Cost Studies
                                       : :
   In response to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and to the commitment of the signatories of
the Agreement to reduce by 40% the 1985 nutrient loads into the Bay by the year 2000, the
District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia have conducted nutrient removal retrofit studies
of selected  municipal WWTPs.   This  section briefly summarizes  the states' studies for
retrofitting WWTPs with biological nutrient removal (BNR) and other technologies prepared by
Greeley and Hansen (1989) and McNamee, Porter & Seeley (1990) for the District of Columbia;
Beavin Co., Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., and Metcalf & Eddy Inc. (1989) for Maryland; and
CH2M HILL (1989) for Virginia.
3.3.1  Blue Plains         '

       In this section the studies performed by Greeley and Hansen (1989) and McNamee,
Porter & Seeley (1990) for retrofitting Blue Plains for nutrient removal are briefly summarized.

3.3.1.1   Greeley and Hansen Study

       The Greeley and Hansen (1989)  report was prepared for the District of Columbia
Department of Public Works to update an earlier report (Greeley and Hansen, 1984) with the
most recent information on the feasibility of implementing nitrogen removal at Blue Plains. This
study evaluated the feasibility of retrofitting Blue Plains using deep bed filter denitrification. Ten
alternatives were evaluated in  the study and procedures for the selection of alternatives were
outlined.

    Table 3.4 shows a summary of the alternatives evaluated in this study for cost effectiveness
comparison. The alternatives were developed to achieve a total nitrogen annual average effluent
 level of 7 52 mg/1.  This effluent level was determined using  a 40%  reduction  of the 1985
 nitrogen loads with the plant operating at the year 2000 average flow of 370 mgd. From this
 table, alternatives 2C and 5C appear to be cost effective.  This is attributed to  the seasonal
 nitrogen removal  approach  
-------
Table 3.3 Expected Effluent Levels: Monthly Limit vs Annual Average Performance
Alternative
Effluent Level (mg/1)
Monthly
Limit
Annual
Average
PHOSPHORUS
*.
1. Standard P Removal
Chemical Addition (simultaneous precipitation or BPR)
2. Advanced P Removal (chemical addition post
precipitation)
3. Limit of Technology (chemical addition/post-
precipitation with filters)
2.00
0.50
0.10
1.50
0.37
0.075
NITROGEN
1. Optimized N Removal (for plants with existing
nitrification capability)
2. BNR minimum (3-stage BNR with small units)
3. BNR standard (3-stage BNR)
4. BNR (enhanced) (3-stage BNR with larger units)
5. BNR (advanced) (5-stage-Bardenpho process)
14-20
14
12
10
5
10-14
10
8
7
3
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report #7 (VWCB, 1991)
                                               56

-------
'I
i
 8

ts

S
val
 I
 9

 S
12

 if
8
         2
a

S
ogy
Tec




            o\

            oo


            8"
                 5
                  r-
                  >n

                  a
                  S
                  o\
                             1
                             S
                             oo"

                             3
                             oo
                             Tf

                             oo"
                              O\
g

E
                                      s
                                oo
                                o

                                si
                                      o
                                      \o

                                              oo
                                              to
                                         S
                                         06"
                                         VO
                                              "I
                                              oT
                                              1
                                              1C
                                              •c

                                              •a
tion foi
rifi
                                                      S
                                                      £
                                                      vo

                                                      i
                                                      a
                                                       a
                                                       ON
                 o\
                 pi


                 06"


                 2.
                 vo"
                                                 fM
                                                 GO


                                                 S
                                                                  S
                                                                  "I
                                                                  oC

                                                                  S
                                                                  -

                                                                  >n
                                                                        S
                                                            1




                                                            CO

                                                            *0

                                                                         o

-------
3.3.1.2  McNamee, Porter & Seeley Study

         The McNamee, Porter & Seeley (1990) report summarized the results of a feasibility
study for retrofitting Blue Plains with biological nutrient removal technologies.  The study
recommended the use of biological  phosphorus  removal (BPR) using the A/O process.
Implementation of this process in the secondary reactors at 75% of the maximum monthly flow
was found to be a feasible alternative.  The cost of performing this retrofit was estimated at $1.6
million.  This cost does not include license fee costs for the A/O process which can reach a
maximum of $500,000 for any user in the United States.  Expected total phosphorus effluent
levels from pilot studies in the secondary reactors were estimated at 1.3 mg/1.  Potential annual
savings by using BPR at Blue Plains were estimated between $0.7 and $1.18  million from
elimination of the addition of iron salts in the secondary reactors and the cost reduction of sludge
handling. The unit cost of phosphorus removal for this retrofit in $/mgd/year is:  EAC/fiow =
508 and the ETC/flow = 4,324. Therefore, the low cost of this alternative would probably lead
to a full scale demonstration of BPR at Blue Plains.

         Five alternatives were evaluated for nitrogen removal.  The selected alternative was
addition of methanol at the fourth pass in  the existing nitrification reactors.  Capital costs of
performing the retrofit were estimated at $12.9 million. Annual chemical costs were estimated
at $1.6  million per  year; however,  no increase in O&M (if any) was provided.  Retrofit
modifications for nitrogen removal were designed to meet an effluent level of TN = 7.5 mg/1
to comply with the 40%  reduction in total nitrogen.   Results from pilot tests on the selected
alternatives showed performance levels below the effluent limit of 7.5 mg/1 (McNamee, Porter
& Seeley, 1990). Using the capital and O&M costs, the unit costs for nitrogen removal for this
retrofit are: EAC/flow = 8,420 ($/mgd/year) and the ETC/flow = 71,680.  Although no other
O&M costs were reported in this study, the unit  costs are substantially lower than the ones
presented in previous studies for Blue Plains.
                                                              '
          The study also  recommended performing a full scale demonstration project in one of
the secondary reactors  (West No. 1) to assess the annual performance and reliability of the BPR
technology. It was recommended that half of the nitrification reactors be converted for nitrogen
removal. The total cost  and tests of the full scale demonstration studies are estimated at $1.6
million.
                                          58

-------
3.3.2  Maryland Biological Nutrient Removal Study

         The report prepared for the Maryland Department of the Environment by Beavin Co.,
Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., and Metcalf & Eddy Inc. (1989), analyzed the capability and cost
effectiveness of retrofitting Maryland's municipal WWTPs to biologically remove nitrogen and
phosphorus (BNR).

       Table 3.5 shows the 24 WWTPs evaluated in this study along with the "conceptual level
cost estimates"  to perform the  retrofit for the recommended technologies.  Alternatives were
evaluated for each plant for the proposed effluent levels of TN = 8 mg/1 on a seasonal basis
without the use of chemicals, and for the smallest total phosphorus (TP) level of 2.0 mg/1 or the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limit for the plant.
3.3.3  Virginia Retrofit Study

         The CH2M HILL (1989) report prepared for the Virginia Water Control Board
(VWCB) evaluated the cost of implementing four scenarios for nutrient removal in 26 WWTPs.
The four scenarios were: Alternative 1: Phosphorus removal to permit limit;  Alternative 2:
alternative 1 plus seasonal TKN or NH3-N removal to permit limit; Alternative 3: alternative 1
plus seasonal nitrogen removal to 10 mg/1 total nitrogen; and Alternative 4: alternative 1 plus
year-round nitrogen removal to 10 mg/1 total nitrogen.  The nutrient effluent limits for the
preceding alternatives are average monthly limits.

       Table 3.6 summarizes the total costs for all the 26 WWTPs for each alternative.  The
"costs opinions" shown are "order-of-magnitude" which are expected to be accurate within +50
percent and -30 percent (CH2M HELL, 1989). Costs do not include license fees for proprietary
treatment processes.  The study reported that these costs were approximately $11.9 and $11.3
million (in 1989 dollars) for alternatives 3 and 4 respectively.

       Tables 3.7 and 3.8 summarize for each plant the retrofit "cost opinions" for alternative
3 and alternative 4 respectively.  Based  on the estimated year 2000 average daily flow of 522
mgd (76% of total design capacity), the VWCB estimated that annual average TN = 7.0 mg/1
would have to be achieved to comply with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement goals.  This average
annual performance may be obtained with a 9.7  mg/1  maximum monthly limit.  Therefore,
alternatives 3 and 4 were set at TN = 10 mg/1 maximum monthly limit.  The year-round TN
= 10 mg/1 is expected to meet an average annual performance effluent level of TN  = 7 mg/1.

                                          59

-------
s
a
6

.3

§
V*
1
o\
c-
n-
\D
oo

                                                               ON
                                        en
                                        CS
                                                           O\

                                                           8
                                                           co"
                                   §
                                                          g
            oo
            vo
I

i
                       I
                                        O\
                                        tn
                                                          S
                                         CO
                                         to
                                          O



                                          I
                  8
                                              tN
                  I
                                                                       |
                                                                        o

                                                                       1
                             O\
                                         o

                                         ci
                             CO


                             CO
                             1
BROADWATER
BOWIE
CA CREEK
SE
                                                                     co^

                                                                     06"
                                                                     CO
                                                                     9^

                                                                     •w-
                                                                     VO
                                                                             §
                                                                     eg
             o

            1
            "o

            I
                                                                                   is

                                                                                   1
                                                                                   Q
                                                                     I
                                                                     oo

                                                                     vd
BROADNECK
SBURY
S
                                                                             i     I
                                                                                             &
                                                                  "II

-------

-------
VO

-------
co

-------

-------
W
          VO
vo

"I
oo"
       §
          OO
             8
             "I
             VO*
             01
          O
             o\
              8
             •
             a
             is
             Z

              Q
EDERICKSB
                00
                R
                vo
                V9-
                 1
                   •
                      a

                      Ov
                      VO
MASSAP
5
                         ^

                         S
                         2
   £
G CREI
      8
                               ON
                     V
                                     8
                                     VO
            B
             w


             «

             >-
S
                                                               vo
                                   Uliilt
                                   — -** " •§ & ^ -
I s 5

I il I i 2 a s & .=
"afsi^'S'S^'Sfiljs
Slttii^iPlflfi

-------
1
o
CM
H

&
1

I
1
S
1
  S ^
  It
  w &
  lag
  IIs
     !
   s
        ui
         8
         o\
         o\
         to
         S
           O\


             VO
             s
                VO
                ts
                VO
                S


                     to
                     ON
                       V*
                         I
                         o
                         ON
                          oo
                          00
                         vo
                         V*
                         Q
                         s
                         s
                           «
                          '

                          a
                          z

                                CN
                                *H(
                                *«•
                                                      VO
                                                      VO

-------

                   OO
                   0



                   t
        Ov
tig
B

1

a
            VO
            o\
        V*
               s
               00
               ON
               •M-
               VO
               o\


               §
       r-'

       3
            oo
            in
            o
            to
       o
       VO
       oo


                g
                S

             1

RICHM
                      *•»
                       o
                       Oc
                          0\
                                  E ?
                                                  ^

                                                  o
O
_c


•8
••O
3

1


'i
o
u

•5
                                  £
                                  II-
                                           •2   S
                                           «   TZ.
                                           o & — -

                                           1 I I I 6
                                         1
                                fflfl
                                « as e SB &
                                i o. j> a. o

                                £ 1 5 •§ •§•
                                a ! 1 - I1 S
                                  _ B .0

-------
3.3.4  Summary                                                      :

       Despite possible operational problems for BNR technologies, particularly when both
nitrogen and phosphorus are biologically removed, BNR offers the potential advantage of low
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.  Due to the limited data on the performance of a full
scale retrofit in the Chesapeake Bay basin,  there is  still much uncertainty over the precise
nutrient effluent levels that a particular BNR retrofit can achieve. Nutrient removal performance
of a BNR retrofit is likely to come from pilot or full scale demonstration studies for each plant
or after the retrofit is completed and nutrient effluent levels have been determined from annual
operation data at each site.  Also, most cost estimates reported  are likely to change as  the
selection of alternatives is narrowed and the preliminary retrofit designs are refined.  Also, it
is important to point out that the required effluent levels for each plant or group of plants in a
tributary will likely be determined according  to receiving water quality.
                                                                  i
     Equivalent annual costs per mgd retrofitted (EAC/Flow) also are shown in the tables for
all WWTPs. These ratios give a rough idea of the relative cost differences between the different
WWTPs and studies summarized. However, it is important to point out that comparisons  of
costs between these studies should be done with caution. Retrofit design approaches as well as
proposed effluent levels are different.   Each retrofit is unique with cost estimates strongly
dependent on each site's characteristics. Retrofit design assumptions and expected effluent levels
are likely to be different for each WWTP. Nevertheless, the costs for the proposed effluent
levels reported by these  studies  give an  insight  into the expected costs and effectiveness of
retrofitting WWTPs for nutrient removal in the Chesapeake Bay basin.
3.4  Planning Level Retrofit Cost Estimates

     Planning level cost curves were derived from the Hazen and Sawyer Engineers and J. M.
Smith and Associates (1988) report which provides Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) planning
level retrofit cost estimates for four  types of secondary treatment plants: extended aeration,
activated sludge, activated sludge with nitrification and. fixed film (trickling filter or rotating
biological contactors).  Retrofit WWTP plant diagrams for these secondary plants are shown in
Appendix H.  Hazen and Sawyer Engineers and J.M. Smith and Associates provided retrofit
costs for five plant design flow sizes: 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 10.0 and 30 mgd. The costs were provided
for two long-term average nutrient effluent levels:
                                          68

-------
       High Level Nutrient Discharge (HLND) : TP = 2.0 mg/1 and TN = 8,0 mg/1 (seasonal)

       Low Level Nutrient Discharge (LLND): TP = 0.5 mg/1 and TN = 3.0 nig/1 (seasonal)

3.4.1  Retrofit Assumptions

       Detailed assumptions on the cost and retrofit process selection are described in the Hazen
and Sawyer Engineers and J. M. Smith and Associates (1988) report.  For the HLND target the
A2/O™ BNR process (Figure 3.1) was used as the retrofit alternative. This process was judged
capable of meeting the TN effluent level with supplemental alum feed to  meet the TP effluent
level. For the LLND target, the Bardenpho BNR process (Figure 3.1) with two separate stages
of denitrification was used to meet the TN effluent level.  The LLND target level for TP was
judged to be achieved with alum addition facilities  and effluent filtration.  Addition of  alum
facilities  at all plants will meet both TP effluent levels on an average long term basis.

3.4.2  Retrofit Cost Modifications

       The Hazen and Sawyer Engineers and J.  M. Smith and Assoc.  (1988) report provided
cost curves for the two effluent levels for warm weather plant operation (design temp = 20°C;
seasonal TN removal).  Also, the retrofit cost curves are based on chemical cost with an influent
level of TP = 9.0 mg/1, which only applies to states that have not implemented a phosphate
detergent ban (Delaware, New York,  and West Virginia).   However, the report provided
information on chemical costs  for influent levels of 6.5 mg/1, which approximate the total
phosphorus influent level of WWTPs in states with phosphate bans. Information on escalating
the capital cost for a design temperature of 10°C (i.e. year-round removal) also was provided.
No incremental cost ratios were given for O&M costs. However, most of the incremental costs
for the 10°C  design are due to the increase in wastewater retention times (i.e. tank size). The
only O&M costs that may increase are the power costs (personal communication with J. M.
Smith and  Associates).  This further adjustment may have slight  effects in the overall O&M
costs and therefore no  attempt is made here to modify these costs.

       In this report, cost curves are updated and modified for the two  sets of effluent levels
for both seasonal and year-round TN removal and for application  of these costs in states with
and without phosphate bans.  Today, all Chesapeake Bay signatories have a phosphate ban in
place, and  therefore, cost equations for non-phosphate ban areas may be applied only for those
WWTPs in Delaware, New York and West Virginia. Then, four sets of equations are presented
 for the two sets of effluent levels:

                                          69

-------
       • Seasonal TN removal with phosphorus removal costs in phosphate ban areas;
       • Seasonal TN removal with phosphorus removal costs in non-phosphate ban areas;
       • Year-round TN removal with phosphorus removal costs in phosphate bin areas; and
       • Year-round TN removal with phosphorus removal costs in non-phosphate ban areas.
                                                                  i
     In order to update the original cost curves to obtain these four sets, the following steps
were followed:

       1 ) Original cost estimates were updated to 1990 dollars.  Appropriate ENR indexes
were used to  escalate construction costs.  EPA operation,  maintenance, and  repair  (OMR)
indexes were used to escalate O&M and labor costs.   Different indexes for labor, chemical,
power, and maintenance were used to reflect adequate changes of these parameters.  Land prices
were adjusted  using the consumer price index.  After  the first quarter of 1990, OMR indexes
were not produced by EPA due to fiscal constraints.

       2 ) The chemical  costs for phosphate ban areas  are modified based on a total phosphorus
(TP) influent level of 6.5  mg/1, which are also provided in the Hazen and Sawyer Engineers and
J. M. Smith and Associates (1988) report.  This influent level contrasts with the chemical costs
given by the original cost curves that were developed based on an influent level of TP = 9.0
mg/1.  The 6.5 mg/1 influent level better reflects the implementation of the  phosphate ban
although some states may have influent levels that are slightly below this level.
                                                                  I
       3  )  The Hazen and Sawyer Engineers and J.  M. Smith and Associates (1988) report
provided factors used to adjust the capital costs for a design temperature of 10°C (i.e. year-round
TN removal).
                                                                  i
       4 ) To ease the planning level cost estimation, equations were developed from the
estimated costs for each  type of retrofit and design flow. The equations were obtained using
nonlinear regression for  two discharge ranges: 0.5 to 5.0 mgd and 5.0 to 30 mgd. Appendix
I shows the coefficients and exponents of these equations for the four sets  specified above.

These coefficients and exponents are given for two sets of equations for capital and O&M costs
expressed as:
                                           70

-------
                                  Capital=a(Flow)1
                                   O&M=c(Flow)£
where:
       Capital = Capital costs,
       O&M = Operation and maintenance costs,
       Flow = Design flow in million gallons per day (mgd), and
       a,b,c,d = Regression coefficients and exponents

       The cost  equations applicable to phosphate ban  areas are plotted for the two effluent
levels (Figures 3.6 and 3.7). For the two effluent levels, these figures show that the unit cost
significantly increases as the plant design flow decreases below 5 mgd.  Within each retrofit
type, the unit costs do not vary much for design flows greater than 5 mgd.  Also for the two
effluent levels, the retrofit costs are highest for fixed  film plants (trickling filters,  rotating
biological contactors) followed by activated sludge, activated  sludge with  nitrification and
extended aeration processes.

       It is also  important to point out that royalty fees are not included in these equations.
These costs should be evaluated on a case by case basis because they are subject to negotiations.
The Hazen  and Sawyer Engineers and J. M. Smith &  Associates report gives  the following
information on license fees:

     -  Air products  royalty fee for the A2O process:  Fee = $l,000/lb day of phosphorus
       removed.
     -  Royalty fee for the Bardenpho process: Fee = $60,000 x Q(
                                                               ,0.75
                                           71

-------
       Figure 3.6 Planning Level BNR Retrofit Unit Cost Curves
                   High Level Nutrient Discharge
   350

   280 -
u.'S'
g-|210-
•5*8

^C-
    70

     0
          TP=2.0 mg/1; TN=8.0 mg/l(Seasonal)
        EA
                                   Plant Type
                                 FF« Fixed Film
                                 AS-Activated Sludge
                                 AS/N-AS + Nitrification
                                 EA - Extended Aeration
                    10      15      20
                      Design Flow (mgd)
                                               25
                                                    30
700
        TP=2.0 mg/1; TN=8.0 mg/l(Year-Round)
                                   Plant Type
                                FF" Fixed Film
                                AS "Activated Sludge
                                AS/N-AS + Nitrification
                                EA ' Extended Aeration
                    10      15      20
                      Design Flow (mgd)
                                72

-------
        Figure 3.7  Planning Level BNR Retrofit Unit Cost Curves
                    Low Level Nutrient Discharge
700
         TP=0.5 mg/1; TN=3.0 mg/l(Seasonal)
                                    Plant Type
                                FF » Fixed Film
                                AS = Activated Sludge
                                AS/N = AS + Nitrification
                                EA = Extended Aeration
                    10       15      20
                     Design Flow (mgd)
 1400
      TP=0.5 mg/1; TN=3.0 mg/l(Year-Round)
                                     Plant Type
                                 FF « Fixed Film
                                 AS = Activated Sludge
                                  AS/N « AS + NHrification
                                  EA= Extended Aeration
                     10      15      20
                       Design Flow (mgd)
                                 73

-------
.3.4.3  Application of Planning Level Retrofit Cost Equations

       Planning level cost estimates were applied to the municipal WWTPs in the Chesapeake
Bay basin listed in Appendix G. The cost equations were applied only for those plants that are
not removing nitrogen and phosphorus to the specified effluent levels (HLND : TN = 8.0 mg/1,
and TP = 2.0 mg/1 and for LLND : TN = 3.0  mg/1 and TP == 2.0 mg/1) with design flows
between 0.5 and 30 mgd.  The cost equations for phosphate ban areas were used for WWTPs
in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. These planning level cost estimates should be used
with caution.  Again, actual retrofit costs may vary from the planning level ones as WWTPs
deviate from the general plant configurations shown in the diagrams oi" Appendix H. Cost
equations were developed for these plant configurations with the assumptions described in detail
in the Hazen and Sawyer Engineers and J.  M. Smith & Associates (1988) report.  Also, it is
very likely that some of these plants may not be able to be retrofitted to BNR due to specific site
constraints or plant type configurations.  Therefore,  the cost estimates from the planning level
equations should be used only as an initial  rough estimate.  In this report, these estimates are
used for relative cost comparisons between  basins, effluent levels 0ow and high), and seasonal
versus year-round nutrient removal.

       Figures 3.8 and 3.9 show the EAC/mgd ratio by basin for retrofitting existing WWTPs
for the two  effluent levels for both year-round removal and seasonal removal. For the year-
round retrofit cost  (Figure 3.8) and the high level nutrient discharge (HLND), the average
annual cost  per mgd was about $150,000; for the  low level nutrient  discharge (LLND) the
average annual cost was about $450,000.  For seasonal nitrogen removal, retrofit costs averaged
about $95,000 per mgd for the HLND and about $235,000 per mgd for the LLND.

3.4.4 Comparison of Planning Level Cost Estimates Using Cost Equations
       with States' Cost Studies

       It is very difficult, if not impossible, to perform accurate comparisons between the costs
derived from the planning level cost equations and those from the states' retrofit studies.  The
main reason for this difficulty is that assumptions,  effluent levels, site constraints, and sometimes
selection of technologies are different. However, the comparison is made here just to have an
idea of the how the planning level retrofit cost estimates from the Hazen and Sawyer Engineers
and J. M. Smith and Associates report differ from the states' studies.  Figure 3.10 shows the
relative unit cost (EAC/mgd) difference  for selected WWTPs from the states' retrofit studies.
The WWTPs selected from the Maryland (9 plants) and Virginia (11 plants) retrofit studies are
those BNR retrofits that meet the TP =  2.0 mg/1, and the TN = 8.0 mg/1 long term average

                                          74

-------
                       Figure 3.8

               Planning Level Retrofit Costs
               Year-Round Nitrogen Removal
800
                                                   rN=3.0 mg/l
                                                   rP=0.5mg/l
                                                   TN=8.0mg/l
                                                   TP=2.0mgA
                             75

-------
                Figure 3.9


         Planning Level Retrofit Costs:

          Seasonal Nitrogen Removal
                                             TN=3.0 mg/1

                                             TP=0.5mg/l
A B  C D
T  U WX


g*« a
                            IS 4> IS  «
                            £ ^ £  «
                              2
                                             TN=8.0mg/l

                                             TP=2.0mg/l
                       76

-------
limit for Maryland, and TN =  10 mg/1 seasonal monthly limit (Alternative 3, CH2M-HILL
study)!  The TN = 10 mg/1 monthly effluent limitation is expected to result in a seasonal
average of TN = 7.0 mg/1.  Therefore,  the selected plants' effluent levels are somewhat
comparable  to the planning level  cost curves for the high level nutrient discharge (HLND:
TN=8.0 mg/1, TP = 2.0 mg/1) with seasonal nitrogen removal.

       Figure 3.10 shows that in  general the planning level cost estimates are lower than the
cost estimates from the states' retrofit studies with an overall average relative difference of
-53%.

3.5    Cost and Effectiveness of Existing Nutrient Removal WWTPs

       This section summarizes the cost and effectiveness of some of the recently completed
WWTP retrofits with nutrient removal.  Although only a few plants are reported,  the costs and
effluent performance levels provide valuable information for comparisons with existing retrofit
cost estimates derived from site specific studies or planning level estimates.

3.5.1  Bowie WWTP (VT2-BNR)

      The Bowie plant is located on the  Patuxent river. This plant was initially designed as an
 oxidation ditch.  The plant has been retrofitted to biologically remove nitrogen and phosphorus.
 Anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic zones were created in the oxidation ditches for operation in the
 VT2 mode (adaptation of the UCT process).  In this mode of operation, the oxidation ditches
 are operated in  series with the return activated  sludge (RAS) recycled to the head of the first
 anoxic tank.

      Initially, ferrous sulfate and polymer were added for phosphorus removal and caustic soda
 was added to supplement the influent alkalinity. Chemical phosphorus removal was discontinued
 after the retrofits,  and since then, average effluent levels for total phosphorus have been
 reported to be around 0.6 mg/1. Also, phosphorus effluent levels are expected to reach 0.3 mg/1
 (Sen, et al., 1990).  These phosphorus levels are achieved without effluent filtration, which
 could further reduce them by 80%.

       According to Sen et al.,  1990, the volume in the oxidation ditches is adequate to comply
 with the effluent permit limitations ofTN =  6.0 mg/1 and TP = 1.0 mg/1. Total nitrogen annual
                                           77

-------
 c


I
•»-»
P
 
-------
effluent levels at the Bowie plant have fluctuated between 5 and 7 mg/1 between 1990 and 1992,
and the total phosphorus effluent level averaged about TP = 0.7 mg/1.

     The total cost of the Bowie retrofit was around $400,000 for a 2.5 mgd design flow.
Although the facility was rated at 3.0 mgd, Sen et al. (1990) pointed out that the available air
supply clarifier  and solids handling would need to be upgraded for  flows  over 2.5 mgd.
Increases in O&M costs by $13,000 annually were given in the Beavin Co., Camp Dresser &
McKee,and Metcalf & Eddy report (1988). However, Sen et al. (1990) reported potential net
savings of $57,000 per year by implementing the BNR retrofit.  Assuming no increase at all in
the O&M costs,  an equivalent annual cost per mgd of approximately $19,000 is obtained. This
unit  cost is significantly lower than other unit costs reported in the cost tables from the states'
studies.
3.5.2. Patuxent WWTP (BNR)

     The Patuxent plant was built to replace an existing plant.  It is an oxidation ditch where
nitrogen is biologically removed and chemical addition is used for phosphorus removal.  The
design flow of the plant is 6.0 mgd and currently the plant is operating at an annual average flow
of 3.6 mgd.   The cost of building this facility was $24 million, and current  O&M costs are
around $2 million, where $0.6 million of these costs are sludge handling and  $29,000 are
chemical addition costs.

     The Patuxent plant is operating very well. The permit limit for total nitrogen is 10 mg/1
seasonally and for total phosphorus 1.0 mg/1.  Annual average performance for total nitrogen
is around 8 mg/1 with performance levels as low as 5.0 mg/1 during the warmer season. The
plant also has been averaging an annual total phosphorus effluent level of 0.5 mg/1.
 3.5.3.  Western Branch WWTP (Denitrification Filters)

        The Western Branch has been retrofitted to remove nitrogen using denitrification filters.
 Current phosphorus removal at this plant will continue in order to comply with an effluent level
 of TP = 1.0 mg/1. The retrofit with denitrification filters is expected to comply with a seasonal
 (April to October) effluent level of TN  = 3.0 mg/1.  For other months,  total nitrogen effluent
 levels are expected to be between 13 mg/1 and 15 mg/1.
                                           79

-------
       Nitrogen removal retrofit costs for this facility were $19.5 million in capital costs, and
$1.05 million in O&M costs. Therefore, an EAC/mgd ratio of $111,348 is obtained.  With the
30 mgd design flow capacity, an effluent level of TN = 3.0 mg/1 between April and October,
and an assumed effluent level of TN =  14 mg/1 the rest of the year, the annuaUzed cost per
pound of nitrogen removed is calculated at $6.7.
3.5.4  VIP  (Virginia Initiative Plant)

       The Hampton Roads Sanitation District HRSD-Lamberts Point WWTP (now named the
VIP) has been retrofitted  with the VIP process (Figure  3.2).  Earlier  pilot studies were
performed to test for annual removal .of phosphorus and seasonal nitrogen removal.  Results
from the pilot study  showed that the VIP is capable of achieving low effluents for phosphorus
(soluble P effluent of 1.6mg/l) and total nitrogen effluent levels about 8.0 mg/1 (Sedlak, 1991).
Performance data for 1992 shows that the plant can achieve total nitrogen effluent levels between
7 and 8 mg/1 on a seasonal basis.
3.6 Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Municipal WWTPs
                                                                  i
     This section attempts to provide an estimate of the cost per pound of nitrogen or phosphorus
removed. Nitrogen and phosphorus cost effectiveness ratios are calculated for chemical addition
and biological nutrient removal processes.  The distinction between biological and chemical
addition treatment is made for retrofits that place emphasis on either of these nutrient removal
processes, recognizing that physical, chemical and biological processes may be found in all types
of WWTPs.

     Cost information using the states' retrofit cost studies, and actual facility cost data are used
to provide an overall idea of .these cost effectiveness ratios. Use of all this information will help
identify a "ballpark" cost of removing  a pound of nitrogen or phosphorus for a variety of
effluent levels  and technologies.   However, caution  should  be exercised  when making
comparisons among the calculated cost effectiveness ratios using the aforementioned data.
Assumptions for estimating retrofit costs for nutrient removal are different.  Assumptions from
the different data sources used to obtain these cost effectiveness ratios should be carefully
examined. Some important issues that affect the calculation of these ratios are summarized as
follows:
                                           80

-------
     •  Different  cost estimation  assumptions  have a  significant impact on  the  unit cost
       estimates. Actual retrofit costs may Vary significantly from the planning or site specific
       states' studies. For instance, retrofit "costs opinions" for Virginia WWTPs are "order-
       of-magnitude", which are expected to be accurate within +50% to -30%.

     •  Post-retrofit effluent levels are assumed values of expected average annual performance
       of these retrofits.  Actual annual performance levels after the retrofits are completed will
       determine the true annual nutrient load removed in each particular plant.

     •  For some cases, rough apportioning of the total retrofit costs are made for each nutrient.
       The apportioning  approach would significantly impact the cost effectiveness ratio.

3.6.1  Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Nitrogen Removal

     In this section, examples from the states'  retrofit studies are used to  estimate  ranges of
nitrogen  removal cost effectiveness ratios.   Figure 3.11  shows  a  summary  of  the cost
effectiveness ranges for nitrogen removal presented in this section.
3.6.1.1      Cost Effectiveness Ratios: Chemical Addition

             Table 3.9 shows the cost effectiveness ratios for nitrogen removal for selected
WWTPS. The following assumptions were made to obtain these cost effectiveness ratios.

     • WWTPs using chemical addition (methanol) in the process of removing nitrogen were
selected  from the Virginia retrofit study.  Phosphorus removal costs (alternative 1) were
subtracted from alternative 4 to obtain an estimate of the cost of removing nitrogen only. Post
retrofit annual average effluent concentration is assumed to be 7.0 mg/1.

     • For the two Maryland WWTPs, incremental costs were provided for the removal of
nitrogen using  the existing phosphorus removal facilities.  Retrofit costs  were estimated to
achieve an effluent level of 8.0 mg/1 on a seasonal basis.  Therefore,  an annual performance
level of TN  = 10 mg/1 is  assumed.  This estimate assumes that the plant provides some
nitrification in the cold months and that performance levels in the warmer months of the summer
can reach effluent levels below 8.0 mg/1.
                                          81

-------
Figure 3.11   Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Nitrogen Removal
      18
       14
    S 11  -
    on  ^
    §
    wo
    •a
    (4-1
    o
        0
                          Cost Effectiveness Ranges:
                               Nitrogen Removal
                                                             median
                   6.0
                             7.0          8.0          9.0
                        Total Nitrogen Effluent Concentration
CH « Chemic*! Addition                     (mg/1)
BNR «• Biological Nitrogen Removal
                                                                     max
                                                                       mm
B

CH
B
Bowie (BNR)
•&-
Nl
R

— WesVein Branch ,-ITT
y n
•©-
[— | BNR
	 _._.. 	 — — 	 -•- 	 	 	 — "
<] — Blue Plains (CH)
 The cost effectiveness ratio is defined as the total annualized nitrogen retrofit cost divided by the
 pounds of nitrogen removed per year. Nutrients removed are at the "end-of-pipe".  The information
 in this figure came from the states' nutrient removal retrofit studies for municipal WWTPs, and
 some existing retrofits in Maryland.
                                             82

-------
     • For Blue Plains in D.C., the costs were provided for nitrogen removal only.  A $4.8
cost effectiveness ratio (annual dollars per pound of nitrogen removed) was obtained for Blue
                                                                           :
Plains using chemical addition for nitrogen removal.  This low cost may be in part due to the
size of the plant (design flow = 370 mgd).

     Table 3.9 shows a range of $7.6 to $10.2 per pound of nitrogen removed for retrofit
designs  to achieve an average annual performance level of TN = 7.0 mg/1.  For an effluent
level of TN = 10 mg/1 the cost per pound of nitrogen removed was between $5.6 and $9.0
which are similar to the Virginia retrofits for the effluent level of TN = 7.0 mg/1.
3.6.1.2      Cost Effectiveness Ratios: Biological Removal

       It is very difficult to separate the costs associated with the removal of each nutrient in
a BNR system.  Biological processes for some BNR systems are not independent for phosphorus
or nitrogen removal, making it difficult if not impossible for some cases to apportion the total
retrofit costs  to each nutrient.  However,  data for some WWTPs in Virginia and Maryland
presented cost information in a format that allows making some inferences about the costs of
only removing nitrogen. The selected plants and assumptions are presented as follows:

     • The Virginia plants selected for this analysis were those that are removing phosphorus
by chemical addition and meeting the current phosphorus effluent limits. Chemical phosphorus
removal  was  chosen as the technology  capable of reliably meeting the monthly phosphorus
effluent limits.  The same O&M costs of  removing phosphorus  were presented  in  their
alternative 1 (phosphorus removal to permit limit) and alternative 4 (alternative 1 + year-round
nitrogen removal to TN =  10 mg/1). Therefore the current O&M costs, which also are included
in alternative 4, are subtracted from the total costs in alternative 4 to get some idea of the
biological nitrogen removal cost.  Some of these O&M phosphorus removal costs are presented
later in this section.

     • The Maryland plants selected for this analysis were those plants with BNR retrofit costs
provided using existing chemical  removal facilities.  The retrofits used here were those mainly
targeted for nitrogen removal by using an anoxic zone followed by an aerobic zone.  For the
selected Maryland plants the costs were provided for a design temperature of 12.5°C; therefore,
the nitrogen effluent level of 8.0 mg/1 is assumed to be met on a year-round basis.
                                          83

-------
      £ '•§! 5
      .3 ^ £
      w
      %
      i   I

      1C
tu
    S> «S    '3'
    I*    a
o\
en
 o

g
              §
              to
              oi
              "8
              n
              T3

              i
QU
VO
                     oo
S
                        3


ABERDEEN
          o
          o
                            g
                            1
                               ^
                §
s
                o
                00
                S
                1
                                  I


                                  1
      8
      00
I
TJ-
O\


VO
                                       in
                                       t-^
                      o


                      en
                                               8


                                  s
I
vo"
                                               "
filter denitrificat

nitrification (24
bed
g
                                I
                                       •a | -S | «g ! f £
                                        o -= », g
                                        0«jg-B.s|0

                                       •g«w'ii2o'i

                                       <2lUUS
-------
       Table 3.10  shows examples of the cost effectiveness ratios for biological nitrogen
removal  technologies.  For the Virginia plants, a range of cost effectiveness ratios between
$2.70 and $16.30 with a median of $4.35 was obtained for an annual performance effluent level
of 7.0 mg/1.  Only  two plants in Maryland are shown on these tables with cost effectiveness
ratios of $2.0 and $3.8.  Therefore, despite the limited information, it seems that biological
nitrogen removal can be more cost effective than chemical addition (methanol). The retrofit cost
effectiveness ratio of the Arlington plant is high ($16.30) due to the low existing effluent level
of TN = 12.1  mg/1.  Also, from the retrofit cost data obtained from the states'  studies, no
correlation was found between the retrofit  unit cost ($/mgd/year) of a plant and its size for a
particular technology.  This reaffirms an earlier statement that retrofit costs are highly dependent
on the particular site specific conditions at each WWTP.
3.6.2  Phosphorus Removal Cost Effectiveness Ratios

       This section summarizes the retrofit cost effectiveness ratios for phosphorus removal
retrofits of WWTPs.   Both biological phosphorus  removal (BPR) and chemical phosphorus
removal are considered.  Chemical phosphorus removal cost data includes EPA estimates, site
specific cost estimates, and existing O&M phosphorus removal costs for some plants. Biological
phosphorus  removal include cost estimates for retrofitting  the Blue Plains  WWTP and the
HRSD-VIP plant.  Figure 3.12 shows a synthesis of the cost effectiveness ratio ranges derived
in this section.

3.6.2.1 Cost Effectiveness Ratios: Chemical Addition

       Chemical phosphorus removal has been a technology practiced in many WWTPs for
quite some time.  Cost and effectiveness of this technology has been documented (EPA,  1987).
Tables 3.11 and 3.12 show the capital and O&M costs of retrofitting municipal WWTPs for
chemical phosphorus removal given by EPA  (1987).  However,  costs of handling increased
sludge, pH instrumentation controls, chemical storage and effluent filtration  that require site-
specific evaluation are not included in these costs.  The cost estimates are applicable to all
WWTPs except lagoons.  The application of these cost data for retrofitting WWTPs with design
flows less than 10 mgd gives the cost effectiveness ranges shown in Table 3.13.  Again, it is
assumed that the pre-retrofit phosphorus effluent level (within phosphate ban areas) for
conventional secondary treatment plants is TP = 3.0 mg/1.

     Chemical phosphorus removal costs also were documented for alternative 1 of the Virginia
retrofit study (CH2M-HILL, 1988). Table 3.14 lists the cost effectiveness ratios of a selected
number of plants in the CH2M-HILL study.  As shown hi Table 3.14 the cost effectiveness
ratios can vary between $6.10 per pound of phosphorus removed to  $25.00.  These costs are
                                          85

-------








•a

H
1
"S
S

y
I
g
§
•s
si
W
«
0
U
1
1
S
I
•8
1*
tS
o
to
0
S





1 ~
*• § *b ^
5 1 1 1
W &
^^
% £
s =s
o If
W ^.

_ /-s
*s *r
o *o
Pi O

«•>
*•• *5 *^ ^^
W H X-< 04)
PS ^
^j
^ 1 5 ^
Ou o *• S
« ^
a ^
"S O W
*S r"^ S
Q ^ ^



1
I







1
0
0?



8


o
•*
C4


i
t5
o
1
£
^
1




^
I H. L. MOONEY 0
o
to
vd
^4


VI
VO
°o.



^
VO
oo"
VO

q
^^


l_
2


q
o
^*


$
t3
_o
2 ^
H |
i "o
P
<& ^--





ARLINGTON (VA
8
to


VO
g
3


OO
o
1

q
f^


—
ON


q
^f
V)


i
t3
ra Anoxic
£
i
1
i





|
1
g
•**


s:
o
a"


s
0\
o*
in
**!

q
t"*1


to
2


q
O
t"1"


1
N
o
1
H
jj
2





I! RICHMOND (VA)
5
 »
ft S '3 *l
c S E ci
e » » M
o e !! _
SP JJ 2 "
I Pounds of nitre
I EAC= Equiva
3 Cost Effectiver
4 Plant designed
VO
OO

-------
Figure 3.12  Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Phosphorus Removal
on
o\J -
t?
ai 1/1
j£»24 -
1 18 -
PL.
(4—1 1 O
<£ 12 -
af
v ~
n .
CH<
CH
-©-



D
-------
higher than the costs given in Table 3.13.  The main reason for this is that the high cost of
sludge handling,  and pH control costs  that were included in the  CH2M-HILL  report can
significantly increase the cost effectiveness ratios.  Sludge handling costs may represent about
30% to 40%  of the total Q&M costs.

       The CH2M-HILL report also presented some of the existing  phosphorus removal costs
for WWTPs  already removing phosphorus.  These plants have total phosphorus performance
levels below 0.18 mg/1.  Table 3.15 shows some examples of the O&M cost effectiveness ratios.
To obtain these ratios, it is assumed that each plant can  achieve an  effluent level of 3.0 mg/1
without chemical removal.  Therefore, pounds of phosphorus removed are calculated based on
a hypothetical pre-retrofit effluent level of 3.0 mg/1.
 3.6.2.2      Cost Effectiveness Ratios: Biological Removal

        The are only two studies for which retrofit costs for Biological Phosphorus Removal
 (BPR) were reported.  The HRSD-VIP plant in Virginia,  and the new feasibility  study for
 implementation of BNR at the Blue Plains WWTP in the District of Columbia.  Table 3.16
 shows that retrofitting WWTPs  with biological phosphorus  removal  can be  relatively
 inexpensive. However, there are still questions about the reliability of BPR in meeting a specific
 effluent level in the long term.  For instance, at Blue Plains a full scale demonstration study has
 been suggested to evaluate the performance of this technology. Nevertheless, if this technology
 is proven reliable for a particular plant with cost effectiveness  ratios about $2 to $3, it seems
 to be a promising cost effective technology for phosphorus removal. Moreover, sludge handling
 costs are expected to decrease by using BPR as shown in the Bowie WWTP.  Nevertheless, it
 has been concluded that chemical phosphorus removal facilities may still be needed for permit
 compliance (backup), or when effluent limitations are below 1.0 mg/1.

-------
Table 3.11 Annual Chemical Phosphorus Removal O&M Retrofit Costs1
Effluent TP
Level
(mg/1)
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.2
TP Influent Level
6.0-10.0 mg/1
3.0-6.0 mg/1
Annual Cost Ranges
($/mgd/Year)
25,009-30,893
30,198-38,249
37,513-52,225
50,386-128,723
15,447-19,125
18,389-23,538
22,802-32,365
30,526-79,808
     1. Adapted from EPA (1987).  Original costs have been escalated to 1990 dollars.  Incremental phosphorus
        removal costs do not include the costs of sludge handling facilities.
Table 3.12 Chemical System Capital Costs'
TP
Influent Level
6-10 mg/1
3-6 mg/1
Plant Size
(mgd)
<0.1
0.1-1
>l-5
>5-10
<0.1
0.1-1
>l-5
>5-10
Total Phosphorus Effluent Level (mg/1)
2.0
36,554
58,056
139,764
182,768
36,554
58,056
123,637
172,017
1.0
36,554
58,056
139,764
182,768
36,554
58,056
123,637
172,017
0.5
36,554
58,056
155,890
182,768
36,554
58,056
129,013
182,768
0.2
44,079
93,534
198,895
215,021
44,079
84,933
198,895
215,021
1.  Source EPA (1987). Original costs have been escalated to 1990 dollars.  Incremental capital costs are for
    chemical storage, feed, and piping systems.  Cost do not include capital costs for pH equipment, sludge
    handling facilities or effluent filtration (EPA, 1987).
                                                   89

-------
Table 3.13 Chemical Phosphorus Removal Cost Effectiveness Ratios'
Effluent TP
Level
(mg/1)
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.2
TP Influent Level
6.0-10.0 mg/1
3.0-6.0 mg/1
Cost Ranges per Pound of Phosphorus Removed2
($/lb-P/Year)
8.90-12.80
5.30-7.60
5.20-8.10
6.20-16.50
5.70-8.70
3.40-5.10
3.30-5.30
3.90-10.70
1. Incremental phosphorus removal costs do not include the costs of additional sludge handling
   facilities, additional clarification capacity, and pH control.
   Cost effectiveness ranges were estimated by selecting the minimum and maximum annualized
   cost per pound of phosphorus removed for WWTPs with flows between 1 and 10 mgd.
2. Pounds of.phosphorus removed based on a pre-retrofit TP effluent level of 3.0 mg/1.
   Ranges are for WWTPs with design flows smaller than 10 mgd.
                                  90

-------
           '«  «§
|
•o
•3
 s
1

           W
           s
&   1

        ,

        2   2  fc  "eb
       £  •§  H   s
           •a       f
           IT.       C
!
J»

"S,

 E2
                         >O
                         in
                         ts
                          3

                          s
                          1
                          1
                               o\
                               00
                               00
                               00
                                •3
                                CO
                                     S
                                     oo
                                      O


                                      VO
MASS
                                            NO
                                     £
                                     •o

                                     «
                                     s
                                           I
                                           vb"
                                                  q

                                                  CO
                                                  •a
                                                  CO
B
                                                        o
                                                        co
                                                        s
                                                        ts
                                                        8

                                                           O


                                                           CO
VO






VO
                                                                  ON


                                                                  «o"
                                                                  00
                                                           O


                                                           Tf
                                                           •a


                                                           1

                                                           s
                                                           CO

                                                           3
D-CHES
(VA)
          o


          •*
                                                                            VO

                                                                            O\
          o

          a
                                                                            g
                                                                            §

                                                                                      CO
                                                                                      s
                                                                                      oo
                                                                                      CO
ORS
PRO
O
s

£
                                                                                            tN
                                                                                            £
                                                                                            ••t
                                                                                            «n

                                                                                            CO
d
CO
S
HRSD-N


(VA)
          o


          VO
                                                                                                      5?
                                                                                                      0
                                    s
                                    VO
                                    CO
                                                                                                      V
                                                                                                      £
                                                                                                      "5  S
(VA)
                                                                                                                           u
                                                                                                                   ^  «N  co

-------
  >. -a ei,
        O\
        a
         o\
         VO
  w
.
a s

••§ I
S3 <

5?,

3 1
co 3

3 §
•§ -a
S a


i!


P
S u
             s
             "
1

v>
              oo


              O
              0

              vd
Addition with

jus
alt

and pH
S
              S w
               ?
                  in
1
i
00
^^

o
0

S
Salt Additi
                     s
                     1
                     I
 a |

 I s
 S w
                   o
                   o
                       5?
          •I

          Is
          II
          11
          3 S
          21
          JE

          II
          i§
                            00
          VO

          s
                   1
           O
           D
                        1

                        g
                        5?




                        oo

                        o
Addition with

pH Adjustment
and
                                  1s
                                    I
                         o
                         VM
                         •^

                         c*r
                         VO
I
oo
s
                         00
                         «•*


                         o
with
on

ju
Salt Ad

and pH
Multi-point

Effluent Filt
                                       o

                                       1
                    cu

                    05

-------
I

«
• •
3

i
w
1
£
*o

JS
VO
a
      w

!

              «> ti 9




              'S *& ~
              5 §• S
              Z to 1


              Us

              13?
              O » HH
              ~« "^ >5
              OQ ^ a,
             8
                    in
                    *
               e

               s
                                §
                                v>

                                "8


                                S
                                                      en
                                                      o\

-------
4.     SUMMARY AND USE OF COST EFFECTIVENESS RATIOS  FOR POINT AND
       NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
       This section presents a synthesis of the cost effectiveness ratios calculated in this report.
The previous sections highlighted some assumptions and limitations when using the available
data for the estimate of the cost effectiveness ratios.  Cost effectiveness ratios are calculated in
order to put nutrient removal technologies on an equal base for comparison.  Therefore, use of
these ratios for other cost purposes should be done with caution, taking into account the
assumptions and source of information used to derive them. Some general issues that need to
be taken into account when using this information are as follows:

       •  Sources of costs for point and nonpoint source nutrient reduction controls are many.
In this report, cost information on agricultural and urban nonpoint sources in general reflect
costs of already installed BMPs. For point source retrofits of WWTPs, most of the costs are
initial estimates   from  states'  studies for retrofitting WWTPs  with  relatively  new BNR
technologies. Use of BNR planning level cost equations for retrofitting WWTPs should be done
with  caution since they were derived assuming generic plant configurations and wastewater
characteristics.   As pointed out before,  site specific conditions such as plant layout and
wastewater characteristics are important for the estimate of retrofit costs for nutrient removal.

       •  BMP nutrient removal efficiencies vary.  Factors such  as the diffuse nature of
nonpoint sources, meteorology, and site-specific conditions such as soils, slopes, crop practices,
farmer diligence, etc. make BMP nutrient removal effectiveness  highly variable. Estimates of
basin-scale nutrient reductions associated with the implementation of BMPs have come from the
results of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model supplemented by research studies from field
scale models, field plot studies, small watershed demonstration projects and  conceptual models.
                                                                I
       •  In conclusion,  use  of  the point and nonpoint  source nutrient reduction  cost
effectiveness ratios summarized below for any purpose other than gross comparison would
require a careful  examination of the assumptions of each estimate.
 4.1 Nonpoint Sources

        For nonpoint sources, cost effectiveness ranges are shown for agricultural BMPs (Figure
 4.1).  The cost effectiveness ratios are defined as the total BMP cost divided by the pounds of

                                         94

-------
nitrogen or phosphorus removed.  Therefore,  the BMP costs were not apportioned to each
nutrient.  The costs are joint costs of removing both nutrients.  Some BMPs may emphasize the
removal of either nitrogen or phosphorus for which the total BMP cost is mainly associated with
the removal of that nutrient.   Alternatively, there  are BMPs that provide multiple benefits
besides nutrient removal such as removal of sediment, heavy metals, etc.  For these BMPs, the
total cost is the joint cost for of providing all the benefits.

      Urban nonpoint source cost effectiveness ratios are not shown in Figure 4.1. However,
the results presented by Freudberg and Lugbill (1990) in an adaptation of the work  on urban
BMP cost effectiveness by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (Wiegand et
al.  1986) showed cost effectiveness ratios  to be highly variable.   Nitrogen cost effectiveness
ratios for  ponds and infiltration systems varied between $1 and $128 per pound of nitrogen
removed.  Similarly, phosphorus cost effectiveness ratios ranged from $7 to $886 per  pound of
phosphorus removed. In this study, cost effectiveness ratios of urban BMPs (dry and wet ponds,
and infiltration trenches and basins, and porous  pavement) were given for three drainage areas
(1 ,10, and 25 acres) for land uses described as:  single family residential, townhouse residential
and commercial shopping center.  Phosphorus removal cost effectiveness ratios for wet ponds
varied between $54/lb-P/year for  a 25 acre shopping center to $367/lb-P/year for a 10 acre
single family residential area.  Nitrogen removal cost effectiveness ratios for wet ponds varied
between $14/lb-N/year for a  25 acre shopping center to $94/lb-N/year for a 10 acre single
family residential area. Cost effectiveness ratios were higher for infiltration trenches and porous
pavement, and lower for dry ponds.

      Recently, an evaluation of BMPs in the  Occoquan watershed by the Northern Virginia
Planning District Commission (1990), reported cost effectiveness ranges for phosphorus removal
within the range of the ones reported by Freudberg and Lugbill. Without on-site controls, cost
effectiveness  ratios  of approximately $140/lb-P/year and $165/lb-P/year were reported  for
regional coverage (percent of drainage area under BMP) of 25% and 50%  respectively.  With
on-site controls, cost effectiveness ratios of approximately $260/lb-P/year and $325/lb-P/year
were reported for regional coverage of 25% and 50% respectively.

      In conclusion, although urban BMP cost effectiveness ratios appear  to be high,  it should
be kept in mind that some of these controls also are providing stormwater management control,
removal of other  pollutants such as sediment and heavy metals, and  sometimes recreational
amenities.  Furthermore, irrespective of relative cost effectiveness compared to agricultural
BMPs or point source controls, urban BMPs will play a major role in pollutant load control from
the increased development in the Chesapeake Bay region over the next years.

                                          95

-------
4.2 Point Sources

       Interquartile cost effectiveness ranges from the states' retrofit studies, as well as from
some of the nutrient removal WWTPs in operation are shown in Figure 4.2.  Information used
to calculate the cost effectiveness ratios for retrofitting municipal WWTPs allowed the separation
of the cost of removing each nutrient independently.

       Figure 4.2 shows that biological nitrogen removal can be cost effective compared to
chemical addition (methanol) for nitrogen removal. However, the ranges show that for nitrogen
removal, some chemical addition cost effectiveness ratios may be comparable to the ones for
BNR.   For instance, from the recent retrofit study at the Blue Plains WWTP  (MacNamee,
Porter and Seeley, 1990), it can be concluded that methanol addition at this plant can be cost
effective if the proposed retrofit works  as assumed.   Based on the limited data on biological
phosphorus removal (BPR), it appears that the biological removal of phosphorus can be cost
effective compared to chemical addition.  If BPR is proven operationally reliable for a given
plant, additional cost savings in the use of chemicals and sludge handling may be achieved.
                                          96

-------
               Figure 4.1  Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Nonpoint Sources
                                              (Interquartile Ranges)
Nitrogen
4
Z£a or\
15 20 •
L
w 15
|)0
o
f\


^





1p|^i^;;:^

ri'iiiiii.i'i.ii,miii1

A '''^ "*';
X. _f:



""I,
75«ile
median

' 'i.





Nutrient Conservation Animal Waste Systems Animal WasU
Management Tillage + Nutrient Management Systems
> 10°
1   80
                            60
                              0
                                                  Phosphorus
                                                                               '**
                                  Nutrient       Conservation Animal Waste Systems  Animal Waste
                                  Management    Ullage     + Nutrient Management Systems
Cost effectiveness ratios are calculated as the ratio of the total annualized BMP cost divided by the pounds of nitrogen or phosphorus
removed per year. Interquartile ranges reflects different nutrient removals within the Chesapeake Bay Basin.  Nutrient Removals
are based on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed model.
                                                           97

-------
               Figure 4.2  Financial Cost Effectiveness Ratios for Point  Sources
                                                (Interquartile Ranges)



10 •
•>> 0
1 °
f> c.
C 6 •
d
&
8 1
•a 4 •
<*•«
0
•R n
51 2 •
^l
n .
__ £*»'
Nitrogen ^ median
£l 25%ile


•,'•••'•'
,?•• ; ";5
' ' •• ' ' ^ '•"*'
,/ ' .^..r'....f
, ''**
. .?.. /


                                            BNR
Chemical Addition
                        20
                      u
                      I
                        10
                                                   Phosphorus
                     I
                         0
                                             BPR
 Chemical Addition
Cost effectiveness ratios for nitrogen are calculated as the total annualized cost for nitrogen removal divided by the pounds of nitrogen
removed per year Similarly, cost effectiveness ratios for phosphorus are calculated as the total annualized cost for phosphorus removal
divided bypounds of phosphorus removed per year.  Nutrient removals are calculated at the "end-of-pipe". The information shown in these
figures came from the states' nutrient removal retrofit studies for municipal WWTPs and some existing retrofits in Maryland as summarized
in the Tables of Chapter 3.
                                                             98

-------
                        5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
       This report provides information on the cost and effectiveness of point and nonpoint
source nutrient reduction controls applicable to the Chesapeake Bay drainage area.  This report
may be used as a resource document, along with other information provided by the 1991
Reevaluation and the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions, to determine the best mix of point and
nonpoint source controls to achieve tributary nutrient reduction targets.  The report also may be
used for costing different nutrient reduction scenarios in the Watershed Model. Nonpoint source
BMP unit costs (in dollars per acre) given in this report can be used in conjunction with the
watershed  model to determine the cost and nutrient reductions associated with a given test
scenario.  For point sources, unit cost information (in dollars per mgd) from the states' retrofit
studies can be used for upgrades of WWTPs. The planning level cost equations developed in
this report may be used as a first rough estimate, where appropriate, for facilities where no site-
specific cost estimates  have been developed.  These estimates may help in the evaluation of
different BNR options at those facilities.  Costs of both point and nonpoint source nutrient
reduction controls together with the nutrient reductions obtained with the Watershed Model, can
be used  with optimization tools to identify  cost effective nutrient reduction  strategies for a
watershed.

       There still is much to be learned about the cost effectiveness of nutrient controls.  For
instance, the performance and reliability of BNR processes, the effectiveness of agricultural and
urban BMPs, and the water  quality  responses  from implementation  of these controls are
examples of issues that are expected to be understood better in the future.  Nevertheless, this
report provides an insight into the cost effectiveness of existing nutrient technologies as  well as
estimates of the  cost effectiveness of some of the relatively new emerging technologies for
nutrient removal.  Also, it is important to point out that there are other technologies for nutrient
removal which  were not discussed in this report.   Some of  these technologies include:
subsurface wastewater infiltration systems including "septic tanks," slow rate, rapid infiltration
and overland flow land treatment systems,  and other natural  systems.  Information  on the
characteristics and performance  of these systems can be found  in  "Natural Systems for
Wastewater Treatment" (WPCF, 1990).

       Evaluation of the most cost effective mix of point and nonpoint source nutrient reduction
controls for a particular region also would require careful examination of other issues in addition
to the financial  cost and  the nutrient removal effectiveness.  For instance,  impact of the
adoption of BMPs on farms' net income and the productivity of the land may play important

                                          99

-------
                                                                   I
roles in the selection of alternatives to achieve a predetermined water quality goal.  The quality
of the receiving waters also may influence allocation of resources for nutrient reduction controls.
These issues require site specific analysis and extrapolation to other sites is generally difficult.

       Based on the cost effectiveness information presented in this report, and other aspects
related to the implementability of point and nonpoint source nutrient reduction controls, the
following conclusions are presented for the nonpoint and point source nutrient reduction controls
examined:
Nonpoint Sources
                                               '
       Recently, Heatwole etal. (1991), pointed out that the mechanisms of BMPs in reducing
pollutants such as  nutrients can be grouped into three processes: 1) reducing the volume of the
carrier which is mainly water and sediment, 2)  reducing the concentration of the pollutants, and
3) reducing the delivery of the nutrients from the fields to the receiving waters. A combination
of BMPs ("Resource Management Systems") can achieve nutrient  reductions in these three
processes.  Within the framework of these processes and with the financial cost effectiveness
information presented in this report, the following is concluded:

    •  BMP cost effectiveness should not be judged only on individual BMP nutrient reduction
       performance, but rather on combinations of BMPs or "Resource Management Systems"
       that achieve.a desired water quality goal,  by reducing pollutant loads with the three
       processes described above.  The  assessment of the nutrient  reduction effectiveness of
       resource management systems has been performed by monitoring  in small watershed
       demonstration projects, as well as by using small watershed and field-scale water quality
       models.

    •  In-field BMPs such  as conservation  tillage and strip-cropping are examples  of cost
       effective BMPs that reduce both  runoff and sediment. A recent study by Epp (1991)
       showed that adoption of these BMPs  resulted in a positive net field income with or
       without cost-share in two out of three counties analyzed.

    •  In-field BMPs that reduce the carrier mass (runoff and sediment) such as terraces and
       conservation tillage can increase infiltration, thus  increasing the potential of pollutant
       leaching into the groundwater. Conservation tillage may increase the concentration of
       pollutants  in the soil surface (Mclsaac, etal., 1991; Heatwole, etal., 1991; Staver etal.,

                                           100

-------
   1988; Laflen and Tabatabai, 1984).  Therefore, any reductions achieved through surface
   runoff and sediment reductions may be offset by the increase in pollutant concentrations
   and the potential leaching of pollutants into the groundwater.  However,'with nutrient
   management (i.e. proper fertilizer application rates, timing, and methods) nutrient losses
   to both surface waters and groundwater can be reduced. This accounts for the favorable
   cost effectiveness of nutrient management.

•  Results of the Watershed Model show nutrient management to be the most cost effective
   BMP (Figure 4.1).  Also,  from field-scale research  studies,  nutrient management in
   combination with in-field BMPs such as strip-cropping, conservation tillage and winter
   cover crops  (where appropriate) have been found cost effective management alternatives
   for nutrient  reduction.

•  Winter cover crops have been found very effective in removing excess nitrates during the
   non-growing season after the main crop harvest. Excess nitrates accumulated in the soil
   may be significant after dry periods during the growing season.

•  Edge-of-field BMPs that reduce pollutant delivery into streams may be required for cases
   where nutrient loads are high due to increased runoff concentrations and sediment loads
   in large fields with long slope lengths. Some of these BMPs are  structural BMPs such
   as erosion or water control structures, or non-structural  BMPs such as filter strips,
   riparian zones etc.  However, structural BMPs are often expensive (see Figure 1-a), and
   despite the cost-share money available, implementation of these  BMPs can result in a
   negative net field income (Hamlett and Epp, 1991). Also, despite the benefits of some
   of these structural BMPs in decreasing the sediment loads delivered into the streams, they
   should be accompanied by an in-field BMP to protect against severe soil losses that can
   have detrimental effects on the long term productivity of the fields.

•  Conversion of highly erodible land (HEL) to permanent vegetation has been shown to be
   cost effective since it can considerably reduce sediment,  runoff, and nutrient loads.

•  Animal waste has been identified as a significant contributor of nutrient loads.  Animal
   waste management systems should be considered important components of "Resource
   Management Systems." Proper design of animal waste facilities, including collection,
   storage, and transport, together with waste utilization will make these facilities effective.
   It was shown that animal waste management systems including all of the above controls,
   can be expensive. Nevertheless, experiences from the Rural Clean Water Program (U.S.

                                      101

-------
       EPA,  1990) projects show that simple cost effective measures such as keeping animals
       away from the streams, controlling animal waste runoff, and protecting riparian areas can
       be effective components of animal waste systems.
              "
       Studies on urban BMPs have shown wide ranges of cost effectiveness ratios.   However,
       it should be pointed out that some urban BMPs can have multiple functions, which were
       not addressed in this report, such as aesthetics, water quantity control, and removal of
       sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals.
Point Sources

   As mentioned before, there is still much to be learned about the reliability of the new
emerging nutrient reduction technologies for municipal WWTPs. Effluent performance levels,
operational experiences, and costs are important elements to be considered in a cost effectiveness
analysis  using these nutrient reduction technologies.   With the data available today,  and the
relatively few full scale operational BNR technologies, the following conclusions are presented:

•      Biological Phosphorus Removal (BPR) can be a cost effective alternative for phosphorus
       removal (Figure 4-b).  It has potential for cost savings in chemical use and sludge
       handling.  However, site-specific economic evaluations as well as the reliability of this
       technology for each plant should be carefully investigated to show its cost effectiveness.
       The Bowie plant  in Maryland  showed significant cost savings by using BPR, and its
       annual effluent performance levels  prove that this technology can be  cost effective.
       Similarly, the feasibility study found retrofitting Blue Plains with BPR to  be cost
       effective.  Also, it is important to point out that plants that implement BPR technologies
       may need chemical phosphorus removal facilities  as a backup for permit compliance or
       when the effluent requirements are below 1.0 mg/1.
                                                                  i
•      Biological Nitrogen Removal  has been found cost  effective.  Full-scale retrofits of
       WWTPs have supported this finding. However, planning level studies show, for certain
       facilities, that chemical addition (methanol) also can be cost effective.   Therefore, the
       selection of chemical addition vs.  Biological  Nitrogen Removal without the use of
       chemicals would depend on site specific constraints.
                                          102

-------
Seasonal nitrogen removal appears more cost effective than annual removal.  Costs can
significantly increase for annual removal (see Figure 2) because at lower temperatures
biological activity is reduced.  Therefore, longer wastewater retention times are needed
requiring larger reactor tank sizes, thereby increasing costs.  In addition, selection of the
months for seasonal nitrogen removal and the permit compliance period can have a
significant impact on the retrofit designs and therefore the costs associated with meeting
the required effluent limitations.

Regulatory measures such as  the phosphate  detergent ban have proven to be cost
effective. Due to lower influent phosphorus levels to WWTPs, the chemical use required
to meet  the effluent level limitations and the amount of sludge created will decrease.
Reduction in sludge and chemical use for phosphorus removal can significantly decrease
the O&M costs in a WWTP.  Another example of a regulatory measure being suggested
is the adoption of permitting approaches such as the  "bubble concept" (Virginia Retrofit
Study) where the combined nutrient discharge of a group of plants are also regulated
within  a  tributary,  basin,  etc.   This approach would allow flexibility in the
implementation of  the most cost effective nutrient removal alternatives to a subset of
plants within  the "bubble".  Nevertheless, individual permit limitations would still be
required according  to a careful examination of the quality of the receiving waters.
                                    103

-------
                                  REFERENCES

Baltimore City 1989. Detention retrofit project and monitoring study results. City of Baltimore,
Department of Public Works, Bureau of Water and Wastewater, Water Quality Management.

Beaulac,  M.  N. and  K. H Reckhow,  1982.   "An Examination of Land Use  Nutrient
Relationships".  Water Resources Bulletin 16(6): 1013-1022.

Beavin Co., Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., and Metcalf & Eddy Inc. "Biological Nutrient
Removal Study". Report prepared for the Maryland Department of the Environment.
May 1989.
                                                               I
Blalock,  L. L.. 1987.  "Nonpoint Source Pollution Loading Factors and Related Parameters"
Water Quality Group, North Carolina State University.

Blalock,  L. L. and  M. D. Smolen.  1990. "Estimation of Nonpoint Source Loading Factors in
the Chesapeake Bay Model" Water Quality Group, North Carolina State University.

Camacho, R.  1990. "Agricultural BMP  Nutrient Reduction  Efficiencies:  Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model BMPs".  Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Report 90-7,
Rockville, MD.

Gasman, E. 1990. "Selected BMP Efficiencies". ICPRB Report 90-10, Rockville, MD.

CBPO, 1992. Chesapeake Bay Program Office.  Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Scenario
Output Files.

Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report #1.1992. "Nonpoint
Source Baseline Nutrient Loading Inventory". Report prepared  by the Nutrient Reduction Task
Force of the Chesapeake Bay Program Nonpoint Source Subcommittee.

Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report #2. 1991.  "Point
Source Baseline Nutrient Loading Inventory". Report prepared by the Chesapeake Bay Program
Office.
                                                               i
Chesapeake Bay Program 1991.  "1990 Annual Progress Report for  the Bay-wide Nutrient
Reduction Strategy". Annapolis, MD.
                                         104

-------
Chesapeake Bay Program 1988. "Point Source Atlas". CBP/TRS 22/88. Annapolis, MD.

Chesapeake Bay Program 1988. "Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Programs" Prepared by the
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office (CBLO). Annapolis, Maryland.

CH2M-HILL.  1989. "POTW Nutrient Removal Retrofit Study". Final report prepared for the
Commonwealth of Virginia State Water Control Board.

Crowder, B. M. and C. E. Young. 1985. "Modeling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution for
Economic Evaluation of the Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project". USD A Economics Research
Service, Natural Resource Economics Division,  USGPO 1985-460-938:20051-ERS.
                                •i
Crowder, B. M. and C. E. Young. 1987. "Soil Conservation Practices and Water Quality: Is
Erosion Control the Answer?"  AWRA, Water Resources Bulletin, Vol 23, No. 5.

Crowder, B. M. and C. E. Young. 1988. "Managing Farm Nutrients Tradeoffs for Surface- and
Ground-Water Quality" Economic Research Service, Washington,DC.NTIS PB88-168661

DCRA, 1992. "Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grant Quartely Progress Report". District of
Columbia Department  of  Consumer and  regulatory  Affairs,  Environmental  Regulation
Administration: Soil Resources Management Division.

Dillaha, T. A.  1990.  "Role of Best Management Practices in Restoring the Health of  the
Chesapeake Bay: Assessment of Effectiveness" Chesapeake Bay Program, Perspectives on  the
Chesapeake Bay, 1990, Advances in Estuarine Sciences,  pp. 57-81

EPA. 1987. "Handbook: Retrofitting POTWs for Phosphorus Removal in the Chesapeake Bay
Drainage Basin" Center for Environmental Research Information. Report: EPA/625/6-87/017,
Cincinnati OH. 137p.

EPA. 1990 "Rural Clean Water Program: Lessons Learned from a Voluntary Nonpoint Source
Control Experiment" U.S.E.P.A. Office of Water (WH-553) Nonpoint Source Control Branch.
Report: EPA/440/4-90-012, Washington D.C. 29p.

Epp, D. J. and J. M.  Hamlett. 1991.  "Cost-Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs in the Bay
Program" Draft Paper. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.
                                        105

-------
.Hamlett, J. M. and D.  J. Epp. 1991.  "Effects of Conservation and Nutrient Management
Practices on Pollutants Losses in Pennsylvania"  Paper.  The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802.

Hazen and Sawyer Engineers and J. M. Smith and Associates 1988.  "Assessment of Cost and
Effectiveness  of  Biological Dual Nutrient Removal Technologies  in the. Chesapeake Bay
Drainage Basin" Volumes I and H. Report prepared for the USEPA. CBP/TRS 17/88.

Heatwole,  C., T. Dillaha, and S. Mostaghimi 1991.  "Agricultural BMPs Applicable to
Virginia"  Bulletin 169, Virginia Water Resources Research Center, VPI&SU. 162 p.

Freudberg, S.A.  and J.P. Lugbffl.  1990.  "Controlling Point and Nonpoint Nutrient/Organic
Inputs: A Technical  Perspective"  Paper presented to  U.S. EPA and  Manhattan College
Conference: Cleaning Up Our Coastal Waters: An Unfinished Agenda. Riverdale, New York.

Greeley and Hansen. "Blue Plains Feasibility Study".  Final report prepared for the District of
Columbia  Department of Public  Works Water and Sewer Utility Administration, Office of
Engineering Services Design and Engineer Division. August, 1984.

Greeley and Hansen.  "Report on Feasibility of Deep Bed Filter Denitrification at Blue Plains".
Final report prepared for the District of Columbia Department of Public Works Water and Sewer
 Utility Administration, Office of Engineering Services Design and Engineer Division.
 October,  1989.

 Hession, W. C., K. L. Huber, S. Mostaghimi, V. O. Shanholtz, P. W. McClellan. 1989. "BMP
 Effectiveness Evaluation Using AGNPS and a GIS".ASAE Paper. No. 89-2566. St.Joseph,MI.

 Ulinois-RCWP. 1986.  "Highland Silver Lake Rural Clean Water Project" Summary Report,
 Fiscal Year 1986.

 lowa-RCWP. 1989.  "Prairie Rose Rural Clean Water Project" 1989 Annual Report.

 Laflen, J.M. and M. A. Tabatabai, 1984. "Nitrogen and Phosphorus Losses from Corn-Soybean
 Rotations  as Affected by Tillage Practices"  Trans. ASAE: 58-63.
                                                                I
 Majedi, M., and S. Comstock. 1992. "A survey and Analysis of Stormwater Management Cost-
 Share Projects".  Draft Report by the Maryland Department of the Environment.
                                          106

-------
Maryland-RCWP. 1989. "Double Pipe Creek Project" 1989 Progress Report and Plan of Work.

McNamee, Porter, and Seeley Engineers/Architects.  1990. "A Feasibility Study f6r Biological
Nutrient Removal at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Mclsaac, G. F., M. C. Hirschi, and J. K. Mitchell. 1991. "Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Eroded
Sediment from Corn and Soybean Tillage Systems".  Paper accepted for publication.  Journal
of Environmental Quality, Vol. 20, July-September.

Minnesota-RCWP, 1989. "Garvin Brook Rural Clean Water Program". Annual Progress Report.

Morales, L. ,  G. T. Daigger, and J. R. Borberg, 1988. "Assessment of the Reliability of
Biological Nutrient Removal Processes" Paper presented at the 61st Annual Conference of the
Water Pollution Control Federation. Dallas. 13p.

Nebraska-RCWP, 1989.  "J.x>ng Pine Rural  Clean Water Program". Annual Report.

North Carolina State University. 1982, "State-of-the-Art Review of Best Management Practices
for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control HI. Sediment". North Carolina Agricultural Extension
Service, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department.
Raleigh, NC.

Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1990. "Evaluation of Regional BMPs in the
Occoquan Watershed". Report prepared for the Occoquan Technical Advisory Committee of
the Virginia Water control Board.  Annandale, VA.

Oregon-RCWP. 1989. "Tillamook Bay Rural Clean Water Project". Annual Report.

Pennsylvania-RCWP.  1991  "Conestoga Headwaters Rural Clean Water Program".  10-Year
Report: 1981-1991.   U.S Department of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.
Prepared by the PA-RCWP Coordinating Committee, Conestoga Headwaters J^ocal RCWP Lx>cal
Coordinating Committee and the Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Committee.

Pennsylvania-RCWP. 1989 "Conestoga Headwaters Rural Clean Water Program".  1989 Annual
Progress Report. PN19. U.S Department of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.
Prepared by the PA-RCWP Coordinating  Committee, Lancaster County Ix>cal Coordinating
Committee and the Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Committee.
                                        107

-------
R.E. Wright Associates, Inc. 1990. "Assessment of Field Manure Nutrient Management with
regards  to Surface & Groundwater Quality".  Prepared for the Bureau of Soil and Water
Conservation, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.  REWAI Project 88232.

Ritter, W. F. 1990.  "Manual for Economic and Pollution Evaluation of Livestock Manure
Management System" Report prepared for The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, Bureau of Soil and Water.  Harrisburg, PA.  192 p.
                                                               I
Rosenthal A., and D. Urban. 1990. "BMP Longevity: A Pilot Study". Report to the Chesapeake
Bay Program.  CBP/TRS 50/90.
                                                               i
Ross, B.B, T. A. Dillaha,  S. Mostaghimi, and C. D. Heatwoie. 1990.  "Rainfall Simulation
for Best Management Practice Evaluation"  Department of Agricultural Engineering,  Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University. Final Report presented to Division of Soil and Water
Conservation and Historic Resources.  Richmond, VA.

Seldak,  R. I.,  1991  Ed.  Phosphorus and Nitrogen Removal from Municipal Wastewater,
Principles and Practice. Second Edition, Lewis Publishers. 240 p.
                                                               i
Schueler, T. R., P. A. Kumble, and M. A. Heraty. 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best
Management Practices.  Techniques for Reducing Non-Point Source Pollution  in the Coastal
Zone.  Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.  213 pp.

Schueler, T. R.  1987.  Controlling Urban  Runoff:  A Practical Manual for Planning  and
Designing  Urban  Best Management  Practices.    Metropolitan Washington Council  of
Governments. 213 pp.

Schwartz, S. S, and D. Velinsky, 1992. Field Verification of Long-Term Pollutant Removal
Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Detention Ponds.  A proposal to the Coastal Zone
Management Program Section 306. 12pp.

Sen,  D., C. W. Randall, and T. J.  Grizzard,  1990.  "Biological Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Removal in Oxidation Ditch and High Nitrate Recycle Systems".  Report. Research Division,
Dept. of Civil Engineering VPI&SU.  Printed by the U.S.E.P.A. Chesapeake Bay  Program.
CBP/TRS 47/90, 120 pp.

Shirmohammadi, A. and L. L.  Shoemaker,  1988.  "Impact of Best Management Practices on
Water Quality in Pennsylvania", Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Rep. #88-7.

                                         108

-------
Staver, K. , R. B. Brinsfield, and W. L. Magette, 1988.  Tillage Effects on Phosphorus
Transport From Atlantic Coastal  Plain Watersheds"   ASAE. Paper presented at the 1988
meeting. Chicago, H.

STAC, 1987.  "Available Technology for the Control of Nutrient Pollution in the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed".  Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium (CRC) publication No. 126.  Compiled
by Adrew A. Randall and Clifford W. Randall and Edited by Clifford W. Randall and Elizabeth
C. Krome.

USDA-CRP,  1990.  "The  Conservation Reserve Program, Enrollment Statistics for Signup
Periods 1-9 and Fiscal Year 1989". Statistical Bulletin No. 811.  United States Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 143 pp.

VA-DSWC, 1992. "VirginiaErosion and Sediment Control Handbook". Third Edition. Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation: Division of Soil and Water Conservation.

VA-DSWC, 1991. "Owl Run Watershed Demonstration Project". Information provided by the
Department of Conservation and Recreation: Division of Soil and Water Conservation.

VWCB, 1991. Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report #7.
 "Effectiveness of Point Source Nutrient Reduction Technologies".  Report prepared by the
Virginia State Water Control Board 24p.
                                                               *
Wiegand C., T. Schueler, W. Chittenden, and D. Jellic,  1986.  "Comparative Costs and Cost
Effectiveness of Urban Best Management Practices.  Metropolitan Washington  Council of
 Governments (MWCOG), Washington, D.C.

 WPCF,  1990.   "Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment", Water  Pollution Control
 Federation (WPCF) Manual of Practice FD-16.  Prepared by the Task Force  on Natural
 Systems.  270p.
                                         109

-------
                         GLOSSARY: NONPOINT SOURCES
Conservation Tillage -  "Any tillage or planting system that haves at least 30%  of the soil
surface covered with crop residue after planting". Or it may be simply defined as any tillage
system involving less soil disturbance than conventional tillage.  Examples are:  no-till, ridge
tillage, mulch tillage, strip tillage etc.

Conventional Tillage -  Complete inversion  of the soil incorporating all residues with a
moldboard plow or any practice with less than 30% residue.

Contour Farming - Farming along the contour on slopes generally less than 8%.
                                                                  !
Diversion1 - A channel with a supporting ridge on the lower side constructed across or at the
bottom of the slope for the purpose of intercepting surface runoff.

Filter Strips - Vegetated filter strips are areas  of close-growing grasses or other vegetation
placed down gradient from pollutant areas to filter pollutants carried by runoff.
                                                                  i
Grassed Waterways - A natural or artificial channel covered with flow resistance grasses  used
to conduct water and protect against the formation of rills or gullies.

No-till - Planting of crops in a small slot leaving the residue from the previous crop undisturbed.
                                                                  i
Nutrient Management2 - A management practice which provides recommendations on optimum
nutrient application rates, nutrient application times,  and nutrient application methods based on
soil and manure analysis results and expected crop yields.

Ponds and Reservoirs1 - Ponds and reservoirs are bodies of water created by constructing a dam
 or embankment across a water course or by excavating  a pit or dugout. Ponds constructed by
 the first  of these methods are referred to herein after as "Embankments Ponds" and  those
 constructed by the latter methods as "Excavated  Ponds". Ponds resulting from both excavation
 and embankment  are classified  as Embankment Ponds where the depth  of water impounded
 against the embankment at emergency.
     1  Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (VA-DSWC, 1992)

     2  Nutrient Reduction Task Force (Chesapeake Bay Program Nonpoint Source Subcommittee)

                                           110

-------
Farm Plan3 - For the purposes of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed model, a resource management
system for a farm consisting of soil conservation erosion controls for cropland. These controls
may include: contour farming, strip-cropping, terraces,  cover crops, grassed waterways, filter
strips, diversions, and sediment retention, erosion, or water control structures. The "Farm Plan"
does not include conservation tillage and nutrient management which are covered in other
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model BMP categories.

Strip-cropping - Alternating close grown crops such alfalfa with row crops in strips.  The strips
can be also  grown following the contour (contour strip-cropping).

Terraces4 - An  earth embankment, or a ridge and channel, constructed across the slope at a
suitable location to intercept surface runoff water.   It may be constructed  with an  acceptable
grade to an outlet or with a level channel ridge.
     3 Nutrient Reduction Task Force (Chesapeake Bay Program Nonpoint Source Subcommittee)

     4 Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. (VA-DSWC, 1992)


                                           111

-------
                           GLOSSARY: POINT SOURCES
Activated Sludge - A biological process for wastewaters.  The settled wastewater is mixed with
the activated sludge in an aerated tank.  Settled sludge is removed or returned to aeration tank
as needed.
                                                                   j
A/O™ - A biological nutrient removal process consisting of a two-stage single sludge system.
This process is generally used for phosphorus removal and includes an aerobic tank preceded
by an anaerobic tank.

A2/O™ - A biological nutrient removal system similar to the A/O with an anoxic tank preceding
the aerobic tank.  Both nitrogen and phosphorus are removed.  The A/O as well as the A2/O
processes were patented by Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. in the 1970s.
                                                                   [
Aerobic - Li the presence of oxygen

Air Stripping  - A wastewater treatment process primarily used to remove ammonia. The Ph
of the wastewater is increased with lime and passed through a stripping column where ammonia
is volatilized.  Also, phosphates are precipitated with the addition of lime.
                                                                   I
Anaerobic1 - (1)  A condition in which no  free oxygen is available. (2)  Requiring, or not
destroyed by, the absence of air or free oxygen.

Anoxic - In the absence of oxygen but with the presence of nitrates (Beavin Co., Camp Dresser
& McKee, and Metcalf & Eddy, 1989).

Bardenpho™ - A single sludge wastewater treatment process with two anoxic zones followed
by an aerobic zone.  In the  five-stage Bardenpho, an anaerobic zone (fermentation zone)
precedes the first anoxic zone.  The return activated sludge (RAS) is returned to the fist anoxic
zone in the 5-stage Bardenpho  and to the anaerobic zone in the 5-stage Bardenpho.  The 4-stage
process is generally used to remove nitrogen.  Bardenpho is an acronym for BAR = due to Dr.
James Barnard of South Africa who developed the system; DEN = denitrification; and PHO =
phosphorus removal.
     i
Glossary: Water and Wastewater Control Engineering. 3rd Edition. Published by: American Public Health
Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Water Works Association,  and Water
Pollution Control Federation.
                                                           i
                                   112

-------
Breakpoint Chlorination - A treatment process used to remove ammonia by oxidizing it into
nitrogen gas.

Complete Mix - An activated sludge process with the highest load of BOD per unit volume in
the aeration tank.

Contact Stabilization - An activated sludge process where return  activated sludge (RAS) is
aerated before it enters the aeration tank.

Deep Bed Denitrification Filters - A wastewater treatment process where methanol or another
organic substrate is added to the filter media at a typical depth of 6 feet.

Extended Aeration - An activated sludge process which exposes the wastewater to long periods
of aeration (greater that 24  hours).

Fixed Film - see Trickling  Filter or Rotating Biological Contactor

Fluidized Bed Reactors - A wastewater treatment process where the wastewater is usually fed
at the bottom of the filter expanding the filter media.  Organic substrate is usually required for
denitrification.

Ion Exchange -  A non-biological wastewater treatment process primarily used  for ammonia
removal.  The process involve exchange of ions between the wastewater and a ion exchange
resin.

Oxidation Ditch - An extended aeration activated sludge process which uses a horizontal rotor
to provide mechanical aeration in a closed loop channel.

Plug Flow1 - Flow in which fluid particles are discharged from a tank or pipe in the same order
in which they entered it. The particles retain their discrete identities and remain in the tank for
a time equal to the theoretical detention time.

Pure Oxygen- An activated sludge process  which uses oxygen instead of air for aeration.
    1  Glossary: Water and Wastewater Control Engineering. 3rd Edition. Published by: American Public Health
       Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Water Works Association, and Water
       Pollution Control Federation.

                                           113

-------
Rotating Biological Contactor - A wastewater treatment process where the wastewater is passed
trough a series of rotating chambers with plastic media where biological film is formed.  The
blade rotates  around a horizontal  shaft.    The rotating chambers are approximately 40%
submerged in the wastewater.

Sequencing Batch Reactors - A wastewater treatment process where biological reactions and
clarification occur in one tank or in a multiple series of alternating tanks.

Step Aeration - An activated sludge process where wastewater is introduced at different points
in the aeration tank.

Trickling Filter - A wastewater treatment process where the wastewater is sprayed on a filter
of crushed  rocks, plastic media  etc.  The wastewater is biologically treated under aerobic
conditions where aerobic microorganisms  assimilate and oxidise the wastewater.   Low rate
trickling filter is usually 5 to 10 feet deep,  and the high rate trickling filter is 3 to 6 feet deep.
                                                                   i
UCT™ - A wastewater treatment process developed at the University of Capetown  similar to
the Bardenpho process except that the return activated sludge is directed to the first anoxic tank
to enhance phosphorus removal.
                                           114

-------
                                    APPENDIX A

   Edge-of-Stream Nutrient Loading Factors, Land Use Acreage,  and Transport Factors*
                           Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
*  Source:  Obtained from the Watershed Model Base Case Scenario Output Files (CBPO, 1992)

-------

-------
Table A-l Nitrogen Loading Factors: Conventional Tillage, Conservation Tillage and Hayland
                Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Base Case Scenario
         Land Use Acreage and Edge-of-Stream Loading Factors (LF) for Nitrogen in Ibs/acre
         Segment

         10
         20
         30
         40
         50
         60
         70
         80
         90
         100
         110
         120
         140
         160
         170
         175
         180
         190
         200
         210
         220
         230
         235
         240
         250
         260
         265
         270
         280
         290
         300
         310
         330
         340
         ANACOSTIA
         BALT_HARBOR
         BOHEMIA
         CHESTER
         CHICKAHOMINY
         CHOPTANK
         COASTAL_1
         COASTAL_11
         COASTAL_4
         COASTAL_5
         COASTAL_6
        . COASTAL_8
         COASTAL_9
         ELIZABETH
Conventional Tillage
  Acres       LF
 100,723
 160,951
  78,620
 126,240
  37,257
  66,122
  62,800
 144,248
  24,395
  91,758
 173,581
 104,846
  27,034
  17,350
   7,080
  13,174
  84,971
  21,425
  22,470
  38,588
   8,121
  25,054
   7,131
   4,081
   9,007
  17,381
     335
   8,075
  25,308
  11,562
  33,120
   8,054
   2,225
   4,956
   4,486
   2,193
   2,891
  26,375
   5,661
  80,022
  58,234
  40,061
  35,242
   4,553
   3,883
  37,840
   5,854
   1,187
20.1
19.0
18.8
21.6
33.2
31.1
25.9
24.9
23.4
21.4
31.7
23.4
20.2
24.6
23.4
24.5
23.1
33.9
28.3
23.2
17.6
15.2
20.5
17.3
25.8
22.0
22.3
31.9
23.0
23.3
24.2
23.0
17.4
18.5
22.8
15.4
18.0
17.5
20.2
17.6
17.9
16.3
16.5
17.2
14.0
18.6
17.4
21.1
Conservatii
Acres
10,869
10,943
14,797
54,651
9,509
43,988
44,435
133,753
29,316
62,717
200,603
85,976
37,578
11,180
2,998
11,118
168,939
49,723
32,018
127,498
69,422
37,390
5,094
18,703
5,830
28,427
738
37,671
29,341
14,252
37,019
2,600
10,233
8,806
5,712
3,558
5,875
115,199
13,915
103,255
131,680
68,763
23,897
5,191
9,975
11,244
20,614
1,433
on Tillage
LF
16.7
16.7
18.0
17.7
32.7
29.1
24.3
21.2
20.0
18.1
24.0
19.4
15.8
17.2
18.7
18.5
19.3
28.2
22.2
18.9
13.5
11.0
16.0
13.3
20.5
16.7
17.9
24.2
17.8
17.4
18.4
18.2
14.5
14.5
16.8
12.1
13.9
14.2
15.4
13.9 -
13.2
14.3
12.6
12.4
11.4
15.3
13.7
15,0
Hayland
Acres
226,565
401,085
240,216
63,556
54,900
134,578
62,979
149,693
71,198
148,417
152,836
70,578
20,404
57,926
37,911
41,362
199,500
116,083
88,901
97,542
71,578
121,214
8,852
2,816
14,837
28,076
10,845
162,192
147,753
21,120
52,912
217
4,845
5,352
3,966
1,718
1,924
7,451
3,729
6,059
8,949
41,278
297
3,353
5,048
2,045
213
3
LF
10.8
11.0
12.1
11.0
17.7
17.1
15.3
7.9
8.8
7.6
11.2
7.7
7.5
6.1
11.1
10.1
5.3
8.5
7.3
6.0
5.4
10.3
9.4
7.4
10.1
9.3
8.9
11.6
10.4
8.4
8.4
7.7
5.2
4.8
10.4
6.3
4.4
5.4
9.1
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.1
5.7
5.1
10.0
9.5
11.4
                                                    A-l

-------
Table A-l Nitrogen Loading Factors: Conventional Tillage, Conservation Tillage and Hayland
               Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Base Case Scenario
        Land Use Acreage and Edge-of-Stream Loading Factors (LF) for Nitrogen in Ibs/acre
         Segment

         GREAT_WICOMICO
         GUNPOWDER
         JAMES
         NANSEMOND
         NANTICOKE
         OCCOQUAN
         PATAPSCO
         PATUXENT
         POCOMOKE
         POTOMAC
         RAPPAHANNOCK
         SEVERN
         WICOMICO
         WYE
         YORK
                          Conventional Tillage  Conservation Tillage
                            Acres     LF      Acres     LF
    Hayland
Acres     LF
8,774
14,662
43,813
15,119
74,878
4,508
20,211
26,009
40,847
93,729
90,525
377
23,068
10,255
44,936
21.3
15.4
18.6
23.9
25.0
21.4
16.1
19.0
24.8
20.5
20.9
18.7
20.5
18.3
18.5
3,167
26,048
45,912
19,434
137,165
23,599
36,968
12,075
79,758
56,477
38,466
897
12,012
19,856
44,700
17.3
12.2
15.4
19.7
22.3
15.8
11.6
13.2
21.2
14.4
17.0
14.1
17.8
14.6
15.3
133
13,068
5,829
349
7,919
41,292
21,148 .
9,760
2,839
28,398
7,942
630
752
1,028
8,220
9.7
6.7
9.5
10.9
4.7
11.1
5.2
7.6
3.8
8.1
10.7
5.9
4.8
4.9
11.0
                                                A-2

-------
       fable A-2 Nitrogen Loading Factors: Pasture, Animal Waste, Forest and Urban
                         Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Base Case Scenario
                   Land Use Acreage and Edge-of-Stream Loading Factors (LF) for Nitrogen in Ibs/acre
Segment
  Animal Waste
Acres      LF
     Forest
Acres       LF
                                                                                  Urban
Acres
LF
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
140
160
170
175
180
190
200
210
220
230
235
240
250
260
265
270
280
290
300
310
330
340
ANACOSTIA
BALT HARBOR
BOHEMIA
CHESTER
CfflCKAHOMINY
CHOPTANK
COASTAL 1
COASTAL 11
COASTAL 4
COASTAL_5
COASTAL_6
COASTAL 8
COASTAL 9
ELIZABETH
159,325
300,413
145,469
29,624
73,066
139,180
31,756
76,049
50,173
87,849
127,594
58,097
24,304
108,588
148,161
105,876
220,191
211,836
200,709
79,147
105,951
224,145
7,370
2,337
22,253
24,010
19,176
233,212
269,838
32,646
80,932
4,191
8,477
10,534
3,532
3,540
1,867
5,493
4,013
5,884
9,108
49,235
2,658
3,147
7,632
7,143
1,361
112
4.14
7.13
7.37
7.85
5.43
6.88
6.17
13.22
8.03
7.63
11.23
22.27
15.47
9.35
9.90
7.67
7.09
6.84
5.82
8.55
7.62
3.29
3.06
2.88
3.45
3.11
4.65
6.71
5.82
4.54
3.87
3.87
3.87
3.24
6.37
6.13 '
5.90
5.84
7.72
5.71
5.34
6.52
6.71
5.79
6.36
2.77
8.44
8.34
614
1,716
668
149
94
402
193
614
211
607
792
806
160
145
108
128
925
522
412
540
186
391
21
9
50
71
13
316
331
57
137
8
23
26
11
10
12
72
11
49
71
321
2
2
5
28
7
0
1858.2
2203.7
2234.5
2514.5
2633.5
2286.9
2191.5
2110.4
2193.9
1962.9
1932.7
2014.3
1899.7
2099.4
1936.1
1788.8
1778.8
2025.7
1695.5
2059.0
1881.9
2181.5
2136.2
2136.2
2136.2
2136.2
1884.6
2185.4
2332.1
2118.3
2118.3
2118.3
1893.0
1893.0
1847.2
1858.9
1663.3
1663.3
2007.7
1663.3
1663.3
1858.9
1687.3
1687.3
1847.2
1858.9
2055.8
2007.7
984,938
1,844,310
875,001
570,931
679,540
2,254,498
610,012
802,377
394,793
1,076,335
416,256
80,692
52,115
614,346
726,540
584,313
722,664
594,668
503,065
189,716
209,156
577,312
123,800
176,769
146,892
335,375
189,339
1,364,448
1,356,569
222,413
525,824
71,259
25,606
45,387
33,308
14,612
13,354
77,240
96,481
135,173
249,573
164,399
123,651
62,007
38,912
197,054
54,841
6,276
2.22
5.92
5.49
6.50
3.45
5.04
4.74
11.34
7.89
7.47
6.48
12.00
8.63
3.91
3.95
3.21
3.80
3.71
2.74
3.98
3.19
1.02
0.79
0.81
1.57
0.84
1.04
1.24
1.49
1.15
1.00
1.01
1.49
1.59
2.52
2.46
2.34
2.50
2.83
2.42
2.36
2.50
2.64
2.53
2.53
1.26
3.01
3.04
199,187
420,461
105,210
96,136
56,731
78,824
32,814
134,620
16,180
74,940
146,910
73,096
26,872
48,740
22,927
46,443
198,101
40,625
50,154
83,164
146,032
38,857
11,106
9,702
11,153
37,553
2,350
58,967
74,187
21,071
33,036
11,673
30,668
53,586
52,442
26,055
11,089
30,044
32,942
40,276
50,373
107,100
6,204
42,370
33,815
25,137
44,327
3,431
8.04
10.98
11.78
12.47
10.49
12.13
11.87
16.56
12.41
12.33
15.16
23.18
15.77
9.97
10.76
8.82
8.55
8.90
7.90
9.67
7.76
6.86
3.56
3.43
3.42
4.34
6.30
8.17
7.32
6.24
6.50
5.97
7.09
9.34
8.28
8.29
7.31
7.25
12.78
7.51
6.48
8.24
7.47
7.80
8.09
6.61
15.20
13.72
                                          A-3

-------
      Table A-2 Nitrogen Loading Factors: Pasture, Animal Waste, Forest and Urban
                        Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Base Case Scenario
                  Land Use Acreage and Edge-of-Stream Loading Factors (LF) for Nitrogen in Ibs/acre
Segment

GREAT WICOMICO
GUNPOWDER
JAMES
NANSEMOND
NANTICOKE
OCCOQUAN
PATAPSCO
PATUXENT
POCOMOKE
POTOMAC
RAPPAHANNOCK
SEVERN
WICOMICO
WYE
YORK
                        Pasture
                   Acres      LF
  Animal Waste
Acres     LF
    Forest
Acres      LF
Acres
Urban
    LF
990
22,795
18,257
3,860
4,579
50,331
29,197
7,105
5,601
38,337
17,024
673
1,249
1,164
12,615
2.59
6.69
8.27
8.28
6.42
6.21
6.15
6.28
6.35
5.83
2.67
5.57
6.17
5.53
2.33
1
72
30
5
37
97
110
15
22
65
86
2
4
10
44
2055.8
1858.9
2007.7
2007.7
1663.3
1847.2
1858.9
1847.2
1663.3
1847.2
2055.8
1847.2
1663.3
1663.3
2055.8
23,861
88,338
525,519
73,812
239,890
150,755
88,664
163,992
326,226
628,468
422,678
12,270 :
81,851
15,138
401,542
1.27
2.58
2.90
2.97
2.46
2.54
2.45
2.54
2.47
2.51
1.27
2.42
2.33
2.39
1.12
2,023
126,398
105,949
16,444
46,993
55,594
80,015
128,881
23,929
297,355
31,801
14,288
18,478
8,274
59,765
4.67
9.65
13.31
13.15
7.27
7.33
7.93
7.87
7.42
7.46
4.98
7.25
7.29
6.77
8.92
                                        A-4

-------
Table A-3 Phosphorus Loading Factors: Conventional Tillage, Conservation Tillage and Hay
                Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Base Case Scenario
         Land Use Acreage and Edge-of-Stream Loading Factors (LF) for Phosphorus in Ibs/acre
         Segment
Conventional Tillage  Conservation Tillage
  Acres      LF      Acres      LF
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
140
160
170
175
180
190
200
210
220
230
235
240
250
260
265
270
280
290
300
310
330
340
ANACOSTIA
HALT HARBOR
BOHEMIA
CHESTER.
CfflCKAHOMINY
CHOPTANK
COASTAL 1
COASTAL 11
COASTAL_4
COASTAL 5
COASTAL 6
COASTAL 8
COASTAL 9
ELIZABETH
100,723
160,951
78,620
126,240
37,257
66,122
62,800
144,248
24,395
91,758
173,581
104,846
27,034
17,350
7,080
13,174
84,971
21,425
22,470
38,588
8,121
25,054
7,131
4,081
9,007
17,381
335
8,075
25,308
11,562
33,120
8,054
2,225
4,956
4,486
2,193
2,891
26,375
5,661
80,022
58,234
40,061
35,242
4,553
3,883
37,840
5,854
1,187
1.7
1.8
1.7
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.3
4.4
2.9
2.9
2.1
2.5
2.4
2.4
4.7
3.5
2.6
2.2
1.6
2.7
1.9
3.2
3.0
2.1
3.5
2.7
2.4
3.1
2.5
2.0
2.4
3.5
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.7
1.2
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.5
2.2
10,869
10,943
14,797
54,651
9,509
43,988
44,435
133,753
29,316
62,717
200,603
85,976
37,578
11,180
2,998
11,118
168,939
49,723
32,018
127,498
69,422
37,390
5,094
18,703
5,830
28,427
738
. 37,671
29,341
14,252
37,019
2,600
10,233
8,806
5,712
3,558
5,875
115,199
13,915
103,255
131,680
68,763
23,897
5,191
9,975
11,244
20,614
1,433
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.2
2.3
2.0
3.1
2.3
2.3
1.8
2.1
2.1
2.2
3.9
2.8
2.2
1.7
1.1
2.1
1.5
2.3
2.1
1.6
2.5
2.0
1.7
2.2
1.9
1.5
1.6
2.3
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.3
0.9
1.4
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.5
226,565
401,085
240,216
63,556
54,900
134,578
62,979
149,693
71,198
148,417
152,836
70,578
20,404
57,926
37,911
41,362
199,500
116,083
88,901
97,542
71,578
121,214
8,852
2,816
14,837
28,076
10,845
162,192
147,753
21,120
52,912
217
4,845
5,352
3,966
1,718
1,924
7,451
3,729
6,059
8,949
41,278
297
3,353
5,048
2,045
213
3
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.8
1.7
1.4
1.0
1.7
1.3
1.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.3
0.8
1.9
1.3
1.7
1.6
1.5
2.1
2.0
1.4
1.7
1.5
0.7
0.7
1.4
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.8
1.1
                                                    A-5

-------
Table A-3 Phosphorus Loading Factors: Conventional Tillage, Conservation Tillage and Hay
               Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Base Case Scenario
        Land Use Acreage and Edge-of-Stream Loading Factors (LF) for Phosphorus in Ibs/acre
        Segment

        GREAT_WICOMICO
        GUNPOWDER
        JAMES
        NANSEMOND
        NANTICOKE
        OCCOQUAN
        PATAPSCO
        PATUXENT
        POCOMOKE
        POTOMAC
        RAPPAHANNOCK
        SEVERN
        WICOMICO
        WYE
        YORK
                          Conventional Tillage Conservation Tillage      Hayland
                            Acres     LF      Acres     LF     Acres     LF
8,774
14,662
43,813
15,119
74,878
4,508
20,211
26,009
40,847
93,729
90,525
377
23,068
10,255
44,936
2.0
1.6
1.4
2.0
1.7
2.1
1.5
2.9
2.0
1.8
1.9
2.3
1.7
1.4
1.3
3,167
26,048
45,912
19,434
137,165
23,599
36,968
12,075
79,758
56,477
38,466
897
12,012
19,856
44,700
1.6
1.1
1.1
1.5
1.4
1.4
0.9
1.8
1.7
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.0
1.0
133
13,068
5,829
349
7,919
41,292
21,148
9,760
2,839
28,398
7,942
630
752
1,028
8,220
1.3
0.8
0.7
1.1
0.4
1.3
0.6
1.0
0.3
0.7
1.4
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.8
                                                 A-6

-------
      Table A-4 Phosphorus Loading Factors: Pasture, Animal Waste, Forest and Urban
                        Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Base Case Scenario
                  Land Use Acreage and Edge-of-Stream Loading Factors (LF) for Phosphorus in Ibs/acre
Segment

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
140
160
170
175
180
190
200
210
220
230
235
240
250
260
265
270
280
290
300
310
330
340
ANACOSTTA
BALT_HARBOR
BOHEMIA
CHESTER
CfflCKAHOMINY
CHOPTANK
COASTAL_1
COASTAL_11
COASTAL_4
COASTAL_5
COASTAL_6
COASTAL_8
COASTAL_9
ELIZABETH
Pasture
Acres
159,325
300,413
145,469
29,624
73,066
139,180
31,756
76,049
50,173
87,849
127,594
58,097
24,304
108,588
148,161
105,876
220,191
211,836
200,709
79,147
105,951
224,145
7,370
2,337
22,253
24,010
19,176
233,212
269,838
32,646
80,932
4,191
8,477
10,534
3,532
3,540
1,867
5,493
4,013
5,884
9,108
49,235
2,658
3,147
7,632
7,143
1,361
112
LF
0.168
0.196
0.215
0.287
0.173
0.252
0.165
0.172
0.073
0.057
0.500
0.206
0.264
0.401
0.235
0.201
0.305
0.351
0.302
0.396
0.534
0.193
0.334
0.300
0.373
0.325
0.661
1.000
0.907
0.672
0.357
0.357
0.169
0.102
0.289
0.151
0.207
0.186
0.356
0.173
0.270
0.162
0.315
0.157
0.167
0.089
0.375
0.316
Animal Waste
Lcres
614
1,716
668
149
94
402
193
614
211
607
792
806
160
145
108
128
925
522
412
540
186
391
21
9
50
71
13
316
331
57
137
8
23
26
11
10
12
72
11
49
71
321
2
2
5
28
7
0
LF
371.6
440.7
446.9
502.9
526.7
457.4
438.3
422.1
438.8
392.6
386.5
402.9
379.9
419.9
387.2
357.8
355.8
405.1
339.1
411.8
376.4
436.3
427.2
427.2
427.2
427.2
376.9
437.1
466.4
423.7
423.7
423.7
378.6
378.6
369.4
371.8
332.7
332.7
401.5
332.7
332.7
371.8
337.5
337.5
369.4
371.8
411.2
401.5
Forest
Acres
984,938
1,844,310
875,001
570,931
679,540
2,254,498
610,012
802,377
394,793
1,076,335
416,256
80,692
52,115
614,346
726,540
584,313
722,664
594,668
503,065
189,716
209,156
577,312
123,800
176,769
146,892
335,375
189,339
1,364,448
1,356,569
222,413
525,824
71,259
25,606
45,387
33,308
14,612
13,354
77,240
96,481
135,173
249,573
164,399
123,651
62,007
38,912
197,054
54,841
6,276
LF
0.045
0.048
0.057
0.071
0.061
0.058
0.064
0.051
0.046
0.037
0.055
0.033
0.036
0.045
0.045
0.021
0.043
0.125
0.060
0.050
0.073
0.025
0.040
0.039
0.159
0.045
0.046
0.052
0.094
0.054
0.048
0.048
0.028
0.037
0.030
0.024
0.028
0.044
0.048
0.016
0.036
0.019
0.029
0.022
0.024
0.021
0.044
0.035
Urban
Acres
199,187
420,461
105,210
96,136
56,731
78,824
32,814
134,620
16,180
74,940
146,910
73,096
26,872
48,740
22,927
46,443
198,101
40,625
50,154
83,164
146,032
38,857
11,106
9,702
11,153
37,553
2,350
58,967
74,187
21,071
33,036
11,673
30,668
53,586
52,442
26,055
11,089
30,044
32,942
40,276
50,373
107,100
6,204
42,370
33,815
25,137
44,327
3,431
LF
0.73
0.65
0.88
1.24
0.82
0.85
0.90
0.84
0.72
0.68
1.21
0.75
0.77
0.92
0.82
0.83
0.78
0.85
0.75
0.83
0.73
0.72
0.54
0.50
0.49
0.63
0.82
1.21
1.04
0.79
0.86
0.72
0.60
0.85
0.67
0.63
0.57
0.52
0.88
0.54
0.58
0.65
0.63
0.40
0.97
0.73
0.61
0.74
                                       A-7

-------
       Table A-4 Phosphorus Loading Factors: Pasture, Amimal Waste, Forest and Urban
                         Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Base Case Scenario
                   Land Use Acreage and Edge-of-Stream Loading Factors (LF) for Phosphorus in Ibs/acre
Segment

GREAT WICOMICO
GUNPOWDER
JAMES
NANSEMOND
NANTICOKE
OCCOQUAN
PATAPSCO
PATUXENT
POCOMOKE
POTOMAC
RAPPAHANNOCK
SEVERN
WICOMICO
WYE
YORK
     Pasture
Acres      LF
                                         Animal Waste
                                       Acres     LF
   990
22,795
18,257
 3,860
 4,579
50,331
29,197
 7,105
 5,601
38,337
17,024
   673
 1,249
 1,164
12,615
0.103
0.182
0.357
0.319
0.263
0.310
0.145
0.222
0.288
0.221
0.110
0.133
0.253
0.197
0.156
  1
 72
 30
  5
 37
 97
110
 15
 22
 65
 86
  2
  4
 10
 44
411.2
371.8
401.5
401.5
332.7
369.4
371.8
369.4
332.7
369.4
411.2
369.4
332.7
332.7
411.2
Forest
Acres
I
23,861
88,338
525,519
73,812
239,890
150,755
88,664
163,992
326,226
628,468
422,678
12,270
81,851
15,138
401,542
LF
0.022
0.029
0.035
0.037
0.017
0.042
0.021
0.024
0.023
0.030
0.020
0.015
0.015
0.023
0.031
Urban
Acres
2,023
126,398
105,949
16,444
46,993
55,594
80,015
128,881
23,929
297,355
31,801
14,288
18,478
8,274
59,765
LF
0.42
0.79
0.80
0.77
0.52
0.63
0.58
0.60
0.56
0.59
0.49
0.49
0.54
0.53
1.06
                                         A-8

-------
Table A-5  Transport Factors For Nitrogen and Phosphorus
           Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Base Case Scenario
                 (Above the Fall Line Segments)  *

           Segment Nitrogen    Phosphorus
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
140
160
170
175
180
190
200
210
220
230
235
240
250
260
265
270
280
290
300
310
330
0.72111
0.52402
0.65916
0.75120
0.73393
0.68700
0.77200
0.83058
0.34657
0.76931
0.86792
0.89819
0.94614
0.69145
0.71690
0.77578
0.80419
0.69010
0.83798
0.80958
0.91303
0.91117
0.49755
0.49755
0.56307
0.56307
0.69392
0.69392
0.69392
0.69392
0.47277
0.47277
0.67852
0.18793
0.16957
0.28833
0.39342
0.24691
0.31675
0.39344
0.47410
0.13695
0.37998
0.58113
0.64535
0.81778
0.65920
0.97926
0.77271
0.79696
0.81116
0.80452
0.74528
0.91048
0.86967
0.60021
0.60021
0.59120
0.59120
0.84488
0.84488
0.84488
0.84488
0.56359
0.56359
0.60804
                              A-9

-------

-------
                                 APPENDIX B

 Nutrient Reduction Efficiencies for Conservation Tillage and Nutrient Management*
                        Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Source:  Obtained from the Watershed Model Base Case and Nutrient Management Scenario Output Files
       (CBPO, 1992)

-------

-------
Table B-l Conservation Tillage Nutrient Reduction Efficiencies
                      Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Segment
Nitrogen  Phosphorus
Efficiency Efficiency
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
140
160
170
175
180
190
200
210
220
230
235
240
250
260
265
270
280
290
300
310
330
340
ANACOSTIA
BALT HARBOR
BOHEMIA
CHESTER
CfflCKAHOMINY
CHOPTANK
COASTAL 1
COASTAL 11
COASTAL 4
COASTAL 5
COASTAL 6
COASTAL 8
COASTAL 9
ELIZABETH
GREAT WICOMICO
16.9
11.9
4.4
17.9
1.5
6.3
6.1
15.0
14.5
15.4
24.3
17.1
21.6
30.0
19.9
24.4
16.6
16.7
21.3
18.7
22.9
27.4
21.8
23.0
20.8
24.0
19.5
24.1
22.5
25.1
23.7
21.1
17.0
21.8
26.4
21.5
22.7
19.1
23.6
21.1
26.1
12.6
23.8
27.4
18.5
17.8
21.5
28.9
18.6
-17.3
17.0
7.0
26.8
12.8
14.9
19.4
17.9
14.6
16.4
29.0
20.7
18.9
15.5
17.2
13.4
8.9
18.2
19.8
17.3
21.3
33.8
22.5
20.9
27.1
30.7
24.3
29.5
26.1
29.4
28.8
26.0
24.6
31.7
35.4
32.5
27.3
27.8
23.4
25.5
24.3
26.9
28.0
36.4
28.8
23.6
27.6
32.2
20.0
                                          B-l

-------
Table B-l Conservation Tillage Nutrient Reduction Efficiencies
                     Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Segment

GUNPOWDER
JAMES
NANSEMOND
NANTICOKE
OCCOQUAN
PATAPSCO
PATUXENT
POCOMOKE
POTOMAC
RAPPAHANNOCK
SEVERN
WICOMICO
WYE
YORK
Nitrogen  Phosphorus
Efficiency Efficiency
  21.0
  17.3
  17.9
  11.0
  25.9
  28.0
  30.9
  14.3
  29.8
  18.6
  24.5
  13.5
  20.2
  17.2
32.5
24.9
26.8
15.5
32.3
35.7
36.5
17.7
30.4
21.6
34.6
20.3
25.8
21.2
                                         B-2

-------
                      Table B-2 Nutrient Management Reduction Efficiencies
                      Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Nutrient Management Scenario
Segment
          NITROGEN
Conv'l Till  Conser'n Till Hayland
                                             16.0
                                             11.2
                                             28.5
                                             40.6
                                             55.2
                                             54.0
                                             53.0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
140
160
170
175
180
190
200
210
220
230
235
240
250
260
265
270
280
290
300
310
330
340
ANACOSTIA
BALT HARBOR
BOHEMIA
CHESTER
CfflCKAHOMINY
CHOPTANK
COASTAL_1
COASTAL_11
COASTAL_4
COASTAL 5
COASTAL_6
COASTAL_8
COASTAL 9
ELIZABETH
GREAT WICOMICO
8.8
6.3
16.0
21.0
18.6
21.3
18.2
5.0
6.9
10.8
3.9
10.9
8.3
17.0
8.2
13.4
37.8
36.0
40.7
40.6
27.5
8.2
13.7
13.7
14.3
14.3
16.1
14.5
11.2
10.4
10.6
12.0
. 39.2
33.2
19.6
33.8
17.6
19.1
10.7
20.4
20.0
56.1
16.6
27.2
46.5
10.8
2.7
1.6
12.3
11.7
9.3
19.4
22.8
19.7
21.8
17.6
5.6
6.7
10.7
5.4
11.5
9.7
17.6
9.1
13.8
39.9
39.9
43.0
41.5
29.7
9.3
13.9
13.8
16.1
16.2
17.5
16.8
12.1
11.6
12.4
13.6
40.9
36.1
20.5
- 34.8
17.8
19.7
10.6
20.7
20.1
57.3
17.1
29.5
47.4
11.1
2.7
1.5
12.6
         PHOSPHORUS
Conv'l Til Conser'n   Hayland
3.6
3.8
4.0
8.0
14.6
15.3
7.7
12.7
30.1
31.1
4.0
9.5
7.6
13.4
5.8
9.1
28.7
31.8
37.2
35.7
21.9
7.3
9.8
19.5
8.9
8.2
13.6
10.8
10.6
9.1
10.4
13.4
22.7
14.9
13.2
14.0
8.9
8.6
16.8
11.5
12.1
41.7
20.5
9.8
26.1
14.2
3.1
0.7
17.0
6.3
6.5
7.6
9.5
17.4
18.7
9.3
16.3
33.7
35.0
6.1
10.4
10.1
18.4
7.2
11.9
37.3
37.3
41.7
39.9
27.1
9.1
12.4
26.3
11.4
10.6
16.3
14.2
12.3
11.9
14.2
17.6
23.1
16.2
14.4
14.1
11.0
10.2
19.0
12.9
15.3
39.8
25.8
11.5
25.2
16.7
3.9
0.8
21.7
19.6
11.4
34.5
45.6
48.9
45.7
45.2




7.7
6.5




































                                                 B-3

-------
                       Table B-2 Nutrient Management Reduction Efficiencies
                       Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Nutrient Management Scenario
 Segment

 GUNPOWDER
 JAMES
 NANSEMOND
 NANTICOKE
,OCCOQUAN
 PATAPSCO
 PATUXENT
 POCOMOKE
 POTOMAC
 RAPPAHANNOCK
 SEVERN
 WICOMICO
 WYE
 YORK
          NITROGEN
Conv'ITill  Conser'n Till Hayland
                                 PHOSPHORUS
                         Cony'lTU Conser'n   Hayland
  35.5
   7.4
   4.0
  19.6
  18.6
  36.7
  21.8
  27.1
  24.3
  12.8
  28.0
  26.5
  21.1
  13.0
36.4
 8.2
 4.2
19.7
18.2
35.1
23.1
27.6
23.0
13.1
30.7
27.2
21.8
13.4
16,2
11.5
13.9
15.7
10.5
19.6
9.7
24.4
12.3
16.6
10.8
22.5
11.7
19.2
16.4
15.0
19.0
16.9
11.7
15.5
10.6
26.6
14.3
20.8
12.5
24.4
14.1
23.9
                                                   B-4

-------
               APPENDIX C

    Rural Clean Water Program Cost Tables
      Conestoga Headwaters (Pennsylvania)
      Double Pipe Creek (Maryland)
      Highland Silver Lake (Illinois)
      Prairie Rose Lake (Iowa)
      Garvin Brook (Minnesota)
      Long Pine Creek (Nebraska)
      Tillamook Bay (Oregon)
BMP-1:  Permanent Vegetative Cover
BMP-2:  Animal Waste Management Systems
BMP-3:  Stripcropping and Contour Farming Systems
BMP-4:  Terrace System
BMP-5:  Diversion System
BMP-6:  Grazing Land Protection System
BMP-7:  Waterway System
BMP-8:  Cropland Protective System
BMP-9:  Conservation Tillage Systems
BMP-10: Stream Protection System
BMP-11: Permanent Vegetative Cover on Critical Areas
BMP-12: Sediment Retention, Erosion, or Water Control Structures
BMP-13: Soil and Manure Analysis
BMP-14: Management of Excess Manure
BMP-15: Fertilizer Management
BMP-16: Pesticide Management

-------

-------
oo
ON
.2

 I
 o
 CO

-------
      81 §J 51 S il 81 81 8
3 3 d =  a  a  «  -  -'  -
                                                     C3\
                                                     CO
                                                      o
                                                      *
                                                      •a
                                                      g

                                                      t
                                                       u
                                                       g

                                                       o

-------
 u
vo
oo
 o
 I
 o
 CO

-------
N
. 1
r
«
VI
O
fiC
•1
u
• u.
[
55 S
E a
i? o
* t Ml
s 3
-- i-
* r
;j
*"• . i
*
i
i
i
!
t
1
1
1
1
1
V
•
:
i
•la
ll
*•!
#
1
I
*
*
k
*
•
"»
^
•>
1'

*
H», »V
UMIfl
i
i
s*** "*
**
«
•
r
i







L

k
r
i
*



i
I
<;






to
o
o
o
CM


•

•


fs.
m
§
h.
8
£ *
rt






CVI
CM
CM
CM
"





•
in
SI
1
1
tt






c
•c
f
«r
CM
-•





CM
CM
CM
n
c .'..'null Stilut
S»,,«w






a
u
^
5
»

cc
^*
o>
CM

0
CO
"
o
^
*
s
t






r!
g
Cl
O
o
e
to

to
§
0

3
M
3
»
3
fM
— M





CD
ED
5
7
IT
r
U!
2

r
o
S
r*
CM

|
*o
o
CD
IA
m
fs.
2
e*
a






IM
VD
CM
to
CM
0»
3

g
0
in
fO
*~

i
r"»
g
3
CM
^
»







U
tl
C
c
CD

E
vc
n
O
in

8
in
5
r>
o
CM
J
0






o»
ll
u
r*
in
c

i
JC
f

1
Si
s;
CM
O
C7k











ir
M

O
O
en
3
o
J
^











1
in
in

s
>
3
3
vo
>
)


r
«i
CM
C
O




X
Cv
M
O

o
o



«
-



^11.
c
r
0
c




X
cs
CM
O

0
o



i-T
f



















i





•












i


















i
b











•






a
o


















t
4


















1
tf


















*


















i





































i


1
3
CM
s


to
CM
?-
\
\

9
1

i



Prijtcl Tttah 1












                                                                                                                         a\
                                                                                                                         oo
                                                                                                                         o\

                                                                                                                         §
                                                                                                                         C/3

-------

ON
oo
ON
'«
£
%
|

I
«j
2
§
CO

-------

I
S
1
I
a
n
u
If
i4
U
«
C
a
— i
O
r4
8
3.
•S
u
u
f Bu

N







et

U|M
?J g

^ =

v.-. o

|| g
|l w
»* 2:
«! §






r'f















_
|
o

"







i!

*
*








|
tMI*
S
u
o



u


M
.
»
t
»

9
s

4J
=
C

t
k
i
4


1
]
C
N

,.

u
.
0
o
J
J
-
(
C
;
"

r
'-
e
V
1
V
e
31
o
1
I

S'
Houni
tunon

'£•

a


1
<
'



:
«,
5


1,


r
t
11

UIMTS






I
§
CM
r-
i
VO
o
CO
12
o
CM
CM
0
in
in
CO
o
> CO

O
CM
en


63^
^y-.
H
i?l8
m
&S&
;u
t§
xS^
!§cs-
jsy.-

njf4
iir%i
3si
-rS?$
l^j.
te*
'sP-
s •»•
i P
—
II
: ^
Sir I
» ~ -


O
O
O
CM
1
'o
vO
O
VO
en
o
en
o
CM
VO
en
en
in
m
in
CO
CM

in
—4
SP
nl

s?£
^
|§gi;
lH
$&$
^
Hi


siNi

:'5ni
^j}5
si
^cs?
«£»;
P!
•T.?.1."
CO
" £
«3
U.
C
5 C
•^ "l"
s J


o
o
in
in
CM
o
CM
O
•»4
O
VO
VO
en
VD
in
O
m
O

co

CM

Ol

o
0
^
CM

ft.
17
to


e
en
o
o
en


o
vo
VD
r>i
g
CM
CM
O
CM
in
CM
o
o
vO




m
i—
2

CM
en
0>
«T
•T
m



~4
en
in
o%
CM
vD
CM

CM
•a-
O



i




CO
o
en
o
en
o
CO
en

in
•»
CM
•O1
o
CO




o
o
m

o
o
en
in
••4
m



•a-
o

£
-.T
CO
m

m
m




s


o
o
o
§
o
0
o
cr>


g

m
CM
•a1
in
CM
en
•*




o
m
CM

o
m
r-
vH
CM
in



o
OJ

o
o
«a


O
vn
CM
r-




r.
'i


o
o
o
§
•-4
o
o
o
o\


vO
s

CO
CO
in
CO
00
m
o\
en
f-4




m
en

'in
CM
CM
CM
m



in


o
o
•a1


m
m
r*
1
S3

O
j
«






































Q
m
«n
o
CM
CM
vO




O
o
CM

o
m
en
o
in
en
o
o
m
en
&
o
en

CM



o\
CO
•-4




VO

CM
O
o

in

~ *
§
.
a
r
—
1 1
a
i




















,















i

s,










CO
2
•0
s
a























S: !










Du
§
B
a
§


















i





5




































j
1
I
= \
o
n
CO
m
in
CM
r*.
VO
CO
m
CSJ
VD
in
m
CM
co
CO
•a1
•a
en
vo
••4
eo
•a*
en
o>
o
o
sr
en
CM
O
CM
VO



O
VO
,3-

CM
-a
m
CM
en
en
0\
O
*^
'•#§?£


en






•'•:;



"in
9
U

-------
      u
ON
oo
ON
8
 • •

 1
CO

-------


•1
X
C


4»
g
X
VI
«c
u
u
<
X
A
5
| ^
t P
«
«r
•
fl
v •*
c^
£t
si
•e£
• «
Jfi
*
«•* S
2: g
-•i °
tHT O> ACMICV
tiin •»< Cinl«>*
tATED BMP t
U. I. Ol*A»tM
Jl.fll H.VillH
RCWP ESTIK
<


RCWR.4
(U7A-40)
«
O
*



j
g
3
X
.1*
«•
eo
* • •
0
5
£

!
k
*
U
g
HIMIMBB
.1
?»!
ww
	 i.
*"•»
•» «
0*
"!
« J
OK
tiltn
• !• IIO>
OIK1101I
«
""^
»•
3

i
M









H
.*" . .'
• ?•

•
;-
i • ~
- K
tP
D
w •
•
«•
I
ti
Si
1. MCM> Mm o
•nd Annul! 1















'.—
	

§
••
Sc
\f
2. Wiiii Ouilir
a. Develop










• ;

•
...

•-


o S
*£

o
>
*
K
.0










-•
'.
•"•'


-.
"'.

of
s£
s
•
wi
J
->
M



a.
a
A






>
»
«r
>
g
o
>
n

o
*n

«


t
1
S
O
*<
g
m
**
i.
£
•
c
B















WNACEKEHT
FERIlLirER



A
a
X

«
;
«
r
n


*c
>«
«r
«n
•
O


«

U
X
«

s
<
1
e
s




.







•





•

c
i




















(1
(0
ti




















CL
a




















a
•>
a
£




















e
c
I




















a
a
o




















a
ffi
a




















a
2
ID
9




















a
01




















a
5




















2:
Hi
«e
i
•«


O%
4
Ot

2* 84 JM
r*
r*
O
**
•ft
•*

f
o
0V
r*



J5
PiojectTot
  CO
  6
ON
00
ON
u
I
 §
 CO

-------
                                    APPENDIX D

                      Examples of Animal Waste System Costs"
Animal waste management system examples reported in this appendix were obtained from: "Manual for
Economic and Pollution Evaluation of Livestock Manure Management Systems"  by William F. Ritter
(1990).  Production and nutrient content of animal wastes were obtained from "Assessment of Field
Manure Nutrient Management  with  regards to  Surface &  Groundwater Quality" by R.E.  Wright
Associates, Inc.(1990)

-------

-------



i
i»
s

1
2
i
s
"5s
O
Ǥ

tM
BS of Evaluation

cx
X
W
S
g





Oj
u'
I1
§*
O '
U
73 <
1*

^J









I












1
-•.

=
£



a
.2
J
5
•a
S
t:
o
cx
£

81
CO







c
•{3
s

o
00

ts






c
o
1
1
1
CO

1
to
.s
1

1




CO
cx
2
o
CO

1

?
s

oo






(3
s
t
a>
1
5

1?
1

|




a>
cx
s
M>
11
1

O
^

00
oo







.2
o
1
1


2
CO

1
CO





CX
2
o
CO

I

O
en
«N

S









O
1
•S*
o
s?
s
CO
.s
JO
g

1





c^
B
CO
Ui
1

g
tN

OO
CM








es
o
I
£
4>
W)
1
i
o
a
a




a>
' &
CO
g
1

o

o<
2
u
CO
14
I

O
en
oo

o
cs






c
•1
.—
1
4)
I
CO

.S
1
g

|



SL
i
CO
•§
1
1

£
CS

§






C
.2
u
1
1
5

4>
t-i
S

a



cx
§
CO
73
§
1

s
"

S






,.,
o
1
"S,
1
5

I

1
CO



cx
e
CO
73
u
'i
•s

o
O\

VO








C
.2
is*

1
c
1
g

|



4
2
o
•CO
73
o
I
1

O
s

E








e
o
1
£*

1
!

1



cx
CO
CO
1
<3
1

8
es

cN









o
1
't?

1
«

o>
CO



cl
2
CO
1
ii
1
3  «  o  s
'EL s"» .S  w
iT^'g
    2  2

-------
               NO
                       00
                              o
                                             od
                                                     O\
CO
•*-*

§
i
CQ
.2:
 «
 o


.2
 ra


I
w

 o


^
"S*
p
 a>
                              8
                                      S3
                                             ON
                                             Cb
                                           g
                                                            8
                                                            oo
                                                          O
                                                          en
      I
     CO
 o
1
port
•B
 3
spread
                               §•
rry

lic
Slu
appicat
                      S  e
                       -sis4
                       C  co

                       5  -2

                       CO  co
                    1§
                     CO* "i3
                     •^  CO
                     r"> °
                     n s
                    J2  &
                    CO  «*
                                             8
                                              s
                                              CO
Slurry sprea

application
                                           8
                                                     g
                                                     S.J
                                                     to 'S
                                                     C/3
I
 CO
                                                                -

                                                          s
                                                             a
                                                            ..1
                                                          en .*->
                                                                    —  dc
 I1

2
co
               1
      2
      g

      8

     .S
               (
             1
             "3


             1
             .a
                                      1
                       1

                       .S
                                         I?
                                           I
                                                     00



                                                     o

                                                     "33
                                                     .0
                                                     o
                                                     § S
                                                     u tt


               •o
               •s

                11
                CO  «•
                i
                r2  2
                H  eb
             .s"

             1
             x>
             4->


             1
                       i
                                             •S
                                           1


                                                                     a>
                                                     o
                                                                    2
                                                                    CJ ^
                                                                    co .*S
                               uf

                                                     H So

-------


^^
&
CO
i
§
s
a>
l_i
«
^5
1
CO
IM
>
1
S

1
i
§
w


!
^
Q>
0,
03
is
flj C
^£4 w
s
VO
s
od





'^
IM
0>
Slurry spread
injection


"2
1
•§
1
bo
1
a,
S
s
Cu
1
fe
"S

CO
*8
ii
5.

5~
S
v^«




€ c
*^.2
Ui ^
tli O
Slurry spread
subsurface inj
•s
ts
fa
o>
£
S3
1

I,
II






2
o
o
53
I
CO
8.
O\
o
rj





•S o
**3
<-< i^
 .9*
Slurry spread
subsurface inj




'a
x>
g
w

*•
52
1
ji
o
"to
11
9 CQ
'•s-f
E a
                                Q
V)  O

-------
     t.
      CA
     73 t
                o
                en
      IS
 a>


I

00

CO
s
oo
                S

         8.

         VO
 §
 •s

 o
o

1
p

•O
§
CU
£








1
1

*M
(0

Ur
Q)
•S
§ fl
1-2
£1s
i "S,
fS CL
CO «
1
•0







1
eu>
s
1
e







|
5
o
21
2
                                                        CM

-------
CO

1

s
£

1
I
i
O

JS
"cL
wp

Q
4>
     §
I
CO
.a

I

1

i
Q,

Collection
        s
        ts
        §
        1
        •s
        CO
        If


        II
        — 2
       o
       ON
II
1|
l!
       •8
       •S

             CO
    s
                 c
                 o
     c
    '1
                 w
                 '
                 II
                 .S -a
                 fi
                     GO
                      £*|-5
                      O\
                &.
                      ~  cs

-------
s*
J










Ti
1
•a
j-jj
^^
o
*•»
o
a
a
S
1
si
1
§
'S
1
Oi
^
Q
1
H







lo
^
£3
a
a>
'S
J3
5
0
0)
•I





0



m







S
CO





«





c*
3
"3
S;
1
o






8



o
CO



•n







vo





«





C4
1
fe
>,
t
1
ft
S
2
*J
Q
B
§
*a
&
CO
K
9
S
•g
1
"S,
&
<
2
T3
E
oi
w
o
.,
8

S "S
ll
£ s
o m
<^ *•*
o\ S
2 1
^<§
13 8
w £5
« e5
^* Q
*rt *O
a « 1
4_> O 9
til
g 8 >»
Ok "^

m _. 
-------
                                    APPENDIX E



                            Soil Conservation Farm Plans*
*  Source:  Obtained from Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia (MDA, PADER, and VA-DSWC,  1991)

-------

-------
n
«.a
<3  8"
-o
          1
          S
          a
                                                                           3
                                                                                           s
                                                                                           8
                                                                                           O\
                                                                                           en
          "8
    1
IX
fc



§
 §
u
CO

•o
          IS
          8
                         VO
                                           00
                         VO
                                                                           s
                                                                            o
                                                                            VO
                                                                                       5?
   §1
                                           o\
                                                                            2
   a*
   o  >
   W5

                                                                            oo

                                                                            S
                                                                            cs
       f S1
                                              888
                                                                                     en
«
 t>
                   v
                                o\ Ti- in
                                Tj- f 00
                                               t-

                                               VO
                                                             ss
                                                             «S CM
       H

       D-
       U
                   «•,
                 U U 55
                         B<
                                     BO
                                                1
                                                oo


                                                I
                                                         g1

                              0

                                '

                                       -
                                   §•£

                                   S 1 -8
                                   g ! §
                                   <5 u o
                                                   0,
                                                  -f
II
                                              1 -  « -a


                                              o S S u
                                                                      O S
                                                                                      >
u o
                              8
                                                ?
                                                S

-------
§
•a

1

    1
          p
ir»


a


s
          o
          na
          a
      Pi
      11



       *
       cu

       pa
                                       oo
                                       00
                              oo

                              vd
                          IN
                                       es
t-;



VO
       It.
                              S
                               VO

                               
-------

-------
    1!
    a
    S
II

  &
         £
I
1
          tR
                   !  oo


                     OO
             S
                   o\
                   en
        o\

        vo
                         S
                         i s
                               •* Ox
                               OO VO
                             tn rf ^
                             in oo o\
—i OO
vq vq

o o\
                                     S
                                           o\
                                                00
                                            OO
                                            OO
                                                    vo
                                                 OO
                                                 00
tu

§
-.a
      PS
    &
           S\ P S
                      >-• o
                      oo o
            8
^
  8*I
               vo o r>
               O\ 00 C>l
                         O tn •*

                         2 ve *"
                                                 O\

                                                 r~
                                                 o\
                    S

                                       s
                             \n t^
                             o\ --
                                           VO
                                                     vo
                                                     OO
  fr.
  S
                  illi
                  U ? fe !

                         lf;

                                         1
                                         VO
      a
         •a
      IL,
                                                 eo
                                                     VO
                                                     OO

-------
                 APPENDIX F




Nutrient Removal Efficiencies and Cost for Urban BMPs

-------

-------
Table F-l Nutrient Removal Efficiencies of Urban BMPs1
BMP



Dry Pond/
Extended
Deten.(ED)



Wet Ponds



Wet Ponds/ED


Stormwater
Wetalnds
"

Wetlands/ED


Natural Wetlands

Pond/Wetalands
Systems


#




7




25



3



12


4


1


7


Range


min
25%ile
median
75%ile
max
min
25%ile
median
75%ile
max
min
median
max
min
25%ile
median
75%ile
max
min
median
max

min
25%ile
median
75%ile
max
Drainage
Area
(acres)
11
17
28
34
88
.8
27
58
348
4,872
395
860
2139
6
42
462
1,207
2,340
40
255
1070
55.4
18
42
389
2230
23393
Total Nitrogen
(%)

10
17
25
30
35
6
21
32
39
85

54

23
23
24
30
30
5
21
36
-1.6
-6
11
29
75
83
Total Phosphorus
(%)

13
18
20
26
40
12
34
46
67
91
47
69
79
-2
11
47
61
97
7
16
54
7.0
1
24
64
90
92
1.   Nutrient removal ranges calculated from  pollutant removal tables in the report: "A Current Assessment of
    Urban Best Management Practices " (Schueler et. al, 1992)
                                               F-l

-------
Table F-2 Unit Costs of Urban BMPs in the District of Columbia1
BMP



Sand Filters



Infiltration
Trenches



Rooftop
Detention



Oil Grit Chamber





Ponds


#



68




5




50




33




8


Range

minimum
25%ile
median
75%ile
maximum
minimum
25%ile
median
75%ile
maximum
minimum
25%ile
median
75%ile
maximum
minimum
25%ile
median
75%ile
maximum
minimum
25%ile
median
75%ile
maximum
Acres
Benefited
0.14
0.46
0.60
1.17
12.17
0.16
0.20
0.46
0.50
0.70
0.13
0.29
0.66
1.00
2.00
0.12
0.30
0.59
1.20
5.00
0.69
3.08
7.87
20.25
32.00
Unit Costs
($/acre/year)
. 344
3,787
7,036
9,101
29,903
478
670
1,820
4,186
5,233
335
957
1,340
2,310
7,281
797
1,444
2,392
4,257
16,746
262
790
2,125
4,615
12,134
1.  Unit cost ranges calculated from the report: "Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grant Quarterly Progress
    Report."  District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs  (DCRA, 1992).
                                            F-2

-------
Table F-3 Unit Costs of Urban BMPs in Maryland1
BMP


Extended Detention/ Shallow
Marsh




Wet Ponds



Retrofits
Dry-Extended Detention
Dry-Wet Pond
Wet Pond-Extended detention

Inflltarion Trenches

#



13




6




12



2

Range

minimum
25%ile
median
75%ile
maximum
minimum
25%ile
median
75%ile
maximum
minimum
25%ile
median
75%ile
maximum
minimum
median
maximum
Acres
Benefited
23
32
58
230
326
17
51
117
242
267
18
40
190
440
1168
3
12
21

Unit Costs
($/acre/year)
38
195
465
545
1,589
102
116
250
870
1,152
9
49
179
289
698
2,456
2,803
3,150
1.   Unit cost ranges calculated from cost tables in the Maryland Department of Environment report: "A
    Survey and Analysis of Stormwater Management Cost-Share Projects" (Majedi and Comstock, 1992).
                                            F-3

-------

-------
                                 APPENDIX G

       Chesapeake Bay Basin Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants*
                       Basin A =   Lower Susquehanna & Conowingo
                       Basin B =   Lower Susquehanna
                       Basin C =   Juniata
                       Basin D =   West Branch Susquehanna
                       Basin E =   East Branch Susquehanna
                       Basin F =   Potomac
                       Basin G =   Rappahannock
                       Basin H =   Pamunkey
                       Basin I  =   James
                       Basin Q =   Eastern Shore
                       Basin R =   Tidal Patuxent
                       Basin S =   North Western  Shore
                       Basin T =   Tidal Potomac
                       Basin U =   Tidal Rappahannock
                       Basin W =   Tidal York
                       Basin X =   Tidal James
Data shown in this appendix were obtained from the Chesapeake  Bay Program Point Source Atlas
supplemented with more recent data from the states. Flows and nutrient effluent concentrations reflect the
most recent average annual data compiled through 1990. Design capacity flow information, for 51 out 265
WWTPs, includes expected expansion of these WWTPs before the year 2000.

-------

-------
                  TABLE G-L    BASIN A: LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
STATE NPDES FACILITY NAME
                OWEGO 
-------
                   TABLE G-2.   BASIN B:  LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
STATE  NPDES  FACILJTYNAME
                 HAMILTON (V) W
                 MT. HOLLY SPRI
                 PINE GROVE BOR
                 ANNVILLB TOWNS
                 SMIDDLETONTW
                 CARLISLE SUBUR
                 HIGHSPIRESTP
                 MHXERSBURG BO
                 NEW CUMBERLAND
                 ASHLAND MUNICI
                 MYERSTOWN BORO
                 PALMYRA BOROUG
                 HAMPDEN TOWNSH
                 SHENANDOAH MUN
                 MECHANICSBURG
                 LEMOYNE BOROUG
                 MTODLETOWNWAS
                 HAMPDEN TOWNSH
                 SHIPPENSBURG  B
                 SELINSGROVE BO
                 EAST PENNSBORO
                 DERRY TOWNSHIP
                 LOWER ALLEN TO
                 SWATARA TOWNSH
                 LEBANON CITY A
                 CARLISLE BOROU
                 HARRISBURG SEW
NY
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
20672
23183
20915
21806
44113
24384
24040
22535
26654
23558
21075
24287
28746
70386
20885
26441
20664
80314
30643
10582
38415
26484
27189
26735
27316
26077
27197
BASIN

SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA

COUNTY

MADISON
CUMBERLAND
SCHUYLKILL
LEBANON
CUMBERLAND
CUMBERLAND
DAUPHIN
DAUPHIN
CUMBERLAND
SCHUYLKILL
LEBANON
LEBANON
CUMBERLAND
SCHUYLKILL
CUMBERLAND
CUMBERLAND
DAUPHIN
CUMBERLAND
FRANKLIN
SNYDER
CUMBERLAND
DAUPHIN
CUMBERLAND
DAUPHIN
LEBANON
CUMBERLAND
DAUPHIN

D-FLOW
(mgd)
0.50
0.60
0.60
0.75
0.75
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.25
1.30
1.40
1.42
1.76
2.00
2.08
2.09
2.20
2.50
2.75
2.80
3.70
5.00
5.95
6.30
6.60
8.50
30.90
96.4
FLOW
(mgd)
0.4i
0.22
0.49
0.45
0.27
0.53
1.03
0.43
0.55
0.86
0.61
0.76
1.32
1.32
0.91
1.48
1.04
1.98
1.73
1.50
2.42
3.19
3.25
3.25
5.46
3.45
24.24
63.1
TN .
(mg/1)
29.29
20.9
14.3
20.9
24.56
20.9
17.2
14.58
24.68
13.76
20.9
28.04
12.67
13.28
26.2
25.12
24.56
14.41
24.56
20.90
25.56
13.71
9.45
23.17
24.23
15.25
15.59

TP
(mg/1)
6.50
0.81
0.60
1.38
0.98
2.00
1.56
8.00
1.82
2.08
0.58
2.90
2.04
3.34
1.22
2.00
1.20
2.00
1.00
8.00
1.46
1.30
1.95
7.50
1.40
0.85
1.51

TYPE

AS/
AS/OD
AS/N
AS/N
AS/N
AS/N
ASICS
AS/PF
AS/CS
AS/EA
AS/N
AS/PF
AS/PF
AS/CM
TF/
AS/PF
AS/PF
AS/CS

AS/PF
AS/N
AS&FILTC
AS/N
AS/CS
AS/N
AS/N
AS/PF

D-FLOW «« Design Flow in mgd
FLOW >• Annual Avenge Flow in mgd
mgd w Million! Gallons per Day
TN - Annuil Average Total Nitrogen Cone.
TP » Annual Average Total Phosphorus Cone.
NPDES — National Pollution Discharge
         Elimination Number
AS/ = Activated Sludge
AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF = Fixed Film (TF or RBC)
   TF = Trickling Filter
   RBC — Rotating Biological Contactors
SBR= Sequencing Batch Reactors
P= Primary
LA — Lagoon

                  G-2
EA = Extended Aeration
CM = Complete Mix
CS = Contact Stabilization
OD = Oxidation Ditch
PF = Plug Flow
PO = Pure Oxygen
SA = Step Aeration
HR = High Rate
LR = Low Rate

-------
                  TABLE G-3.    BASING: LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
STATE  NPDES FACILITY NAME BASIN

  PA      28347 MARTINSBURG SE
  PA      32557 LOGAN TWP.(GRE
  PA      28240 BELLWOOD BOROU
  PA      28088 BROWN TWPMUN
  PA      23264 TWIN BOROUGHS
  PA      20214 MOUNT UNION BO
  PA      22209 BEDFORD BOROUG
  PA      23493 HOLLIDAYSBURG
  PA      43273 HOLLIDAYSBURG
  PA      26280 LEWISTOWN, BOR
  PA      26191 HUNTINGDON, BO
  PA      27014 ALTOONACTTYA
  PA      27022 ALTOONACrrYA
  PA      26727 TYRONE BOROUGH
BASIN
COUNTY D-FLOW FLOW
TN -
TP
TYPE
(mgd) (mgd) (mg/1) (mg/1)
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA

BLAIR
BLAIR
BLAIR
MIFFLIN
JUNIATA
HUNTINGDON
BEDFORD
BLAIR
BLAIR
MIFFLIN
HUNTINGDON
BLAIR
BLAIR
BLAIR

0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.63
1.2
1.33
2
2.4
3.75
5.5
6.5
9
35.21
0.62
0.44
0.26
0.22
0.20
0.40
0.78
1.61
1.20
1.69
1.81
4.97
6.67
5.00
25.9
17
17
17
17
17
17
19.2
10.37
19.2
17
17
19.2
19.2
19.2

4.88
4.88
6
6
6
6
1.1
6
6
6
4.65
3.75
3.75
0.38

AS/EA
ASICS
TF
EA
ASICS
EA
AS/PF
AS/N
AS/N
EA
TF/
AS/
AS/PF
AS/N

D-FLOW = Design Flow in mgd
FLOW = Annual Average Flow in mgd
mgd = Millions Gallons per Day
TN = Annual Average Total Nitrogen Cone.
TP = Annual Average Total Phosphorus Cone,
NPDES = National Pollution Discharge
         Elimination Number
AS/ = Activated Sludge
AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF = Fixed Film (IF or RBC)
   TF = Trickling Filter
   RBC = Rotating Biological Contactors
SBR= Sequencing Batch Reactors
P= Primary
LA = Lagoon

                  G-3
EA = Extended Aeration
CM = Complete Mix
CS = Contact Stabilization
OD = Oxidation Ditch
PF = Plug Flow
PO = Pure Oxygen
SA = Step Aeration
HR = High Rate
LR = Low Rate

-------
                  TABLE G-4.   BASIN D:  LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
STATE NPDES FACILITY NAME BASIN
                TRIBORO MUNIC
                CURWENSVILLE M
                MONTGOMERY BOR
                MUNCV BOROUGH
                JERSEY SHORE,
                WESTERN CLINTO
                MEFFLINBURG BO
                MANSFIELD BORO
                PINE CREEK MA-
                MOSHANNON VALL
                MTCARMELMUN
                WELLSBOROMUN
                BELLEFONTE BOR
                LEWISBURG AREA
                MILTON MUN AUT
                LOCK HAVEN CIT
                KELLYTWPMUN
                PENNSYLVANIA S
                UNIVERSITY ARE
                CLEARFEELD MUN
                WILLIAMSPORT S
                WDLUAMSPORT S
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
23736
24759
20699
24325
28665
43893
28461
21814
27553
37966
24406
21687
20486
44661
20273
25933
28681
26999
26239
26310
27049
27057
BASIN
COUNTY D-FLOW FLOW
TN ,
TP
TYPE
(mgd) (mgd) (mg/1) (mg/1)
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA

SUSQUEHANNA
CLEARFEELD
LYCOMING
LYCOMING
LYCOMING
CLINTON
UNION
TIOGA
CLINTON
CENTRE
NORTHUMBERLA
TIOGA
CENTRE
UNION
NORTHUMBERLA
CLINTON
UNION
CENTRE
CENTRE
CLEARFDELD
LYCOMING
LYCOMING

0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
1
1.3
1.5
1.5
2.3
2.4
2.42
2.6
3.75
3.75
3.34
3.84
4.5
4.5
20!
51.25
0.37
0.60
0.44
1.18
0.65
0.40
0.73
0.53
1.13
1.55
1.04
1.08
1.87
1.03
1.89
2.52
2.25
3.05
3.20
3.56
2.67
8.31
40.05
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
19.2
19.2
17
17
18.5
17
17
19.2
17
17
17

1.88
7.13
6
4.88
6
6
6
6
4.88
6
4.88
7.13
1.1
6
6
6
6
1.13
0.14
6
6
6

EA
AS/EA
AS/PF
TF
AS/PF
AS/PF
SBR
AS/N
AS/CS
AS/CS
AS/CS
AS/
AS/CS
AS/
AS/EA
AS/
AS/PF
AS/N
AS/N&
AS/PF
AS/PF
AS/PF

 D-FLOW •• Design Flow in mgd
 FLOW «• Annual Average Flow in mgd
 mgd « Million! Gallons per Day
 TN » Annual Average Total Nitrogen Cone.
 TP « Annual Average Total Phosphorus Cone.
 NPDES « National Pollution Discharge
         Elimination Number
AS/ = Activated Sludge
AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF = Fixed Film (TF or RBC)
   TF = Trickling Filter
   RBC = Rotating Biological Contactors
SBR= Sequencing Batch Reactors
P= Primary
LA = Lagoon

                  G-4
EA = Extended Aeration
CM = Complete Mix
CS = Contact Stabilization
OD = Oxidation Ditch
PF = Plug Flow
PO = Pure Oxygen
SA = Step Aeration
HR = High Rate
LR = Low Rate

-------
                  TABLE G-5.   BASIN E: LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
STATE NPDES FACILITY NAME
                ST. JOHNS SEWE
                LACKAWANNA RIV
                LACKAWANNA RIV
                TOWAND A MUN AU
                MOUNTAINTOP AR
                SAYRE
                DALLAS AREA MU
                CLARKS SUMMTT-
                LACKAWANNA RIV
                DANVILLE MUN A
                SUNBURYOTYM
                BERWICK MUN AU
                BLOOMSBURG MUN
                LOWER LACKAWAN
                LACKAWANNA RIV
                SHAMOKIN-COAL
                GREATER HAZELT
                SCRANTON SEWER
                WYOMING VALLEY
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
46388
27081
27073
34576
45985
43681
26221
28576
27065
23531
26557
23248
27171
26361
27090
27324
26921
26492
26107
BASIN
COUNTY D-FLOW FLOW
TN
.. TP
TYPE
(mgd) (mgd) (mg/1) (mg/1)
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA
SUSQUEHANNA

LUZERNE
LACKAWANNA
LACKAWANNA
BRADFORD
LUZERNE
BRADFORD
LUZERNE
LACKAWANNA
LACKAWANNA
MONTOUR
NORTHUMBERLA
COLUMBIA
COLUMBIA
LUZERNE
LACKAWANNA
NORTHUMBERLA
LUZERNE
LACKAWANNA
LUZERNE

0.6
0.7
1
1
1.83
1.94
2.2
2.5
3
3.22
3.5
3.65
4.29
6
7
7
8.9
28
50
136.33
0.12
0.40
0.57
0.82
2.29
0.82
2.09
2.77
3.38
2.60
3.00
2.28
2.59
3.52
5.34
3.04
7.80
14.68
24.21
82.32
17
17
17
17
19.2
17
19.2
19.2
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
19.2
17

2.51
2.01
2.28
6
2.18
7.13
2.44
4.46
2.57
6
6
7.13
6
1.35
3.12
4.88
3.21
3.21
4.07

AS/N
AS/EA
AS/N
AS/PF
AS/N
P
ASICS
ASICS
AS/N
ASICS
AS/PF
P
ASICS
AS/N
AS/N
TF
AS/PF
AS/N
TF/

D-FLOW = Design Flow in mgd
FLOW = Annual Average Flow in mgd
mgd = Millions Gallons per Day
TN = Annual Average Total Nitrogen Cone.
TP = Annual Average Total Phosphorus Cone.
NPDES = National Pollution Discharge
         Elimination Number
AS/ = Activated Sludge
AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF = Fixed Rim (TF or RBC)
   TF = Trickling Filter
   RBC = Rotating Biological Contactors
SBR= Sequencing Batch Reactors
P= Primary
LA = Lagoon

                  G-5
EA = Extended Aeration
CM = Complete Mix
CS = Contact Stabilization
OD = Oxidation Ditch
PF = Plug Flow
PO = Pure Oxygen
SA = Step Aeration
HR = High Rate
LR = Low Rate

-------
                  TABLE F-6.   BASIN F: LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
STATE NPDES FACILITY NAME BASEST
                GEORGE'S CREEK
                POOLESVILLE
                TANEYTOWN CfTY
                BRUNSWICK SEWA
                EMMTTSBURG
                WASH.SUB.SAN.C
                THURMONT WASTE
                WCSC SUBDIV 1-
                MD CORRECTION
                FREDERICK COM
                US ARMY FORT D
                WESTMINSTER WA
                SENECA CREEK
                FREDERICK CITY
                HAGERSTOWN STP
                CUMBERLAND.crr
                WASHINGTON TOW
                GETTYSBURG MUN
                WAYNESBORO BOR
                CHAMBERSBURG B
                FCSA: ABRAMS C
                PURCELLVILLES
                STUARTS DRAFT
                VERONA
                LURAYSTP
                STRASBURGSTP
                FRONT ROYAL ST
                FISHERSVILLES
                LEESBURGSTP
                WAYNESBORO STP
                WINCHESTER STP
                STAUNTON STP
                FWSA OPEQUON S
                HARRISONBURG/R
                ROMNEY, CITY O
                CHARLES TOWN S
                KEYSER, CITY O
                MARTINSBURG, C
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
wv
wv
wv
wv
60071 i
23001 1
20672'
20958 1
20257 1
20982 '
21121 '
20214 '
27405 :
21822 :
20877
21831
21491
21610
21776
21598
80225
21563
20621
26051
31780
22802
66877
64637
62642
20311
62812
25291
21377
25151
25135
64793
65552
60640
20699
22349
24392
23167
BASEST
COUNTY D-FLOW FLOW
TN.-
TP
TYPE
(mgd) (mgd) (mg/1) (mg/1)
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC .
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC

ALLEGANY
MONTGOMER
CARROLL
FREDERICK
FREDERICK
MONTGOMERY
FREDERICK
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
FREDERICK
FREDERICK
CARROLL
MONTGOMERY
FREDERICK
WASHINGTON
ALLEGANY
FRANKLIN
ADAMS
FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN
WINCHESTER C
LOUDOUN
AUGUSTA
AUGUSTA
PAGE
SHENANDOAH
WARREN
AUGUSTA
LOUDOUN
AUGUSTA
FREDERICK
STAUNTON err
FREDERICK
ROCKINGHAM
HAMPSHIRE
JEFFERSON
MINERAL
BERKELEY

0.6
0.6
0.66
0.7
0.75
0.75
1
1.6
1.63
2
2
3
5
7
8
15
1
1.41
1.87
5.2
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.81
2
2
2.5
4
4
4.5
5
8
0.5
0.8
1.1
5
103.28
0.6
0.77
0.92
0.435
0.64
0.633
0.92
1.373
0.805
0.68
1.07
3.72
4.71
8.34
9.68
14.32
0.75
1.61
0.97
3.59
0.00
0.33
0.78
0.6
0.97
0.46
1.94
0.81
2.02
2.90
0
2.40
18.70
7.59
0.50
0.53
0.71
3JO
100.776
14.1
18.7
9.75
19.42
18.79
19.86
14.57
22.43
12.2
20.5
1.62
13.67
9.06
19.04
13.89
18
19.2
19.2
17
19.2
0
18.7
18.7
18.7
18.7
18.7
18.7
18.7
18.7
18.7
0
18.7
2.5
18.7
17.12
20.90
16.95
14.77

1.9
2.5
2.1
1.94
1.7
2.6
3.29
3.48
1.38
4.4
1.2
2.5
1.3
3.84
1.98
1.15
4.88
0.36
6
5.57
0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
0
2.5
0
2.5
6.50
6.50
6.50
6.50

AS/OD
SBR
AS/
AS/
TF
AS/N
AS/OD
TF
TF
AS/
TF
AS/N
AS/EA
AS/
AS/PO
AS/N
AS/
AS/OD
AS/PF
TF
AS/EA
AS&TF
AS/OD
RBC
AS/EA
AS/OD
AS/CM
AS/CM
TF/HR
TF/HR
TF/HR
TF/HR
AS/CM
AS/CM
AS/
AS/

FF

 D-FLOW « Design Flow in mgd
 FLOW «• Annual Average Flow in mgd
 tngd — Millions Gallons per Day
 TN •« Annual Average Total Nitrogen Cone.
 TP « Annual Average Total Phosphorus Cone.
 NPDES •* National Pollution Discharge
         Elimination Number
AS/ = Activated Sludge
AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF= Fixed Film (TF or RBC)
   TF = Trickling Filter
   RBC " Rotating Biological Contactors
SBR= Sequencing Batch Reactors
P= Primary
LA = Lagoon
                  G-6
EA = Extended Aeration
CM = Complete Mix
CS = Contact Stabilization
OD = Oxidation Ditch
PF = Plug Flow
PO = Pure Oxygen
SA = Step Aeration
HR = High Rate
LR = Low Rate

-------
                  TABLE G-7.    BASING: LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS


STATE  NPDBS  FACILITY NAME BASIN           COUNTY     D-FLO  FLOW     TN   .  TP   TYPE
                                                                     (mgd)   (mgd)  (mg/1)  (mg/1)
  VA      21385  ORANGESTP       RAPPAHANNOCK   ORANGE            0.75    0.67     18.7     2.5   TF/SR
  VA      21172  WARRENTONSTP   RAPPAHANNOCK   FAUQUIER             1    1.19     18.7     2.5  TF&RBC
  VA      61590  CULPEPERSTP     RAPPAHANNOCX   CULPEPER             3    1^63     18.7     2.5   AS/CM
                                                                        4.75    3.49
D-FLOW = Design Flow in mgd           AS/ = Activated Sludge                                EA = Extended Aeration
FLOW = Annual Average Flow in mgd      AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification                  CM = Complete Mix
mgd = Millions Gallons per Day           FF =  Fixed Film (TF or RBC)                          CS = Contact Stabilization
TN = Annual Average Total Nitrogen Cone.      TF = Trickling Filter                              OD = Oxidation Ditch
TP = Annual Average Total Phosphorus Cone.    RBC = Rotating Biological Contactors                  PF = Plug Flow
NPDES = National Pollution Discharge      SBR= Sequencing Batch Reactors                        PO = Pure Oxygen
         Elimination Number            P= Primary                                        SA = Step Aeration
                                   LA = Lagoon                                      HR = High Rate
                                                                                    LR = Low Rate
                                                      G-7

-------
                   TABLE G-8.   BASIN H: LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
STATE  NPDES FACILITY NAME BASIN

  VA      21105 GORDONSV1LLE    YORK
  VA      29521 DOSWELLSTP      YORK
  VA      24899 ASHLAND STP      YORK
                  COUNTY

                  ORANGE
                  HANOVER
                  HANOVER
D-FLOW FLOW     TN .•   TP
  (mgd)   (mgd)  (mg/1)  (mg/1)
      0.67    0.62
        1    1.65
        2    0-96
      3.67    3.23
18.7
18.7
18.7
 2.5
1.01
 2.5
TYPE

  LA
AS/EA
  LA
D-FLOW «« Design Flow in mgd
FLOW «• Annual Average Flow in mgd
mid « Millions Gallons per Day
TN «• Annual Average Total Nitrogen Cone.
AS/ = Activated Sludge
AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF = Fixed Film OTF or RBC)
   TF = Trickling Filter
TP - Annual Average Total Phosphorus Cone.    RBC = Rotating Biological Contactors
NPDES - National Pollution Discharge      SBR= Sequencing Batch Reactors
         Elimination Number            'P= Primary
                                    LA = Lagoon

                                                       G-8
                  EA = Extended Aeration
                  CM = Complete Mix
                  CS = Contact Stabilization
                  OD = Oxidation Ditch
                  PF = Plug Flow
                  PO = Pure Oxygen
                  SA = Step Aeration
                  HR = High Rate
                  LR = Low Rate

-------
                  TABLE G-9.    BASIN I:  LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
STATE NPDES  FACILITY NAME BASIN

  VA      21351  FARMVILLE BRID    JAMES
  VA      22772  CLIFTON FORGE    JAMES
  VA      20567  LEXINGTON STP    JAMES
  VA      20991  BUENAVKTAST    JAMES
  VA      25542  COVINGTONSTP    JAMES
  VA      25518  MOORES CREEKS    JAMES
  VA      24970  LYNCHBURGSTP    JAMES
                 COUNTY

                 PRINCE EDWAR
                 CLIFTON FORG
                 ROCKBRIDGE
                 BUENAVISTA
                 COVINGTON CI
                 CHARLOTTESVI
                 LYNCHBURG CI
(mgd)
    1.05
      2
      2
    2.25
      3
     15
     22
    47.3
-OW
ngd)
0.60
1.47
1.01
1.89
1.70
10.21
14.65
31.53
TN
(mg/1)
18.7
18.7
18.7
18.7
18.7
9.25
12.14

; TP
(mg/1)
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.63
1.6

TYPE

  LA
TF/HR
AS/CM
 RBC
  P
AS/CM
AS/CM
D-FLOW = Design Flow in mgd
FLOW = Annual Average Flow in mgd
mgd = Millions Gallons per Day
TN = Annual Average Total Nitrogen Cone.
AS/ = Activated Sludge
AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF = Fixed Film 
-------
                  TABLE G-10.   BASIN Q:  LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
STATE NPDES FACILITY NAME BASIN
                BRIDGEV1LLEST
                GEORGETOWN TOW
                LAURELSTP
                SBAFORD WASTE
                TALBOT CO. SAN
                FRUTTLAND, OT
                SNOW HILL WATE
                DELMARWWTP
                MEADOWVIEW UTI
                FEDERALSBURG S
                CHESTERTOWN UT
                BAINBR1DGE
                HURLOCK.TOWN
                POCOMOKE CITY
                CRISFIELD SBWA
                PRINCESS ANNE
                TOWN COMMISSIO
                KENT NARROWS
                EASTON WASTES
                NORTHEAST STP
                ELKTON SEWAGE
                SALISBURY CITY
                CAMBRIDGE COMM
DB
DB
DE
DB
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
20249
20257
20125
20265
23604
52990
22764
20532
22541
20249
20010
20869
22730
22551
20001
20656
20613
23485
20273
52027
20681
21571
21636
BASIN

E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE
E SHORE

COUNTY D-FLOW FLOW

SUSSEX
SUSSEX
SUSSEX
SUSSEX
TALBOT
WICOMICO
WORCESTER
WICOMICO
CECIL
CAROLINE
KENT
CECIL
DORCHESTER
WORCESTER
SOMERSET
SOMERSET
CECIL
QUEEN ANNES
TALBOT
CECIL
CECIL
WICOMICO
DORCHESTER

(mgd)
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.92
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.65
0.7
0.74
0.9
11
1.11
1.2
1.2
1.2IS
1.65
:i
2
2
2.7
6.8
ILL
38.17
TN
.- TP
TYPE
(mgd) (mg/1) (mg/1)
0.80
0.36
0.31
0.72
0.23
0.43
0.56
0.83
0.16
0.37
0.76
0.18
0.97
1.47
0.80
0.87
0.70
0.98
7.50
0.51
1.48
5.22
7.90
34.1013
20.70
18.50
20.70
15.83
18.00
18.00
18
10.56
18.00
15.70
9.3
18.00
18
18
19.05
18
5.6
19.9
6.87
16.20
20.96
18
18

7.00
1.44
7.20
6.00
3.00
3.00
3
0.44
3.00
3.05
2.30
3.00
3
3
1.83
0.17
0.44
3.93
1.94
0.33
1.64
3
3

AS/EA
AS/EA

AS/
RBC
TF
RBC
AS/
AS/EA
AS/
LA
TF
LA
LA
AS/N
AS/N
RBC
RBC
LA
AS/EA
AS/
TF
AS/

 D-FLOW — Design Flow in mgd
 FLOW - Annual Avenge Flow in mgd
 njgd - Millions Gallons per Day
 TN « Annual Average Total Nitrogen Cone.
 TP " Annual Average Total Phosphorus Cone.
 NPDES «• National Pollution Discharge
         Elimination Number
AS/ — Activated Sludge
AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF- Fixed Film (TF or RBC)
   TF = Trickling Filter
   RBC = Rotating Biological Contactors
SBR= Sequencing Batch Reactors
P= Primary
LA = Lagoon

                  G-10
EA = Extended Aeration
CM = Complete Mix
CS — Contact Stabilization
OD = Oxidation Ditch
PF = Plug Flow
PO = Pure Oxygen
SA = Step Aeration
HR = High Rate
LR = Low Rate

-------
                   TABLE G-ll.   BASIN R: LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
 STATE  NPDES FACILITY NAME BASIN

  MD       20281 CHESAPEAKE BEA   PATUXENT
  MD       23132 MARYLAND CrrV   PATUXENT
  MD       23957 MDCORRECTIONA  PATUXENT
  MD       21628 BOWmcrrVSTP    PATUXENT
  MD       21717 USA HQ, FORT M    PATUXENT
  MD       21679 PINE HILL RUN     WCHESAP
  MD       21652 PATUXENT-ANNE   PATUXENT
  MD       21725 PARKWAY         PATUXENT
  MD       55174 LnTLEPATUXEN   PATUXENT
  MD       21741 WESTERN BRANCH  PATUXENT
COUNTY D-FLOW FLOW
TN ,
TP
TYPE
(mgd) (mgd) (mg/1) (mgA)
CALVERT
ANNEARUNDEL
HOWARD
PRINCE GEORG
ANNEARUNDEL
SAINT MARYS
ANNEARUNDEL
PRINCE GEORG
0.5
0.75
1.23
3.3
4.5
4.5
6
7.5
0.42
0.80
1.00
2.11
3.72
3.62
3.79
6.76
18.00
14.25
12.2
5.7
14.37
23.04
7.85
19.5
3.60
2.6
1.38
0.35
0.05
4.08
0.5
0.6
AS/
AS/
AS/
AS/OD
AS/N
TF
AS/
AS/N
                  HOWARD
                  PRINCE GEORG
19.4   16.10    14.81
 30   14.59     15.6
0.5
AS/N
                                                              0.9    AS/N
                                                                         77.68
                                              52.9
D-FLOW = Design Flow in mgd
FLOW = Annual Average Flow in mgd
mgd = Millions Gallons per Day
TN = Annual Average Total Nitrogen Cone.
AS/ = Activated Sludge
AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF = Fixed Film (TF or RBQ
   TF = Trickling Filter
TP = Annual Average Total Phosphorus Cone.    RBC = Rotating Biological Contactors
NPDES = National Pollution Discharge
        Elimination Number
SBR= Sequencing Batch Reactors
P= Primary
LA = Lagoon

                  G-ll
           EA = Extended Aeration
           CM = Complete Mix
           CS = Contact Stabilization
           OD = Oxidation Ditch
           PF = Plug Flow
           PO = Pure Oxygen
           SA = Step Aeration
           HR = High Rate
           LR = Low Rate

-------
                  TABLE G-12.   BASIN S: LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
STATE NPDES FACILITY NAME BASIN
                JOPPATOWNESTP
                HAMPSTBAD
                US NAVAL ACADE
                MAYOWWTP
                MES-FREEDOM
                HAVRE DE GRACE
                BROADWATER SEW
                ABERDEEN PROVI
                ABERDEEN PROVI
                ABERDEEN, TOWN
                AA COUNTY BROA
                SOD RUN
                ANNAPOLISSTP,
                ANNEARUNDELC
                PATAPSCO
                BACKRIVER
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
22535
22446
23523
61794
21512
21750
24350
21237
21229
21563
21644
56545
21814
21661
21601
21555
BASIN

WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP
WCHESAP

COUNTY D-FLOW FLOW

HARFORD
CARROLL
ANNEARUNDEL
ANNEARUNDEL
CARROLL
HARFORD
ANNEARUNDEL
HARFORD
HARFORD
HARFORD
ANNEARUNDEL
HARFORD
ANNEARUNDEL
ANNEARUNDEL
BALTIMORE CI
BALTIMORE CI

(mgd)
0.75
0.9
1
1
1.8
1.9
2
3
3
4
6
10
10
15
87.5
J75
322.85
TN
.. TP
TYPE
(mgd) (mg/1) (mg/1)
0.82
0.40
0.50
0.05
1.88
1.94
1.24
1.23
1.10
1.97
5.13
9.57
8.46
12.70
62.57
123.00
232.557
15.40
18.00
18.00
5.98
7.75
18.93
27.90
20.53
7.47
15.95
16.3
25.96
9.75
14.79
12.7
12.5

3.5
0.56
0.5
1.47
4.43
0.86
0.74
0.4
0.6
0.05
2.4
0.7
1.28
0.99
1
0.84

AS/N
AS/
TF
SF
AS/
TF
AS/N
TF
TF
AS/N
AS/
AS/
AS/N
AS/
AS/
AS/

 D-FLOW •« Design Flow in mgd
 FLOW •* Annual Average How in mgd
 mgd x Millions Gallons per Day
 TN «• Annual Average Total Nitrogen Cone.
 TP «• Annual Average Total Phosphorus Cone.
 NPDES •« National Pollution Discharge
         Elimination Number
AS/ = Activated Sludge
AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF= Fixed Film 
-------
                   TABLE G-13.   BASIN T: LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
 STATE  NPDES FACILITY NAME BASIN
                 BLUE PLAINS
                 NAVORD/INDIAN
                 INDIAN HEAD, T
                 UTILmESINC.
                 US DEPARTMENT
                 LEONARDTOWN SE
                 TOWN OF LA PLA
                 CHARLES CNTYS
                 PISCATAWAY
                 COLONIAL BEACH
                 QUANTICO/MAINS
                 DALEcrrysTP
                 DALE CITY STP
                 AQUIASTP
                 L. HUNTING CRE
                 PWCSA MOONEY S
                 ARLINGTON STP
                 ALEXANDRIA STP
                 UPPER OCCOQUAN
                 LOWER POTOMAC
DC
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
21199
20885
20052
22781
20842
24767
20524
21865
21539
26409
28363
24678
24724
60968
25372
25101
25143
25160
24988
25364
BASIN

POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC
POTOMAC

COUNTY D-FLOW

DC
CHARLES
CHARLES
P.GEORGES
P.GEORGES
SAINT MARYS
CHARLES
CHARLES
PRINCE GEORG
WESTMORELAND
PRINCE WILLI
PRINCE WILLI
PRINCE WILLI
STAFFORD
FAIRFAX
PRINCE WILLI
ARLINGTON CI
ALEXANDRIA C
PRINCE WILLI
FAIRFAX

(mgd)
370
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.68
1.9
15
30
0.8
2
2
4
6
6.6
24
40
54
54
n
685.18
FLOW
TN -
TP
TYPE
(mgd) (mg/1) (mg/1)
316.3
0.334
0.64
0.259
1.31
0.318
0.75
6.79
20.12
0.75
1.55
1.72
2.02
2.33
4.63
10.58
28.12
42.99
16.32
35.15
492.98
13.73
18
17.59
12.9
4.5
14.31
18
11.58
13.15
18.70
18.7
18.66
11.84
9.7
21.41
19.36
10.63
24.15
21.48
13.65

0.11
1.55
2.63
1.34
2.12
1.09
0.74
1.76
0.1
2.50
0.26
0.09
0.11
0.16
0.09
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.12

AS/N
AS/
AS/
AS/EA
TF
LA
AS/EA
AS/
AS/N
TF/HR
AS&TF
AS/CS
AS/CS
AS/N
TF/HR
AS/N
AS/EA
RBC
AS/CM
AS/SA

D-FLOW = Design Flow in mgd
FLOW = Annual Average Flow in mgd
mgd = Millions Gallons per Day
TN = Annual Average Total Nitrogen Cone.
TP = Annual Average Total Phosphorus Cone.
NPDES = National Pollution Discharge
        Elimination Number
AS/ = Activated Sludge
AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF ** Fixed Film (TF or RBC)
   TF = Trickling Filter
   RBC = Rotating Biological Contactors
SBR= Sequencing Batch Reactors
P= Primary
LA = Lagoon
EA = Extended Aeration
CM = Complete Mix
CS = Contact Stabilization
OD = Oxidation Ditch
PF = Plug Flow
PO = Pure Oxygen
SA = Step Aeration
HR = High Rate
LR = Low Rate
                                                     G-13

-------
                  TABLE G-14.   BASIN U: LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
STATE NPDES FACILITY NAME BASIN            COUNTY

  VA      28096 CLAIRBONERUN    RAPPAHANNOCK    STAFFORD
  VA      25127 FREDERICKSBURG   RAPPAHANNOCK    FREDERICKSBU
  VA      25658 MASSAPONAX STP   RAPPAHANNOCK    FREDERICKSBU
  VA      68110 SPOTSYLVANIA C   RAPPAHANNOCK    SPOTSYLVANIA
  VA      76392 LITTLE FALLS      RAPPAHANNOCK    STAFFORD
                                D-FLOW FLOW
   TN ,  TP   TYPE
                                  (mgd)   (mgd)  (mg/1) (mg/1)
1.5
4,5
6
6
S
0.88
1.68
2.34
2.78

18.7
21.47
19.17
8.43
18.7
2.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
ASICS
TF/HR
AS/EA
AS/CM
AS/OD
                                                                         26
                                                                               7.68
D-FLOW « Design Flow in mgd
FLOW = Annual Avenge Flow in mgd
mgd « Millions Gallon* per Day
TN >• Annual Avenge Total Nitrogen Cone.
TP «• Annual Avenge Toul Phoiphorut Cone,
NPDES - National Pollution Discharge
        Elimination Number
AS/ = Activated Sludge
AS/N — Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF = Fixed Film (TF or RBQ
   TF - Trickling Filter
   RBC = Rotating Biological Contactors
SBR= Sequencing Batch Reactors
P= Primary
LA = Lagoon

                  G-14
EA — Extended Aeration
CM = Complete Mix
CS = Contact Stabilization
OD = Oxidation Ditch
PF = Plug Flow
PO = Pure Oxygen
SA = Step Aeration
HR = High Rate
LR = Low Rate

-------
                  TABLE G-15.   BASIN W: LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
STATE  NPDES FACILITY NAME BASIN

  VA      64238 HRSD-YORKRIVE   YORK
                  COUNTY      D-FLOW FLOW     TN  .-  TP   TYPE
                                   (mgd)    (mgd)  (mg/1)   (mg/1)
                  YORK                15.0    8.14    15.64    2.23    AS/PF
                                       15.0    8.14
D-FLOW = Design Flow in mgd
FLOW = Annual Average Flow in mgd
mgd = Millions Gallons per Day
TN = Annual Average Total Nitrogen Cone.
AS/ = Activated Sludge
AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF = Fixed Film (TF or RBC)
   TF = Trickling Filter
TP = Annual Average Total Phosphorus Cone.    RBC = Rotating Biological Contactors
NPDES = National Pollution Discharge      SBR= Sequencing Batch Reactors
        Elimination Number            P= Primary
                                   LA = Lagoon

                                                     G-15
EA = Extended Aeration
CM = Complete Mix
CS = Contact Stabilization
OD = Oxidation Ditch
PF = Plug Flow
PO = Pure Oxygen
SA = Step Aeration
HR = High Rate
LR = Low Rate

-------
                  TABLE G-16.    BASIN X: LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
STATE  NPDES FACILITY NAME BASIN

  VA      23809 SMTTHFIELD CAR
  VA      25216 FT.EUSTISSTP
  VA      24996 FALLING CREEK
  VA      25003 PORTSMOUTH STP
  VA      25437 PETERSBURG STP
  VA      25208 HRSD-ARMVBA
  VA      25241 HRSD- JAMES R
  VA      25267 HRSD-WILLIAM
  VA      25275 HRSD-CHESAPE
  VA      25283 HRSD-BOAT HA
  VA      60194 PROCTORS CREEK
  VA      64459 HRSD-NANSEMO
  VA      25259 HRSD-VIPSTP
  VA      63690 HENRICOSTP
  VA      66630 HOPEWELLSTP
  VA      63177 RICHMOND STP
BASIN
COUNTY D-FLOW FLOW
TN ,
.. TP
TYPE
(mgd) (mgd) (mg/1) (mg/1)
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
E SHORE
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES
JAMES

ISLEOFWIGH
NEWPORT NEWS
CHESTERFIELD
PORTSMOUTH C
PETERSBURG C
NORFOLK CITY
NORFOLK CITY
NORFOLK CFTY
NORFOLK CITY
NORFOLK CITY
CHESTERFIELD
VIRGINIA BEA
NORFOLK CITY
HENRICO
HOPEWELLCrr
RICHMOND err
.
o.:5
3
10
IS
15
IB
20
22.5
24
25
27
30
40
45'
50
70
415
0.54
1.67
9.96
12.12
10.37
12.09
12.59
9.44
18.13
17.14
8
9.67
22.00
21.78
33.07
55,5
254.07
18.7
18.92
10.4
20.76
15.52
14.17
20.54
15.76
20.86
20.39
12.63
24.8
18
18.7
70.64
14.93

2.5
2.48
1.58
3.99
2.5
3.02
2.55
2.06
3.08
2.92
1.67
3.54
1.5
2.5
1.79
0.95

AS/OD
TF
AS/CM
P
AS/CM
AS/PO
AS/PF
AS/PF
AS/PF
AS/PO
AS/CM
AS/PF
BNR
AS/PO
AS/PO
AS/SA

 D-FLOW >= Design Flow in mgd
 FLOW -• Anauil Average Flow in mgd
 mjd » Million! Gallons per Day
 TN - Annual Average Total Nitrogen Cone.
 TP " Annual Average Total Phosphorus Cone,
 NPDES •* National Pollution Dischaige
         Elimination Number
AS/ = Activated Sludge
AS/N = Activated Sludge with Nitrification
FF = Fixed Film (TF or RBC)
   TF = Trickling Filter
   RBC — Rotating Biological Contactors
SBR= Sequencing Batch Reactors
p= Primary
LA = Lagoon
              G-16
EA = Extended Aeration
CM *• Complete Mix
CS = Contact Stabilization
OD = Oxidation Ditch
PF = Plug Flow
PO = Pure Oxygen
SA = Step Aeration
HR = High Rate
LR = Low Rate

-------
                                       APPENDIX H

                           Planning Level Retrofit Configurations*
*   Retrofit configurations shown in this appendix were obtained from: "Assessment of Cost and Effectiveness
    of Biological Dual Nutrient Removal Technologies in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin" by Hazen and
    Sawyer and J.M. Smith and Associates (1988).

-------

-------
C/3
O
a>
 a>

 d.

 CO
 S9


v;
 n
 CO

 3.



 91

 Q.
 s
 VO
 oo
 CO
m    o   >



«s    S    g

5    ®   s
&    _   a
      o   *"

10    

                                »     .  ,
                                     »
                                     =5

                                      >
       CO
        C
        S

        I
        i
        a
        0
        3

CO
O


m
x
^»
CD

O.
CD
        >
        CD

        S



        I
                              •00   =

                              J   ?   S
                       o   =  »
                       S-  •  =

                       1  S '•

                       I;  i
                       1   e»   «
                               0  ?*

                                  •*•
                               2

                               s
                               O  is
                           u
                           I   a
                           1    3.
                                  n

                                  3
                                                                                                      m
                                                                                                      en
                                                                                                      01
                                                                                                      0
H

H

TJ
m
                                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                   X
                                                                                                     a
                                                                                                     m
                                                                                                     O


                                                                                                     m




                                                                                                     O
                                                                                                                 m
                                                                                                                 H
                                                                                                                 3D
                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                id
                                                                                                          jjs.

                                                                                                           'j,j
      a
      CO
      o
      CO

-------
   •JJ
   Q
   8
   s
   I
   CO
   M
     s.   =.
s  f   i
s  ©
~  «
©.  g

    1
             w
                    °>
                       m
                       2.
                     -02
                     tn
                     •n
                     •n
                          m
                                 en
                                 1
   (A

   3
   I
   8
   09
   vo
   CO
   CO
X
 I
N>
 TJ
 CO
 C

 s

 z


 10


 o



 CD

 O>
C

i*


q

8

I
CO
      » c1 — • 2 <=
J^mllwc — • =
S|&^f|i*

    TIfi 3>s
    s s * s  22

    "I'~II S
    S 2 3 2 2 g.~
  2- | = ^ -3 " f 5
  g I I 21 2. -•  b.


    s 11 •? 1 •"
             co
                        9
        s.
       CQ
        CD
                          a
                          a
                          3

                          in
                          a
                          3
                          e
                          S

                          a"
                                                                       •a
                                                                       m
                                                                               o
                                                                               0
                                                                               m
                                                                               O
                                                                   o
                                                                   o
                                                                                  m
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  CD
                                                                                  a
                                                                                  CO
                                                     --!•

-------
 CO
 1
 3
 n

  §
  a.

  CO
           m
           —
                  >
           =•   =
           «3   s
               _i -< m
               ^ z "»

               • f i
               po C
               «n _  £5

S

CO
=



w
§.
oo
oo
              I  s
              1  =r
              1  §
Z'
 I
w
      i-
      0
      CD
     CD
     f
     i
     I
     CD
     Q.
     i.
     «Q
     CD

>>>3--o>» >
o.a.a.ui'sa.'So.
a. ,0. a £ |^ a o. £

?e"c=i'oSS
•§§-=-~^sg
1 1-s § i-^s 3
I-ll|l^
- 3 3 «• -•* E =•

2S   1§5"£

I"   sSSss

2     S =1 srT
«.     °- > I •=• 2
-e     o W-o  g
                          ro

                          §.
                          3
                          O
                          n

                          "u

3
O
a
m
in
ta
                                                                           s
                                                                           m
                                                                                T3
                                                                                m
                                                                                 <.

                                                                                 -4
                                                                                 m
                                                                                 Q

                                                                                 «B
                                                                                 r

                                                                                 O
                                                                                 o
                                                                                 m
                                                                                 s
                                                                                 T!
                                                                                 o

                                                                                 -<

                                                                                 5
                                                                     m

                                                                     3
                                                                     O
                                                                                   o
                                                                                   03
                                                                                   O
                                                                                   UJ

-------

   I
   63

   §.

   to


   1


  ^

   as

                                  i i

                                  e u
                                  in-
            J   I*



  o.
   oo
x
 1
*n
03*


5


 \
Low Level Nutrien
         8

         m
         -n

         x
         CO
         Q.
10
                               n
                                                                               H

                                                                               •o
                                                                               m
                                                                                o
                                                                                m
                                                                                in
                                                                                   33
                                                                                   m


                                                                                   3D

                                                                                   O
                                                                                   23

                                                                                   H
                                                                                   O
                                                                                   ts
                                                                                   o
                                                                                   CO

-------
VI
o


I
o
           m   o'   >

           5.   5T   «
           a-   =.   5
                   "•
GO




I
     3J
           O

           f
€>   ST

S   *
o   ©
                         z

                         i
                  2
                           (O





                           i

                           S
CO

3
63



C.
n
(a
CO
oo
2

to
c

S

X
•j

cn

i

CO'
3"
      2
      c

      o


      CO
      m


      CD


      O.


      Q.


      >


      5
      «-»

      5"
    |
               f  i  if
               £  «  S- =
               e  *  e er
               -  i  3 a
                    I  3  8-
                    | |  1  *
               a



               B>
            * a

            O «
                        a.


                        3


                        e
                                          II!
                                                                   S
                                                                   m
                                                                   cn
                                                                   w
o


cn
H

H


TJ
m
                                                                                m
                                                                                e
                                                                                n

                                                                                >
                                                                              tcD
                                                                           FT




                                                                           C

                                                                           2



                                                                           •D
                                                                           r-
                                                                                    O

                                                                                    03
                                                                      T S

-------

     CO
     i

     8
     33
     s»
     S
                      m
                      s.
     S>


     g.
     CO

     3
o.

£

i-
§
     CO
     CO'
                o    >
                ?    5

                i    I
                ®    sr
                e    S-
                       I.

                                       2
                                       t>
                                                   (0

                                                       m
 I
O)
            f

             §

            X

            O)
CO
=r
r-
CD

i

•z.

•^
5*
            <
            CD
            CX
            a.
            ca

                        •>•>•> n •>•>•>
                        c. a.  c. o e. n. c.
                        c. c.  c. 3 c. n. a.

                                — w — >


                        1  11 2 I 3  S
                        s  o  s in g »  o
                       5  3  B *       S
                       1 s.  B s« • :  o




                        >T 4  a 2 JJ * i.
                        e  e  a> * ** »

                        ~"     3 — 5 ""  5



                           n  w ""    5*  ^

                          -^^S 5-    o  I.
                              • a       °

                              3 o      ~
                                SI
                               •o       =•
                                OJ      ^.
                                n

                               •7       •>

                               I       s-
                                                                                                                         H

                                                                                                                         TJ
                                                                                                                         m
                                                                                                                              n
                                                                                                                              o
                                                                                                                  m



                                                                                                                  i


                                                                                                                  r-


                                                                                                                  n
                                                                                                                              o

                                                                                                                              CR
                                                                                                                              f"


                                                                                                                              a
                                                                                                                              R
                                                                                                                                   m
22

H

•O
                                                                                                                       z

                                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                       03
                                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                                       CO

-------
 en
 o
 o


 sr
 in
 as
 B>
C/3
                      2
S
                 S,    —    B)
(A
CO
O
o_

53'


8
vo
oo
         (Q



          I
CO



CD


2.



c

2

CD'
          o

          a

         cn


         a.
         ca
         CD
           |



           e.



           3


           a



           3
                                      m
                              -Oi   Tl

                              t  i    |2

                              IOCB   C


              * "  _ •  B
                              -g
                    2 5 er
                              » e  o a —
                              a a-e  £ a
                              ~    o  a
                              I 3  ~5l
                             .  o.



                             !-3
                                       o
         o
         m
O
o
m
cn
en

                                                                                                         H


                                                                                                         m
                                                                                                                        9

                                                                                                                        O
CATIO
           3
           m


           o
           •n
                                                                                                                              O
                                                                                                                              CD
                                                                                                                              a
                                                                                                                              CD

-------
  

  i.

  in

  oo
  co
  m  o  -13
  £  i"  o -
  I  1  £ =
  S  "  SS

  H.  ®  = ?
  £  o  • o"
                        ~i-* m
                        T32 Tl
                      !ll
                           m
          3

          CO

          tn
          o
          o


          m>
          n

          0
X
 I
00
a
en

3

X
 1
00


(5*
zr
        CD

        tn
        O

        03

        (3
        to
        X
        CD
        Q.
                  "" • _ g
                  a = » o
                  g 2-5 g
                  W J « Q gi



                  sill

                  h*:
                  sf  a

                  B""^"  S

                  ^^  I
                  £.    o

                  I    »
                     a
                                                                  T3
                                                                  m
                                                                   m
                                                                   e
                                                                m
                                                                ca
                                                                IB
                         111
                                   &"'
®5
©5
. * . J
* .
©
©
. * * J
                                                                     ID
                                                                     m

                                                                     33
                                                                     o
                                                              TJ

                                                              >
                                                              Z
                                                              o
                                                              CO
                                                              a
                                                              co
                                                       1

-------
                                    APPENDIX I

                       Planning Level Retrofit Cost Equations*
Retrofit cost equations were developed based on cost tables from the Hazen and Sawyer and J.M. Smith
and Associates report (1988).   Costs from these tables were modified according to the assumptions
described in Section 3.4.2.

-------

-------


f
<3
§
*s
c8
f
O

£<
1
§
1
13
c
^5
00
1
t
to
a
P
l
H"J

60
•I
C
f
P*
*— (
I f
^•^
O
1
H

















•O
|
1
1
t



































V
1
4
§





















&•&
1 *
3* en
II
•1 £
gs:
J|T
v>
d
I "





Discharge
= 8.0 mg/1
Jg
i!
J e^
*? Pk
35 P




|







J





o



I
5


•o


o




*



«


"°


o

.0


•s
g
t^x

c?
« ~
Q



D
ft
H
1
s

0.
>o
o
I
s


o
in
d


§
OO*
S
"""
>n
d


00
S

«n
d

B
V
p


•
d


§:
oo
o
oo
3


{5
10
d


s
1

Os
d


d
en

d

3.
5
P
d

,
p



g
"•*
<>
<
13
1
w
K

d
i
2'


5
*O
O


s
§
M
a
o
d
a
en"


O
*i^
1O
o


1
s
OO
""
S
d


en

O
V)
d

00
VO
p


1
d


vo
00
d
g
d


o
f~
d


g
VO
S
"""
00
d


1
3

§
d

§
s"
ft
0
^^

1
O



o c
•S'-a
3 g
E5«g

•1 1
-2'?
*
«ft
d
i
C*T
oo


§
vo
o


s
s
s
s
d


oo
oT

1
d

1
a
«-
p


•
f>
d


en
tn
oo
d
1



o
^
d


S
i

S;
oo
d


IS

'OO
d

en
P.
o>
o
d
en
i
p






g

•§
E
I
£

Sv
d
 »
 £

.1
 S


 I

-------
m
f
CO
I
 cr
W
 a
 ^
  bQ
  O
 &


 es
 g
                                           S? 8

                                          ^°-
                                          .5 en
                                            S  II

•B  g

 S <=>
>J cs



W P

                                                                    S
                                                                     §
                                                               |

                                                               •g
                                                               •g

                                •§
                                CO

                                •s
                                                                                           a
                                                                                           a
                                                                                                 SQ
                                                                                                8"
                                                                                                  £
                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                              o\
                                                                                                              o\
                                                                                                              o
                                                                                                             •s
                                                                                                             o$



                                                                                                             1

-------
«
t
i
73
I
•§
 §
 O
U
 4-*
^

 |

c*

"S
  1
2
 o

        I
                                     s  •
                                    .g en

                                    I:
                                    .5 oo

                                    0 II
                                    I
                                    j 


                                                     d




                                                     |


                                                     S"
                                                               g;
                                                                        VI
                                                                        *•*
                                                                        00
                                                                             00
                                                                             o
                                                                             §
                                                          1
          I
          8
                                                          g
                                                          o
                                                              §
                                                              o
                                                                        g
               a
               o
                                                                                       1
NO


o
                                                                             a
                                                               g
                                                                        2
                                                                                 §
                                                                                 o
                                                                                      o
                                    I
                                                     o
                                                     •o
q
d
o
d
                                                                             p
                                                                             •n
p
d
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      vi
                                    1=
                                                              to
                                                              •a


                                                              I
                                                                        v> &

                                                                        13
                                                                        I z
                                                                        'o jS
                                                                        <'?
                        E

                        I
                                                                                             s*
                                                                                            J
                                                                                            85'
                                                                                            d

                                                                                             I
                                                                                            |
                                                                                            •s
                                                                                             S
                                                                                             2"
                                                                                            I

-------


¥
^
3
m
«
"el
S
S
a
o

^
*o3
>
j3
(2
2
H
"S
3
1
"T!
"s
1
!3[
W

en
a

tfct
^4-^
o
1
PS
•55
a
s
.
^.^
j

















/?
|
n
s
5

































^^
i
o
II
!§
O



















If
It0-
s 7
I"5
1 -J ci
•g, II








ll
&
0
?•>
^
1



1





•5
§






y
°





3
J







I








0

JO





IS



*

o


JO
















o
to

d
is
»-
Ov
o
Wi
d



v^
t-
00
«

2
d

oo


^
d


2

VO





q
d
E
V
<
Extended
i

d
§
S
1
d



.?

S
p*

2
d

CO


1
d


1

TT





O
0
e*i
i
c>
V)




g
*TJ
d
I

1
d



1

\O
•0

g
d

oo
p"


g
d


S

(-•
^_*




O
VI
I
2
*
J3
CO
|| Activated
Ov
00
d
1

g
d



1


•*

|
d

o
«— i


g
d


€

fi
•^




O
I
o




oo
r*
«>
o
1
^
o
VO
d



g
•*«•
?!
•*

8
VO
d

a
vo"


o
«1
0


1
oo
o
^H




q
i
d
*
s>
03
II
|| Activated
___
oo
d
1
a"
o
p
d



05

VO
«

g
d

v>
vi
a"


Ov
d


1

CO





q
d
q
i
§
{3
z
•s
'i
i 	
VJ
d
£
i
VO
o



a
o>

8
t-

8
d

§
•-I

§
o


XT"
o>

t*?




d


e
Fixed Fiir
.ll^llji1.
?
OO
d
g
1
1
d



00

VI
•"

oo
d

a
«?
»0


I
d


1

^^
cf




o
8
q
•n




&
 g
•a
&

-------

-------

-------