f % •
-X!- 5-
CBP^RS 136/95
EPA 903-R-95-0005
May 1995
-------
Cost Analysis for Nonpoint Source
Control Strategies in the
Chesapeake Basin
LYNN R. SHULYER
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
May 1995
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
-------
INTRpDUCTIQN
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and one of the
most productive in the world. The Chesapeake drainage basin is 64,000 square
miles in size and drains portions of six states (New York, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia.
The Bay has the highest density of land mass per volume of water of any estuary
in the United States. This makes runoff from the land very important to the
health of the Bay. The Bay began a gradual decline in productivity shortly after
the turn of the century. In 1975, Congress directed the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to study the problems in the Bay and to develop solutions.
CHESAPEAKE BAY ACRE
The research phase, which was completed in 1983, brought forth findings
which indicated that nutrients were the major problem, but no single source of
pollution was responsible for the decline of living resources in the Bay. These
studies indicated that nutrient loading to the Bay from both nonpoint source
(NFS) runoff and the discharges from waste water treatment plants were equally
to blame. These findings, along with the concern of citizens and elected officials,
resulted in the development of the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, which was
signed by the governors from Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, the Mayor of the
District of Columbia and the Administrator of EPA for the Federal Government.
This agreement created the Chesapeake Bay Program and called for all jurisdic-
tions and agencies to focus their existing pollution control programs on reducing
the nutrient loads to the Bay. This agreement did not establish any numeric goals
or time frames for action, it simply committed everyone to begin moving forward
and to control pollutants entering the Bay.
A second Bay Agreement was developed and signed by the jurisdictions in
1987. The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement had the benefit of several years of
experience with implementation of pollution control measures in the basin and
a better understanding of the major sources of pollution needing control. One of
the major goals was to reduce "1985 controllable" nutrient loads to the Bay by 40
percent by the year 2000. A Basinwide Nutrient Reduction Strategy was com-
pleted in 1988 which supported the 40 percent reduction goal and called for a re-
evaluation of the goal in 1991, which was to be based upon information devel-
oped from the models and monitoring data regarding the Bay.
-------
WATERSHED .MODEL
The Chesapeake Bay Program has developed models for the Bay drainage basin
and the waters of the Bay. The watershed model which covers the entire 64,000
square miles of the drainage basin was initially developed during the research
program and has undergone periodic updates over time. The updating of the
model includes refined land use coverage, revised loads for all land uses, revised
point source loads, improvements in atmospheric deposition loadings, and the
load reductions expected from applied control measures (Donigian et al., 1991).
The watershed model was fully calibrated for the four year period (1984-1987)
based on the monitoring data from the tributaries.
The watershed model simulates the pollutant loads from eight land-uses, the
majority of the point sources and atmospheric deposition. Table 1. lists the dis-
tribution of 1985 watershed model land-uses for the basin.
TABLE 1. Distribution of Land Use in the Chesapeake Basin Watershed Model
Land Use
Cropland*
Pasture
Forest
Urban
Water
Animal Waste
'Includes. Conventional and
Total Acreage
8,237,125
3,740,981
24,457,144
4,032,669
526,115
12,650
Conservation Tillage and Hay Land
% of Total Basin
20.00
8.96
60.00
10.00
1.00
0.04
The watershed model processes these loads through the river systems and deliv-
ers the load to the Bay for use in the Bay model. The watershed model has been
used to evaluate the load reductions for several different management scenarios,
to establish the "controllable" NFS source loads, to forecast the loads from a pro-
jected year 2000 land use and population growth scenario and to define a limit
of technology (LOT) scenario for NFS control measures. The output from the
watershed model is used to develop the input loads for the Bay water quality
model.
N
The NFS costs related to implementation of control programs in the Bay, are
not site specific because they represent the diverse conditions over the entire
basin and a limited number of land uses that the model can simulate. When
developing a cost analysis of the various management measures for NFS it is
important to understand the relative importance of the load from each land-use.
It must be understood that the loads from each land-use are not totally control-
lable and that some land uses provide only a limited opportunity for implemen-
-------
tation of control measures due to cost and the technology that is available for use.
Table 2. indicates the NFS nutrient loads by the various land uses in the basin.
Cropland, pasture and animal waste represent the agricultural land uses that
contribute 58 percent of the total NFS nitrogen and 82 percent of the total NFS
phosphorus loads to the Bay. Forest, water and urban land uses make up the
remaining 42 and 18 percent respectively.
TABLE 2. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loading Loads by Land Use
1985 Base Case Loads from Watershed Model
Land Use
Cropland*
Pasture
Forest
Urban
Water
Animal Waste
TOTAL NPS
Total Nitrogen
107,363,945
19,944,389
69,154,496
32,702,583
5,938,403
19,419,035
254,522,852
Total Phosphorus
9,579,188
988,612
735,042
2,098,749
189,542
2,914,660
16,505,793
'Includes, Conventional and Conservation Tillage and Hay Land
Land use and nutrient load data by land use provide estimates of relative load
contributions for individual land uses. For example, even though forests comprise
60 percent of the land hi the basin, the nitrogen load from forests are only 27 per-
cent of the total NPS nitrogen load.
As part of the process to re-evaluate the 1988 Basinwide Nutrient Reduction
Strategy, the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office(CBPO), along with the states,
used both the watershed and the Bay models to simulate load reductions and
water quality responses to management scenarios for both point and nonpoint
source control activities. For the cost analysis the LOT scenario, which is better
defined a best available technology (BAT) was applied to NPS land uses.
Using the results from model simulations, and NPS control technology cost
data developed for the Bay Program, it is possible to determine the overall cost to
reduce NPS loads within the basin.
The decisions regarding the use of the watershed model to simulate a "LOT"
or "BAT" scenario were developed by the Nutrient Reduction Task Force of the
NPS Subcommittee (now the Nutrient Subcommittee). Since the model does not
simulate all of the NPS best management practices (BMPs), some were combined
and reduction values were developed for each grouping that was used for the sce-
narios. The following summarizes the ground rules that were established for
making adjustments to the Watershed Model input deck for the NPS actions of
the LOT scenario.
-------
There are two types of reductions used in the scenarios, a reduction by con-
version of one land use to another and a percentage reduction due to actual BMP
implementation.
The application of one or both of these reductions is dependent on the NFS
BMP type and the model structure. Some of the acreage categories receive both
types of reductions, while others only receive one type. An explanation of the
associated reductions is included with each category.
Conventional Tillage Cropland—All conventional tillage acres are converted
to conservation tillage acres.
Highly Erodible Land (HEL)—HEL acres from the 1991 Soil Conservation
Service (now Natural Resource Conservation Service) data base, identifying areas
of highly erodible land in each county, were used to determine the HEL land areas
in each county. In counties where the HEL acreage was greater than 25 percent
of the total crop acres in the county, no more than 25 percent of the county crop-
land would be counted as HEL acres. This was for consistency with the Con-
servation Reserve Program (CRP) policy at the time. Total HEL acres in each
model segment were aggregated up from the county level data. Highly erodible
acres are removed proportionally from conservation tillage and hay land acres
and placed in the pasture land use.
Structural BMP's—Structural BMP's include any physical or constructed prac-
tice, such as vegetated filter strips or waterways, implemented on cropland. This
category does not include the animal waste category. Structural BMPs were
applied only to conservation tillage land use. The acres treated by structural
BMPs are assumed to receive a 4% nitrogen (N), 8% phosphorus (P), and 8% bio-
logical oxygen demand (BOD) reduction, representing the reductions realized
from installing a "farm plan" on conservation tillage and hay land acres. "Farm
plan" is defined as the additional structural BMPs necessary, when added to con-
servation tillage, which would bring the land into compliance with "T" or the
requirements of the 1990 Farm Bill.
Nutrient Management—Nutrient management was applied to all conservation
tillage and some hay land acres. These acres received the nutrient reductions cal-
culated for each model segment from nutrient reduction data furnished by each
state.
Animal Waste—Reductions of runoff load from manure acres are assumed to
be controlled to the level of 75 percent. Seventy five percent of the total manure
acres in each model segment are converted to pasture acres. The remaining 25
percent of the manure acres represent residual animal waste runoff loads of cur-
rent animal populations after the full implementation of controls.
Pasture—Acres treated by grazing land stabilization systems, stream protec-
tion systems, or spring development are assumed to be applied to pasture land
and receive a 4% N, 8% P, and 8% BOD reduction. This reduction applied to all
pasture land.
Urban—Urban loads are reduced in all pervious and impervious urban land
uses. Urban acres receive a 20% I> 20% N, and 25% BOD reduction based on esti-
mated reductions for urban BMPs.
Forest—Forest BMP's provided an over all reduction in the forest loads for
each state as follows: PA NH4-5%, PO4-5% and BOD-5%; MD NH4-7.5%,
PO4-7.5% and BOD-7.5%; and VA NH4-10%, PO4-10% and BOD-10%.
-------
^
The NFS cost analysis is based on the decisions discussed above for the sce-
nario simulating LOT load reductions.
The costs for LOT are determined by assigning BMP costs from the Table 2.6
of the draft cost analysis study (Camacho, 1992), to the acres treated in the LOT
model simulation for the following practices: HEL-CRP, Animal Waste, Urban
Cost, Conservation Tillage, Nutrient Management. Per acre costs for Forest,
Pasture and Farm Plan were developed during a June 16, 1992 conference call
among the States, Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB)
and CBPO. The agreed upon costs per acre was applied to the total acres for Farm
Plan of $15.00 and for Pasture of $2.50, the cost of treating an acre was adjusted
in order to get a cost that could be applied to the total acres in the category. The
cost for Forest was obtained from information presented in the South Journal of
Applied Forestry (Lickman, 1990] and used in the following manner. The cost to
install enhanced BMPs was 5.1% of the gross value of the harvest, in Virginia the
gross value per acre is about $1,000 per acre and it was estimated that the annu-
al harvested acres were one percent of the total forest acres.
It must be noted that the NPS costs used for this analysis are averages for the
entire basin and do not represent the cost in any one river basin or tributary.
These average costs represent a very wide range of costs in some cases and may
be misleading when trying to relate them to a single tract of land.
Forest Cost—The total forest acres (20,333,492) were multiplied by 1% and
$51.00 per acre to get the total cost of $10,370,081. The $51.00 is the cost for
implementing enhanced BMPs on harvested land and is 5.1% of the gross value
of the harvested timber ($1,000 per acre in Virginia).
HEL-CRP Cost—The HEL acres (528,911) were multiplied by the sum of two
cost figures, the average farm plan cost, based on the average cost per acre of the
examples furnished to ICPRB by Pennsylvania and the cost of permanent vege-
tative cover on critical areas to get the total cost of $130.00 per acre treated,
resulting in a total cost of $68,758,430. A land rental rate was not factored into
this analysis because the land would still be in "production" as pasture land.
Therefore, once so treated, the HEL acres become part of the pasture acreage.
Animal Wast Cost—The model simulates a 75% reduction by applying BMPs
to all manure acres, therefore the cost is applied to the total manure acres
(12,650) used in the model scenario. This number was divided by .75 and mul-
tiplied by the cost of $8,187 per acre to get the total cost of $84,563,523. Once
treated, 75% of the acres become part of the pasture acreage.
Urban Cost—The urban costs were developed by multiplying the total urban
acres (3,215,863) by the cost of large scale urban retrofit BMPs at $200.00 per
acre, for a total urban BMP cost of $643,172,600.
Conservation Tillage Cost—The remaining conventional tillage acres
(1,909,649) were multiplied by the cost of conservation tillage, $17.43 per acre,
to get a total cost of $33,285,175.
Pasture Cost—The total pasture acres (3,606,133 - which now includes the
original pasture acres, plus 75% of the manure acres and the HEL acres) were
multiplied by $2.50 per acre to get a total pasture cost of $9,015,332.
-------
Nutrient Management Cost— The acres of conservation tillage (4,088,508)
were multiplied by the cost of nutrient management, $2.40 per acre treated, to
get a total cost of $9,812,420.
Farm Plan— The load reduction for farm plan is calculated by reducing the
nitrogen load from conservation tillage and hay land acres after nutrient man-
agement has been applied. The total acres of farm plan (6,590,132 - conservation
tillage plus hay land acres) were multiplied by $15.00 per acre to get a total cost
of $66,169,082.
Total NFS costs and the pounds of nitrogen removed for each BMP practice or
grouping are shown in Table 3., along with the cost per pound of nitrogen
removed. These data provide a comparison of the various BMPs available to con-
trol NFS nitrogen. The least costly of these are nutrient management followed by
animal waste control, the combination of these two practices removes about 66%
of the total nitrogen load at about 10% of the total cost. The most costly is the
urban category which removes about 1 1% of the total nitrogen load at about 70%
to the total cost.
TABLE 3. NPS,"LOT"N Cost Analysis Summary by Management Practice
for Agreement States — Total
Management
Practice
Urban
Forest
Farm Plan
HEL
Pasture
LoTill
Animal Waste
Nutrient Mgmt.
TOTAL
"LOT"Cost in
Dollars (000)
$643,172
$10.370
$66,169
$68,758
$9,015
$33,285
$84,563
$9,812
$925.144
Pounds of N
Reduced (000)
4,509
150
1,462
2,991
910
4,476
11,801
16,096
42,395
% of Total
10.64
0.35
3.44
7.05
2.15
10.56
27.84
37.97
100.00
Cost/Pound of N
Reduced, $/#N
$142.64
69.13
45.27
22.99
9.90
7.44
7.17
0.61
REFERENCES
Camacho, R., (1992), Financial Cost Effectiveness of Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient
Reduction Technologies in the Chesapeake Bay Basin . U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program, Annapolis, MD.
Donigian, A.S., Jr., Bicknell, B.R., Patwardhan, A.S., Linker, L.C., Alegre, D.Y., Chang, C-
H., Reynolds, R., (1991). Watershed Model Application to Calculate Bay Nutrient
Loads: Phase II Findings and Recommendations. U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program,
Program Report. Annapolis, MD.
Lickman, P., Hickman, C., and Cubbage, F.W., (1990), "Costs of Protecting Water Quality
During Harvesting of Private Forest Lands in the Southeast". South Journal of Applied
Forestry 16(1):13-20.
------- |