ECONOMIC ANALYSES OF NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION ACTIONS
TO RESTORE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATER QUALITY
September 2003
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Annapolis, Maryland
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary vii
Introduction: 1
Part I: Documentation of Estimated Costs of the Tier Scenarios 3
1. Background and Objectives 3
2. Methods 4
2.1 POTWs and Industrial Sources 4
2.1.1 Point Source Nutrient Reduction Scenarios 4
2.1.2 Overview of Method 5
2.1.3 Nitrogen Removal: Municipal Facilities 6
2.1.4 Nitrogen Removal: Industrial Facilities 8
2.1.5 Phosphorus Removal: Municipal Facilities 8
2.1.5 Phosphorus Removal: Industrial Facilities 9
2.1.6 Limitations and Uncertainties in the Analysis of Point Source Costs .... 9
2.2 Forestry, Agriculture, Urban, and OSWMS Sources 10
2.2.1 Agriculture 36
2.2.1.1 Forest Buffers 39
2.2.1.2 Grass Buffers 41
2.2.1.3 Wetland Restoration 43
2.2.1.4 Retirement of Highly Erodible Land (HEL) 44
2.2.1.5 Tree Planting 44
2.2.1.6 Farm Plans/Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plans 45
2.2.1.7 Cover Crops 46
2.2.1.8a Streambank Protection with Fencing 47
2.2.1.8b Streambank Protection without Fencing 48
2.2.1.9 Nutrient Management Plan Implementation 48
2.2.1.10 Grazing Land Protection 49
2.2.1.11 Animal Waste Management Systems 50
2.2.1.12 Yield Reserve 52
2.2.1.13 Carbon Sequestration/Bio-Energy 53
2.2.1.14 Manure Excess 54
2.2.1.15 Conservation Tillage 55
2.2.2 Forestry 56
2.2.3 Urban and Mixed Open Land 57
2.2.3.1 Forest Buffers 57
2.2.3.2 Environmental Site Design 58
2.2.3.3 Storm Water Retrofits 60
2.2.3.4 Storm Water Management 63
2.2.3.5 Urban and Mixed Open Nutrient Management 64
2.2.3.6 Urban Land Conversion 66
2.2.3.7 Forest Conservation 67
2.2.4 Onsite Wastewater Management Systems 67
2.2.5 Summary of BMP Unit Costs 69
2.2.6 Limitations and Uncertainties in the Analysis 71
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page iii
3. Results 71
3.1 Overview of Estimated Costs 71
3.1.1 Cost Distribution by State 75
3.1.2 Cost Distribution by Sector 77
3.1.3 Cost Distribution by State and Sector 80
3.1.3.1 POTW and Industrial Source Costs 80
3.1.3.2 Agriculture Costs 81
3.1.3.3 Forestry Costs 81
3.1.3.4 Urban BMP Costs 82
3.1.3.5 Onsite Waste Management System Costs 83
3.1.3.6 Summary 83
3.1.4 Cost Distribution by State Basin 85
3.2 Detailed Cost Estimates 92
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page iv
List of Exhibits
Exhibit ES-1: Summary of Total Annual Cumulative Costs viii
Exhibit ES-2: Summary of Total Annual Cumulative Costs by Jurisdiction ix
Exhibit ES-3: Summary of Total Cumulative Capital Costs x
Exhibit ES-4: Total Annual and Capital Costs by Sector xi
Exhibit ES-5: Summary of Total Annual Cumulative POTW Costs xiii
Exhibit ES-6: Summary of Total Annual Cumulative Agricultural Costs xiii
Exhibit ES-7: Summary of Annual Forest Harvest Costs by Tier and Jurisdiction xiv
Exhibit ES-8: Summary of Cumulative Annual Urban Costs by Tier and Jurisdiction xv
Exhibit ES-9: POTW Screening Analysis Results for Cumulative Costs xix
Exhibit ES-10: Industrial Screening Analysis Results for Cumulative Costs xxi
Exhibit ES-11: Agriculture Screening Analysis Results for Cumulative Costs xxii
Exhibit ES-12: Urban Screening Analysis Results for Cumulative Costs xxviii
Exhibit ES-13: Urban and POTW Combined Screening Analysis Results for
Cumulative Costs xxii
Exhibit 1: Scenarios of Nutrient Reduction for Point Sources 4
Exhibit 2: Sources of Uncertainty in the Point Source Cost Estimates 9
Exhibit 3: Nutrient Reduction Scenarios for Agriculture, Forestry, Urban, and
OSWMS Sources 11
Exhibit 4: Tier 1 BMP Scenario 15
Exhibit 5: Capital Cost Funding for Agricultural BMPs from Known State and
Federal Programs 37
Exhibit 6: Annual Funding from Identified Programs for Land Rental Associated
with Agricultural BMPs, as a Percent of USD A Dryland Rental Rate
for County 38
Exhibit 7: Cost Estimates ($/acre) for Riparian Forest Buffers 40
Exhibit 8: Grass Buffer BMP Costs ($/acre) 42
Exhibit 9: Derivation of Average Manure Excretion in Bay Watershed 52
Exhibit 10: Estimates of Potential Revenue for Carbon Sequestration BM 54
Exhibit 11: Cost and Development Implications of Alternative Designs 59
Exhibit 12: Mean Annual Storm Water Retrofit Costs 61
Exhibit 13: Urban Places in the Chesapeake Bay Basin with Population > 70,000 62
Exhibit 14: Mean Annual Storm Water Management Costs 64
Exhibit 15: Onsite Wastewater Management System Denitrification BMP Costs 69
Exhibit 16: Summary of Unit BMP Costs 70
Exhibit 17: Comparison of Estimated Farmer and Federal/State Program Costs for
Agricultural BMPs across States 72
Exhibit 18: Sources of Uncertainty in the BMP Cost Estimates 73
Exhibit 19: Total Annual Cumulative Costs 74
Exhibit 20: Estimated Distribution of Annual Costs (millions of 2001$) 74
Exhibit 21: Estimated Distribution of Capital Costs 76
Exhibit 22: Total Annual Cumulative Costs by State and Tier 76
Exhibit 23: Total Cumulative Capital Costs by State and Tier 77
Exhibit 24: Total Annual Cumulative Costs by Sector and Tier 78
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page v
Exhibit 26: Estimated Distribution of Annual Costs for Agriculture and POTW
Sectors 79
Exhibit 25: Total Cumulative Capital Costs by Sector and Tier 79
Exhibit 27: Summary of Total Cumulative Annual and Capital POTW Costs 80
Exhibit 28: Summary of Total Cumulative Annual and Capital Agricultural Costs 81
Exhibit 29: Summary of Cumulative Annual Forest Harvest Costs 82
Exhibit 30: Summary of Cumulative Annual Urban Costs 83
Exhibit 31: Total Annual Costs by State, Sector, and Tier (millions of 2001$) 84
Exhibit 32: Total Capital Costs by State, Sector, and Tier 85
Exhibit 33: Annual Costs by State Basin for Tier 1 86
Exhibit 34: Annual Costs by State Basin for Tier 2 88
Exhibit 35: Annual Costs by State Basin for Tier 3 90
Exhibit 36: Capital Costs by State Basin for Tier 1 (millions of 2001 $) 93
Exhibit 37: Capital Costs by State Basin for Tier 2 (millions of 2001 $) 94
Exhibit 38: Capital Costs by State Basin for Tier 3 (millions of 2001 $) 95
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 1: Delaware (2001 $) 96
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier 118
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page vi
Executive Summary
In developing revised water quality criteria, designated uses, and boundaries for those uses to
protect living resources in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters, the Environment Protection
Agency's (EPA) Chesapeake Bay Program Office provided to Bay jurisdictions information for
development of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, clarity, and chlorophyll a in its
guidance document Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay
Designated Uses and Attainability (Technical Support Document) (U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program. 2003.). Part of the jurisdictions' water quality standards development process may be
to conduct use attainability analyses (UAAs). The information contained in the Technical
Support Document is to assist states in development of their individual UAAs, and serve as a
basis for state-specific documents that will be initiated after the revised criteria for the
Chesapeake Bay are finalized by EPA.
This document supplements the Technical Support Document by presenting economic analyses
performed by the Chesapeake Bay Program related to controls to meet the revised criteria and
uses. Part I of the Economic Analyses provides estimates of the total annual cost of achieving
the three levels of controls based on the costs of best management practices (BMPs) to remove
nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the Chesapeake Bay. This cost information includes total
capital cost requirements, and to the extent that information could be compiled, estimates of how
these costs may be shared between the public and private sectors. Part II describes economic
modeling of the potential impacts of these control costs in the Bay region. Part III documents a
screening-level analysis of potential impacts, also based on the costs of the tier scenarios.
Although this information may be useful to states in developing their own UAAs, the Bay
Program did not use these analyses to delineate boundaries for the new refined designated uses.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS
The Chesapeake Bay Program's estimated costs of the tier scenarios reflect the costs of BMPs to
remove nitrogen and phosphorus; these BMPs also remove sediment to some extent and,
therefore, capture a portion of sediment removal costs. Costs for publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) and industrial sources are based on facility-provided estimates; the Bay
Program's Nutrient Reduction Technology (NRT) Task Force developed a methodology to
estimate the costs of achieving the tier-specific effluent concentrations when facilities did not
provide estimates.
Costs for urban, agriculture, forestry, and onsite system BMPs are based on the units (e.g., acres)
of BMP implementation in each tier scenario, and BMP-specific estimates of capital and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. The Chesapeake Bay Program performed an extensive
literature search that included documents provided or prepared by Chesapeake Bay Program
workgroups and stakeholders (e.g., tributary strategy reports), academic journals, studies by
University Extension offices, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. EPA, and others to
estimate such costs. In addition, to estimate the costs for the onsite system denitrification BMP,
the Chesapeake Bay Program collected data from manufacturers of onsite system denitrification
technology. Of the available data on cost estimates, the Chesapeake Bay Program prioritized
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page vii
well-documented sources and studies in or near the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In general, the
Chesapeake Bay Program used a simple average of the estimated costs from appropriate sources.
The costs to implement the tier scenarios include capital costs to install controls and annual
O&M costs. Part I provides details of the methods and results of the cost analyses, including
estimates of the total annual cost of achieving the tier scenarios, total capital cost requirements,
and, to the extent that information is available, estimates of how costs may be shared between
the public and private sectors. The total annual costs shown here include annualized capital
costs for control technologies or BMPs that require initial capital expenditures and annual O&M
expenditures, regardless of whether costs accrue to private-sector businesses and households or
public entities that provide funding through cost-share programs. The estimates represent the
annual costs at full implementation of the tier scenarios. Therefore, actual annual costs in the
years prior to meeting the full implementation goals will likely be lower.
Total capital costs represent total initial expenditures for all source controls. Capital costs
indicate overall financing requirements to achieve the level of control or degree of BMP
implementation specified for each tier. The costs, however, will not be incurred in any single
year. Instead, they will be spread over many years though gradual implementation.
The distinction between private and public cost estimates is based on cost-share assumptions
developed using current cost-share information for the agricultural and POTW sectors to project
the share of future costs accruing to the public sector. The cost share assumptions vary according
to individual state programs. There are no cost-share assumptions for urban BMPs although
retrofit BMPs for developed areas may receive financial support from federal and state sources.
They may also benefit greatly from "piggy back" opportunities that reduce incremental BMP
costs to a fraction of the unit costs because BMPs can be added more cost-effectively to planned
infrastructure upgrades, repairs, or investments.
Exhibit ES-1 provides a summary of cumulative costs for each tier. These are costs beyond
what has already been expended up to the year 2000 (and already funded POTW upgrades). It is
important to note that some portion of Tier 2 and 3 costs will be incurred regardless of tier
implementation because of baseline requirements that are not fully captured in the Tier 1
scenario (e.g., livestock BMPs required in a recent federal rule). Finally, the costs include those
paid by businesses and households in the watershed as well as costs paid through federal and
state cost-share programs.
Exhibit ES-1 also shows the implied average annual costs for each of the projected 6.3 million
households by 2010, if all costs were paid by households living in the watershed (in reality,
household costs will vary by location and household type, and a substantial share will be paid by
federal and state sources). These annual costs are small compared to median household incomes
in the watershed. The median estimate for the counties in the watershed is $49,300. This
estimate is in 2001 dollars and reflects incomes in the 2000 Census of Population. Average
median incomes across the states range from $37,800 for the basin counties in New York to
$58,300 for the basin counties in Maryland.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page viii
Exhibit ES-1: Summary of Total Annual Cumulative Costs
(in 2001 dollars)
Cost Category
Total Annual Costs ($millions)2
Implied Cost per Household Before
Cost Share3 ($)
Implied Cost per Household After Cost
Share3 ($)
Implied Household Cost Before Cost
Share as Percent of MHI in Watershed
($49,300)
Implied Household Cost After Cost
Share as Percent of MHI in Watershed
($49,300)
Federal and State Funding Share (%)
Tierl
(cost of current programs
funded to 201 0)1
$198
$31
$24
0.1%
0.0%
25%
Tier 2
(Tier 1 + Tier 2)
$555
$88
$59
0.2%
0.1%
33%
TierS
(Tier 1+ Tier 2 + Tier
3)
$1,139
$181
$130
0.4%
0.3%
28%
= median household income
1. POTW NRT upgrades already funded or completed are not included in Tier 1.
2. Includes costs paid by federal and state cost-share programs.
3. Actual household costs will vary by location and type of household (e.g., urban or farm) and will be reduced by the
federal and state funding shares. The impact analysis addresses these distributional effects.
Federal and state cost-share programs provide financial support for nutrient controls. Based on
current practices, these programs could provide up to $49 million of annual Tier 1 costs (or
25%), $186 million of annual Tier 2 costs (or 33%), and $317 million of annual Tier 3 costs (or
28%). The total cost-share contribution increases from Tier 1 to Tier 2 because agricultural
costs increase relative to other sectors, and most agricultural BMPs are covered by cost-share
programs. The total cost-share contribution declines from Tier 2 to Tier 3 as urban costs, for
which federal and state funding is possible but not included, increasingly dominate total costs.
Average cost per household will also decrease if actual implementation of controls is more cost
effective than the tier scenarios.
A breakdown of costs by state in Exhibit ES-2 show that three states—Maryland, Pennsylvania,
and Virginia—account for almost 90% of costs across all three tier scenarios. Maryland has the
largest share of annual Tier 1 costs, followed by Virginia and Pennsylvania. However, Virginia
has the highest share of Tier 2 and Tier 3 costs, followed by Pennsylvania and Maryland.
Maryland's shift from highest baseline costs to third highest Tier 2 and Tier 3 costs illustrates its
aggressive level of implementation already employed or planned.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page ix
Exhibit ES-2: Summary of Total Annual Cumulative Costs by Jurisdiction1
(millions of 2001 dollars)
Jurisdiction
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Tierl
(cost of current
programs funded
to 201 0)2
$3
$9
$63
$7
$51
$57
$7
$198
Tier 2
(Tier 1 + Tier 2)
$8
$16
$121
$31
$167
$192
$19
$555
TierS
(Tier 1 + Tier 2 + Tier 3)
$13
$34
$262
$66
$320
$407
$37
$1,139
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
1. Includes costs paid by federal and state cost-share programs.
2. POTW NRT upgrades already funded or completed are not included.
The cumulative cost estimates shown in Exhibits ES-1 and ES-2 do not reflect the incremental
costs of implementing controls beyond Tier 1 levels (or baseline levels that are essentially what
would happen anyway). The incremental costs for Tiers 2 and 3 can be derived by subtracting
the Tier 1 costs from the cumulative Tier 2 and 3 costs, respectively.
Corresponding total capital costs are $1.4 billion for Tier 1, $3.6 billion for Tier 2, and $8.0
billion for Tier 3. These estimates include anticipated federal and state cost shares. These costs
will be incurred slowly over time as controls are gradually implemented. Nevertheless,
comparing them to annual economic statistics provides crucial perspective because—despite
their magnitude—they are small compared to total annual personal income, which in 1999 was
$574 billion in the watershed counties and $1.4 trillion in the basin states (BEA, 2001; in 2001
dollars the values become $610 billion and $1.5 trillion, respectively).
State-level capital costs shown in Exhibit ES-3 also include the portion that will be funded
through federal and state cost-share programs as well as costs that will be paid by households in
the watershed. The distribution of capital costs follows the same pattern as annual costs in
Exhibit ES-2. Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia account for approximately 90% of
watershed costs across all tier scenarios. Maryland costs are highest in Tier 1, followed by
Virginia and Pennsylvania. Tier 2 and Tier 3 capital costs in Virginia are highest, followed by
Pennsylvania and Maryland.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Pagex
Exhibit ES-3: Summary of Total Cumulative Capital Costs
Jurisdiction
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Total Capital Cost
(millions of 2001 dollars)1
Tierl
(cost of current
programs funded
to 201 0)2
$21
$133
$592
$20
$258
$382
$35
$1,442
Tier 2
(Tier 1 + Tier 2)
$36
$170
$860
$175
$899
$1,387
$116
$3,644
TierS
(Tier 1 + Tier 2 +
Tier 3)
$60
$368
$2,069
$405
$1,940
$2,901
$232
$7,975
Annual Total Personal
Income in Watershed
for 1999
(millions of 2001
dollars)3
$24,600
$21,600
$178,800
$47,400
$134,700
$197,400
$5,600
$610,000
Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.
1. Includes capital costs paid by federal and state cost-share programs.
2. POTW NRT upgrades already funded or completed are not included in Tier 1.
3. Total personal income in 1999 (BEA, 2001) in the counties located partially or wholly in the watershed. Values have
been inflated to 2001 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.
For comparison purposes, Exhibit ES-3 also provides the 1999 estimates of total annual personal
income for the watershed counties. In each jurisdiction, total capital costs for Tier 1 equal less
than 0.7% of regional income. Thus, even if all capital costs were paid in a single year, instead
of being spread over 10 to 20 years through gradual implementation and financing, they would
be small compared to local economic activity. Total capital costs for Tier 2 equal less than 1%
of regional income in each jurisdiction except West Virginia, where costs are 2.1% of income.
Tier 3 capital costs equal less than 1% of income for Delaware and New York, less than 1.5% of
income in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, less than 2% in the District of Columbia, and
less than 5% in West Virginia.
These costs do not include the costs of onsite waste management systems (OSWMS; e.g., septic
systems) in new homes. The rationale is that the additional expense associated with
denitrification will be absorbed in the cost of a new home and the impact would, therefore, be
limited to tradeoffs in what a homeowner can buy for the same price (e.g., changes in other
materials or features in the home).
COSTS BY SECTOR
Exhibit ES-4 shows the breakdown of total annual costs and total capital costs by sector. In
both instances, costs include those paid by the affected sectors and those that will be paid for by
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page xi
federal and state cost-share programs. State-level breakdowns are shown in the sector-specific
sections below.
Exhibit ES-4: Total Annual and Capital Costs by Sector1
(millions of 2001 dollars)
Sector
POTW
Industrial
Sources
Agriculture
Forestry
Urban
OSWMS
Total
Total Annual Cumulative Cost
Tierl
(cost of
current
programs
funded to
201 0)2
$53
$0
$61
$23
$60
$0
$198
Tier 2
(Tierl +
Tier 2)
$148
$8
$226
$27
$146
$0
$555
TierS
(Tier 1 + Tier 2
+ Tier 3)
$286
$15
$376
$31
$418
$13
$1,139
Total Capital Cumulative Cost
Tierl
(cost of
current
programs
funded to
201 0)2
$655
$0
$312
$0
$475
$0
$1,442
Tier 2
(Tier 1 +
Tier 2)
$1,615
$51
$850
$0
$1,128
$0
$3,644
TierS
(Tier 1 + Tier 2
+ Tier 3)
$3,087
$98
$1,490
$0
$3,233
$68
$7,975
Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
1. Includes costs paid by federal and state cost-share programs.
2. POTW NRT upgrades already funded or completed are not included in Tier 1.
With respect to annual costs, the agriculture sector accounts for the highest share of Tier 1 costs,
followed by urban and POTW costs. In Tier 2, agricultural costs dominate total costs (41%)
followed by POTW costs (27%), but the urban sector has the highest cost share in Tier 3 (37%)
followed by agricultural costs (33%).
The distribution of capital costs across sectors differs significantly also. POTW costs account
for the largest share of capital costs in Tier 1 (45%) and Tier 2 (44%), followed by urban and
agricultural costs. In Tier 3, urban costs account for the largest share (41%) followed by POTW
and agricultural costs. Urban costs in Tier 3 go up significantly due to the amount of storm
water retrofits, which increase from 5% in Tier 2 to 20% in Tier 3.
POTW and Industrial Source Costs
Costs for NRT among POTW and industrial sources include capital expenditures and annual
O&M costs. There are no industrial control costs in Tier 1 because industrial Tier 1 actions are
assumed to be those already in place or planned. In Tiers 2 and 3, POTW control costs account
for more than 90% of annual NRT costs. Total annual costs of $156 million for Tier 2 include
$148 million for POTWs and $8 million for industrial facilities. Similarly, annual Tier 3 costs of
$301 million include $286 million for POTWs and $15 million for industrial facilities.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page xii
Costs for POTW controls in Tier 1 reflect NRT projects planned for 2010 that are not yet funded.
This includes NRT planned for 154 out of the 304 significant POTWs in the Bay watershed;
effluent concentrations for these facilities in 2010 should be 8 mg/1 total nitrogen (TN).
(Chesapeake Bay Program, 2002). Tier 1 POTW costs include costs for D.C. combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) (capital cost of $130 million).
Tier 2 reflects costs to implement NRT in the remaining 150 POTWs and assumes, in general,
TN and total phosphorus (TP) effluent concentrations of 8 mg/1 and 1 mg/1, respectively. The
technologies to achieve this level of reduction include extended aeration trains and
denitrification zones for nitrogen removal and chemical addition systems for phosphorus
removal systems. Tier 3 reflects costs of technologies necessary to implement NRT in all of the
POTWs to effluent concentrations of 5 mg/1 TN and 0.5 mg/1 TP. The technologies to achieve
this level of reduction include the addition of a secondary anoxic zone plus methanol addition,
and additional clarification tankage for nitrogen removal and additional chemicals for
phosphorus removal. (Note that limits of technology for point sources for nutrient removal are
considered to be 3 and 0.1 mg/1 TN and TP, respectively.) The technologies to achieve this level
of reduction include deep bed denitrification for nitrogen removal and microfiltration for
phosphorus removal.
Exhibit ES-5 shows annual POTW costs by tier scenario and jurisdiction. Similar to annual
costs for all sectors, these results show that the largest share of Tier 1 costs occur in Maryland
and the largest share of Tier 2 and Tier 3 costs occur in Virginia. These results show how
planned (Tier 1) NRT implementation costs vary across these states. Maryland is planning
expenditures of $29.5 million annually under Tier 1, which accounts for 81% of cumulative costs
under Tier 2 and 35% of cumulative costs under Tier 3. In contrast, Pennsylvania's Tier 1 costs
are $6.5 million, which accounts for 20% of cumulative Tier 2 costs and 11% of cumulative Tier
3 costs. Virginia's Tier 1 costs are $8.7 million, which equals 15% of cumulative Tier 2 costs
and 9% of Tier 3 costs.
Total capital costs for POTWs and industrial dischargers are $0.7 billion for Tier 1, $1.7 billion
for Tier 2, and $3.2 billion for Tier 3. This includes costs paid by households in the watershed as
well as costs paid by federal and state cost-share programs. Similar to annual costs, POTWs
accounts for more than 90% of these costs in each tier. The distribution of capital costs across
states also mimics the distribution of annual costs shown in Exhibit ES-5.
Exhibit ES-6 provides a summary of total annual costs, including those paid by farmers and
those paid by cost-share programs. Based on current implementation shares, the cost-share
programs would account for approximately 75% of annual costs in Tiers 2 and 3; farmers would
incur the remaining 25% of annual costs. Cost-share programs account for a smaller share of
annual Tier 1 costs (60%) because BMPs with lower cost-shares such as animal waste
management systems account for a larger portion of annual costs.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page xiii
Exhibit ES-5: Summary of Total Annual Cumulative POTW Costs1
(millions of 2001 dollars)
Jurisdiction
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Tierl
(cost of current programs
funded to 201 0)2
$0.2
$8.3
$29.5
$0.0
$6.5
$8.7
$0.0
$53.1
Tier 2
(Tier 1 + Tier 2)
$0.6
$14.1
$36.2
$6.2
$31.8
$57.9
$1.7
$148.3
TierS
(Tier 1 + Tier 2 + Tier 3)
$0.8
$25.7
$85.2
$10.2
$60.0
$101.3
$2.4
$285.5
Detail may not add to total because of independent rounding.
1. Includes federal and state cost shares equal to 10% of capital costs for VA, 50% of capital costs for MD, and 0% for
remaining jurisdictions.
2. POTW NRT upgrades already funded or completed are not included.
Exhibit ES-6: Summary of Total Annual Cumulative Agricultural Costs1
(millions of 2001 dollars)
Jurisdiction
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Tierl
(cost of current
programs funded to
2010)
$2.2
$0.0
$8.3
$1.8
$22.2
$21.6
$5.1
$61.2
Tier 2
(Tier 1 + Tier 2)
$6.3
$0.0
$33.8
$14.7
$90.9
$67.9
$12.7
$226.3
TierS
(Tier 1 + Tier 2 + Tier 3)
$9.4
$0.0
$49.6
$28.3
$146.6
$118.3
$24.2
$376.3
Detail may not add to total because of independent rounding.
1. Based on current cost share program information, federal and state cost-share programs would account for
approximately 60% of annual costs in Tier 1 and 75% of costs in Tiers 2 and 3; farmers incur the remaining costs.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page xiv
Agriculture Costs
Annual costs are highest in Pennsylvania for all tier scenarios. Virginia has the second highest
share of costs in all scenarios, followed by Maryland. Together, Pennsylvania and Virginia
account for 70% of annual agricultural costs.
Total capital costs in the agricultural sector are $312 million for Tier 1, $850 million for Tier 2,
and $1.5 billion for Tier 3. The distribution of capital costs across states is similar to the annual
cost distribution shown in Exhibit ES-6.
Forestry Costs
Annual costs to implement forest harvesting BMPs range from $23.5 million in Tier 1 to $30.8
million in Tier 3. Thus, baseline implementation in Tier 1 accounts for most of the costs in this
sector. Exhibit ES-7 provides annual cost estimates by tier scenario. This sector has the
smallest share of annual costs in all tier scenarios because implementation acre estimates are
small. All costs are annual because practices are assumed to be implemented on different
harvest acres each year.
Exhibit ES-7: Summary of Annual Forest Harvest Costs by Tier and Jurisdiction
(millions of 2001 dollars)
Jurisdiction
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Tierl
(cost of current programs
funded to 2010)
<$0.1
$0.0
$1.6
$3.6
$13.9
$3.0
$1.3
$23.5
Tier 2
(Tier 1 + Tier 2)
<$0.1
$0.0
$1.8
$4.1
$15.6
$4.1
$1.5
$27.1
TierS
(Tier 1 + Tier 2 + Tier 3)
$0.1
$0.0
$2.0
$4.5
$17.4
$5.1
$1.7
$30.8
Note: Detail may not equal total due to rounding.
Urban Costs
Exhibit ES-8 provides annual costs by tier and jurisdiction for urban areas. These costs are for
storm water BMPs and exclude POTW costs. Tier 1 costs are highest in Maryland and Virginia,
with each accounting for 40% of annual Tier 1 costs. Maryland's share of costs declines in Tier
2 (32%) and Tier 3 (29%) while shares for other states, except Delaware, increase across the
scenarios. This is indicative of Maryland's higher baseline BMP implementation rate compared
to most other states. Virginia's share of total annual costs is 41% for Tiers 2 and 3.
Pennsylvania's share of total annual costs increases from 15% in Tier 1 to 21% in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page xv
Exhibit ES-8: Summary of Cumulative Annual Urban Costs by Tier and Jurisdiction
(millions of 2001 dollars)
Jurisdiction
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Tierl
(cost of current programs
funded to 2010)
$0.5
$0.3
$23.8
$1.7
$8.8
$24.1
$0.9
$60.2
Tier 2
(Tier 1 + Tier 2)
$1.0
$2.1
$47.3
$6.4
$27.0
$59.3
$2.5
$145.5
TierS
(Tier 1 + Tier 2 + Tier 3)
$2.4
$8.3
$119.5
$21.6
$87.7
$170.5
$7.5
$417.6
Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
Storm water retrofits account for over 90% of annual urban costs in all tier scenarios. Although
the total number of retrofit acres is small (e.g., less than 0.4% of watershed acres in Tier 2 and
1.8% in Tier 3), the per-acre cost is high compared to other sectors. Nevertheless, the average
cost per household for the 4.9 million urban households in the watershed by 2010 is expected to
be small, ranging from $12 in Tier 1 to $85 in Tier 3. These estimates assume that all costs are
borne by urban households. However, federal and state cost share funds or other cost-saving
opportunities might reduce these costs.
Total capital costs are $0.5 billion for Tier 1, $1.1 billion for Tier 2 and $3.2 billion for Tier 3.
The distribution of capital costs across states is similar to the distribution of annual costs shown
in Exhibit ES-8.
Onsite Waste Management System Costs (Septic Systems)
There are no onsite waste management system (OSWMS) costs for Tiers 1 and 2. This is
because no existing onsite systems require an upgrade to a septic system with an advanced
nitrogen removal capability in these two tier scenarios. Costs are minimal for Tier 3 because, as
specified in this tier, only 1% of existing systems require upgrades or replacement. The annual
cost for Tier 3 is $13 million and total capital costs equal $68 million. The average annual cost
per household implementing the BMP is $1,020.
As noted above, this estimate does not include costs for new homes. The estimated annual cost
for new homes is not included because: 1) developers have an opportunity to offset incremental
OSWMS costs with savings in other construction costs, and 2) costs would be absorbed into the
price of a new home mortgage. Furthermore, the per-system cost of $1,020 used in the cost
analysis is for single system upgrades, whereas new homes built in developments will most
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page xvi
likely have lower costs because they can use multi-home systems with lower average per-home
costs.
REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS ANALYSES
At the request of the Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA's National Center for Environmental
Economics (NCEE) evaluated the socioeconomic impact of attaining revised water quality
criteria, designated uses, and boundaries for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters. The
objective of this analysis is to estimate the economic impacts of both the direct and indirect
effects of compliance. Measures of economic impacts include changes in the value of regional
output, or goods produced, employment, as well as wages and income, which are indicative of
the potential for widespread socioeconomic impacts.
Given the size of the regional economy ($1.4 trillion in personal income in 1999 in the 6-state
area and the District of Columbia, including $574 billion in Bay counties; in 2001 dollars, the
values become $1.5 trillion and $610 billion, respectively), net impacts over this area are not
likely to be seen. For example, baseline gross regional product in the state of Maryland is
forecast to grow by 37% by 2010, corresponding to 19% growth in employment and 17% growth
in real disposable personal income. The Tier 3 scenario would result in a net increase in output,
employment, and value added above baseline levels. The stimulus results from increased
spending in high wage industries (e.g., wastewater treatment technologies) as well as an influx of
funds for pollution controls (e.g., federal cost shares for agricultural BMPs). Not included are
additional market benefits likely to result from improved water quality (e.g., commercial and
recreational fishing industries). Therefore, the regional economy should expand as a result of the
tier scenarios.
The estimated annual cost of Tier 3 for 2010 populations ($1.1 billion in 2001 dollars) represents
0.2% of personal income in the Bay counties in 1999. Even if all capital costs ($8.0 billion) for
this scenario were incurred in one year, they represent only 1.4% of personal income in the Bay
counties in 1999. Although these data indicate that the pollution controls specified in the tier
scenarios will not result in substantial and widespread social and economic hardship, there may
be localized areas that need funding priority or special considerations.
SCREENING-LEVEL IMPACT ANALYSIS
U.S. EPA (1995) guidance requires multiple analyses to determine whether costs to meet water
quality standards will have a substantial financial impact on those responsible for paying the
costs and a widespread social and economic impact on the community. The guidance
recommends several tests to determine if compliance costs might have a substantial financial
impact. For the widespread impact analysis, macroeconomic modeling is the best approach
because it can show how incremental costs affect the sectors implementing controls and the
sectors that receive revenues as a result of the expenditures. U.S. EPA conducted a
macroeconomic analysis at a regional level for the UAA Workgroup. The results, as described
above, indicate positive net impacts on regional output and employment because the
expenditures occur in sectors that have higher regional output multipliers and employment-to-
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page xvii
output ratios compared to the sectors incurring costs. In addition, the costs are small compared
to the size of the regional economy ($1.4 trillion in personal income in 1999 in the 6-state area
and the District of Columbia, including $574 million in Bay counties). This result illustrates the
importance of considering the full range of economic impacts rather than focusing only on costs.
It also shows that control costs may not have substantial and widespread adverse social and
economic impacts at the watershed level.
Nevertheless, there may be localized areas that need funding priority. The UAA Workgroup
developed a screening analysis to identify where the estimated costs of the tier scenarios would
not likely pose substantial and widespread social and economic hardship. And, although the tier
scenarios are hypothetical constructs rather than actual programs developed by the jurisdictions
in their tributary strategies, the Bay Program wanted to provide these screening results to
jurisdictions as information or a starting point for their analyses. The screening analysis is
provided in Part III. The 12 sector-related screening variables selected by the UAA Workgroup
include:
• Agriculture: Average BMP costs/net cash return
• Agriculture: Crop plus portion of hay BMP costs/crop plus hay sales
• Agriculture: Livestock plus portion of hay BMP costs/livestock sales
• Agriculture: Average BMP costs/median household income
• Agriculture: Percent of county earnings from agriculture, agriculture services, food
and kindred products, and tobacco sectors/total county earnings
• Forestry: Percent of county earning from forestry and logging/total county earnings
• Urban: Average BMP costs/median household income
• Onsite Treatment Systems: Average BMP costs/median household income
• Onsite Treatment Systems: Percent of households affected in county
• POTWs: Current household sewer rate plus average new household cost/median
household income
• POTWs and Urban Combined: Total sewer costs (current plus new) plus average
urban BMP cost/median household income
• Industrial: Percent of county earnings from industrial sectors containing affected
facilities/total county earnings.
Depending on the sectors with which they are associated, the screening model variables indicate
when control costs are small relative to household incomes or the local economy, and, therefore
when substantial impacts are unlikely.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page xviii
It is important to note that this screening analysis is just that; it does not provide conclusions
about, for example, threshold values beyond which a more comprehensive analysis is warranted.
It does not seek to determine where cost-share assistance may be most useful. Rather, the
screening results only show the ranges of values of the different variables, and it is left up to the
jurisdictions to evaluate this information.
POTW and Industrial Sources
Exhibit ES-9 shows the results of the screening analysis for the POTW sector, and lists the
number of counties or independent cities with screening variables that exceed 1% as a result of
costs that would be imposed under Tiers 2 and 3. For the POTW sector, the screening analysis
consists of comparing total potential sewer bills to median household income, based on EPA
(1995) guidance indicating that substantial impacts are unlikely when this ratio is less than 1%.
Except for the District of Columbia, CSO and SSO costs are not included in this analysis.
Overall, variable values greater than 1% account for 15% of counties and cities under Tier 2, and
20% under Tier 3. Virginia has the largest number of counties, followed by Pennsylvania.
These states also have the largest number of counties or independent cities in the analysis and,
therefore, having the greatest number of counties with variable values above 1% is not
necessarily indicative of having a high potential for impacts. In fact, the incidence of variable
values exceeding 1% is greater in Delaware (1 out of 3 counties) and West Virginia (3 or 4 out
of 11 counties) than either Virginia or Pennsylvania.
These results reflect capital cost-share provisions of 10% in Virginia and 50% in Maryland,
which reduces the amount of costs borne by households in these states; no grant funds are
assumed for other states or the District of Columbia. This approach is also based on EPA (1995)
guidance, which indicates that sources of funding (e.g., federal and state grants and cost-share
funds) should be considered in evaluating economic and social hardship conditions.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page xix
Exhibit ES-9: POTW Screening Analysis Results for Cumulative Costs
Jurisdiction (# Counties in Watershed)
Delaware (3 of 3)
District of Columbia (1 of 1)
Maryland (24 of 24)
New York (19 of 62)
Pennsylvania (42 of 67)
Virginia (97 of 135)2
West Virginia (11 of 55)
Total (197)
Number of Counties with POTW Screening Variable > 1%
Tier 2
1
0
0
1
5
18
4
29
TierS
1
0
1
1
8
22
4
37
1. The POTW variable is average cost per household divided by median household income. The average cost
includes current household sewer fees plus incremental average household control costs for the tier scenario.
Includes CSO costs for the District of Columbia.
2. Includes independent cities as well as counties.
Industrial point sources incur control costs under Tiers 2 and 3. The screening analysis identifies
the relative county-level earnings derived from the industrial sector or sectors in which the point
sources are classified. Exhibit ES-10 lists the number of counties or independent cities by state
for which the screening variable value in Tier 3 exceeds 5%. The remaining jurisdictions have
variable values of less than 5% (and generally less than 1%), except for 8 counties for which the
variable cannot be evaluated because of missing data, indicating that the affected sectors are not
a large part of the local economy, may not. Note, however, that these values are not indicative
of where control costs would pose hardship, but merely show the size of the sector containing a
facility that may need to implement controls.
Exhibit ES-10: Industrial Screening Analysis Results for Cumulative Costs
Jurisdiction (# Counties in Watershed)
Delaware (3 of 3)
District of Columbia (1 of 1)
Maryland (24 of 24)
New York (19 of 62)
Pennsylvania (42 of 67)
Virginia (97 of 135)2
West Virginia (11 of 55)
Total (197)
Number of Counties with Industrial Screening Variable > 5%'
0
0
2
0
5
4
1
12
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page xx
Exhibit ES-10: Industrial Screening Analysis Results for Cumulative Costs
Jurisdiction (# Counties in Watershed)
Number of Counties with Industrial Screening Variable > 5%'
1. The industrial screening variable is earnings in the affected sectors divided by total earnings. Results exclude 8
counties with missing earnings data for a sector that includes a substantial discharger; 1 county is in Maryland, 3 are
in Pennsylvania, and 4 counties are in Virginia.
2. Includes independent cities as well as counties.
Agriculture
The screening analysis includes both a cost variable (based on identifying potential for
substantial impacts) and an earnings variable for the agricultural sector that is similar to the
earnings variable for industrial sources (as indication of whether impacts could be widespread).
The cost variable compares (implied) average annual per-farm BMP costs to median household
income. Because the screening analysis includes two variables, the results in Exhibit ES-11
reflect the joint outcome of both variables.
EPA (1995) provides profitability tests of impacts for businesses. However, the agricultural
industry as a whole is highly subsidized, which means that these sources are not typical private
businesses, and EPA guidance for evaluating private sector business impacts may not be
appropriate. Many agricultural producers do not meet the profitability requirement in EPA
guidance (private sector entities must be profitable before implementing pollution controls in
order for substantial impacts to result from such costs). However, data are not available to
exclude individual unprofitable farms from the analysis. At the same time, the agricultural
sector is not similar to municipalities, and so the public sector tests in EPA (1995) also do not
apply. The screening variable comparing costs to household income provides information to
supplement the private sector tests that compare costs to net cash return and sales, although
interpretation of this mix of concepts is difficult (i.e., there is no benchmark for comparing
business-related expenses to household income).
Exhibit ES-11: Agriculture Screening Analysis Results for Cumulative Costs
Jurisdiction (# Counties in Watershed)
Delaware (3 of 3)
District of Columbia (1 of 1)
Maryland (24 of 24)
New York (19 of 62)
Pennsylvania (42 of 67)
Virginia (97 of 135)2
West Virginia (11 of 55)
Number of Counties with MHI
Screening Variable > 1%
and Farm and Related Earnings
Screening Variable > 5%l
Tier 2
1
0
1
2
8
9
1
TierS
1
0
1
2
8
10
1
Number of Counties with MHI
Screening Variable > 1%
and Farm Only Earnings
Screening Variable > 5%l
Tier 2
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
TierS
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page xxi
Exhibit ES-11: Agriculture Screening Analysis Results for Cumulative Costs
Jurisdiction (# Counties in Watershed)
Total (197)
Number of Counties with MHI
Screening Variable > 1%
and Farm and Related Earnings
Screening Variable > 5%'
Tier 2
22
TierS
23
Number of Counties with MHI
Screening Variable > 1%
and Farm Only Earnings
Screening Variable > 5%'
Tier 2
6
TierS
6
2.
The MHI screening variable is average BMP cost per farm household divided by median household income. Note
that this variable represents a mix of private sector and public sector concepts (i.e., business-related expenses
compared to household income), and may be difficult to interpret. The earnings screening variable is earnings in
farm and related sectors divided by total earnings in the first set of results and farm income only in the second set of
results. The related sectors include farm services, tobacco products, and food and kindred products manufacturing.
Includes independent cities as well as counties.
Further, there is great uncertainty in the extent of costs that will actually be borne by farmers.
The 2002 Farm Bill increases federal overall conservation funding by 80% above the level
committed by the last (1996) farm bill. In addition, the new law permits a greater percentage of
BMP installation costs (90%, up from 75% in the 1996 bill) to be granted to limited-resource
farmers under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The 2002 Farm Bill cost share
provisions are not reflected in this economic analysis. Therefore, costs paid by farmers may be
lower than those used in the screening analysis, and impacts may be overstated. As one
example, although specific provisions for the yield reserve BMP in the tier scenarios are not
included in the bill, the program may be funded under an innovative technologies clause of the
bill (personal communication with T. Simpson, Chair, Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient
Subcommittee, May 2002). If implemented, this cost-share program could result in annual
incentive payments of $20 to $40 per acre that are not included in the screening analysis.
Funding for this program alone would reduce the agricultural costs borne by farmers in Tier 3 by
$17 million to $42 million per year.
Also, due to the large number of programs and sources across states, the cost-share information
may be incomplete. The cost-share assumptions in the impact analysis are very complex because
they vary by state, program, and BMP. Cost shares may include a variety of contract
arrangements including a capital cost share, an annual rental payment, an up-front incentive
payment, and an annual maintenance cost. For this analysis, the Chesapeake Bay Program did
not factor in the substantial annual rental payments but instead assumed that they would offset
any revenue losses resulting from BMP implementation. If instead, rental payments more than
offset any losses (e.g., BMPs are implemented on marginal land such that little revenue is lost),
the screening analysis may overstate impacts.
As shown in Exhibit ES-11, under Tier 2, there are 22 counties that do not have MHI and
earnings screening variable values below the values shown. This result uses the earnings
screening variable for farm income and related sectors. When this variable is limited to farm
income only, only 5 counties in Virginia and one county in West Virginia have values that
exceed the values shown for both screening variables.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page xxii
Under Tier 3, 23 counties have high values for both screening variables. These results are nearly
identical to Tier 2 results despite BMP cost increases. This happens because the earnings
screening variable is constant across the tier scenarios. Thus, even if higher costs increase the
likelihood of substantial impacts in some counties, the farming sector's small contribution to the
local economy limits its ability to have a widespread adverse impact measured by impacts on
overall county incomes.
Forestry
The screening analysis for forestry impacts uses an earnings variable that compares forestry
sector earnings to total earnings. No counties or independent cities are likely to experience
hardship as a result of forestry BMPs because forestry represents a small share (less than 3%) of
earnings in all jurisdictions. The small values indicate that the sector is small relative to the
county economy and, therefore, a sector-level substantial impact (if any) is unlikely to have
widespread ramifications.
Urban
Like the POTW sector, the screening analysis consists of comparing average annual per-
household costs to median household income, based on EPA (1995) guidance for evaluating
substantial impacts. Few counties exceed a 1% ratio value under Tier 2 (Exhibit ES-12). Under
Tier 3, 162 out of 197 jurisdictions still have a small screening variable value (i.e., < 1%),
despite a substantial increase in annual BMP costs.
Exhibit ES-12: Urban Screening Analysis Results for Cumulative Costs
Jurisdiction (# Counties in Watershed)
Delaware (3 of 3)
District of Columbia (1 of 1)
Maryland (24 of 24)
New York (19 of 62)
Pennsylvania (42 of 67)
Virginia (97 of 135)2
West Virginia (11 of 55)
Total (197)
Number of Counties with Urban Screening Variable > 1%'
Tier 2
0
0
1
0
3
4
0
8
TierS
0
0
1
4
9
19
2
35
1. The urban screening variable is average household BMP costs divided by median household income. Does not
include CSO/SSO costs.
2. Includes independent cities as well as counties.
Urban households may incur costs for urban BMPs as well as POTW controls. Under these
combined costs, 145 jurisdictions have variable values of less than 1% (Exhibit ES-13). The
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page xxiii
remaining 52 areas with higher variable values for combined costs require further analysis to
evaluate impact potential.
Under Tier 3, the screening analysis shows that variable values for combined costs are less than
1% in 117 jurisdictions. Further analysis would be needed for the 80 areas that have higher
screening variable values.
Exhibit ES-13: Urban and POTW Combined Screening Analysis Results
for Cumulative Costs
Jurisdiction (# counties in watershed)
Delaware (3 of 3)
District of Columbia (1 of 1)
Maryland (24 of 24)
New York (19 of 62)
Pennsylvania (42 of 67)
Virginia (97 of 135)2
West Virginia (11 of 55)
Total (197)
Number of Counties with Combined Screening Variable > 1%'
Tier 2
1
0
5
4
13
26
3
52
TierS
1
0
8
8
22
36
5
80
1. The combined cost screening variable is average urban BMP and POTW costs per household divided by median
household income. Includes CSO costs for the District of Columbia.
2. Includes independent cities as well as counties.
Onsite Waste Management Systems
Similar to the agriculture sector, the screening analysis for OSWMS costs includes both a cost
variable (designed to identify whether impacts would be substantial) and a variable for the
percent of households affected (designed to identify whether impacts would be widespread).
The cost variable compares average annual per-household BMP costs to median household
income. The results indicate that, because the onsite waste management BMP affects so few
households (less than 1% of existing onsite systems), there is little potential for any substantial
financial impacts to also be widespread.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 1
Introduction
In developing revised water quality criteria, designated uses, and boundaries for those uses to
protect living resources in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters, EPA's Chesapeake Bay
Program Office prepared a technical support document (Technical Support Document; U.S. EPA
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2003. Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake
Bay Designated Uses and Attainability). The document provides information to Chesapeake
Bay jurisdictions for development of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, clarity, and
chlorophyll a, based on EPA's regional criteria guidance. Part of the jurisdictions' water quality
standards development process may be to conduct use attainability analyses (UAAs). The
information contained in the Technical Support Document is to assist states in development of
their individual UAAs, and serves as a basis for state-specific documents that will be initiated
after the revised criteria for the Chesapeake Bay are finalized by EPA.
This document supplements the Technical Support Document by presenting economic analyses
performed by the Chesapeake Bay Program. Part I of this document provides estimates of the
potential control costs associated with three modeling scenarios (the tier scenarios) of nutrient
reduction measures. Part II describes economic modeling of the potential impacts of these
control costs in the Bay region. Part III documents a screening-level analysis of potential
impacts, also based on the costs of the tier scenarios. Several appendices provide additional
information. Appendix A summarizes the types of benefits that may arise from the tier
scenarios, and existing studies related to Bay water quality. Appendix B presents detailed
calculations supporting the screening analysis. Appendix C provides detailed results from the
screening analysis in tabular format, and Appendix D provides additional results in map format.
Appendix E contains three case study sensitivity analyses of the screening analysis results
related to potential costs for combined sewer overflows. Appendix F includes information
related to evaluating impacts associated with potential pollutant loading caps for publicly owned
treatment works. Finally, Appendix G provides information related to sanitary sewer overflows
submitted in comments on the draft economic analyses.
The economic analyses provide information related to evaluating impacts from the
implementation of the nutrient reduction measures defined in the Technical Support Document.
However, the Bay Program did not use these analyses to delineate boundaries for the new refined
designated uses. Although this information may be useful to states in developing their own
UAAs, economic analyses to show substantial and widespread impacts from meeting water
quality standards would need to be more rigorous than the analyses performed by the Bay
Program. Direction regarding the types of information and analyses necessary to perform a
UAA is included in Part III of this document.
The Technical Support Document and this economics document do not represent a regulation or
a mandatory requirement, but rather provide a compilation of the basin-wide, UAA-related
analyses assimilated collaboratively by the affected jurisdictions. EPA encourages the
jurisdictions to use the information in this document and, when appropriate, to perform
additional analyses tailored to each jurisdiction during their respective water quality standards
development process. The Chesapeake Bay Program's analyses address all dischargers and
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 2
sources in the watershed needing controls to meet the new refined designated uses, as modeled
under three hypothetical control scenarios. Local jurisdictions can use more site-specific control
and cost information, and evaluate local economic impacts.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 3
Part I: Documentation of Estimated Costs of
the Tier Scenarios
As part of its assessment of actions to remove the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries from
the list of impaired waters under the Clean Water Act, U.S. EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program
Office estimated the costs and nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) reduction potential of nutrient
removal technology and best management practices under several alternative scenarios. This
report summarizes the purposes, methods, and results of the cost assessment. Note that sediment
reduction is not specifically addressed, unless it is included in the removal practices. Control of
air sources is also not addressed in the scenarios.
1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
As described in the Technical Support Document, the Chesapeake Bay Program developed tiered
implementation scenarios of nutrient reduction measures for the Chesapeake Bay watershed
based on the extent of controls already in place as of the year 2000 (the 2000 Progress scenario),
and estimates of the controls that would be in place if current implementation rates were
continued through the year 2010 (the Tier 1 scenario). Then, Tiers 2, 3, and E3 (which
represents a theoretical limit of technology, but is physically implausible) scenarios add
incremental increases in implementation levels. The tier scenarios, developed by various
stakeholder workgroups, are based on the Chesapeake Bay Program's estimates of 2010
populations and land uses in the basin. This report provides estimates of the cost of Tiers 1, 2,
and 3.1 Note that these cost estimates reflect, in part, the extent of efforts to date which vary
across states. However, state data on controls in place throughout the watershed are incomplete,
which may result in overestimates of costs for the tiers.
This report provides estimates of the total annual cost of achieving the tier scenarios, total capital
cost requirements, and, to the extent that information could be compiled, estimates of how these
costs may be shared between the public and private sectors. For example, the Chesapeake Bay
Program assumed that current agricultural cost-share and incentive payments are continued (i.e.,
there are no limits in program funding). Similarly, it assumed that the states of Maryland, and
Virginia to a lesser extent, would provide grants to assist in funding nutrient reduction
technologies for publicly owned treatment works. Costs for the remaining practices specified in
the tier scenarios are attributed to the private sector (although public programs could be used to
fund these controls as well).
In addition to summarizing the resources required for each level of control implementation, the
cost estimates can also be used to investigate the potential economic impacts of the scenarios.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) Workgroup used these
estimates to develop screening-level impact analyses based on the same assumptions described
above regarding how costs may be shared between the public and private sectors (see Part III).
1 No cost estimates were developed for the E3 scenario which the Chesapeake Bay Program regards as
physically implausible.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 4
U.S. EPA also used the estimates in a regional economic impact analysis for the UAA
Workgroup.
Part I of this report is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the methods for estimating the
cost of nutrient reduction technologies for point sources and best management practices (BMPs)
for nutrient control. Section 3 summarizes results, including capital and total annual costs, by
political and hydrogeologic boundaries.
2. METHODS
The sections below describe the methods for estimating the costs of the tier scenarios for POTW
and industrial sources (Section 2.1) and agriculture, forestry, urban, and onsite waste
management system sources (Section 2.2).
2.1 POTWs and Industrial Sources
The Chesapeake Bay Program convened a multi-stakeholder Nutrient Removal Technology
(NRT) Task Force to develop point source costs for the tier scenarios. The Task Force's method
and estimated costs are described in detail under separate cover (NRT Cost Task Force, 2002),
and summarized below.
The NRT Task Force developed costs for significant municipal and industrial facilities located in
the watershed that discharge nitrogen and phosphorus. Significant municipal facilities are
generally defined as wastewater treatment plants that discharge flows of 0.5 million gallons per
day (mgd) or greater, although the threshold may vary slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Significant industrial facilities are those discharging nutrient loadings greater than or equal to
those discharged by a municipal wastewater treatment with a flow capacity of 0.5 mgd, which
equates to approximately 75 Ibs/day of total nitrogen (TN) and 25 Ibs/day total phosphorus (TP)
based on a municipal discharge of 18 mg/L TN and 6 mg/1 TP.
2.1.1 Point Source Nutrient Reduction Scenarios
The tier scenarios incorporate varying levels of nutrient reductions for point sources. For
municipal facilities, Tier 1 includes current or planned pollutant controls; Tier 2 requires end-of-
pipe effluent concentrations of 8.0 mg/L TN, and either 1.0 mg/L TP or the permit limit
(whichever is lower); and Tier 3 requires end-of-pipe effluent concentrations of 5.0 mg/L TN,
and the lower of 0.5 mg/L TP or the permit limit. For industrial facilities, Tier 1 represents no
change from current levels, and the effluent concentrations required for Tiers 2 and 3 generally
correspond to those of municipal facilities. Tier 1 also includes a reduction in combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) in the District of Columbia. Exhibit 1 provides a summary of the tier
scenarios for municipal and industrial facilities and the District of Columbia CSOs.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page5
Exhibit 1: Scenarios of Nutrient Reduction for Point Sources
Source
Significant Municipal
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities (as of 2000)
Significant Industrial
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities (as of 2000)
Non-significant
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Facilities (as
of 2000)
Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) (District
of Columbia only)
Tier!
Existing NRT facilities and those
planned to go to NRT by 2010:
2010 flow with 8.0 mg/LTN
effluent concentration and year
2000 concentrations of TP. For
all remaining facilities: 2010 flow
with year 2000 TN and TP
concentrations.
Maintain current levels or permit
conditions if less.
Maintain current TN/TP
concentrations with 2010 flows.
43% reduction in CSO.
Tier 2
Reach and maintain 8.0 mg/L TN
and 1.0mg/LTP effluent
concentrations at 2010 flows at
all facilities. (Phosphorus
concentration is 1.0 mg/L or
permit limit, whichever is more
stringent.)
Generally a 50% reduction from
Tier 1 , or 2000 concentrations or
permit conditions if less.
Maintain current TN/TP
concentrations with 2010 flows.
43% reduction in CSO.
TierS
Reach and maintain 5.0 mg/L
TN and 0.5 mg/L TP effluent
concentrations at 2010 flows at
all facilities. (Phosphorus
concentration is 0.5 mg/L or
permit limit, whichever is more
stringent.)
Generally a 80% reduction from
Tier 1 , or 2000 concentrations
or permit conditions if less.
Maintain current TN/TP
concentrations with 2010 flows.
43% reduction in CSO.
Note that for municipal facilities, TN and TP concentrations may increase from one tier to the
next. For example, concentrations for some facilities increase between 2000 Progress and Tier 1
because the NRT Task Force believes that some facilities may not be able to operate as
efficiently at 2010 flows as they do at 2000 flows and, therefore, the 2000 concentration may not
be representative of 2010 conditions. For facilities with TN concentrations less than 8 mg/L in
2000, the Task Force assumed concentrations would increase to 8 mg/L by 2010. The same
principle is true for TP (i.e., the Task Force assumed concentrations would increase to 1 mg/L by
2010 if the 2000 concentration is less than 1 mg/L).
2.1.2 Overview of Method
The NRT Task Force developed costs for controlling nitrogen and phosphorous separately using
estimates obtained directly from affected facilities, where available, and applying the methods
described below if facilities did not provide estimates. However, for Tier 1, which represents
current or planned controls, costs are zero for municipal facilities that did not provide costs.
There are also no costs for industrial facilities under Tier 1, since it represents no change from
2000 effluent concentrations. In addition, the costs of upgrades for federal facilities are excluded
from the analysis, because households in the watershed will not incur direct costs for these
facilities.
The NRT Task Force developed estimates for capital and annual operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs. This report also provides these estimates annualized over 20 years. For municipal
facilities, the annualized estimates reflect an average 2001 Statewide Revolving Fund rate for
each state (1.0% for DE, 2.2% for MD, 2.5% for NY, 2.5% for PA, 3.9% for VA, and 0.7% for
WV) and the national average rate of 2.4% (U.S. EPA, 2001c) for the District of Columbia. For
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 6
industrial facilities, the annualized estimates reflect a 5.76% interest rate.2 The summary of
estimates in this report also incorporates the assumption (based on current experience) that
federal and state grant programs would contribute 50% of capital costs for NRT for municipal
facilities in Maryland, 10% for municipal facilities in Virginia, and 0% for facilities in other
states and the District of Columbia.
2.1.3 Nitrogen Removal: Municipal Facilities
As described above, there are only Tier 1 costs for municipal facilities for the removal of
nitrogen if these facilities are either currently operating NRT or are planning to by 2010 and
have not already obtained funds for their efforts. Costs for facilities are estimated from data
obtained directly from facilities or by applying an estimating methodology developed by the
NRT Cost Task Force. The methods for estimating costs for Tiers 2 and 3 for nonreporting
facilities (i.e., those that did not provide estimates) are described below.
Tier 2. The NRT Task Force used capital cost estimates received from reporting municipal
facilities, including all facilities with design flow greater than 30.0 mgd. For the remaining
facilities, since the nitrogen removal goals for municipal facilities in Tier 2 are the same as those
for Tier 1 (8 mg/L TN), the Task Force used capital cost estimates for upgrading 67 facilities
provided by U.S. EPA to extrapolate costs for upgrading nonreporting facilities to Tier 2
requirements. The estimates are based on actual construction costs, engineering design
estimates, or preliminary engineering reports and facilities plans. The NRT Task Force fit a line
to these data and estimated the following capital costs equation:
Capital Cost = 2,023,829 + 7 - 4,351.8039 x Q - Q2
where Q = design flow between 0.5 and 30.0 mgd.
To estimate O&M costs, the NRT Task Force assumed that only facilities with ammonia
concentrations greater than 2 mg/L would require additional nitrification to convert ammonia-N
to nitrate-N. Most of the operations costs for Tier 2 are associated with the change in electrical
requirements for aeration during biological treatment. The nitrification process requires oxygen,
specifically, 4.57 Ibs of oxygen per pound of ammonia nitrogen removed. Thus, the oxygen
requirement can be calculated given a plant's effluent ammonia concentration. Once the oxygen
requirement is known, the brake horsepower can be calculated using operating parameters for a
typical aeration system.
The O&M costs also account for the possible denitrification energy cost savings due to lower
oxygen requirements. The Task Force calculated electrical costs assuming 2.86 pounds of
oxygen saved per pound of nitrate denitrified. In calculating nitrification and denitrification
O&M costs, the Task Force used the projected 2010 flow rate. Change in solids production is
2 The 5.76% interest rate is based on the average market rate between 1998 and 2002 for business loans of
between $100,000 and $10,000,000 (Federal Reserve, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998), and a marginal corporate tax
rate of 20%. The average interest rate over the last five years is approximately 7.2%. Because loan repayments
reduce corporate tax liability, the net interest rate on a loan reflects this tax advantage, which is 80% of the stated
rate (i.e., 1-20%). Thus, the effective interest rate is 5.76% (7.2% x 0.8).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 7
negligible, and no additional labor is required. Maintenance costs are estimated as 2% of initial
capital costs per year.
Tier 3. The NRT Task Force acknowledged certain improvements to a standard activated
sludge plant would be necessary to achieve TN levels of 5 mg/L, and made the following
assumptions:
• Plants are currently achieving TN of 8 mg/L
• Additional treatment comprises secondary anoxic zone with methanol addition
following aeration and improvements to nitrification, clarification, flow splitting,
and aeration
• Incremental costs include 30% program implementation associated with engineering,
construction management, legal, bonding, and administrative fees.
The NRT Task Force fit lines to capital cost pollutant control estimates for plants with capacities
of 0.1, 1.0, 10 and 30 mgd to develop separate cost curves:
0.1 mgd
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 8
1. In general, Tier 2 reflects levels of reduction on the order of 50% from Tier 1 unless permit
conditions are more stringent. Tier 3 reflects a reduction of about 80% beyond Tier 1 unless
permit conditions are more stringent. For Tiers 2 and 3, the NRT Task Force developed costs
based on 2000 effluent concentrations. The Task Force used site-specific cost estimates where
they were provided; otherwise, it assumed that onsite controls or transportation of effluent to a
POTW would be required. Estimated costs for Tiers 2 and 3 are zero whenever 2000 TN or TP
concentrations are less than or approximately equal to the concentrations required by each tier.
For the remaining facilities, the Task Force estimated costs using the same methodology as for
municipal facilities, even where it is known that some industrial wastewater is not treatable
biologically.
2.1.5 Phosphorus Removal: Municipal Facilities
As described above, there are only costs for municipal facilities for the removal of phosphorus if
these facilities provided estimates for current or planned controls. The methods for estimating
costs for Tiers 2 and 3 for facilities that did not provide estimates are described below.
Tier 2. The NRT Task Force developed costs based on 2000 TP effluent concentrations. Costs
are zero for facilities with effluent already below the Tier 2 requirement of 1 mg/L TP. The Task
Force assumed that facilities discharging between 1 mg/L and 2 mg/L TP are operating chemical
precipitation, and would only require O&M costs associated with increased chemical addition
and sludge handling. Removal of 1 mg/L of TP requires 14.4 mg/L of alum, which costs $269
per ton. Sludge handling costs are $300 per dry ton of sludge. The amount of sludge produced
is calculated from the stoichiometric coefficients of the sludge reaction and the 2010 flow rate.
Facilities discharging TP concentrations greater than 2 mg/L require treatment controls. The
NRT Task Force assumed that facilities would install chemical precipitation using alum. Cost
curves for chemical precipitation installation are:
0.1 mgd
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 9
2.1.5 Phosphorus Removal: Industrial Facilities
As described above, there are no reductions in phosphorus from industrial facilities required
under Tier 1. For Tiers 2 and 3, the NRT Task Force estimated TP removal costs using the same
methodology used to estimate TN removal costs.
2.1.6 Limitations and Uncertainties in the Analysis of Point Source Costs
There are a number of limitations and uncertainties inherent in the method for estimating point
source costs. Exhibit 2 illustrates the sources of potential bias, and the potential impact on the
estimates.
Exhibit 2: Sources of Uncertainty in the Point Source Cost Estimates
Source
Costs for reducing TN and TP derived
separately
Costs may include growth-related costs
not related to the tier scenarios
Costs include estimates provided by
facilities for which no nutrient reductions
are indicated
Costs for NRT obtained from facilities
Costs include biological treatment to
reduce TN and TP at many industrial
facilities
Estimates based on cost equations reflect
the same treatment to reduce TN and TP
levels at all facilities
Potential Impact
on Costs
+
+
+
?
?
?
Comments
Some technologies may control TN and TP
simultaneously; thus costs could be lower to treat N and
P at the same time
Planning-level estimates for 2010 may incorporate
costs that would be incurred anyway to serve increased
populations; no attempt is made to estimate baseline
costs [upgrades necessary to treat 2010 flows sufficient
to meet local water quality standards or anticipated total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) without implementation
of the tier scenarios]
Current effluent concentrations for these facilities meet
the levels specified in the tier scenarios
These estimates have not been verified.
Biological treatment may not be a feasible option for
certain industrial facilities, and more or less costly
treatment controls may be needed instead
Costs are not based on facility-specific treatment
processes or operational procedures and, therefore,
may over- or underestimate costs
+ = assumption results in overestimating costs
? = impact of assumption on cost estimates is unknown
2.2 Forestry, Agriculture, Urban, and OSWMS Sources
The tier scenarios also include varying implementation levels of nutrient reduction BMPs for
agricultural operations, forest harvesting operations, urban and mixed open (land with
herbaceous cover not classified as agricultural, urban, or forest) land, and onsite wastewater
management systems (OSWMSs). Tier 1, which represents current implementation levels
extended to 2010, incorporates the Phase I and Phase II Storm Water Rules and other ongoing
state and local programs (e.g., nutrient management planning on crop and hay land in Maryland
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 10
and Delaware). However, as described below, the degree to which it incorporates anticipated
revisions to the concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) regulations and state programs
submitted under the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) of 1990 is unknown.
Exhibit 3 summarizes the tier scenarios for these sources.
U.S. EPA anticipates that CAFOs will incur costs to implement or improve animal waste
management systems, develop and implement nutrient management plans, and transfer excess
manure offsite under revisions to the effluent guidelines for this sector. However, because EPA
is still finalizing the CAFO rule, the extent of overlap with the tier scenarios is unknown. For
instance, although Tier 1 requirements for animal waste systems indicate continuing the level of
implementation based on the average rate of 1997-2000 (Exhibit 3), this level is most likely
lower than would be required under the final CAFO regulations.
Section 6217 of the CZARA requires 29 states and territories, including the basin states of
Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, to develop programs to implement
practices to control nonpoint source pollution in areas where land and water uses have a
significant impact on coastal waters. Although state program were supposed to be approved by
1995 and fully implemented by 1999, this schedule has not been met. Administrative changes in
1998 required that participating states submit 15-year program strategies outlining the NFS
management measures they plan to implement through a sequence of 5-year an implementation
plans that coordinate BMP implementation with other programs such as the Chesapeake Bay
Program. Management measures can differ by state depending on the relative impact of different
types of NFS on water quality. Thus, BMP implementation that would occur under Section 6217
of CZARA may overlap the tiers to an unknown degree for the following controls:
• Agricultural BMPs, including forest riparian buffers, nutrient management plans,
animal waste management, excess manure removal, stream protection, grazing land
protection, conservation tillage, wetland restoration, and retirement of erodible land
• Silvicultural BMPs, including forest harvesting practices to reduce erosion
• Urban BMPs, including environmental site design and urban riparian forest and
grass buffers
• Onsite disposal system BMPs, including denitrification.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 11
Exhibit 3: Nutrient Reduction Scenarios for Agriculture, Forestry, Urban, and OSWMS Sources
BMP
Tierl
Tier 2
TierS
Agriculture: Cropland Conversions to Forest or Hayland
Forest buffers (Pasture)
Forest buffers (Cropland)
Grass buffers (Cropland)
Forest buffers (Hayland)
Wetland restoration
(Cropland)
Retirement of highly
erodible land (HEL)
Carbon sequestration
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Includes fencing.
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Not applicable.
Increase level of
implementation up to a total
of 20% of the remaining
stream reaches in pasture.
Includes fencing.
Increase level of
implementation up to a total
of 20% of the remaining
stream reaches in cropland.
25% of remaining stream
reaches within cropland.
25% of remaining stream
reaches within hayland over
Tierl.
Increase level of
implementation up to a total
of 33% of the remaining
goal.
Retirement of HEL-Wetland
Restoration-buffers
(combined) comprise 10%
of cropland within each
county.
Not applicable.
Increase level of
implementation up to a total
of 30% of the remaining
stream reaches in pasture.
Includes fencing.
Increase level of
implementation up to a total
of 30% of the remaining
stream reaches in cropland.
50% of remaining stream
reaches within cropland.
50% of remaining stream
reaches within hayland over
Tierl.
Increase level of
implementation up to a total
of 66% of the remaining
goal.
Retirement of HEL-Wetland
Restoration-buffers
(combined) comprise 15%
of cropland within each
county.
Applied to 15% of remaining
E3 cropland after land
conversion programs
applied.
Agriculture: BMPs on Cropland
Conservation tillage
Farm plans (soil
conservation and water
quality plans)
Cover crops
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Applied to 30% of remaining
cropland beyond Tier 1 .
Applied to 30% of remaining
agricultural land (crop, hay,
pasture) beyond Tier 1 .
Applied to 40% of remaining
cropland beyond Tier 1 .
Applied to 60% of remaining
cropland beyond Tier 1 .
Applied to 70% of remaining
agricultural land (crop, hay,
pasture) beyond Tier 1 .
Applied to 75% of remaining
cropland beyond Tier 1 .
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 12
Exhibit 3: Nutrient Reduction Scenarios for Agriculture, Forestry, Urban, and OSWMS Sources
BMP
Nutrient management plan
implementation
Yield reserve
Excess manure removal
Animal waste
management systems
Stream protection without
fencing
Stream protection with
fencing
Grazing land protection
Tierl
MD&DE: 100% of cropland
and hayland. Other basin
states: Continue current
level of implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Not applicable.
Assume alternative use for
excess manure.
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
Tier 2
MD&DE: 100% of
cropland and hayland.
Other basin states: Applied
to 30% of remaining
cropland and hayland
beyond Tier 1 .
Not applicable.
Assume alternative use for
excess manure.
Applied to 25% of remaining
confined animal units
beyond Tier 1 (combines
storage system and
barnyard runoff controls).
Applied to 10% of remaining
stream reaches within
pasture land beyond Tier 1.
Applied to 15% of remaining
stream reaches within
pasture land beyond Tier 1.
Applied to 25% of remaining
pasture land beyond Tier 1.
TierS
MD&DE: 100% cropland
and hayland. Other basin
states: Applied to 30% of
remaining cropland and
hayland beyond Tier 2.
Applied to 30% of the
cropland and hayland under
nutrient management.
Replaces nutrient
application component of
nutrient management plan.
Assume alternative use for
excess manure.
Applied to 60% of remaining
confined animal units
beyond Tier 1 (combines
storage system and
barnyard runoff controls).
Applied to 25% of remaining
stream reaches within
pasture land beyond Tier 1 .
Applied to 75% of remaining
stream reaches within
pasture land beyond Tier 1 .
Applied to 50% of remaining
pasture land beyond Tier 1 .
Forestry
Forest harvesting BMPs
(erosion control)
Forestry BMPs are properly
installed on 80% of all
harvested lands.
Forestry BMPs are properly
installed on 90% of all
harvested lands.
Forestry BMPs are properly
installed on 100% of all
harvested lands with no
measurable increase in
nutrient and sediment
discharge.
Urban and Mixed Open Land
Urban land conversion
(signatories only)
Full 2000-201 Durban land
conversion based on 2010
population.
2000-201 Durban
conversion - reduced 10%
(acres "returned" as 65%
forest, 20% mixed open,
15% agriculture).
2000-201 Durban
conversion - reduced 20%
(acres "returned" as 65%
forest, 20% mixed open,
15% agriculture).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 13
Exhibit 3: Nutrient Reduction Scenarios for Agriculture, Forestry, Urban, and OSWMS Sources
BMP
Tierl
Tier 2
TierS
Urban and Mixed Open Land (Continued)
Storm water management
and low impact
development - new
development (2001 -2010)
Storm water management
- recent development
(1986-2000)
Storm water retrofits -
recent (1986-2000) and
old (pre 1986)
development
Urban nutrient
management
Grass buffers (urban land)
Forest buffers (urban land)
Forest buffers (mixed open
land)
66% of new development
has storm water
management (percent
reduction: TN=35, TP=45,
TSS=80).
60% of recent development
has storm water
management (percent
reduction: TN=27,
TP=40,TSS=65).
0.8% of recent and old
(pre 1986) development is
retrofitted (percent reduction:
TN=20, TP=30,TSS=65).
Continue to implement BMP
at average annual rate
through 2010, using average
of 1997-2000 (percent
reduction: TN=17%,
TP=22%).
All urban stream reaches are
assumed to have either
grass or tree buffers. Where
urban disturbance has
altered a stream reach
beyond repair/ restoration, it
is not included as a potential
buffer area.
Not applicable.
Continue current level of
implementation using
average rate of 1997-2000.
75% of new development
has storm water
management. 25% of new
development employs
environmental site design
and low-impact
development techniques.
Efficiencies represent a
75%/25% weighted average
reduction (TN=40, TP=55,
TSS=85).
60% of recent development
in MD, PA, DC, VA has
storm water management
(percent reduction: TN=27,
TP=40,TSS=65).
5% of recent and old
(pre 1986) development is
retrofitted (percent
reduction: TN=20,
TP=30,TSS=65).
40% of urban pervious and
mixed open lands are under
nutrient management
(percent reduction:
TN=17%,TP=22%).
Reduce grass buffers by
10% below Tierl level
(conversion to forest
buffers).
Increase forest buffer
acreage by the same
amount of "reduced" grass
buffer acreage.
Increase forest buffer
acreage by the same
amount as forest buffers on
urban pervious.
50% of new development
has storm water
management. 50% of new
development employs
environmental site design
and low-impact
development techniques.
Efficiencies represent a
50%/50% weighted average
reduction (TN=45, TP=57,
TSS=87).
60% of recent development
in MD, PA, DC, VA has
storm water management
(percent reduction: TN=27,
TP=40,TSS=65).
20% of recent and old
(pre 1986) development is
retrofitted (percent
reduction: TN=20,
TP=30,TSS=65).
75% of urban pervious and
mixed open lands are under
nutrient management
(percent reduction TN=17%,
TP=22%).
Reduce grass buffers by
30% below Tier 1 level
(conversion to forest
buffers).
Increase forest buffer
acreage by the same
amount of "reduced" grass
buffer acreage.
Increase forest buffer
acreage by the same
amount as forest buffers on
urban pervious.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 14
Exhibit 3: Nutrient Reduction Scenarios for Agriculture, Forestry, Urban, and OSWMS Sources
BMP
Tierl
Tier 2
TierS
Onsite Treatment Systems
Denitrification with
pumping (new systems,
i.e., post 2000)
Denitrification with
pumping (existing
systems, i.e., pre-2001)
Maintain current
concentration/load per
system (36 mg/l TN).
Maintain current
concentration/load per
system (36 mg/l TN).
10% of new treatment
systems will meet a
concentration for nitrogen of
10 mg/L TN per system at
the edge-of-the adsorption
field. Remaining systems
meet existing
concentration/load levels.
Maintain current
concentration/load per
system (36 mg/l TN).
100% of new treatment
systems will achieve 10
mg/L TN at the edge of the
adsorption field.
1% of existing (per year)
treatment systems will
achieve 10 mg/L TN at the
edge of the adsorption field
(1% represents failed
systems and opportunities
for upgrades). Remaining
systems maintain existing
concentrations/loads.
HEL = Highly erodible land
TN = total nitrogen
TP = total phosphorus
TSS = total suspended solids.
Exhibit 4 provides the number of incremental acres of each BMP or number of systems for
onsite wastewater management systems (i.e., beyond acres or systems in the 2000 Progress
scenario) that correspond to the scenario descriptions in Exhibit 3. Negative numbers indicate
that BMP implementation is currently greater in the Progress 2000 scenario than required by the
tier scenario. For the BMPs that are applied to land, this reflects a change in land use. The
change may be caused by an actual conversion of land from agricultural to other uses, for
instance, because of urban growth projected to occur between 2000 and 2010. It also may be
caused by agricultural BMPs that cause land to shift from one agricultural land use category to
another. For example, higher implementation rates of forest or grass buffers, wetlands
restoration, carbon sequestration, and retirement of highly erodible land BMPs on high till land
leaves less land available for the conservation tillage BMP. In some cases, the conservation
tillage acreage is actually negative because the total number of acres in the tier scenario is lower
than the number of acres in Progress 2000. Negative numbers for excess manure removal in
Maryland are related to a projected decline in the number of animal units in Maryland from 2000
to 2010, as well as shifting animal types between 2000 and 2010 and variation in the nutrient
content of the manure of different animal species, and shifting land uses to which the manure can
be applied.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 15
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 1 BMP Scenario: Delaware
Number of Acres1
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
2
565
0
139
1,137
0
0
0
Impervious
-
-
0
42
425
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
0
-
-
-
-
60,791
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
713
312
56
0
0
0
-8
-
-
49,761
-
-
0
0
-
721
Low Till
1,747
762
133
0
0
0
8
-
-
112,223
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
72
-
4
0
-
0
-
-
-
4,872
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
21
-
0
-
0
0
-
0
0
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
71,287
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
175
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
0
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1 % of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 16
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 1 BMP Scenario: District of Columbia
Number of Acres1
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
1
144
0
138
0
0
0
0
Impervious
-
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
148
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
0
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
0
-
0
Low Till
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
0
-
0
0
-
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
0
-
0
-
0
0
-
0
0
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
0
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
0
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1% of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 17
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 1 BMP Scenario: Maryland
Number of Acres1
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
77
20,042
0
5,621
52,875
0
0
0
Impervious
-
-
0
2,680
23,912
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
74
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
5,223
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
4,999
2,387
0
460
0
28,908
-12,699
-
-
52,963
-
-
0
0
-
-53,587
Low Till
7,682
5,316
0
655
0
15,730
-19,262
-
-
51,298
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
2,048
-
0
261
-
20,901
-
-
-
20,392
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
3,106
-
0
-
0
-15,416
-
14,468
2,965
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
94
-
-
-4,229
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
18,959
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
0
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1 % of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 18
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 1 BMP Scenario: New York
Number of Acres'
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
18
4,755
0
1,103
1,229
0
0
0
Impervious
-
-
0
540
1,351
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
0
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
0
0
0
1,840
0
0
0
-
-
2,936
-
-
0
0
-
10,975
Low Till
0
0
0
630
0
0
0
-
-
3,238
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
0
-
0
3,546
-
0
-
-
-
11,867
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
0
-
0
-
0
0
-
0
0
-
7,750
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
124
-
-
0
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
43,278
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
0
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1 % of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 19
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 1 BMP Scenario: Pennsylvania
Number of Acres1
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
89
23,134
0
4,142
4,799
0
0
0
Impervious
-
-
0
2,269
5,978
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
16,461
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
0
165
149
2,826
0
436,031
0
-
-
193,001
-
-
0
0
-
58,426
Low Till
0
96
80
2,408
0
9,190
0
-
-
11,878
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
0
-
174
0
-
14,030
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
1,015
-
0
-
0
18,254
-
6,862
746
-
3,193
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,334
-
-
3,092
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
165,242
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
0
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when a
negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number of
systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1% of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 20
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 1 BMP Scenario: Virginia
Number of Acres'
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
170
44,440
0
8,595
31,661
22,022
0
0
Impervious
-
-
0
3,807
27,603
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
104
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
0
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
1,074
566
103
3,073
0
37,760
-16,833
-
-
29,986
-
-
0
0
-
-38,965
Low Till
2,092
820
347
7,436
0
110,244
-18,224
-
-
72,414
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
969
-
552
20,871
-
206,110
-
-
-
107,210
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
0
-
0
-
0
298,315
-
10,170
0
-
106,729
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
211
-
-
587,611
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
35,943
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
0
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1% of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 21
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 1 BMP Scenario: West Virginia
Number of Acres'
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
7
1,941
0
379
1,342
0
0
0
Impervious
-
-
0
177
845
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
0
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
21
138
0
15
0
7,789
-559
-
-
718
-
-
0
0
-
-9,491
Low Till
38
232
0
44
0
7,381
210
-
-
2,084
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
189
-
0
312
-
70,643
-
-
-
13,478
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
0
-
0
-
0
143,516
-
600
4
-
57,194
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
37
-
-
0
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
15,816
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
0
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when a
negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number of
systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1 % of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 22
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 2 BMP Scenario: Delaware
Number of Acres1
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
59
508
431
868
1,292
7,634
0
0
Impervious
-
-
161
260
483
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
56
-
-
-
-
74,473
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
696
391
30
2,683
0
10,078
13,413
-
-
30,784
-
-
0
0
-
4,871
Low Till
3,166
1,710
159
9,716
0
36,604
48,800
-
-
116,373
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
123
-
4
369
-
1,389
-
-
-
4,452
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
283
-
0
-
0
1,351
-
168
95
-
1,126
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
71,374
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
524
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
318
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1 % of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 23
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 2 BMP Scenario: District of Columbia
Number of Acres1
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
15
130
0
863
0
6,908
0
0
Impervious
-
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
928
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
14
-
-
-
-
298
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
0
-
0
Low Till
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
0
-
0
0
-
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
0
-
0
-
0
0
-
0
0
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
0
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
19
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1% of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 24
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 2 BMP Scenario: Maryland
Number of Acres'
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
2,057
17,824
17,760
35,119
53,280
309,371
9,590
0
Impervious
-
-
8,097
16,750
24,290
-
3,844
0
Ultra
-
-
-
462
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
7,571
-
-
-
-
313,801
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
6,731
4,617
1,202
21,185
0
-128,557
72,590
-
-
-109,167
-
-
0
0
-
3,667
Low Till
20,597
15,111
3,108
55,136
0
77,256
249,608
-
-
108,552
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
3,936
-
639
11,588
-
9,403
-
-
-
6,860
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
9,321
-
0
-
0
-18,062
-
16,722
3,031
-
44,956
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
99
-
-
-4,712
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
21,328
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
3,226
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1% of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 25
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 2 BMP Scenario: New York
Number of Acres'
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
494
4,280
465
6,891
1,396
55,875
0
0
Impervious
-
-
512
3,375
1,536
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
476
-
-
-
-
231,893
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
1,857
1,857
0
6,806
0
37,425
49,901
-
-
33,791
-
-
0
0
-
61,590
Low Till
1,254
1,254
0
7,700
0
24,979
33,306
-
-
29,636
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
4,060
-
0
15,616
-
66,070
-
-
-
71,136
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
2,416
-
0
-
0
53,963
-
7,521
4,262
-
46,753
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
267
-
-
0
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
48,688
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
596
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1 % of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 26
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 2 BMP Scenario: Pennsylvania
Number of Acres'
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
2,395
20,753
1,471
25,871
4,413
209,320
1,811
0
Impervious
-
-
2,038
14,182
6,113
-
906
0
Ultra
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
19,377
-
-
-
-
608,303
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
11,677
11,738
320
34,190
0
-209,479
255,759
-
-
-220,562
-
-
0
0
-
269,892
Low Till
16,545
16,660
618
66,994
0
307,677
359,457
-
-
535,373
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
21,614
-
543
79,070
-
527,958
-
-
-
490,787
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
8,298
-
0
-
0
200,582
-
29,784
13,638
-
119,935
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,625
-
-
130,570
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
185,897
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
1,346
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when a
negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number of
systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1% of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 27
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 2 BMP Scenario: Virginia
Number of Acres'
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
4,587
39,755
10,395
53,695
31,186
439,581
7,160
0
Impervious
-
-
9,768
23,787
29,303
-
2,785
0
Ultra
-
-
-
655
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
4,417
-
-
-
-
689,638
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
4,585
4,125
276
13,147
0
-39,267
58,905
-
-
-8,866
-
-
0
0
-
13,427
Low Till
11,327
9,438
894
34,438
0
189,619
170,646
-
-
154,443
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
13,122
-
1,255
50,013
-
310,139
-
-
-
268,710
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
19,777
-
0
-
0
524,263
-
60,332
28,535
-
388,064
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
267
-
-
677,907
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
48,540
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
2,252
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1% of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 28
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 2 BMP Scenario: West Virginia
Number of Acres'
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
202
1,747
508
2,371
1,525
19,780
0
0
Impervious
-
-
320
1,107
960
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
194
-
-
-
-
79,091
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
202
234
0
942
0
1,304
2,107
-
-
2,238
-
-
0
0
-
-7,282
Low Till
446
596
0
2,542
0
9,688
10,009
-
-
9,494
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
2,892
-
0
10,506
-
58,958
-
-
-
42,784
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
6,637
-
0
-
0
140,496
-
20,109
11,056
-
123,147
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
71
-
-
0
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
17,793
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
0
New
Systems
237
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when a
negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number of
systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1 % of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 29
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 3 BMP Scenario: Delaware
Number of Acres'
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
172
395
862
3,472
862
14,314
0
0
Impervious
-
-
322
1,041
322
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
169
-
-
-
-
82,884
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
333
256
5
2,528
0
10,730
11,463
-
-
7,919
-
-
4,599
2,705
-
-8,225
Low Till
4,230
2,539
184
17,930
0
76,242
81,666
-
-
70,602
-
-
32,675
19,221
-
-
Hay
173
-
4
601
-
18,391
-
-
-
18,213
-
-
7,882
-
-
-
Pasture
283
-
0
-
0
3,153
-
839
70
-
2,252
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
84,301
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
873
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
178
New
Systems
3,183
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1% of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 30
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 3 BMP Scenario: District of Columbia
Number of Acres'
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
44
101
0
3,454
0
12,952
0
0
Impervious
-
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
3,715
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
43
-
-
-
-
515
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
0
-
0
Low Till
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
0
-
-
Hay
0
-
0
0
-
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
Pasture
0
-
0
-
0
0
-
0
0
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
0
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
32
New
Systems
188
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1% of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 31
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 3 BMP Scenario: Maryland
Number of Acres'
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
5,946
13,697
30,983
140,422
30,983
573,056
19,181
0
Impervious
-
-
14,271
67,002
14,271
-
7,689
0
Ultra
-
-
-
1,846
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
11,524
-
-
-
-
629,729
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
4,163
3,571
1,378
19,011
0
-281,734
40,681
-
-
-301,971
-
-
38,721
22,777
-
-48,788
Low Till
30,526
24,562
7,248
102,747
0
26,207
436,543
-
-
-147,228
-
-
203,325
119,603
-
-
Hay
5,833
-
1,274
18,278
-
143,400
-
-
-
54,284
-
-
86,064
-
-
-
Pasture
9,572
-
0
-
0
-17,280
-
27,628
2,183
-
89,961
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
106
-
-
-2,758
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
23,698
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
3,187
New
Systems
32,258
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1 % of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 32
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 3 BMP Scenario: New York
Number of Acres1
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
1,445
3,329
931
27,565
931
104,765
0
0
Impervious
-
-
1,024
13,499
1,024
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
1,427
-
-
-
-
448,885
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
1,592
1,857
0
5,107
0
39,750
42,589
-
-
12,429
-
-
9,560
10,021
-
87,226
Low Till
3,076
3,588
0
18,883
0
76,230
81,675
-
-
42,458
-
-
18,582
19,218
-
-
Hay
8,120
-
0
24,688
-
165,386
-
-
-
84,339
-
-
40,871
-
-
-
Pasture
3,623
-
0
-
0
125,068
-
37,351
3,113
-
85,190
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
467
-
-
0
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
54,098
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
1,109
New
Systems
5,960
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1 % of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 33
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 3 BMP Scenario: Pennsylvania
Number of Acres1
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
6,984
16,088
2,272
103,404
2,272
391,174
3,621
0
Impervious
-
-
3,623
56,728
3,623
-
1,811
0
Ultra
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
24,244
-
-
-
-
1,224,540
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
10,011
11,670
284
26,170
0
-411,629
217,537
-
-
-464,123
-
-
66,818
51,185
-
301,933
Low Till
32,328
37,817
1,398
142,777
0
481,804
698,013
-
-
482,723
-
-
211,831
164,238
-
-
Hay
43,233
-
894
112,749
-
845,463
-
-
-
531,400
-
-
227,743
-
-
-
Pasture
12,448
-
0
-
0
284,020
-
120,271
9,954
-
234,634
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,031
-
-
220,368
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
206,552
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
4,026
New
Systems
13,457
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when a
negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number of
systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1% of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 34
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 3 BMP Scenario: Virginia
Number of Acres'
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
13,342
30,733
17,616
214,670
17,616
824,828
14,319
0
Impervious
-
-
18,160
95,141
18,160
-
5,571
0
Ultra
-
-
-
2,619
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
13,171
-
-
-
-
1,331,151
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
3,460
3,818
299
11,004
0
-127,599
44,574
-
-
-94,658
-
-
21,847
15,936
-
-17,781
Low Till
18,842
18,783
1,633
65,910
0
202,200
311,176
-
-
80,973
-
-
107,610
78,977
-
-
Hay
25,290
-
1,951
76,856
-
515,800
-
-
-
258,073
-
-
164,381
-
-
-
Pasture
28,143
-
0
-
0
814,169
-
259,909
20,835
-
665,509
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
344
-
-
298,035
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
61,136
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
3,867
New
Systems
22,519
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when
a negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number
of systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1% of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 35
BMP
Exhibit 4: Tier 3 BMP Scenario: West Virginia
Number of Acres'
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Pervious
590
1,359
1,017
9,483
1,017
37,087
0
0
Impervious
-
-
640
4,429
640
-
0
0
Ultra
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
Mixed Open
582
-
-
-
-
152,548
-
-
Agriculture2
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
High Till
164
168
0
759
0
-4,759
456
-
-
-588
-
-
986
907
-
-9,017
Low Till
778
974
0
4,404
0
8,002
16,689
-
-
8,239
-
-
5,115
4,642
-
-
Hay
5,595
-
0
14,963
-
57,659
-
-
-
41,361
-
-
23,336
-
-
-
Pasture
9,781
-
0
-
0
138,115
-
97,255
8,051
-
187,528
-
-
-
-
-
Manure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
119
-
-
0
-
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Forest Land
19,770
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping3
Existing
Systems
372
New
Systems
2,365
Source: Based on the CBP Watershed Model. Calculated by subtracting Progress 2000 from the Tier scenario, except when a
negative result would occur for practices with large upfront costs (e.g., forest buffers).
Notes: A dash (-) indicates the BMP is not applicable; a zero indicates zero implementation.
1. Units are manure acres for Animal Waste Management Systems, wet tons per year for Excess Manure Removal, number of
systems for Onsite System Denitrification, and land acres for all other BMPs.
2. Negative values reflect the conversion of land from agricultural to other use, or from one agricultural land type to another.
3. BMP applies to 0% of existing and new systems in Tier 1; 0% of existing systems and 10% of new systems in Tier 2; and
1% of existing systems and 100% of new systems in Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 36
When these reductions in acres are multiplied by the estimated annual practice costs, the result
will be a cost savings. For instance, cover crop costs are incurred every year, and if the land is
converted out of agricultural production, the cover crop costs will no longer be incurred.
However, Exhibit 4 does not report net reductions in implementation for practices for which the
major portion of the annual cost is a sunk cost (e.g., forest buffers), because no cost savings will
occur from the land conversion or changes in BMP application.
The following sections document the derivation of unit costs for the practices contained in
Exhibit 4. The unit costs are annual implementation costs in constant 2001 dollars. The
measurement units match the BMP quantities, which are generally expressed in acres affected
each year. Therefore, most of the unit costs represent an average or typical cost per acre per year
($/ac/yr). The per-acre format is necessary to estimate annual costs for the different control
scenarios from the Chesapeake Bay Program's watershed model. Annual costs include
annualized capital expenditures (e.g., for infrastructure) and annual operating and maintenance
costs.
2.2.1 Agriculture
Cost-sharing is commonly used to encourage implementation of agricultural BMPs. These
programs provide four types of financial assistance: a cost offset for upfront BMP
implementation expenses (Exhibit 5), annual land rent (Exhibit 6), annual maintenance
payments, and one-time incentive payments.3 The Chesapeake Bay Program used the upfront
cost shares to offset initial BMP implementation costs, and assumed that the annual rental
revenue completely offsets any net revenue losses the farmer might incur because of changes in
production practices or foregone production. Thus, where the actual net revenue loss is less than
the annual rental payment, costs to the farmer are overestimated. Annual maintenance and one-
time incentive payments are subtracted from farmer costs, but other costs of maintaining BMPs
(O&M) are generally not eligible for cost-share.4
3 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs in DE, MD, PA, VA, and WV, and the draft Program for the
Susquehanna watershed in NY, provide annual maintenance payments of $5/ac/yr for a 10- to 15-year contract for
forest and grass riparian buffers, wetland restoration, retirement of highly erodible land, tree planting, and farm plans
(soil conservation and water quality plans). In Maryland, the CREP program also offers a one-time incentive
payment of $ 100/ac for forest and grass riparian buffers, wetland restoration, and retirement of highly erodible land.
In Virginia, the CREP program offers a one-time incentive payment of $50 or $75/ac (for 10- or 15-year contracts,
respectively) for forest and grass riparian buffers, wetland restoration, retirement of highly erodible land, tree
planting, and farm plans (soil conservation and water quality plans). The cost estimates reflect an average incentive
payment of $62.50/ac (i.e., the average of $50/ac and $75/ac) in Virginia.
"Farms that implement BMPs as a result of regulations imposed by the CAFO Rule or CZARA are eligible for
funding from federal and state cost sharing programs.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 37
Exhibit 5: Capital Cost Funding for Agricultural BMPs from Known
State and Federal Programs1
Practice
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retire Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Nutrient Management Plan
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fence
Stream Protection w/o Fence
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management
DE
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
$10/ac/3yrs2
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
MD
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
$6/ac/ 3yrs2
$20/ac/yr2
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
NY
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
75%
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
PA
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
80%
$15/ac/yr2
100%
80%
80%
80%
VA
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
$3/ac/yr2
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
WV
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
Sources: DDA (2002a), MDA (2000), NY Soil and Water Conservation Committee (no date), PA DEP (1998, 2001),
USDA-FSA (1997a, 1997b, 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b, 2002a, 2002b), USDA-NRCS (no date, 1998, 2001 a, 2001 b,
2001c, 2001d, 2001e, 2001f), VA OCR (2001), personal communication with Gary Smith (PA NRCS, April 2002),
Cedric Karper (PA DEP, May 2002), John Long (MD NRCS, May 2002), Mark Waggoner (MD NRCS, May 2002),
Michelle Esch (MACS, May 2002), Lester Stillson (DE NRCS, April 2002), Ken Carter (VA NRCS, May 2002), Dana
Bayless (VA Division of Conservation and Recreation, April 2002), Teresa Koon (WV Soil Conservation Agency, May
2002), Rick Heaslip (WV NRCS, April 2002), and Emily Dodd (NY State Department of Agriculture and Markets, May
2002 and November 2002).
1. Percentage rates reflect a percentage of actual installation (capital) costs.
2. Certain programs in some states pay a fixed rate rather than a percentage of costs: in DE (two programs pay $5/ac
each for a 3-year nutrient management plan); in MD (MACS pays $6/ac for a 3-year nutrient management plan, and
$20/ac/yr for cover crops); in PA (PA EQIP pays $15/ac/yr for cover crops); and in VA (VACS pays $3/ac/yr for
nutrient management plans).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 38
Exhibit 6: Annual Funding from Identified Programs for Land Rental Associated with
Agricultural BMPs, as a Percent of USDA Dryland Rental Rate for County1
Practice
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration6
Retire Erodible Land
Tree Planting
DE
250%3
170%5
125%5
100%
230%3
MD
190%
170%
125%
150%
100%
NY2
145%
145%
145%
145%
145%
PA
220%
220%
175%
175%
100%
VA
240%4
240%4
195%4
220%4
100%
wv2
120%
120%
75%
100%
100%
Sources: USDA-NRCS (no date); USDA-FSA (2002b, 2002c, 2000a, 2000b, 1999a, 1999b, 1997b); personal
communication with Emily Dodd (NY State Department of Agriculture and Markets, November 2002).
1. Reflects rental payments from the USDA CRP (or WRP, for wetland restoration) and state CREP programs. Rental
payments are made only for BMPs that result in taking land out of agricultural production. Rates shown do not
include annual maintenance or one-time incentive payments. Rental payments are also made for certain practices
associated with farm plans (see Section 2.2.1.6).
2. NY CREP program for the Bay watershed is pending USDA approval; percentages shown are from NY state draft
program documents.
3. The annual rental payment cannot exceed $150 per acre.
4. The annual rental payment cannot exceed $100 per acre.
5. The annual rental payment cannot exceed $110 per acre.
6. USDA WRP rental payment can be 0%, 75% or 100% of dryland rental rate, depending on length of contract; the
analysis uses 75%, which corresponds to a 30-year contract.
The funding percentages listed in Exhibits 5 and 6 reflect the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) in all states, and
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) cost shares for DE, MD, PA, VA, and WV.5
In addition, the exhibits include cost sharing from the Maryland Agricultural Water Quality
Cost-Share Program (MACS) and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) in Maryland; the
Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program (VACS) in Virginia; the Delaware Department
of Agriculture Nutrient Management Cost Share Program in Delaware; the NY Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Abatement and Control Program (ANPSACP); the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) Chesapeake Bay Financial Assistance Funding Program and
Streambank Fencing Program in Pennsylvania; and the West Virginia Potomac Headwaters
Water Quality Project (implemented under Public Law 534) in West Virginia.
The funding levels shown indicate the potential cost share if all programs are fully funded at
current rates. In most cases, farmers are eligible for funding from more than one program (e.g.,
installation costs for riparian forest buffers in Maryland can be cost-shared under EQIP at 75%,
CRP/CREP at 87.5%, MACS at 87.5%, and WHIP at 75%). Although most programs require
5 New York is developing a CREP program for portions of the state that will include the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Information cited here is based on draft information provided by Emily Dodd, NY State Soil and Water
Conservation Committee, November 2002, and information in USDA-FSA (2002c). Because the agreement has not
been finalized, the information used in the analysis is subject to change.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 39
landowners to contribute a portion of installation costs, certain programs, such as the
Pennsylvania DEP Stream Bank Fencing Program, provide 100% funding for installation of
selected BMPs.
Exhibit 5 does not reflect changes to the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), CRP, or EQIP in
the 2002 Farm Bill, including an increase in the possible EQIP cost-share percentage for limited-
resource farmers to 90% (from 75%) for eligible BMPs. Although relatively few small farmers
meet the definition of a limited-resource farmer, they are likely to be the ones least able to pay
additional BMP costs. Also, Virginia, Maryland, and possibly other states have additional
rewards for farmers implementing BMPs in the form of tax credits. The estimates below do not
incorporate tax credits, which means that some estimates will overstate farmer costs.
The annual cost of agricultural BMPs reflects amortized capital costs plus annual O&M
payments. Capital costs are commonly paid upfront when a BMP is implemented (i.e., the
farmer does not take out a loan). However, to estimate an annual cost for evaluating financial
impacts, the Chesapeake Bay Program amortized capital costs at 5% (instead of assuming no
interest cost) to represent an opportunity cost (since farmers typically implement BMPs with
profits from a good year, these funds cannot then be saved for a future year). Capital costs are
amortized over the typical contract period provided by the cost share programs for each BMP.
However, if contract period does not apply (e.g., BMPs not cost shared through the CRP or
CREP programs), the annualization period is the estimated useful life of the practice.
Cost estimates for agricultural BMPs are reported in the original dollar year reported in the
source studies (where known), as well as in constant 2001 dollars [updated using the USD A
Economic Research Service (ERS) index of prices paid by farmers (USDA-ERS, 2001)];
averages reflect 2001 dollars.
2.2.1.1 Forest Buffers
In the Watershed Model, forest buffers are 100-foot-wide strips of forest along riparian corridors
in both agricultural and urban land. Implementation costs consist of planting tree seedlings in
the first year and relatively intensive maintenance in the years immediately following
implementation (replacement planting, herbicides or mowing to reduce competition, and plastic
tubes to shelter seedlings from herbivory). Costs can also include reductions in net revenue and
out-of-pocket expenses to implement the BMP. The variables that drive cost estimates for forest
buffers are the costs of seedlings and shelters, and the amount of intensive maintenance in the
first years.
The amount of intensive maintenance required on forest buffers is directly related to the degree
of establishment desired and, therefore, the reduction efficiency of the practice. However,
information on the level of maintenance required for various reduction efficiencies is not
available. Therefore, the estimates below reflect the assumption that forest buffers are mowed in
the early years to reduce competition, and shelters to reduce herbivory are used on 50% of trees.
Four sources (Pal one and Todd, 1998, USD A, 1999, Hairston-Strang, 2002, and MDA, 2002b)
contain comprehensive estimates of the cost of installation and maintenance, and two additional
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 40
sources provide less complete information (MD DNR et al., 1996, and VA SNR, 2000). The
final cost estimate is based on the first four sources.6
Exhibit 7 shows cost estimates for individual components of forest buffer installation and
maintenance (costs shown reflect constant 2001 dollars, adjusted from the original sources where
necessary), and the average cost for each component across sources, where applicable. The costs
for the latter two sources (Hairston-Strang, 2002 and MDA, 2002b) are somewhat lower than the
costs for the first two sources. One reason for the difference may be that the costs shown for the
other two sources are based on an assumption that tree shelters are used on 50% of the trees
planted, whereas the costs from the latter two sources are based on surveys of actual
implementation costs in Maryland. The average capital cost for installation among the four
sources is $1,284 per acre.
Exhibit 7: Cost Estimates ($/acre) for Riparian Forest Buffers1
Component
Site preparation
Planting and replacement planting
Tree shelters2
Initial grass buffer for immediate
soil protection
Mowing ($/time)
Herbicide ($/time)
Palone & Todd
(1998)
13
616
1,511
nd
13
60
USDA
(1999)
nd
613
528
42
8
nd
Hairston-Strang
(2002)3
1,000
30
100
MDA
(2002b)4
812
nd
nd
Average
Cost
1,284
17
80
nd = No data. Costs are one-time installation costs unless otherwise noted.
1. All costs shown are in constant 2001 dollars, updated from original study estimates using the USDA/ERS index for
prices paid by farmers (USDA-ERS, 2001), and reflect per-acre costs.
2. Costs shown for tree shelters reflect installation of shelters on 50% of trees planted.
3. Costs shown are an average of a representative sample of actual costs for installing forest buffers in different
regions in Maryland.
4. Costs shown are average practice costs in Maryland for 2001-2002 according to the Maryland Agricultural Water
Quality Cost-Share (MACS) program.
Hairston-Strang (2002) indicates that a representative maintenance schedule for the first few
years of establishment would be to mow three times per year for three years, and to spray
herbicides for weed control once. Based on this, the Chesapeake Bay Program calculated
maintenance costs as equal to nine times the average mowing cost ($153 per acre total) plus the
average cost for spraying herbicides ($80 per acre total), or $233 per acre. The overall cost for
installation and maintenance, therefore, is $1,517 per acre.
6 Of the less documented sources, MD DNR et al. (1996) indicates a capital cost of $480/ac/yr ($534 in 2001
dollars) for planting and establishment, which is $60/ac/yr annualized at 5% over 12 years. VA SNR (2000)
indicates a cost of $230/ac/yr for the practice ($232 in 2001 dollars), but does not specify service life, interest rate,
or what cost components are included.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 41
The potential service life for a forest buffer may be on the order of 75 years (MD DNR et al.,
1996). However, as stated above, to estimate financial impacts, capital costs are annualized over
contract periods. (As a result, impacts in future years will be lower by the amount of the capital
cost if the service life of the practice exceeds the contract period). CREP offers 10- and 15-year
contracts for forest buffers, and most landowners choose 15-year contracts. The historical
practices of the Conservation Reserve Program suggest that farmers will likely be able to extend
contracts for 10 additional years. Therefore, capital costs are annualized over 25 years.
Annualizing the total installation and early maintenance costs of $1,517 at 5% over 25 years
gives an annualized capital cost of $108 per acre, of which 85% is installation cost. Cost-sharing
is available for the installation costs at rates ranging from 75% to 100%. In addition, CREP
programs offer annual maintenance payments of $5/ac/yr. One-time incentive payments are also
available in Maryland and Virginia, and Maryland also offers an additional sign-up bonus. Thus,
the net farmer costs for forest buffers range from -$8/ac/yr (i.e., a net revenue gain) to $34/ac/yr.
In addition to the implementation cost, there is an opportunity cost associated with taking land
out of production. In some cases, land bordering streams or rivers is more productive than the
farm or field average because of higher soil fertility associated with the flood plain, but in many
cases riparian borders are considered marginal land because of greater erosion, steep slopes, poor
drainage, periodic flooding, and low soil fertility (Pal one and Todd, 1998; USD A, 1999). As
stated above, the land rental payment from CREP likely offsets any net revenue losses from
changes in land use resulting from this practice.
2.2.1.2 Grass Buffers
In the Watershed Model, grass buffers are 100-foot-wide strips of grass along riparian corridors.
Establishment costs include purchase of seed, fertilizer and lime, initial planting, and mowing to
maintain the practice and to prevent grasses from going to seed, in addition to opportunity costs
from taking land out of production. Maintenance costs include mowing. An important
consideration in calculating a cost for grass buffers is whether warm-season grasses (WSG) or
cool-season grasses (CSG) are used. WSG seed is more expensive, but the grasses grow better
in drought and provide better wildlife habitat. CSG seed is cheaper, sod establishment is faster,
and sediment load reduction is generally greater because the plants are more active in spring and
fall (Nakao et al., 1999). Data on the relative use of cool- and warm-season grasses are not
available, so costs are based on equal use of cool- and warm-season grasses.
Several sources provide cost estimates for grass buffers. The Chesapeake Bay Program used
estimates from Nakao et al. (1999) and Yeh and Sohngen (1999) because they itemize costs for
seed, fertilizer and lime, and planting costs, and because they distinguish the costs of warm
season and cool season grasses.7 Exhibit 8 shows the resulting cost estimates for each
component of the BMP.
7 Data from the MACS program, indicating a maximum cost-share amount of $200/acre for CSG buffers and
$400/acre for WSG buffers, are not included in the estimates because these represent maximum payment amounts
rather than practice costs. The higher maximum payments likely reflect the potential for site preparation costs to be
much greater than average.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 42
Exhibit 8: Grass Buffer BMP Costs (S/acre)1
Component
Seed
Fertilizer and lime
Labor and equipment5
Total cost
Estimated Cost (CSG)2
$21
$38
$23
$82
Estimated Cost (WSG)3
$1204
$38
$23
$181
CSG = Cool-season grass
WSG = Warm-season grass
1. All costs shown are in 2001 dollars, updated from current dollars using the USDA/ERS index for prices paid by
farmers (USDA-ERS, 2001), and reflect costs for installation.
2. From Nakaoetal. (1999).
3. From Sohngen and Yeh (1999).
4. Based on average seed costs for switchgrass ($40/ac), big bluestem ($150/ac), and indiangrass ($160/ac).
5. Based on costs for no-till planting.
The average cost for the installation of grass buffers, based on 50% implementation of CSG and
50% implementation of WSG buffers, is $132/acre. Annualized at 5% over 10 years (the
minimum term of a CRP/CREP contract), installation costs are $17/ac/yr.
Possible O&M costs for grass buffers consist of mowing. Four sources for mowing costs are
reflected in the estimate for this practice: USD A, 1999 ($8/ac/time in 2001 dollars), Pal one and
Todd, 1998 ($13/ac/time in 2001 dollars), Hairston-Strang, 2002 ($30/ac/time), and Nakao et al.,
1999 ($25/ac/time in 2001 dollars). The average cost for mowing from these sources is
$19/ac/time. If mowing is necessary to maintain buffer strips, then it would need to happen two
to three times per year (Hairston-Strang, 2002; Nakao et al., 1999). In locations where
topography allows hay harvesting, revenue from haying could offset mowing costs. For
instance, Nakao et al. (1999) found that net revenues from haying filter strips in Ohio (i.e.,
revenue from hay less costs of cutting and baling) averaged $91 per acre.+
Some cost-share programs do not permit grasses to be harvested for hay. However, this may
refer to the regular harvest of grasses down to stubble, which would reduce the capacity of a
grass buffer to trap nutrients and sediment as it is designed to do. If grasses must be mowed,
then the clippings should be removed from the buffer so that they do not enter water bodies and
contribute nutrients. Even if the grass is mowed too high to be sold for hay, it could be used on
the farm as bedding, feed, mulch or fertilizer. In addition, some native warm-season grasses may
not need to be mowed. A mowing cost is not currently included in the cost estimate. Although
costs for some areas may be higher if mowing is necessary and the cost is not offset by using the
clippings, costs for some areas may be lower than the $17/ac/yr estimate because it is based on
average seed costs for three different warm-season grasses; if switchgrass is used (by far the
cheapest of the three), actual costs could be substantially lower. The installation cost accounts
for 100% of the total annual cost of $17/ac/yr and, therefore, installation cost-sharing applies to
100% of the total cost.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 43
The annual rental payment for this BMP ranges from 120% to 240% of the dryland rental rate
across states. As stated above, this likely offsets any net revenue losses from changes in land use
and, therefore, the cost of the BMP is out-of-pocket expenses less cost-share funding for
installation of the buffer. Cost-sharing ranges from 75% to 100% of implementation costs (see
Exhibit 5), and CREP programs also provide annual maintenance payments of $5/ac/yr. One-
time incentive payments are also available in Maryland and Virginia. Thus, net unit costs range
from -$13/ac/yr (i.e., a net cost savings) to -$l/ac/yr.
2.2.1.3 Wetland Restoration
Wetland restoration reverses wetland reclamation, or the draining of wetlands so they can be
planted. Significant earth moving may be required (e.g. to plug or fill drainage ditches that were
dug in the process of reclamation). O&M costs include inspecting embankments and structures
for damage or erosion, and management of unwanted vegetation (USDA-NRCS, 1998).
Three sources contain cost estimates for this practice. The USDA Farm Service Agency's
Practice Summaries for Active CREP Contracts for states with CREP programs (USDA-FSA,
2002a) reports wetland restoration cost-shares for Delaware (2001-2002), Maryland (1998-
2002), Pennsylvania (2001-2002), and Virginia (2001-2002). The average cost-share amount per
acre for these states is $915 (in 2001 dollars), and represents cost-share for installation but not
O&M costs. Assuming that average cost-share is 75% and O&M costs are 3% of total initial
capital costs (USDA-SCS, 1980 in NCSU, 1982 reports O&M for permanent vegetative cover on
critical areas, a comparable BMP, is 3% of initial capital costs), the initial capital costs are
$l,221/acre and annual O&M costs are $37/acre. Under the Wetlands Reserve Program,
contract terms range from 30 years to indefinite. Annualizing the capital cost at 5% over 30
years and adding O&M costs results in an annual cost of $116/ac/yr. Sixty-eight percent of this
cost is annualized capital (installation) cost and therefore eligible for cost-share; the remainder is
O&M, which is not eligible for cost-share.
Of the other two sources identified, Wetland Science Institute (2000) provides costs for site
preparation and materials and planting costs for putting in oak seedlings or seeds, but does not
include costs for putting in other species or O&M costs. Average costs for site preparation and
materials and planting are $123 per acre ($124 in 2001 dollars), which is very close to the
estimates based on actual wetland restoration projects cost-shared by CREP as reported above.
The second source (EPA, 1997a) reports average costs for constructed wetlands for controlling
urban runoff at between $749 and $20,000 per acre (in current dollars); however, as this source
does not elaborate as to what costs are included, how costs are calculated, or how costs in
agricultural areas might differ from costs in urban areas, these estimates are not used.
Funding for wetland restoration ranges from 75% to 100% of installation costs (see Exhibit 5),
and CREP programs also provide annual maintenance payments of $5/ac/yr. One-time incentive
payments are also available in Maryland and Virginia. Thus, net farmer costs range from $32 to
$52/ac/yr. Annual rental rates range from 75% to 195% of the USDA dryland rental rate within
a county. As stated above, this annual revenue likely offsets any net revenue losses attributable
to changes in land use.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 44
2.2.1.4 Retirement of Highly Erodible Land (HEL)
In the Watershed Model, this practice consists of converting agricultural land to the mixed open
land use category. Although either grass or trees may be used as a cover, in the Watershed
Model this practice is modeled as a conversion to mixed open land use, and the load from mixed
open land use is closer to the load from hayland than the load from forest. Thus, the cost
estimates used reflect the costs of establishing grass cover. Additional costs accrue as a result of
foregone net revenues from crop plantings.
Several sources contain cost estimates ranging from $9/ac/yr to $157/ac/yr (in 2001 dollars) for
permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (VA SNR, 2000; MD DNR, 1996; VA DEQ, 1993;
EPA, 1997a; and Camacho, 1992). The estimates from these sources reflect different
assumptions about what type of cover is used, service life, O&M costs, and net revenue impacts,
among others. Documentation on most of the sources is quite sparse, so there is little basis for
comparison.
This practice could entail planting of grass or forest cover, and is therefore similar to the riparian
grass and forest buffer BMPs. To reflect the way this practice is modeled in the Watershed
Model, the establishment cost reflects the cost of grass buffers, $17/ac/yr. The implementation
cost share, which ranges from 75% to 100% across states, annual maintenance payments of
$5/ac/yr from CREP programs, and one-time incentive payments available in Maryland and
Virginia, reduce net implementation costs to - $13/ac/yr to - $l/ac/yr. Furthermore, as stated
above, annual revenues per acre that equal 100% to 220% of the USD A dryland rental rate
across states (Exhibit 6) likely offset any revenue loss associated with land retirement.
2.2.1.5 Tree Planting
In the Watershed Model, the tree planting BMP occurs in any area except along a river or
stream, and is modeled as a land use conversion from agricultural or urban land to forest.
Because this BMP is very similar to forest buffers, the unit cost of $108/ac/yr for forest buffers
applies. As with forest buffers, the cost includes a combination of mowing and herbicide sprays
to reduce competition in the initial years.
The cost-share for implementation ranges from 75% to 87.5% across states, and CREP programs
offer annual maintenance payments of $5/ac/yr. One-time incentive payments are also available
in Virginia. Thus, net farmer costs range from $23 to $34/ac/yr. The federal CRP program and
state CREP programs offer annual payments ranging from 100% to 230% of the USD A dryland
rental rate (Exhibit 6) to offset net income losses from land planted to trees, and this rental
payment likely offsets any net revenue losses.
2.2.1.6 Farm Plans/Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plans
In the Watershed Model, farm plans represent comprehensive management plans according to
which structural or management practices are implemented to bring total soil loss to an
acceptable level (the specific level depends on local conditions). Specific practices that may be
implemented include contour farming, strip cropping, terrace systems, diversions, and grassed
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 45
waterways. Farm plans also frequently include conservation tillage, nutrient management plans,
cover crops, and other practices that are included as separate BMPs in the Watershed Model.
Several sources provide cost estimates for individual practices that may be implemented in
accordance with a farm plan. However, estimating a single per-acre cost is more difficult than
for other BMPs because only some of these practices may be used depending on site-specific
conditions. The costs in the cost analysis are based on estimates from Camacho (1992), who
obtained 14 representative farm plans from state contacts in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
Virginia. These plans include different application rates for the individual practices, and
represent plans for different regions in the watershed. Camacho estimated the median cost per
acre for the development of plans as well as the practices implemented under the plans, but the
costs in his report include some costs from practices included separately in the Watershed Model
(such as cover crops and conservation tillage).
To avoid double-counting costs for BMPs that are included separately in the Watershed Model,
the Chesapeake Bay Program calculated an average cost of farm plans using Camacho's data,
subtracting the costs of these "duplicated" BMPs. In addition, it differentiated costs for
development and implementation of farm plans on hay and pasture land from the costs for plans
on cropland, because some practices associated with farm plans would be applied only to one
type of land and not the other. For example, strip-cropping on cropland involves alternating
strips of row or grain crops with strips of closer growing crops; the closer growing strips reduce
erosion by slowing runoff and capturing soil particles. This practice would not be used in hay
production or pasture land because the sod remains intact. After eliminating the "duplicated"
BMPs from the representative farm plans in Camacho (1992), the practices for cropland include
strip-cropping, contour strip-cropping, contour farming, terraces, diversions, grassed waterways,
and crop rotation. For hay and pasture land, the applicable practices are diversions, grassed
waterways, terraces, and contour planting.
Costs for the practices implemented according to farm plans may differ depending on
topography, since more intensive management may be needed to control soil erosion on sloping
or mountainous land than on coastal plain. However, the estimates based on Camacho (1992) for
practices associated with farm plans (excluding the costs of the duplicate BMPs) are not
significantly different between the two topographic regions ($19/ac/yr on coastal land versus
$20/ac/yr in sloping regions, in 2001 dollars). The average cost of the practices associated with
farm plans is $19/ac/yr for plans on crop land, and $15/ac/yr on hay and pasture land (in 2001
dollars). These estimates include planning and technical assistance (for the practices associated
with the farm plan, although not for the farm plan itself), installation costs, and annual O&M,
with installation costs annualized at 10% over the life of the practice (ranging from 5 to 10 years
for the individual practices). The Chesapeake Bay Program re-annualized these costs at a 5%
rate over 10 years by backing out the original capital cost (assuming O&M costs equal 5% of the
initial capital cost that reflects annualizing at 10% over 10 years). The adjusted estimates are
$16/ac/yr for farm plans on cropland and $13/ac/yr on hay and pasture.
These costs do not include the cost of the plan itself. Based on costs for designing nutrient
management plans from USDA (1999), the estimated cost for a farm plan is $5 per acre, and the
estimated useful life is 10 years (MD DNR et al., 1996). Adding in the resulting annual cost of
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 46
$0.50 per acre results in an estimated cost of the plan and the practices associated with it of
$17/ac/yr on cropland and $13/ac/yr on hay and pasture (the costs for hay and pasture do not
appear to change because of rounding). Seventy percent of the costs for the BMP on cropland,
and 69% for hay and pasture land, are annualized capital and therefore eligible for cost-share.
The annualized capital portion of the cost does not include the cost of the plan itself, since cost-
sharing programs generally do not pay for the plan itself but only for the practices associated
with it.
Funding for installation of practices associated with farm plans ranges from 75% to 100% over
the states, which applies to the 70% of costs that are annualized capital (69% for farm plans on
hay and pasture land). Annual maintenance payments of $5/ac/yr are available from CREP
programs for certain practices (such as grassed waterways) associated with farm plans. One-
time incentive payments for the installation of certain practices are also available in Virginia.
However, the Chesapeake Bay Program did not incorporate maintenance or incentive payments
because data are insufficient to identify the proportion of land on which the eligible practices
would be implemented. Thus, net farmer costs range from $5 to $8/ac/yr for farm plans on crop
land and from $4 to $6/ac/yr for farm plans on hay and pasture. Annual rental payments from
CRP and CREP equal to 100%-200% of USD A dryland rental rates by county likely offset any
net revenue losses resulting from land taken out of production or changes in production activity.
However, due to a lack of data on how much land is taken out of production as a result of the
practices associated with farm plans, cost-share totals do not include these rental payments.
2.2.1.7 Cover Crops
Cover crops are grasses and legumes planted on cropland in the fall after the main crop is
harvested, and killed in the spring before the main crop is planted. In addition to building
organic matter and improving nutrient uptake, they reduce soil erosion in late fall, winter, and
early spring.
The major costs are purchasing cover crop seed and machinery and labor for planting. Although
some estimates of costs include the costs of tillage or herbicide in the spring to kill the cover
crop, these costs are not included because they are necessary regardless of whether a cover crop
is used (except when spring weather conditions or special management requirements necessitate
a separate round of tillage or herbicide for the cover crop). Benefits come from sediment erosion
protection and holding nutrients not utilized during the growing season.
Several sources (Mannering et al., 1985; Roberts et al., 1998; VA SNR, 2000; MD DNR et al.,
1996; Camacho, 1992; Lichtenberg et al., 1994) report estimates of cover crop costs ranging
from $10/ac/yr to $37/ac/yr in current dollars ($12/ac/yr to $49/ac/yr in 2001 dollars). Because
of variations in these estimates and sometimes incomplete documentation regarding what costs
are included, costs are based on another source (personal communication with Ken Staver, Wye
Research and Education Center, Queenstown, MD, May 2002). For a rye cover in a no-till
system, Staver estimates seed costs at $12/ac and planting costs at $15/ac.
The resulting cost estimate of $27/ac/yr does not reflect possibly greater costs due to the
possibility of an additional herbicide application in the spring, nor does it reflect increased risk
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 47
(for instance, in a wet spring the need to turn in the cover crop may delay spring planting).
However, it also does not reflect potential cost offsets due to improved yields. Yield increases
have the potential to make the cover crop pay for itself or generate net revenue. For example,
one group of researchers observed an average net revenue increase of $16/ac/yr in no-till corn
using vetch, clover, wheat, and pea cover crops because the cover crops increased nutrient
uptake and the marginal productivity of nitrogen (Lichtenberg et al., 1994).
Cost-sharing for cover crops in some programs is provided at a fixed dollar rate; other programs
pay a percentage of incurred costs. Expressed as a percentage of the estimated cost of $27/ac/yr,
rates range from 56% to 87.5%. Thus, the net farmer cost ranges from $3 to $12/ac/yr.
2.2.1.8a Streambank Protection with Fencing
Streambank protection consists of fencing to keep animals out of streams, alternative water and
shade sources in pastures, and practices at stream crossings to reduce soil erosion from hooves
and reduce the amount of time animals spend in the water (e.g., culverts or concrete fords at
stream crossings). The Watershed Model reports linear fence miles for stream protection as well
as total acreage protected. Ideally, the cost analysis would incorporate the linear fencing data to
calculate the cost of fencing and use protected acreage data to estimate the costs of other
practices associated with Streambank protection. Fence miles is ideal for fence costs, but
uninformative for alternative water source costs.
Linear fence cost estimates from U.S. EPA (1997a) range from $2,330 to $2,677 per mile (or
$2,816 to $3,235 in 2001 dollars, which is $365 to $420 per mile when annualized at 5% over 10
years). Most of these are for permanent fencing (presumably barbed wire) in the West and
Midwest; one source notes that less expensive electric fencing may be sufficient for smaller,
more intensively managed pastures in the East, but no estimates of these costs are available. The
average of the costs identified ($395/mile) may thus overestimate costs if farmers use less
expensive fencing.
Two sources provide cost estimates for the suite of practices associated with the Streambank
protection with fencing BMP. USDA-ASCS (1990, cited in EPA, 1997a) reports average costs
ranging from $14/ac/yr in the Pacific region ($18/ac/yr in 2001 dollars) to $76/ac/yr in the
Southeast region ($97/ac/yr in 2001 dollars) for stream protection practices that may include,
depending on the site, filter strips along streams, channel vegetation, fencing, pipelines,
Streambank and shoreline protection, field borders, tree planting, troughs or tanks for water in
pastures, and stock trails or walkways at stream crossings.8 MD DNR et al. (1996) reports a cost
of $100/ac/yr ($111/ac/yr in 2001 dollars) for a suite of practices called "streambank protection
with fencing," based on records from the Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost-Share
(MACS) Program. Averaging this estimate with the estimate for the Southeast region from
8 Because this data source includes the costs of filter strips on a proportion of acres, but in this analysis filter
strip costs are accounted for separately, using the costs from this source may result in double-counting some costs
for acres in the Watershed Model to which both the forest buffer BMP and the streambank protection BMP are
applied.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 48
USDA-ASCS (1990) results in a cost of $104/ac/yr (2001 dollars) for streambank protection
with fencing.
The cost-share for streambank with fencing ranges from 75% to 100%. Of the two sources for
costs of streambank protection with fencing, neither breaks out capital from O&M costs.
Assuming that capital costs are annualized at 5% over 10 years and O&M costs are 5% of the
initial capital costs, capital costs represent 72% of the total annual cost. Thus, the cost-share
rates apply to 72% of the annual cost estimate. The net farmer cost of streambank protection
with fencing ranges from $29 to $48/ac/yr with fencing.
2.2.1.8b Streambank Protection without Fencing
Only one source identifies costs for streambank protection without fencing. MD DNR et al.
(1996) reports costs of $67/ac/yr ($75 in 2001 dollars) based on records from the MACS
program. Thus, the estimated cost for streambank protection without fencing is $75/ac/yr.
The cost-share for streambank without fencing ranges from 75% to 87.5%. The sources for costs
of streambank protection do not break out capital from O&M costs. Assuming that capital costs
are annualized at 5% over 10 years and O&M costs are 5% of the initial capital costs, capital
costs represent 72% of the total annual cost. Thus, the cost-share rates apply to 72% of the
annual cost estimate. For streambank protection without fencing, net farmer costs range from
$28/ac/yrto$35/ac/yr.
2.2.1.9 Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
In the Watershed Model, this BMP consists of reducing fertilizer application to 130% of a crop's
need. Under some plans, fertilizer may also be applied more frequently, in lower amounts that
reflect more immediate soil deficiencies and crop needs. Costs result from equipment and labor
for soil testing and hiring of a consultant to design the plan, plus the costs of any additional
passes over the field to fertilize.
A number of sources provide cost estimates, including Camacho (1992), MD DNR et al. (1996),
VA SNR (2000), USDA (1999), and U.S. EPA (2001a). Several sources suggest that
landowners can save money by implementing nutrient management plans. Assuming a 3-year
useful life for a plan once it is developed, and including the costs of soil testing, implementation,
and, in some cases, cost savings and yield increases, net cost estimates range from -$30/ac/yr
(i.e., a net cost savings) to $14/ac/yr in current dollars. A simple average is -$1.02/ac/yr, which
implies a net cost savings.
However, nutrient management plans that are based on reducing phosphorus applications may
require the use of custom fertilizers rather than manure, which would mean that farmers are less
likely to be able to use manure generated on the farm (which is where cost savings from nutrient
management plans traditionally accrue) (J. Rhoderick, MD Department of Agriculture, personal
communication, November, 2002). Four sources provide sufficient cost breakdowns to calculate
costs of plan development and implementation alone (i.e., without cost savings). Using a 3-year
useful life for the plan, estimates based on these sources (Camacho, 1992; MD DNR et al., 1996;
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 49
USD A, 1999; U.S. EPA, 200 la) range from $3/ac/yr to $14/ac/yr in 2001 dollars, with an
average of $7/ac/yr in 2001 dollars. Thus, the estimated cost is $7/ac/yr.
Most state and some federal programs provide cost-share funding for plan development and
implementation. Many programs pay a fixed dollar amount per acre and others pay a percentage
of costs. On a percentage basis (i.e., converting annual or annualized fixed amounts to a
percentage of the estimated annual cost where necessary), the cost-share rate for this practice
ranges from 28.6% to 87.5%. Thus, the estimate of the net farmer cost ranges from $0.87 to
$5.00/ac/yr.
2.2.1.10 Grazing Land Protection
In the Watershed Model, grazing land protection refers to rotational grazing. Costs of the
practice consist of permanent fencing around pastures and temporary or semi-permanent fencing
around paddocks, labor to move water sources and animals between paddocks, and possibly
increased administrative/monitoring costs. Some other operational costs, such as the cost of
spreading manure over pasture land, may decline as a result of this practice.
Three sources provide costs for grazing land protection. Based on cost-share records from the
Bay watershed, Camacho (1992) reports median total capital costs, including planning and
technical assistance, of $119 per acre ($139 in 2001 dollars) and annual O&M costs of $5 per
acre ($6 in 2001 dollars) for a suite of practices that includes grazing land protection, intensive
rotational grazing systems, spring development, and trough/tank installation. Annualizing the
capital cost at 5% over 10 years and adding O&M results in annual costs of $24/ac/yr. USDA-
ASCS (1990 and 1991, cited in EPA, 1997a) reports costs of $10/ac/yr in the Southeast region
($13/ac/yr in 2001 dollars), and $35/ac/yr in the Northeast ($45/ac/yr in 2001 dollars), for a suite
of practices including critical area planting, ponds, fencing, pipeline, spring development, stock
trails and walkways, troughs/tanks, water-harvesting catchments, and wells. Shulyer (1995)
reports a total cost of $2.50/ac/yr ($3 in 2001 dollars) for a "grazing land protection" BMP that
includes grazing land protection systems, spring development, and stream protection; however,
this estimate it is substantially lower than estimates reported from other sources and
documentation is lacking. Therefore, the average cost reflects both the Northeast and Southeast
regions in USDA-ASCS (1990 and 1991, cited in EPA, 1997a) and the $24/ac/yr estimate based
on Camacho (1992), or $27/ac/yr. Assuming a 10-year useful life for capital components and
O&M representing 5% of the initial capital cost, 72% of this cost is annualized capital and
therefore eligible for cost-share.
State and federal cost sharing for this practice ranges from 75% to 87.5% of installation costs.
Thus, the net farmer cost ranges from $10 to $12/ac/yr. However, because the data sources used
to derive costs for grazing land protection and the sources used to derive costs for streambank
protection may include some overlapping practices, the use of these estimates may result in
double-counting some costs on acres in the Watershed Model to which both BMPs are applied.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 50
2.2.1.11 Animal Waste Management Systems
In the Watershed Model, the animal waste management system BMP refers to the construction
and maintenance of facilities to handle, store, and utilize wastes generated from animal
confinement operations (Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee, 1998). Waste
management facilities may take on many forms depending on the animal species and handling
method. They may include lagoons, ponds, and concrete tanks for treatment and/or storage of
liquid wastes, storage sheds and pits for treatment and/or storage of solid wastes, and other
structures such as concrete berms to divert waste to storage structures. The tier scenarios in the
Watershed Model report animal waste management system BMP application in manure acres;
one manure acre represents 145 animal units (AU), and one animal unit represents a certain
number animals, depending on the species: for instance, one AU represents 0.71 dairy cows, 1
beef cow, 5 hogs, 250 layers, 500 broilers, or 100 turkeys (Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling
Subcommittee, 1998).
Some of the costs for this BMP will be incurred under EPA's revised Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operation (CAFO) regulations. Under these regulations, CAFOs will incur costs to
implement or improve animal waste management systems, develop and implement nutrient
management plans, and transfer excess manure offsite. The extent to which the Watershed
Model tiers overlap costs of the CAFO Rule is unknown at this time. For instance, the Tier 1
requirements for animal waste systems indicate continuing the level of implementation based on
the average rate of 1997-2000 (Exhibit 3); this level is most likely lower than would be required
under the final CAFO regulations. [Note that the cost of technology-based regulations such as
the CAFO rule would not be considered in analysis of substantial and widespread impact (U.S.
EPA, 1995).]
Several sources contain estimates of the costs of animal waste management systems:
• MD DNR et al. (1996) reports average capital costs of $17,570 for a poultry waste
system and $63,533 for other livestock system, but did not report the number of
animals served by those systems and therefore the estimate cannot be converted to an
average cost per manure acre
• Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (1993) reports a cost of $27,000 but
does not indicate any units (e.g., whether this represents annual or one-time costs, or
how many animals would be addressed)
• Tippett and Dodd (1995) reports capital costs for anaerobic lagoons of $5.60 per
animal for poultry and $79 per swine and O&M costs equal to 10% of initial capital
costs; however, these estimates are based on an analysis using records of state and
federal cost-share funding from 1985 to 1994, although they did not convert to
constant dollars before averaging
• Shulyer (1995) reports annual costs of $8,187 per manure acre, but did not document
what assumptions were used to generate the annual cost (e.g., useful life, interest
rate, animal species considered)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 51
• U.S. EPA (200 la) estimated costs for model farms of varying sizes and using a range
of technologies for several animal types (e.g., beef, dairy, swine, poultry); cost
breakdowns for swine and poultry do not provide sufficient resolution to permit
calculation of an average cost per animal unit or manure acre, but indicate an
average cost per manure acre for beef ($2,114 in 2001 dollars) and dairy ($14,243 in
2001 dollars), based on annualizing capital costs over 10 years at 5%
• Camacho (1992) reports median costs per ton of wet manure treated in an animal
waste management system, based on records of state and federal cost-share funding
for farms in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and also based on costs from a manual
prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources; median
costs per wet ton are $12.73 for capital ($14.83 in 2001 dollars), $2.16 for one-time
planning and technical assistance ($2.52 in 2001 dollars), and $1.28 for O&M ($1.49
in 2001 dollars)
• Maryland Department of Agriculture (2002a) reports the average cost of installing a
comprehensive animal waste management system for different size systems; the cost
for systems that serve 100 or more animal units is $315 per animal unit (in the
Watershed Model, nutrient reduction efficiencies are based on systems that service
145 animal units)
However, only the last two sources listed, Camacho (1992) and Maryland Department of
Agriculture (2002a), provide sufficient information to calculate an annual cost per manure acre
in constant dollars using a known interest rate, and incorporate costs for poultry waste systems.
To utilize the data from Camacho (1992), the Chesapeake Bay Program calculated the sum of
capital and planning/technical assistance costs (annualized at 5% over 10 years) plus O&M costs
to produce an estimate of $3.27 per wet ton of manure treated. Combining this estimate with
data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture on animals in the watershed counties, and standard
assumptions about manure excreted for different animal species (shown in Exhibit 9), produces
an average cost per manure acre in the watershed. Based on the weighted average value of 12.52
tons of manure excreted per animal per year in the watershed counties, the average annual cost
per manure acre is $5,932 (equal to $3.27 per wet ton manure treated times 12.52 tons wet
manure per animal unit per year times 145 animal units per manure acre).
Exhibit 9: Derivation of Average Manure Excretion in Bay Watershed
Species
Dairy
Beef
Swine
Layers
Animals Per
Animal Unit
0.71
1
5
250
Wet Manure Excreted
(tons/animal unit/yr)
14.9
6.7
11.7
9.7
Equivalent Wet
Manure Excreted
(tons/animal/yr)
20.99
6.7
2.34
0.04
Animals in
Watershed Counties1
1,383,201
661,807
265,743
110,725
Animal Units in
Watershed
Counties
1,948,170
661,807
53,149
443
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 52
Exhibit 9: Derivation of Average Manure Excretion in Bay Watershed
Species
Broilers
Turkeys
Weighted
average2
Animals Per
Animal Unit
500
100
n/a
Wet Manure Excreted
(tons/animal unit/yr)
13.1
10.2
12.52
Equivalent Wet
Manure Excreted
(tons/animal/yr)
0.03
0.1
n/a
Animals in
Watershed Counties1
1,861,093
nd
n/a
Animal Units in
Watershed
Counties
3,722
nd
n/a
Sources: Animals per animal unit and wet manure excreted from Gilbertson, 1979, cited in Chesapeake Bay Program,
1998; animal populations from USDA-NASS, 1999. nd = No data; n/a = not applicable.
1. Number of animals in watershed counties indicates inventory of animals in 1997, except broilers, which indicates
number sold in 1997.
2. Average is weighted by number of animal units by species in watershed counties in 1997.
The Chesapeake Bay Program used similar assumptions to derive an annual cost based on the
data from MDA (2002a). Annualizing the capital cost of $315 per animal unit at 5% over 10
years results in an annual cost of $4 I/animal unit/yr. Adding O&M costs equal to 10% of the
initial capital cost (i.e., 10% x $315) results in an annual cost of $72/animal unit/yr, or $10,440
per manure acre per year. Averaging the estimates from Camacho (1992) and MDA (2002a)
produces an annual cost of $8,186 per manure acre per year. Approximately 56% of this cost is
annualized capital and therefore eligible for cost-share.
Cost sharing is provided by various programs including EQIP and several state programs. Cost
share percentages range from 75% to 87.5% of installation costs. The net farmer cost, therefore,
ranges from $4,175 to $4,748/manure acre/yr.
2.2.7.72 Yield Reserve
The yield reserve BMP involves applying 75% to 85% of the fertilizer recommended in a
nutrient management plan (i.e., 98% to 111% of a crop's need instead of 130%). This BMP is
only applied in the Tier 3 scenario. Costs consist of development and application of an NMP
($7/ac/yr, as described above). To encourage participation in a federal pilot program, the
proposed program has an incentive payment of $40/ac/yr (which may fall to $20/ac/yr to
$30/ac/yr in a subsequent bid program phase) and also provides insurance against revenue losses
associated with lower crop yields (personal communication with T. Simpson, University of
Maryland, March 2002). In the long run, the cost of this program could equal annual revenue on
the order of $20/ac/yr less than the NMP cost, or net revenue of about $13/ac/yr. However, a
dedicated Yield Reserve program was not included in the 2002 Farm Bill, and although various
opportunities remain to fund a program through other parts of the Bill or through other sources
(personal communication with T. Simpson, University of Maryland, May 2002), the potential
cost savings are not included (i.e., the estimate is $0/ac/yr instead of-$13/ac/yr).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 53
2.2.1.13 Carbon Sequestration/Bio-Energy
The carbon sequestration BMP is potentially an extension of the retirement of highly erodible
land and grass buffer strip BMPs. Similar to these BMPs, the land owner plants permanent grass
cover (such as switchgrass) and maintains it for 10 years or longer. This BMP differs, however,
in that the land owner is allowed to harvest top growth and sell it as a biofuel for electricity
generation or co-generation. If the biofuel is used in a co-fired coal plant, then it generates CO2
offsets through fuel substitution. Also, continuous switchgrass ground cover is expected to
sequester soil carbon in the root zone because only the top growth is harvested.
Annual harvest of switchgrass for biofuel increases the cost of this BMP. Turhollow (2000)
estimates that the average "delivered" cost (i.e., including transportation) per ton of harvestable
biomass is $52 (1999$). This cost incorporates costs for establishment (which includes land
rent), maintenance, harvest, and transportation. Given his average yield rate of 5 tons per acre
per year, the cost per acre is $260 (5 x 52). At issue is whether potential revenues for biofuel
and carbon sequestration can offset this cost or at least the incremental cost of biofuel harvest
and transportation.
Potential revenue sources include (1) annual sale of biomass as a fuel source for a co-fired coal
and biomass generator, (2) value of CO2 credits for replacing fossil fuel with biomass fuel, and
(3) value of CO2 credits for additional soil carbon sequestration. Exhibit 10 provides revenue
estimates that indicate a potential for revenue from all three sources to nearly offset the
$260/acre annual cost (revenues range from $229/acre to $26I/acre).
This is not a contractual BMP and, therefore, there is no reason to expect a farmer to incur
annual harvest and transportation costs if the fuel sales and CO2 credits for fuel-switching do not
offset annual costs. Therefore, the maximum cost for this BMP is the installation cost, which is
$100/acre in 1999 dollars (Turhollow, 2000). Converted to 2001 dollars and annualized at 5%
over 10 years, the cost is $13/ac/yr. It is conceivable, however, that the additional sources of
revenue could result in a lower average cost, which would mean that the estimate exceeds the
actual cost of this BMP.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 54
Exhibit 10: Estimates of Potential Revenue for Carbon Sequestration BMP
Source
Fuel Sales
C02 fuel-switching
credits
C02 sequestration
credits
Total
Assumptions
5 tons/acre annual average yield1
x 15 million Btu/ton (MMBtu/ton)2
x $1.05 per MMBtu3
5 tons/acre annual average yield1
x 15 MMBtu/ton2
x178lbsC02/MMBtucoal4
•*• 2000 Ibs per ton
x $20/ton C025
0.2-0.66 tons carbon/acre annual average sequestration rate6
x 44/12 conversion factor from carbon to C02
x $20/ton C025
Revenue/Acre
$79
$134
$16-$487
$229-$261
1. Midpoint yield rate from Turhollow (2000) and Walsh and Lichtenberg (1995).
2. Heat content of switchgrass (Turhollow, 2000).
3. Projected delivered price of coal for electric generation in 2010 in 2000 dollars (EIA, 2001).
4. Projected C02 emissions rate for supercritical pulverized coal generation in 2010 (DOE, 2002). This analysis assumes net
biomass emissions of zero (i.e., annual sequestration in biofuel portion of biomass offsets its annual combustion
emissions). Thus, total avoided C02 emissions equals avoided coal C02 emissions.
5. Approximate upper bound of observed past trades (C02e.com).
6. Calculated from 0.5 to 1.5 tons per hectare rate in CAST (1998).
7. This range is similar to the range of $20 to $25 per acre revenue for carbon sequestration submitted in a comment by R.
Handley (Project Director, Northeast Regional Biomass/Biofuels Program, Coalition of Northeastern Governors). The cost-
per-acre for planting and harvesting in this comment is $55 to $65, which is substantially less than the potential biofuel
revenue alone.
2.2.1.14 Manure Excess
In the Watershed Model, this BMP represents implementation of alternative uses for excess
manure from livestock operations, as opposed to spreading manure on fields. The practice may
be necessary either because of declining agricultural land on which to spread the manure, or
because of nutrient management plans that reduce land application. In the Watershed Model,
BMP implementation requirements are expressed in units of wet tons of manure that must be
exported per year.
Based on model farm cost estimates developed for the economic analysis of the proposed CAFO
rule (U.S. EPA, 2001a), the estimated cost is $3.11 per wet ton per year, and represents an
average across different beef and dairy farm sizes in the Mid-Atlantic states as well as
transportation options and nutrient application limitations.
Cost-share funds for manure transportation off farms are available in Maryland through the
Manure Transportation Program and in Delaware through the Nutrient Management Relocation
Program. As of May 2002, the Maryland program was scheduled to pay 12 cents per ton-mile
(or 15 cents on the Eastern Shore), plus a $1.50 per ton load rate, up to $20/ton-mile, for poultry
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 55
litter. The program would also pay generally 87.5% of costs for transporting manure of other
animals, subject to caps depending on moisture content and distance (personal communication
with N. Astle, Maryland Manure Transportation Program, May, 2002). However, in Maryland
the recipient of the manure generally pays the remaining costs of transportation, so that the net
cost to the producing farmer is zero, or the farmer may even make positive returns in the process
of selling the manure (personal communication with N. Astle, May, 2002).9 The Delaware
program pays 15 cents per ton-mile plus a $2.50 per ton load rate up to $20 per ton (Delaware
Department of Agriculture, 2002b).
For Maryland and Delaware, the costs for hauling manure are cost-shared so the net cost to
farmers is zero. In other states with no cost-share the net farmer cost is $3.11 per ton.10
2.2.1.15 Conservation Tillage
In the Watershed Model, conservation tillage (CT) is defined as leaving at least 30% of the crop
residue on the field between crops and reducing disturbance of the soil surface/upper horizon.
Several sources of cost information indicate that CT is well-accepted by agricultural producers.
For example, Tippett and Dodd (1995) note that the federal government gives incentive
payments to encourage the practice for the first three years, after which time it is hoped that
farmers see net benefits and continue to use the practice on their own.
The main cost driver for this practice is the possible purchase of new equipment appropriate for
the conservation tillage system. Because conservation tillage must be rotated with conventional
tillage to avoid soil compaction, the practice requires the purchase or rental of equipment for
both types of tillage systems (conventional and conservation). The only study that specifically
states equipment costs are included is MD DNR et al. (1996), which reports a cost of $17/ac/yr
(or $19 in 2001 dollars). However, it appears based on reviewing the source of that estimate (as
cited in the document) that the cost actually represents incentive costs rather than equipment
costs. Therefore, additional research is required to document an average annual cost per acre.
Excluding such costs may not substantially bias the analysis. Many farmers are already
implementing conservation tillage and, therefore, have already purchased equipment. Indeed,
many of the net conservation tillage acres in the tier scenarios are negative, indicating high
implementation rates in Progress 2000. To the extent bias exists, it is primarily an underestimate
of costs to cost-share programs, which provide incentive payments for implementing this
practice and tax credits for purchasing equipment.
9 Recent budget shortfalls in Maryland have decreased the amount provided under the cost-share program. The
availability of future funding is unknown because projecting state budget outcomes is impossible; this issue can be
dealt with in a sensitivity analysis.
10 The estimated cost assumes manure is hauled an average distance of 18 miles from the producing farm, which
is the average haul distance calculated by the U.S. EPA (2001a) for the CAFO Rule in the mid-Atlantic region.
Longer hauling distances may be likely for farms on the Delmarva Peninsula. Net farmer costs are likely to remain
zero for Delaware and Maryland farms, but the funds necessary for cost-share may increase.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 56
Several additional sources also use government incentive payments rather than actual equipment
or practice costs. These sources (MD DNR et al., 1996; Camacho, 1992; Tippett and Dodd,
1995; and VA SNR, 2000) report incentive payments around $15 to $25/ac/yr in current dollars,
or about $20-25/ac/yr in constant 2001 dollars. Camacho (1992) notes that the incentive
payments do not reflect practice costs. The four studies that estimate practice costs find net costs
ranging from $-2/ac/yr (i.e., a net revenue gain of $2) to $5.60/ac/yr. Some variation is a
function of what crop rotation is assumed; USDA (1999) estimates that conservation tillage in
corn results in a net gain, while the practice results in net costs for soy and wheat.
The average of the practice costs from USDA (1999), Smolen and Humenik (1989, cited in U.S.
EPA, 1997b), and Russell and Christensen (1984, cited in U.S. EPA, 1997b) is $2.72/ac/yr. This
cost probably excludes any additional equipment costs that might be incurred (if farmers buy
new equipment sooner than necessary rather than waiting until existing equipment needs to be
retired), but it also excludes incentive payments from cost-share programs. Assuming that these
costs balance each other, the net farmer cost is $2.72/ac/yr. There is inadequate data regarding
the prevalence of equipment purchase related to implementation to incorporate state or federal
funding applicable to the purchase of equipment for this BMP.
2.2.2 Forestry
In the Watershed Model, forest harvesting practices represent a suite of practices to control
erosion on forest land harvested for timber. Practices may be either structural (e.g., culverts,
broad-based dips, windrows) or managerial (e.g., preharvest planning, forest chemical
management, fire management). Several sources provide cost estimates:
• Aust et al. (1996, cited in U.S. EPA, 2001b) estimated costs for implementation of
various erosion control practices in Virginia and southeastern states, and reported
costs per acre for "stringent, enforceable implementation" of $21.40/ac for the
coastal plain, $38/ac for the Piedmont, and $49/ac in the mountains (1998 dollars);
these costs appear to include technical assistance, quality control, and compliance
South Carolina Forestry Commission (1993, cited in MD DNR et al. (1996),
estimated costs of $12.15/mbf (1 mbf = 1,000 board feet) for loblolly/shortleaf,
which is characteristic of flat sites, $14.31/mbf for oak/pine, which is characteristic
of moderately sloped sites, and $14.50/mbf for oak/hickory, which is characteristic
of steep sites (dollar year not reported); using data on board-feet of timber per acre in
Maryland by topographic region from Frieswyk and Giovanni (1988) in MD DNR et
al. (1996), this equates to $129/ac on flat sites, $152/ac on moderate sites, and
$172/ac on steep sites (dollar year unknown)
• Lickwar, Hickman, and Cubbage (1992) estimated costs of $2.42/mbf or $12.56/ac
on flat sites, $4.75/mbf or $24.33/ac on moderately sloped sites, and $6.08/mbf or
$34.62/ac on steep sites (1987 dollars)
• Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (1993) estimated costs of $51/ac/yr
(dollar year not reported) including construction, planning, technical assistance, and
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 57
O&M (based on annualizing capital costs at 10% over an unspecified practice life);
however, this estimate is not usable because many assumptions are not documented.
Converting estimates from Aust et al. (1996, cited in EPA, 2001b), South Carolina Forestry
Commission (1993, cited in MD DNR et al., 1996), and Lickwar, Hickman, and Cubbage (1992)
into 2001 dollars (using the USDA-ERS index of prices paid by farmers (USDA-ERS, 2001),
and assuming the costs in the South Carolina Forestry Commission report are in 1993 dollars,
results in an average cost across the three land types of $84/ac/yr. Although this average does
not reflect the Virginia DEQ (1993) report due to lack of documentation, the average value of
the other three sources is comparable to the DEQ estimate of $51/ac/yr (after accounting for
inflation in the latter estimate) and is also conservative.
The costs from the three sources appear to reflect total costs, rather than annual costs. However,
the number of acres to which the BMP is applied is expressed as a number per year, and the
BMP is likely to be applied to new land every year rather than previously harvested land. If
previously harvested land is re-harvested (i.e., if selective harvests are performed on the same
land more than once before 2010) and the BMP implemented previously can be re-used (e.g., a
culvert that would not be damaged in the later harvest), the unit cost for this BMP will tend to be
overstated.
The Forest Lands Enhancement Program, recently created by the 2002 Farm Bill, may provide
public funds for landowners to implement erosion control practices during forest harvesting.
However, the summaries of costs shown in Section 3 do not incorporate the potential for public
cost sharing through this program.
In addition, Dissmeyer and Foster (1987, cited in EPA, 2001b) found that forest harvesting
practices resulted in net cost savings in some cases in southern states due to avoiding problem
soils, wet areas, and unstable slopes, and reducing erosion by revegetating cut and fill slopes.
Thus, in areas where forest harvesting measures result in net cost savings, the cost estimate will
overstate actual BMP costs.
2.2.3 Urban and Mixed Open Land
2.2.3.1 Forest Buffers
The cost to plant and maintain a forest buffer on agricultural land is also applicable to forest
buffers on pervious urban and mixed open lands. One would expect that the cost estimate for the
urban version of this BMP would be lower than the agricultural cost estimate because it excludes
the foregone revenue of planting a buffer on cropland. However, the land rental payments under
the CRP or CREP programs likely offset this net revenue impact among farmers. Consequently,
the cost is $108/ac/yr for urban and agricultural buffers.
The net cost for agricultural tree buffers incorporates a cost share that ranges from 75% to 100%
of installation costs. There is at least one cost-share program for urban forest buffers, the
Maryland Buffer Incentive Program (BIP). This program provides private landowners with a
one-time payment of $300/acre up to a maximum of $15,000 for planting and maintenance of
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 58
riparian forest buffers; the program provides funding for about 300 acres ($90,000) per year
(Environmental Law Institute, 2000). The estimates do not reflect this cost-share program.
Pal one and Todd (1998) provide some estimates of increases in lot value for lots adjacent to
forest buffers, but the estimates also do not reflect offsets of this type because it is unknown
whether the nonagricultural forest buffers are planted on private or public lands.
2.2.3.2 Environmental Site Design
The environmental site design (BSD) BMP, also called Low Impact Development (LID), is
applied to land area under new development. The U.S. EPA (2000, p. 1) defines LID as
a site design strategy with a goal of maintaining or replicating the pre-
development hydrologic regime through the use of design techniques to create a
functionally equivalent hydrologic landscape. ... LID principles are based on
controlling storm water at the source by the use of micro-scale controls that are
distributed throughout the site. This is unlike conventional approaches that
typically convey and manage runoff in large facilities located at the base of
drainage areas.
Because this BMP is applied to newly developed acres, the cost-per-acre must incorporate the
cost savings associated with avoided storm water conveyance structures (e.g., curbs, gutters, and
underground pipe) as an offset to the cost of BSD measures themselves. LID practices include
bioretention, grass swales, vegetated roof covers, and permeable pavements. The concept is that
investing in permeable substitutes to traditional impervious surfaces avoids the cost of the
surface itself, and the corresponding costs of the infrastructure required to handle its storm water
runoff.
Presently, the cost information for this innovative approach to land development is anecdotal and
much of the information is qualitative. The U.S. EPA (2000) states that LID practices are more
cost effective compared to conventional storm water structures and also provide more aesthetic
landscape features. An earlier literature review (U.S. EPA, 1996) provides some case study
examples showing net cost savings of practices that can be considered LID, e.g., a $100,000 rain
garden versus $400,000 for conventional storm water ponds in the Somerset project in Prince
George's County, MD. The NAHB Research Center, Inc. and U.S. EPA (2001) note the
following cost implications for LID measures:
• Bioretention: minimal net construction costs because higher landscaping costs could
be offset by lower storm water management costs elsewhere; low maintenance costs
• Swales and grassy channels: lower costs compared to paved or impervious
infrastructure (one-half to one-third the cost of curb and gutter systems), low
maintenance costs, decreased requirements for downstream facilities and related
infrastructure costs
• Permeable paving: higher upfront costs and maintenance, but reduced need for
storm water facilities help offset the initial cost differential.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 59
A couple of case studies cited throughout the literature provide evidence that net costs are
potentially negative (i.e., the BSD costs are lower than conventional impervious surface/storm
water infrastructure investments). A study cited by the NRDC (2001) and the NAHB Research
Center, Inc. and U.S. EPA (2001) is the redesign of a 130-acre development project in
Sherwood, Arkansas. Exhibit 11 provides a comparison of key development parameters
between the original convention design and the revised design that preserved natural vegetation
and drainage features, thereby reducing site preparation and storm water infrastructure costs.
The cost comparison indicates that the latter reduced total costs by 15% and the cost per lot by
19%. The per-lot savings is higher because the revised design also increased the number of
housing units.
Exhibit 11: Cost and Development Implications of Alternative Designs
Development Parameters
Lot yield
Street (linear ft.)
Collector street (linear ft.)
Drainage pipe (linear ft.)
Total cost estimate
Cost per lot
Incremental amenities
Incremental lot value
Conventional Development Plan
358
21770
7360
10098
$4,620,600
$12,907
na
na
Green Development Plan
375
21125
0
6733
$3,942,100
$10,512
23.5 acres open space/parks
$3,000 over competitors
Source: NAHB Research Center, Inc. and U.S. EPA (2001), citing Tyne and Associates. 2000. "Bridging the Gap:
Developers Can See Green." Land Development Spring/Summer: 27-31.
Two other case studies that provide cost information include:
• a project design that included bioretention areas, rain gardens, compact weir outfalls,
depressions, grass channels, wetland swales, and a specially designed storm water
basin at a new 270-unit apartment complex in Aberdeen, NC, reduced storm water
costs by 72% or $175,0000 compared to a traditional storm water collection system
by eliminating nearly all subsurface infrastructure along with curbs and gutters
(BLUE Land, Water, Infrastructure, 1999)
• developers for the Pembroke Subdivision in Frederick County, MD, were able to
eliminate plans for two storm water management ponds using LID practices (thereby
avoiding $200,000 in infrastructure costs), preserve a two-and-a-half acre open space
and wetlands, which provided wetland mitigation savings, add two lots to the 43-
acre development (adding $100,000 in value), and preserve almost 50% of the site in
undisturbed wooded condition (NRDC, 2001)
Thus, the expectation is that incorporating ESD measures in new development is likely to reduce
costs and the case study data for new developments indicate potential for net cost savings.
Developing an average cost savings per acre, however, is not feasible given the limited data.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 60
Consequently, the net cost estimate of $0/acre reflects that any incremental BSD planning and
implementation costs are completely offset through cost savings in avoided costs for
conventional storm water management infrastructure that is required in most developments to
handle the volume of storm water generated by creating impervious surfaces.
2.2.3.3 Storm Water Retro/its
The per-acre BMP costs for storm water retrofits distinguish between costs for pervious and
impervious urban areas. In either case, there are a variety of practices that might be
implemented; the choice of practice depends on a variety of site-specific conditions (e.g., site
imperviousness, site size, climate, and land availability) that vary throughout the basin.
Consequently, the unit costs reflects a wide variety of measures, including new construction
(e.g., detention ponds, retention ponds, infiltration basins, swales, and sand filters) and retrofits
to existing infrastructure (e.g., converting storm water management ponds to extended detention
ponds). The costs are averages across three sources:
• Brown, W., and T. Schueler. 1997. The Economics of Storm water BMPs in the
Mid-Atlantic Region. Final Report prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection
(CWP) for the Chesapeake Research Consortium. As reported in related CWP
documents and databases, including CWP. (no date). The Economics of Storm Water
Treatment: An Update. Technical Note #90 from Watershed Protection Techniques
2(4): 395-499.
• Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC). 1994. Urban Retrofit
Techniques: Applicability, Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness. Prepared for Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality.
• Livingston, E.H. 1999. "A Review of Urban Storm water Retrofitting in Florida." In
Proceedings of the Comprehensive Storm water & Aquatic Ecosystem Management
Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, February 22-26, 1999.
These studies provide cost estimates for a wide variety of BMPs designed for existing
development. BMPs include actual retrofit projects as well as new construction. Exhibit 12
shows mean unit costs for each study distinguish between pervious and impervious area, where
feasible. In most cases, the cost estimates represent the total cost to treat both water quantity and
water quality volumes since the retrofits must be conservatively sized to handle the total volume
of storm water runoff. The costs represent costs per acre controlled in the watershed area, not
costs per project acre.
Exhibit 12: Mean Annual Storm Water Retrofit Costs
(2001 dollars per acre)1
Source
Brown and Schueler (1997)2
Pervious Urban Area
$287
Impervious Urban Area
$1,013
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 61
Exhibit 12: Mean Annual Storm Water Retrofit Costs
(2001 dollars per acre)1
Source
NVPDC(1994)3
Retrofit structures
New structures
Livingston (1999)4
Mean across studies
Pervious Urban Area
$289
$451
$312
$330
Impervious Urban Area
$289
na
$1,164
$820
Note: Capital costs from all studies are converted to 2001 dollars using the construction cost index in the Engineering
News Record. Annualized capital costs are based on the assumption that financing terms of 5% over 20 years are
available to municipalities. The interest rate is higher than borrowing rates for State Revolving Fund loans, which range
from 0.7% to 3.9% throughout the basin states, to reflect that possibility that some municipalities may use alternative
financing arrangements such as revenue bonds or bank loans, which tend to have higher rates. Costs include either
annual O&M estimates provided by the study or annual O&M costs equal to 5% of total capital costs (CWP, no date).
1. Represents total structural costs, including costs to control storm water quantity as well as quality.
2. Example costs from CWP (no date) for a 50-acre residential development and a 5-acre commercial development to
demonstrate the cost function derived in Brown and Schueler.
3. Average new structure costs based on 22 projects implementing a variety of technologies including wet pond
creation and sand filter installation. Average retrofit costs are based on calculated averages for sites of 5 to 300
acres for five cost functions reported in the paper. Costs for retrofitting existing flood control structures do not differ
by degree of perviousness.
4. Averages for various low-density and high-density retrofit projects throughout Florida.
Although the average cost for impervious urban areas represents an average over a wide range of
site conditions, it may be too low to represent potential costs to retrofit ultra-urban places, which
are large, densely populated areas. These areas can have limited space for constructed BMPs in
conjunction with high runoff volumes generated by a high percentage of impervious surface.
Exhibit 13 shows populations, population density, and land area for urban areas in the Basin
with more than 70,000 people (based on 2000 census data for population and land area). The
places with population densities of over 10 people per acre (shown in bold in the table) may
experience higher costs associated with storm water controls due to the space limitations
discussed above: Baltimore, MD, Washington, D.C., Arlington, VA, Alexandria, VA, and Silver
Spring, MD. Five storm water retrofit projects reported in Livingston (1999) treat water from
areas with impervious surface accounting for 85% or more of total surface area. The cost-per-
acre estimates (in 2001 dollars) for these highly urbanized areas are:
• $682/acre to install a detention pond and sand filter for a 9.2-acre medical complex
in Pinellas County
• $699/acre for a wet detention pond and treatment system for a 121-acre site in
Orlando
• $l,005/acre for a berm, weir, and pump system to reuse "first flush" from an 8.1-acre
site for irrigation in Winter Park
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 62
$3,269/acre for an alum injection system and lake restoration project for a 158-acre
site in Tallahassee
4,986/acre to install an infiltration retrofit in a 2-acre parking lot in North Redington
Beach.
Exhibit 13: Urban Places in the Chesapeake Bay Basin with Population > 70,000
(ultra-urban places in bold)
Urban Place
Baltimore city (MD)
Washington, D.C.
Virginia Beach city (VA)
Norfolk city (VA)
Chesapeake city (VA)
Richmond city (VA)
Arlington city (VA)
Newport News city (VA)
Hampton city (VA)
Alexandria city (VA)
Portsmouth city (VA)
Columbia city (MD)
Silver Spring city (MD)
Scranton city (PA)
Population
(2000)
651,154
572,059
425,257
234,403
199,184
197,790
189,453
180,150
146,437
128,282
100,565
88,254
76,540
76,415
Population Density
(people/acre)
12.6
14.6
2.7
6.8
0.9
5.1
11.4
4.1
4.4
13.2
4.7
5.0
12.7
4.7
Size
(square miles)
80.8
61.4
248.3
53.7
340.7
60.1
25.9
68.3
51.8
15.2
33.2
27.6
9.4
25.2
These estimates produce an average cost of $l,930/acre for retrofits in ultra-urban areas.
Stormwater control costs generally do not include land acquisition costs because most of the
control technologies either require relatively little land area (e.g., infiltration basins) or do not
require additional land purchase (e.g., retrofitting an existing detention pond to extend detention
time).
Data provided by the Maryland Department of the Environment suggest that these estimates may
overstate retrofit costs. A report of six case studies (MDE, 1997) indicates total capital costs that
potentially range from $1,051 to $3,553 per acre; corresponding annualized costs would range
from $84 to $285. A second set of 11 retrofit projects have a mean total cost of $3,529 per acre
and an annualized cost of $283 per acre (S. Bieber, MD Department of Environment, personal
communication, May, 2002). However, sufficient information to incorporate these data is not
available.
There may be potential for cost savings through "piggybacking" storm water retrofits onto
planned road or other infrastructure maintenance to reduce costs. An example provided by the
Prince Georges County (MD) Department of Environmental Resources (personal communication
with L. Coffman, 8/8/02) demonstrated how the cost of a particular storm water facility, a
roadway bioretention system, might be cut by 46% if the system could be installed as part of a
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 63
planned road repair activity. The cost savings accrue because some of the excavation and fill
work cost is incurred for road repair regardless of whether a bioretention system is added. Thus,
the incremental cost of bioretention is only 54% of the cost of a typical system.
This particular example does not provide enough information to incorporate potential cost-
savings into the unit cost estimate for retrofits because the original retrofit cost studies do not
include bioretention systems. However, this example suggests the possibility that piggybacking
opportunities may reduce costs for other storm water management technologies.
The unit cost estimates already incorporate potential cost savings opportunities to some extent
because some case study costs come from retrofitting existing storm water facilities. For
example, the unit cost for impervious urban land is an average of three values: $l,164/acre/yr
for a set of Florida case studies with unit costs ranging from $682/acre/yr to $2,269/acre/yr;
$l,013/acre/yr from a function for detention pond costs estimated by Brown and Schueler based
on case studies in the Mid-Atlantic region; and a $289/acre/yr average cost for retrofit projects
for existing detention ponds in the Anacostia watershed. Thus, low-cost opportunities to alter
existing storm water facilities are incorporated by including the Anacostia retrofit costs in the
average unit cost estimate. Although piggyback opportunities may further reduce costs for storm
water retrofits, further adjustments to the cost estimates derived above are not warranted because
they already incorporate the effect of cost-savings opportunities.
2.2.3.4 Storm Water Management
This control is applied to new development that occurs between 2000 and 2010.11 Although it
will incorporate many of the same structural controls as retrofits, the unit cost estimates for this
measure are lower because only the water quality volume is relevant since costs associated with
water quantity will be borne regardless of water quality considerations. New development in
urban areas is generally required to have infrastructure to quickly remove storm water from
surface areas and store it while it is gradually released. Therefore, a portion of storm water
management costs in new development would be incurred regardless of water quality concerns.
Exhibit 14 reports costs associated with water quality volumes for the three studies included in
the retrofit section as well as a fourth study that provides costs for only the water quality volume.
The BMP cost estimate is based on the mean values across all the studies ($150 on pervious and
$450 on impervious urban areas).
Exhibit 14: Mean Annual Storm Water Management Costs
(2001 dollars per acre)1
Source
Brown and Schueler (1997)2
Pervious Urban Area
$96
Impervious Urban Area
$338
11 The Watershed Model also includes a storm water management BMP on recent development to account for
reduced loadings from development that occurred between 1986 and 2000 compared to prior development. Costs
incurred prior to 2000 are not addressed here.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 64
Exhibit 14: Mean Annual Storm Water Management Costs
(2001 dollars per acre)1
Source
NVPDC(1994)4
Livingston (1999)5
U.S. EPA(1999b)6
Mean across studies
Pervious Urban Area
$150
$174
$200
$150
Impervious Urban Area
na
$460
$552
$450
Note: Capital costs from all studies are converted to 2001 dollars using the construction cost index in the Engineering
News Record, and amortized at 5% over 25 years. Annual O&M costs estimated as 5% of total capital costs (CWP, no
date).
1. Represents the share of BMP costs attributable to storm water quality requirements.
2. Example costs from CWP (no date) for a 50-acre residential development and a 5-acre commercial development to
demonstrate the cost function derived in Brown and Schueler.
4. Average new structure costs based on 22 projects.
5. Average costs for low-density and high-density projects throughout Florida.
6. Averages across subsets of costs for five different structures; water quality share only (based on functions in the
study).
2.2.3.5 Urban and Mixed Open Nutrient Management
Urban and mixed open nutrient management involves a reduction of fertilizer applications to
urban and mixed open land to reduce nutrient loadings. Although the principles and objectives
of urban nutrient management are similar to its agricultural counterpart, there is one important
difference-nutrient application in urban settings is not an essential input to food production.
This means that although the costs associated with conducting soil samples and developing
agronomically appropriate nutrient application rates are potentially transferrable to urban
settings, any net revenue impact associated with yield reductions or increases is irrelevant.
Furthermore, given the largely voluntary nature of urban nutrient application, it is difficult to
justify a BMP unit cost assumption that would impose burdensome costs on urban households,
through either direct household consumption of application services or indirect tax or fee
increases to fund municipal landscape programs.
Consequently, the cost estimate is equal to the soil testing and plan development portion of the
agricultural BMP cost. Only two sources are sufficiently documented to break out these costs
from implementation costs; these two sources report costs of $5/ac (USDA, 1999), or $5.16/ac in
2001 dollars, and $7/ac (U.S. EPA, 2001a), or $7.22/ac in 2001 dollars, for plan development
and soil testing. The mean cost is $6.19/ac; assuming the plan is good for 3 years, the annual
cost is $2.06/ac/yr. This is consistent with incremental costs identified by MD DNR (E. Kanter,
personal communication, 2002). Incremental application costs are unlikely because households
and municipalities will minimize these types of cost impacts. State agencies and local
communities might incur incremental administrative costs, but these costs are de minimis when
converted to a per-acre basis because the BMP applies to millions of acres. Depending on state
program requirements, businesses might also have additional record keeping or paperwork
requirements (e.g., recording soil sample and nutrient application rate information for each
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 65
customer). States can choose, however, to implement requirements that minimize these impacts
on businesses (e.g., simply requiring some additional fields in customer databases to track soil
sample results and nutrient application rates).
In the Watershed Model, this BMP is applied to both pervious urban and mixed open land. For
pervious urban land, the estimated cost is $2.06/ac/yr. For mixed open land (defined as
herbaceous land other than agricultural land), the estimate is one quarter of this cost
($0.52/ac/yr) based on information about mixed open land from the Chesapeake Bay Program
Modeling Subcommittee (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2000). This document states that mixed
open land has a fertilizer application rate equal to 25% of the rate for pervious urban land. The
cost of $0.52/ac/yr represents a weighted average cost between 25% of acres to which fertilizer
is applied and 75% of acres where the cost of fertilizer management is zero because no fertilizer
is applied (either before or after implementation of the BMP).
One option for implementing this BMP is public education and outreach to urban and suburban
residents to encourage lower fertilizer application. Two analyses provide cost estimates for an
outreach program: a study of a community outreach program in Kettering, MD (Coffman,
2001), and the economic analysis of the Phase II Storm Water Rule (EPA, 1999b).
The first study was conducted by the Prince George's County Department of Environmental
Resources (PGDER) in the town of Kettering, (population 2,800). Kettering and the PGDER
implemented the outreach program in 1993-94 as a learning tool to determine what outreach
efforts were most effective. The program covered many topics (including several unrelated to
nutrient management, such as car care, backyard habitat, and recycling) and used numerous
educational methods, including a monthly newsletter mailed to all households, workshops,
regular water quality monitoring, and storm drain system monitoring to look for illegal
discharges and connections. A full-time project manager supervised the program, aided by a
citizen advisory committee. The project cost about $84,000, or about $75 per household (dollar
year not provided). However, pre- and post-program surveys suggested that behavioral changes
were minimal. The Kettering study is not incorporated for the following reasons:
• Most of the program's pollution reduction objectives (e.g., recycling, car products,
and hazardous waste) are not included in the Bay watershed nutrient reduction
scenarios
• The study gave no evidence that any of the outreach tools used were cost-effective
• Some alternatives to outreach suggested by the study, such as LID, are already
implemented in the watershed scenarios.
The Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule (EPA, 1999b) also included an
analysis of public education and outreach costs related to reducing pollutant loadings, including
nutrients, from urban and suburban households. The National Association of Flood and
Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA) conducted a survey in 1998 of 1,600
jurisdictions to identify costs of existing programs for public education and outreach, illicit
discharge detection and elimination, construction site storm water runoff control, post-
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 66
construction storm water management in new and recent development, and pollution prevention
for municipal operations. Fifty-six jurisdictions responded with usable cost and household data;
the mean cost per household for all five of those activities is $9.16 per year (1998 dollars). A
breakout is not provided; however, public education and outreach for nutrient control likely
makes up a relatively small portion of the costs. Estimates from this source cannot be
incorporated because no breakout is provided; however, the NAFSMA study appears to
corroborate the idea that per-household or per-acre costs for this BMP would be relatively low.
2.2.3.6 Urban Land Conversion
In the Watershed Model, urban land conversion is a 10% to 20% reduction in planned new
development acres in Tiers 2 and 3, respectively. These acres mostly represent conserved forest
land and agricultural land. There are no corresponding changes in 2010 population or housing
unit estimates, which implies that this BMP is achieved through a variety of approaches that do
not affect overall population growth. Approaches include using infill or brownfield development
in place of greenfield development, building up instead of out, and clustering greenfield
development to preserve natural areas and mature trees.
Net cost estimates for any of these approaches will equal incremental development costs (e.g.,
additional planning/design costs, additional administrative costs/fees, and higher costs for
"building up" structural materials) minus cost savings (e.g., reduced site preparation costs and
reduced infrastructure costs for road and utility services) and increased property values. Thus,
net BMP costs reflect net revenue impacts to developers.
Literature reviews (Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd, 1998; U.S. EPA, 1998) provide several
case studies that demonstrate infrastructure cost savings and/or increased property values that are
substantial enough to offset incremental development costs. For example, the cost of providing
utilities for low-density development can be almost two times higher than the cost for compact
development (Pelley, 1997). Delaware case studies, cited in CWP (1998), report cost savings
ranging from 39% to 63% for new cluster developments that preserved woodland areas in
addition to reducing street widths and implementing vegetated BMPs.12 Furthermore, leaving
mature trees on a site can bring about premium property values (NAHB Research Center, Inc.
and U.S. EPA, 2001).
Any incremental planning costs and net revenue impacts are likely completely offset by
infrastructure cost savings and property value increases. Thus, there is no net revenue impact for
the developer.
12 Reduced road widths and vegetated BMPs that promote onsite infiltration are considered part of the BSD
BMP. Thus some of the cost savings in these case studies would be attributed to BSD and some to urban growth
reduction.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 67
2.2.3.7 Forest Conservation
Forest conservation, which occurs only in the 2000 Progress scenario, is patterned after the
Maryland Forest Conservation Act, which seeks to preserve existing forest land that is at risk
during land development and plant trees in developed areas. Until actual program costs are
available, the unit cost estimate for this BMP equals the weighted average cost across two
conservation scenarios. In the first scenario, a developer sets aside already forested land onsite
for preservation. In the second scenario, tree planting occurs in an off-site location.
The unit cost estimate for the first scenario is the same as the urban growth reduction BMP. The
cost for that BMP is $0/ac/yr, which assumes that any incremental costs associated with
development plans that conserve forested acres are offset by cost savings and incremental
property values.
For the second scenario, the planting and maintenance cost components reflect the forest buffer
cost estimate developed for agricultural land. The cost for this BMP is $108/ac/yr. No cost-
sharing is available as in the agricultural sector although lands set aside in conservation
easements might qualify for tax credits.
The overall unit cost of this practice is weighted to reflect program data indicate that at least
80% of the forest conservation acres come from retained forest acres on developed sites and less
than 20% of acres are planted (MD DNR, 1999). Thus, the weighted average cost is $22/ac/yr.
2.2.4 Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
As shown in Exhibit 3, the denitrification BMP for onsite wastewater management systems
(OSWMSs; also called onsite disposal systems, or OSDS) reduces the total nitrogen (TN)
concentration of edge-of-field effluent to 10 mg/L. A variety of technologies are available to
reduce nitrogen and other pollutants, but only two reduce TN sufficiently (according to the
results of third-party field tests) to meet the 10 mg/L edge of field concentration. The two
technologies are Amphidrome from F.R. Mahony and the MicroFAST system from
BioMicrobics.
The Amphidrome process consists of a deep bed filter that alternates between aerobic and anoxic
treatment, allowing for nitrification and denitrification in a single reactor. A cyclical action is
created by allowing a batch of wastewater to pass from the anoxic tank through the filter into the
clear well, and then reversing the flow through a pump. The cycles are repeated until the desired
effluent quality is achieved. In a test by the Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test
Center (MASSTC, 2002), the Amphidrome process achieved average concentrations of 10.9
mg/L TN at the edge of the leaching trench soil absorption system (the soil absorption system is
distinct from the drainage field; that is, the 10.9 mg/L TN is the concentration at the end of the
technology train and more nitrogen may be removed in the drainage field). MicroFAST is a
fixed film, aerated system utilizing a combination of attached and suspended growth.
Microorganisms in the inner aerated media chamber digest nutrients in the wastewater. A test by
the MASSTC shows average concentrations of 12.2 mg/L TN at the edge of the leaching field
soil absorption system (MASSTC, 200la).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 68
In Tiers 1-3, denitrification is implemented for a percentage of new systems installed between
2001 and 2010 (0% in Tier 1, 10% in Tier 2, and 100% in Tier 3), and 1% of existing systems in
Tier 3 (0% in Tiers 1 and 2). The 1% in Tier 3 represents failed systems and opportunities for
upgrades (i.e., systems that would be replaced regardless of the tier requirements for end-of-pipe
effluent concentrations). The cost for the BMP in new homes is not addressed here because the
additional expense associated with denitrification would be included in the cost of a new home
and can easily be offset by cost reductions in other materials or features in the new home.
Similarly, the annual O&M costs described below are relatively small and could be easily offset
by selecting lower maintenance materials or features elsewhere in the home such as lower
maintenance exteriors or energy-saving appliances. The development of BMP costs for existing
systems is described below.
For existing systems, the BMP cost is the cost of installing denitrification technology during a
system upgrade or repair. Exhibit 15 summarizes the costs for the two technologies. The
MicroFAST treatment unit costs $3,200 (including installation, tax, and freight) for a 3-bedroom
house with an average flow of 330 gpd, and electricity to operate the system would cost about
$20 per month, according to a sales representative (personal communication with B. Ehrhart,
Virginia DEQ, October 2002). A service contract including quarterly inspections would cost
$300 per year, based on costs for Massachusetts (MASSTC, 200la). Annualizing the $3,200
capital cost at 7.4% over 20 years results in an annualized capital cost of $312, and adding the
O&M costs of $240 (electricity) and $300 (service contract) results in an annual cost of $852 per
system. The Amphidrome unit costs $7,500 including installation, tax, and freight for a 3-
bedroom house with an average flow of 330 gpd according to a sales representative (personal
communication with B. Ehrhart, Virginia DEQ, November 2002). Electricity costs for the
Amphidrome are estimated at $23 per year, based on information from the manufacturer
(personal communication with P. Pedros, F.R. Mahony, November 2002). A service contract
including quarterly inspections would cost about $300 per year according to the Massachusetts
study (MASSTC, 2002). Annualizing the $7,500 capital cost at 7.4% over 20 years results in
annualized capital costs of $730, and adding the annual O&M costs of $23 (electricity) and $300
(service contract) results in annual costs of $1,053 per system. Averaging the costs for the two
technologies produces an annual average cost of $953.
This BMP also includes frequent pumping (i.e., every 3 years). The pumping costs are a mean
value based on four sources: NSFC (1998), MASSTC (2001b), Austin City Connection (2001),
and U.S. EPA (1999a). These sources report pumping costs that range from $124 to
$268/system, with an average cost of $202/system. The cost for pumping every 3 years would
be $67/system/yr (dividing the pumping cost by 3). Thus, the cost for denitrification combined
with frequent pumping is $l,020/system/yr, of which $521 or 51% is annualized capital cost.
This cost may exceed actual average costs for several reasons. First, it is based on a quarterly
service contract, which is required by Massachusetts law for some onsite system permits but may
not be required by laws in the basin states. Second, homeowners could potentially save costs by
having the unit serviced or inspected at the same time as it is pumped out. Finally, regular
pumping is already required for onsite system maintenance; therefore, this cost overestimates
incremental O&M costs to current onsite system owners.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 69
Exhibit 15: Onsite Wastewater Management System Denitrification BMP Costs1
Component
Treatment unit1
Annualized capital cost ($/yr)2
Electricity ($/yr)
Service contract ($/yr)
Holding tank pumping ($/yr)
Total annual cost
MicroFAST Cost
$3,200
$312
$240
$300
$67
$919
Amphidrome Cost
$7,500
$730
$23
$300
$67
$1,120
Average Cost
$5,350
$521
$132
$300
$67
$1,020
Sources: MASSTC (2001 a, 2001 b, 2002), NSFC (1998), Austin City Connection (2001), U.S. EPA (1999a). All costs
are in 2001 dollars.
1. Includes installation, tax, and freight.
2. Annualized at 7.4% over 20 years.
In Section 3, costs for OSWMSs are reported as accruing to households. However, U.S. EPA
(2002) identified several loan, cost-share, and other programs that can help homeowners pay for
upgrades, including upgrades to reduce nutrient pollution:
1. The Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF), which traditionally provide low-
and no-interest loans for upgrades at POTWs but which can also be used for
installation, repair, and upgrade of OSWMS in small-town, rural, and suburban
areas; the Hardship Grant Program of the CWSRF also provides grants for
improving onsite treatment in low-income regions
2. The Nonpoint Source Pollution Program of the U.S. EPA OWOW provides cost-
share for onsite system repairs and upgrades
3. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Service offers direct loans, loan
guarantees, and grants to low- or moderate-income individuals to finance upgrades
4. State grants through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Community Block Grant Program can provide funds for improvements to OSWMSs,
channeled through town or county government agencies
2.2.5 Summary of BMP Unit Costs
Exhibit 16 provides a summary of the annual unit costs for each of the agricultural, harvested
forest land, urban land, and onsite system BMPs. The annual costs include annualized capital
costs and annual O&M costs. The table also reports the initial capital cost per acre or system
along with the assumptions used to annualize the capital cost (i.e., the annualization rate and
time period).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 70
Exhibit 16: Summary of Unit BMP Costs
BMP
Land Use1
Total
Annual
Cost2
Capital
Cost2
Annualization
Rate
Annualization
Period (years)
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
HT, LT, H, P
HT, LT
HT, LT, H, P
HT, LT, H
HT, LT, P
HT, LT
H, P
HT, LT
P
P
HT, LT, H
P
M
HT, LT, H
HT, LT
M
HT
$108
$17
$116
$17
$108
$17
$13
$27
$104
$75
$7
$27
$8,186
$7
$13
$3.11
$2.72
$1,284
$132
$1,221
$132
$1,284
$92
$69
na
$578
$417
$19
$150
$35,398
$19
$100
na
na
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
na
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
na
na
25
10
30
10
25
10
10
na
10
10
3
10
10
3
10
na
na
Forestry
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
F
$84
na
na
na
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Low-Impact Development
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Development
Storm Water Management on New Development
Nutrient Management
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
PU, MO
PU
PU, IU
PU
IU
UU
PU
IU
PU
MO
PU, IU
PU, IU
$108
$17
$0
$330
$820
$1,930
$150
$450
$2.06
$0.52
$0
$22
$1,284
$132
$0
$2,550
$6,336
$14,912
$1,159
$3,477
$5.61
$1.42
$0
$257
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
25
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
3
3
25
25
Onsite Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
na
$1,020
$5,350
7.4%
20
na = not applicable.
1. HT = High Till; LT = Low Till; H = Hay; P = Pasture; M = Manure acres (1 manure acre = 145 animal units); PU = Pervious
Urban, IU = Impervious Urban; UU = Ultra-Urban; MO = Mixed Open; F = Forest.
2. Costs are in 2001 dollars per acre, except for excess manure removal ($/wet ton) and onsite system denitrification ($/system),
and reflect the cost of the practice before offsets from federal and state cost share programs. For more information on practice
costs, see written documentation.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 71
Exhibit 17 provides state-level information on the agricultural BMP cost shares. It shows the
variation in farmer costs by state and BMP. Farmer costs for most BMPs are lowest in Delaware,
Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania because these states have the largest cost-share
percentages. Farmer costs tend to be highest in West Virginia because this state's programs have
lower cost-share percentages for BMP installation costs than other basin states. Virginia has
installation cost-share percentages similar to West Virginia, but has higher incentive payments for
many BMPs.
2.2.6 Limitations and Uncertainties in the Analysis
The estimated costs above reflect a number of assumptions that may result in under- or
overestimates of actual costs. Exhibit 18 illustrates the sources of potential bias in the cost
estimates, as well as the potential impact on costs (if known).
3. RESULTS
This section provides the resulting estimates of costs of the tier scenarios. The overview in
Section 3.1 provides cost summaries at the watershed, state, sector, and state basin levels. The
section also includes estimates of the potential distribution of total costs between the federal, state,
and local sectors, although the actual incidence may differ. Section 3.2 provides estimates
including federal and state contributions, and total facility-level costs for point sources, without
incorporating expected grant funding available for municipal facilities.
3.1 Overview of Estimated Costs
This section provides a summary of total annual costs and total capital costs at the watershed,
state, sector, and basin levels of aggregation. Total annual costs refer to the cumulative costs for
each tier scenario. Cumulative cost reflects the total cost of implementing nutrient controls in a
scenario, above the cost of the Progress 2000 scenario. Total annual costs include annualized
capital costs for control technologies or BMPs that require initial capital expenditures and annual
O&M expenditures.
Exhibit 19 shows total annual cumulative costs for each of the three tier scenarios. These
estimates represent the annual costs at full implementation of all controls. Therefore, actual
annual costs during the period that controls are gradually phased in will be lower.
Exhibit 19 also shows the average annual costs for each of the projected 6.3 million households by
2010, if all costs were paid by households living in the watershed. These annual costs are small
compared to median household incomes in the watershed. The median estimate for the counties in
the watershed is $49,300. This estimate is in 2001 dollars and reflects incomes in the 2000 Census
of Population. Average median incomes across the states range from $37,800 for the watershed
counties in New York to $58,300 for Maryland.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 72
Exhibit 17: Comparison of Estimated Farmer and Federal/State Program Costs for Agricultural BMPs across States
(2001 S/ac/yr)1
BMP
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of HEL
Tree Planting
Farm Plans (Cropland)
Farm Plans (Hay and
Pasture Land)
Cover Crops
Stream Protection with
Fencing
Stream Protection without
Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan
Implementation
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management
Systems
Yield Reserve
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Practic
eCost
108
17
116
17
108
17
13
27
104
75
7
27
8,186
7
13
3.11
2.72
Farmer Cost
DE
23
(3)
42
(3)
23
7
5
7
48
35
4
12
4,748
0
13
0.00
2.72
MD
(8)
(13)
32
(13)
23
7
5
7
38
28
5
10
4,175
0
13
0.00
2.72
NY
23
(3)
42
(3)
34
7
5
3
38
28
1
10
4,175
0
13
3.11
2.72
PA
11
(5)
32
(5)
34
5
4
12
29
32
1
11
4,519
0
13
3.11
2.72
VA
28
(7)
46
(7)
28
8
6
7
48
35
4
12
4,748
0
13
3.11
2.72
WV
34
(1)
52
(1)
34
8
6
7
48
35
2
12
4,748
0
13
3.11
2.72
Federal/State Cost-Share
DE
85
20
74
20
85
10
8
20
56
41
3
15
3,438
7
0
3.11
0.00
MD
116
30
84
30
85
10
8
20
66
47
2
17
4,011
7
0
3.11
0.00
NY
85
20
74
20
74
10
8
24
66
47
6
17
4,011
7
0
0.00
0.00
PA
97
22
84
22
74
12
9
15
75
43
6
16
3,667
7
0
0.00
0.00
VA
80
24
70
24
80
9
7
20
56
41
3
15
3,438
7
0
0.00
0.00
WV
74
18
64
18
74
9
7
20
56
41
5
15
3,438
7
0
0.00
0.00
Numbers in parentheses indicate net negative costs (i.e., a cost savings).
1. Total practice costs do not include land rental costs or opportunity costs of taking land out of production.
maintenance, and one-time incentive payments but do not include land rental payments.
State and federal costs include installation cost share, annual
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 73
Exhibit 18: Sources of Uncertainty in the BMP Cost Estimates
Source
The extent to which the tier scenarios overlap with other
requirements for which costs will be incurred anyway (e.g.,
under the CAFO rule or CZARA) is unknown.
Tax credits are not incorporated into farmer portion of
agricultural BMP costs.
Land rental payments assumed to offset revenue loss to
farmers.
Annualized capital costs based on a finance or contract
period rather than the useful life of equipment or material.
The average BMP unit cost estimates may have small
overlaps with other BMP costs and, therefore, double-
count costs.
Storm water retrofits do not include cost savings of "piggy
back" opportunities.
All OSWMS denitrification costs apportioned to
homeowners.
Annualized capital costs are based on assumed financing
rates.
Constant unit BMP costs applied to all BMP acres in the
Basin.
Potential Impact on
Costs
+
+1
+
+
+
+
+1
?
?
Comments
Including costs to implement the forthcoming CAFO regulations and state
CZARA programs overstates the costs attributable to the tier scenarios.
Net farmer cost would be lower for producers claiming a tax credit for
implementing BMPs.
To the extent that rental payments exceed the net revenue loss associated with
practices that involve converting land out of agricultural production, farmer costs
are overestimated .
Annual costs will overstate actual costs when the equipment or material is still
generating nutrient control benefits beyond the finance or contract period.
Most unit BMP cost estimates correct for known practice overlaps, but there
may be overlaps that are not accounted for and, therefore, costs are double-
counted. For example, the unit cost estimate for streambank protection BMP
includes an unknown amount of forest buffer costs, and the unit cost estimate
for grazing land protection BMP includes an unknown amount of streambank
protection costs.
Municipalities can realize substantial cost savings if retrofit projects can be
implemented during planned maintenance, repair, or redevelopment activities.
Several grant and low-interest loan programs are available and would reduce
the household share of the costs of OSWMS upgrades.
Actual financing rates may differ from sector- or state-specific rates.
Actual BMP costs will vary from site to site.
+ = assumption results in overestimating costs
? = impact of assumption on cost estimates is unknown
1. Sign shown reflects an impact on direct farmer or household costs; the impact on total costs is zero since this assumption affects only the distribution of costs.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 74
Exhibit 19: Total Annual Cumulative Costs (millions of 2001$)
Cost Category
Total Annual Costs ($millions)2
Implied Cost per Household
(before cost-share)3 ($)
Share of Watershed Median
Household Income ($49,300)
Tierl
(cost of current programs
funded to 201 0)i
$198
$31
0.1%
Tier 2
(Tier 1 + Tier 2)
$555
$88
0.2%
TierS
(Tier 1+ Tier 2 + Tier 3)
$1,139
$181
0.4%
1. Tier 1 costs do not include POTW NRT projects that have already been completed or funded.
2. Includes costs paid by federal and state cost-share programs.
3. Actual household costs will vary by location and type of household (e.g., urban or farm) and will be reduced by the
federal and state funding shares. The impact analysis addresses these distributional effects.
The average cost for households in the watershed will be lower than the estimates shown in
Exhibit 19 because federal and state cost-share programs provide financial support for nutrient
controls. Exhibit 20 illustrates the estimated breakdown between local costs and federal/state
costs based on the cost-share assumptions described previously. Those assumptions use current
cost-share information for the agricultural sector, and state estimates for the POTW sector, to
project future funding. Actual cost-share amounts may differ. There are no estimates of cost
shares for urban BMPs. Nevertheless, retrofit BMPs applied to developed areas may receive
substantial support from federal and state sources. Furthermore, there may be "piggy back"
opportunities that reduce incremental retrofit BMP costs to a fraction of the unit costs shown
above because BMPs can be cost-effectively integrated into planned infrastructure upgrades,
repairs, or investments.
Federal and state programs for agricultural and POTW controls could provide $49 million of
annual Tier 1 costs (or 25%), $186 million of annual Tier 2 costs (or 33%), and $317 million of
annual Tier 3 costs (or 28%). The total cost-share contribution increases from Tier 1 to Tier 2
because agricultural costs increase relative to other sectors, and most costs in that sector are
covered by cost-share programs. The total cost-share contribution declines from Tier 2 to Tier 3
as urban costs increasingly dominate total costs.
Total capital costs that correspond to the annual costs reported in Exhibit 19 are $1.4 billion for
Tier 1, $3.6 billion for Tier 2, and $8.0 billion for Tier 3. These estimates include anticipated
federal and state cost shares. These costs will be incurred slowly over time as controls are
gradually implemented. Nevertheless, comparing them to annual economic statistics provides
crucial perspective because-despite their magnitude-they are small compared to total annual
personal income, which in 1999 was $574 billion ($610 billion in 2001 dollars) in the watershed
counties and $1.4 trillion ($1.5 trillion in 2001 dollars) in the basin states and the District of
Columbia (BEA, 2001).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 75
Annual Cost
U
Total
D Fed ./State
D Local
Tierl
$198
$49
$149
Tier 2
$555
$186
$369
Tier3
$1,139
$317
$821
Exhibit 20: Estimated Distribution of Annual Costs (millions of 2001$)
Exhibit 21 shows the share of capital costs estimated for federal and state programs and the
remainder estimated for private businesses and households in the watershed. These shares are
based on the cost-share program funding levels described in the POTW and agricultural BMP
cost sections. Actual cost-share amounts may differ. The percent of total capital costs paid
through cost-share programs in Exhibit 21 is approximately the same as the percent of total
annual costs in Exhibit 20.
3.1.1 Cost Distribution by State
A breakdown of annual costs by state (Exhibit 22) shows that three states-Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia-account for almost 90% of costs across all three tier scenarios.
Maryland has the largest share of annual Tier 1 costs, followed by Virginia and Pennsylvania.
However, Virginia has the highest share of Tier 2 and Tier 3 costs, followed by Pennsylvania
and Maryland. Maryland's shift from highest baseline (i.e., Tier 1) costs to third highest Tier 2
and Tier 3 costs signifies its high baseline implementation commitment. (Note, however, that
Tier 1 costs do not completely reflect this commitment since they do not include the cost of NRT
upgrades at POTWs that have already been funded or completed.)
The cumulative cost estimates shown in Exhibit 22 do not reflect the incremental costs of
implementing controls beyond current implementation levels. The incremental costs for Tiers 2
and 3 can be derived by subtracting the Tier 1 costs from the cumulative Tier 2 and 3 costs,
respectively. For example, the annual incremental cost of Tier 2 is $357 million ($555 million
minus $198 million).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 76
to
o
o
15
*;
a.
ns
O
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 77
The distribution of capital costs across the states (Exhibit 23) follows the same pattern as
annual costs in Exhibit 22. Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia account for almost 90% of
watershed costs across all tier scenarios. Maryland costs are highest in Tier 1, followed by
Virginia and Pennsylvania. Tier 2 and Tier 3 capital costs in Virginia are highest, followed by
Maryland and Pennsylvania. These costs include the portion that will be funded through federal
and state cost-share programs as well as costs that will be paid by businesses and households in
the watershed. Similar to annual costs, they are the cumulative costs of implementing each tier
scenario.
Exhibit 23: Total Cumulative Capital Costs by State and Tier (millions of
2001$)
Note: Costs for Blue Plains WWTF are apportioned to DC, MD and VA according to the method
recommended by MWCOG (2002).
3.1.2 Cost Distribution by Sector
In Exhibit 24, annual costs by sector (aggregated across states) show that the agriculture,
POTW, and urban (plus mixed open) sectors account for the vast majority of costs across all
tiers. The agriculture and urban sectors account for the highest share of Tier 1 costs, followed by
POTW costs. In Tier 2, agricultural costs dominate total costs (41%) followed by POTW costs
(27%) and urban costs (26%), but the urban sector contributes the highest share of costs in Tier 3
(37%) followed by agricultural costs (33%). Growth in agricultural costs is relatively
steady-increasing by approximately $165 million from Tier 1 to Tier 2 and by $150 million from
Tier 2 to Tier 3. In contrast, POTW and urban costs experience a larger increase between Tiers 2
and 3. For urban costs, the greater increase from Tier 2 to Tier 3 compared to the increase from
Tier 1 to Tier 2 is attributable to the increase in implementation of storm water retrofits.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 78
8
o
15
D
C
Agriculture
Urban &
Mixed
Open
Onsite
System s
POTW
Industrial
Forest
IZITier 1 ($198)
$61
$60
$0
$53
$0
$23
IZITier 2 ($555)
$226
$146
$0
$148
$8
$27
ITier 3 ($1,139)
$376
$418
$13
$286
$15
$31
Exhibit 24: Total Annual Cumulative Costs by Sector and Tier (millions of 2001$)
Exhibit 25 shows the breakdown of total capital costs by sector. The distribution of capital costs
across sectors differs somewhat from the annual cost distribution. POTW costs account for the
largest share of capital costs in Tiers 1 and 2 (45% in Tier 1 and 44% in Tier 2), followed by
urban and agricultural costs. In Tier 3, urban costs account for the largest share (41%) followed
by POTW and agricultural costs.
Exhibit 26 provides a comparison of estimated federal/state and local (i.e., farmer or household)
annual costs for the POTW and agricultural sectors, under the cost-share assumptions described
previously. The height of each bar shows the total annual cost for each of the two sectors. Each
bar also shows the estimated distribution of costs between federal and state cost share programs
and private farm businesses (in the case of agricultural costs) or local households (in the case of
POTW costs). In the agricultural sector, federal and state cost share programs contribute a
majority of the total costs for each tier (61% in Tier 1, 75% in Tier 2, and 74% in Tier 3). In the
POTW sector, estimated federal and state cost sharing is lower (22% in Tier 1, 11% in Tier 2,
and 13% in Tier 3) because cost sharing is only applied to facilities serving populations in
Maryland and Virginia. The estimated federal and state contribution is higher in Tier 1 because
the largest share of annual costs for POTWs is for facilities serving populations in Maryland, and
a greater proportion of costs are shared for Maryland POTWs. In Tiers 2 and 3, a larger share of
POTW costs are for facilities serving populations in other states and the District of Columbia.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 79
+J
(/)
o
0
S
Q.
re
0
S
i2
?o,auu
*•> nnn
to cnn
to nnn
$1 <;nn
$1 nnn
$cnn
$0
• Tierl ($1,442)
• Tier 2 ($3,644)
D Tier 3 ($7,975)
^_ •
I
r~
r
* - u. Urban & Onsite „«-„., , _. * - ,
Agriculture ... . _ _ . POTW Industrial
Mixed Open Systems
$312 $475 $0 $655 $0
$850 $1,128 $0 $1,615 $51
$1,490 $3,233 $68 $3,087 $98
Exhibit 25: Total Cumulative Capital Costs by Sector and Tier (millions of 2001$)
o
O
"re
c
$400
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
Agriculture POTW
Tierl
Agriculture POTW
Tier 2
Agriculture POTW
Tier3
Total
$61
$53
$226
$148
$376
$286
I Fed./State
$38
$12
$169
$17
$279
$38
D Local
$24
$41
$57
$132
$97
$248
Exhibit 26: Estimated Distribution of Annual Costs for Agriculture and POTW
Sectors (millions of 2001$)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 80
3.1.3 Cost Distribution by State and Sector
This section provides the state-level cost breakdowns for each sector. Similar to earlier sections,
the annual and capital cost estimates represent cumulative costs for each tier scenario and
include both state and federal cost-share amounts as well as estimated costs for private
businesses and households.
3.1.3.1 POTW and Industrial Source Costs
Costs for nutrient reduction technologies among POTW and industrial sources include capital
expenditures and annual O&M costs. There are no industrial control costs in Tier 1. Tiers 2 and
3 include industrial controls, but POTW control costs account for more than 90% of annual
costs. Total annual costs of $156 million for Tier 2 include $148 million for POTWs and $8
million for industrial facilities. Similarly, annual Tier 3 costs of $301 million include $286
million for POTWs and $15 million for industrial facilities.
Exhibit 27 shows the breakdown of POTW costs by state. These results show the largest share
of Tier 1 costs occur in Maryland, and the largest share of Tier 2 and Tier 3 costs occur in
Virginia and Pennsylvania. These results show how planned (Tier 1) NRT implementation costs
vary across these states. Maryland is planning expenditures of $29.5 million annually under Tier
1, which accounts for 81% of cumulative costs under Tier 2 and 35% of cumulative costs under
Tier 3. In contrast, Pennsylvania's Tier 1 costs are $6.5 million, which accounts for 20% of
cumulative Tier 2 costs and 11% of cumulative Tier 3 costs. Virginia's Tier 1 costs are $8.7
million, which equals 15% of cumulative Tier 2 costs and 9% of Tier 3 costs.
Exhibit 27: Summary of Total Cumulative Annual and Capital POTW Costs1
(millions of 2001 dollars)
Jurisdiction
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Annual Costs
Tierl
$0.2
$8.3
$29.5
$0.0
$6.5
$8.7
$0.0
$53.1
Tier 2
$0.6
$14.1
$36.2
$6.2
$31.8
$57.9
$1.7
$148.3
TierS
$0.8
$25.7
$85.2
$10.2
$60.0
$101.3
$2.4
$285.5
Capital Costs
Tierl
$3.2
$130.0
$356.0
$0.0
$72.1
$93.9
$0.0
$655.2
Tier 2
$5.8
$154.3
$393.0
$65.2
$352.0
$623.6
$21.3
$1,615.1
TierS
$9.0
$303.5
$981.6
$105.8
$670.7
$984.8
$31.5
$3,086.9
Detail may not add to total because of independent rounding. Costs for the Blue Plains WWTF are apportioned to DC,
MD, and VA according to the method recommended by MWCOG (2002).
1. Includes federal and state cost shares equal to 10% of capital costs for VA, 50% of capital costs for MD, and 0% for
remaining jurisdictions.
Total capital costs for POTWs and industrial dischargers are $0.7 billion for Tier 1, $1.7 billion
for Tier 2, and $3.2 billion for Tier 3. This includes costs paid by households in the watershed as
well as costs paid by federal and state cost-share programs. Similar to annual costs, POTW
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 81
accounts for more than 90% of these costs in each tier. The distribution of POTW capital costs
across states, shown in Exhibit 27, mimics the distribution of annual costs.
3.1.3.2 Agriculture Costs
The total annual costs in Exhibit 28 include those paid by farmers and those paid by cost-share
programs. Based on current implementation shares, the cost-share programs would account for
approximately 75% of annual costs in Tiers 2 and 3; farmers would incur the remaining 25% of
annual costs. Cost-share programs account for a smaller share of annual Tier 1 costs (60%)
because BMPs with lower cost-shares such as animal waste management systems account for a
larger portion of annual costs.
Exhibit 28: Summary of Total Cumulative Annual and Capital Agricultural Costs1
(millions of 2001 dollars)
Jurisdiction
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Annual Cost
Tierl
$2.2
$0.0
$8.3
$1.8
$22.2
$21.6
$5.1
$61.3
Tier 2
$6.3
$0.0
$33.8
$14.7
$90.9
$67.8
$12.7
$226.3
TierS
$9.4
$0.0
$49.6
$28.3
$146.6
$118.3
$24.2
$376.3
Capital Cost
Tierl
$14.4
$0.0
$49.6
$7.5
$110.7
$102.1
$27.9
$312.2
Tier 2
$22.3
$0.0
$88.9
$61.9
$313.5
$293.1
$70.6
$850.4
TierS
$31.6
$0.0
$128.3
$127.5
$527.6
$539.6
$135.2
$1,489.9
Detail may not add to total because of independent rounding.
1. Based on current cost share program information, federal and state cost-share programs would account for
approximately 60% of annual costs in Tier 1 and 75% of costs in Tiers 2 and 3.
Annual costs are highest in Pennsylvania for all tier scenarios. Virginia has the second highest
share of costs in all scenarios, followed by Maryland. Together, Pennsylvania and Virginia
account for 70% of annual agricultural costs.
Total capital costs in the agricultural sector are $312 million for Tier 1, $850 million for Tier 2,
and $1.5 billion for Tier 3. The distribution of capital costs across states (Exhibit 28) is similar
to the annual cost distribution.
3.1.3.3 Forestry Costs
Annual costs to implement forest harvesting best management practices range from $23.5
million in Tier 1 to $30.8 million in Tier 3. Thus, baseline implementation in Tier 1 accounts for
most of the costs in this sector. Exhibit 29 provides annual cost estimates by tier scenario. This
sector has the smallest share of annual costs in all tier scenarios because implementation acre
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 82
estimates are small. All costs are annual because practices are assumed to be implemented on
different harvest acres each year.
Exhibit 29: Summary of Cumulative Annual Forest Harvest Costs
(millions of 2001 dollars)
Jurisdiction
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Tierl
<$0.1
$0.0
$1.6
$3.6
$13.9
$3.0
$1.3
$23.5
Tier 2
<$0.1
$0.0
$1.8
$4.1
$15.6
$4.1
$1.5
$27.1
TierS
$0.1
$0.0
$2.0
$4.5
$17.4
$5.1
$1.7
$30.8
Detail may not equal total because of independent rounding.
3.1.3.4 Urban BMP Costs
Exhibit 30 provides annual costs by tier and jurisdiction for urban areas. These costs are for
stormwater BMPs and exclude POTW costs. Tier 1 costs are highest in Maryland and Virginia,
with each accounting for 40% of annual Tier 1 costs. Maryland's share of costs declines in Tier
2 (32%) and Tier 3 (29%) while shares for other states, except Delaware, increase across the
scenarios. This is indicative of Maryland's higher baseline BMP implementation rate compared
to most other states. Virginia's share of total annual costs is 41% for Tiers 2 and 3.
Pennsylvania's share of total annual costs increases from 15% in Tier 1 to 21% in Tier 3.
Stormwater retrofits account for over 90% of annual urban costs in all tier scenarios. Although
the total number of retrofit acres is small (e.g., less than 0.4% of watershed acres in Tier 2 and
1.8% in Tier 3), the per-acre cost is high compared to other sectors. Nevertheless, the average
cost per household for the 4.9 million urban households in the watershed by 2010 is expected to
be small, ranging from $12 in Tier 1 to $85 in Tier 3. These estimates assume that all costs are
borne by urban households. However, federal and state cost share funds or other cost-saving
opportunities might reduce these costs.
Total capital costs are $0.5 billion for Tier 1, $1.1 billion for Tier 2 and $3.2 billion for Tier 3.
Exhibit 30 shows that the distribution of capital costs across states is similar to the distribution of
annual costs.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 83
Exhibit 30: Summary of Cumulative Annual Urban Costs
(millions of 2001 dollars)
Jurisdiction
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Annual Cost
Tierl
$0.5
$0.3
$23.8
$1.7
$8.8
$24.1
$0.9
$60.2
Tier 2
$1.0
$2.1
$47.3
$6.4
$27.0
$59.3
$2.5
$145.5
TierS
$2.4
$8.3
$119.5
$21.6
$87.7
$170.5
$7.5
$417.6
Capital Cost
Tierl
$3.6
$2.6
$186.3
$13.0
$75.7
$186.4
$6.8
$474.5
Tier 2
$7.4
$16.1
$365.7
$48.4
$215.1
$455.7
$19.1
$1,127.6
TierS
$18.3
$64.4
$924.1
$165.8
$684.7
$1,317.6
$57.8
$3,232.7
Detail may not add to total because of independent rounding.
3.1.3.5 Onsite Waste Management System Costs
OSWMS costs for Tiers 1 and 2 are zero, and costs are minimal for Tier 3 because only 1% of
existing systems implement the control. The annual cost for Tier 3 is $13 million and total
capital costs equal $68 million. Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia account for most of the
costs in the sector. The average annual cost per household implementing the BMP is $1,020.
The cost for new homes is not included because it will be rolled up in the overall cost of a home,
and developers have an opportunity to offset incremental OSWMS costs with savings in other
construction costs. Furthermore, new homes built in developments can use multi-home systems
with lower average per-home costs. The cost for new homes implied by the single system annual
unit cost is $8 million in Tier 2 and $82 million in Tier 3.
3.1.3.6 Summary
Exhibit 31 summarizes the annual cost breakdowns by state and sector. The height of each bar
shows the magnitude of total annual costs for each state and tier scenario. The height of sections
within each bar shows the distribution of costs among the sectors for individual states and tiers.
Exhibit 31 is similar to Exhibit 22, but it also shows the relative importance of each sector within
state-level costs. For example, the POTW and urban sectors dominate costs for the District of
Columbia; onsite system costs are very small in comparison (and agricultural, industrial, and
forestry costs are zero). Agricultural costs tend to contribute the largest portion of costs in
Delaware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Conversely, POTW and urban sector costs tend to
dominate annual costs in Maryland and Virginia. In New York, agricultural sector costs tend to
be approximately equal to the sum of POTW and urban sector costs.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 84
;ptuu
it /inn
3>4UU
(fieri
>poOU
ouu
"55
o
O^UU
c
(Men
$ IOU
(Mnn
$ IUU
QU
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 85
$3,
D Agriculture
D Urban & Mixed Open
DOnsite
DPOTW
D Industrial
Exhibit 32: Total Capital Costs by State, Sector, and Tier (millions of 2001$)
Note: Costs for the Blue Plains WWTF are apportioned to DC, MD, and VA according to the method
recommended by MWCOG (2002)
3.1.4 Cost Distribution by State Basin
An annual cost summary by state basin (Exhibits 33 through 35) provides location as well as
sector detail within each state.
For Tier 1, the Susquehanna and Potomac Basins each account for approximately 30% of total
annual costs, which include state and federal cost shares as well as costs to private businesses
and households. The Maryland West Shore accounts for 12% of total annual costs, while the
James Basin accounts for 11% of total annual costs; the remaining watersheds incur 8% or less
of total annual costs. The agricultural and forestry sectors dominate Tier 1 costs in the
Susquehanna Basin, while agricultural and urban sector costs are highest in the Potomac Basin.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 86
Exhibit 33: Annual Costs by State Basin for Tier 1 (millions of 2001 $)
Statebasin
MD-Susquehanna
NY-Susquehanna
PA-Susquehanna
Susquehanna
DC-Potomac
MD-Potomac
PA-Potomac
VA-Potomac
WV-Potomac
Potomac
MD-W. Shore MD
PA-W. Shore MD
W. Shore MD
DE-E. Shore MD
MD-E. Shore MD
PA-E. Shore MD
VA-E. Shore MD
E. Shore MD
MD-Patuxent
Patuxent
Agriculture
0.01
0.62
8.38
9.01
0.00
1.55
0.73
4.83
2.38
9.48
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.71
-0.11
0.03
0.03
0.66
-0.11
-0.11
Urban and
Mixed Open
0.84
1.68
8.30
10.82
0.33
9.07
0.50
9.20
0.89
19.99
6.24
0.00
6.24
0.48
2.47
0.01
0.00
2.97
5.18
5.18
Onsite
Systems
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
POTW
0.00
0.00
5.95
5.95
8.26
3.21
0.54
1.54
0.00
13.54
10.71
0.00
10.71
0.24
4.46
0.00
0.00
4.70
0.00
0.00
Industrial
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Forest
0.04
3.64
12.97
16.64
0.00
0.51
0.89
-0.35
1.32
2.38
0.15
0.00
0.15
0.01
0.79
0.01
0.00
0.82
0.10
0.10
Subtotal
0.89
5.94
35.60
42.43
8.59
14.34
2.66
15.22
4.58
45.39
17.12
0.01
17.13
1.44
7.61
0.06
0.03
9.14
5.17
5.17
Federal/ State
-Agriculture1
0.18
1.19
11.75
13.12
0.00
3.47
1.30
4.93
2.71
12.41
0.44
0.01
0.45
1.54
2.77
0.05
0.03
4.38
0.05
0.05
Federal/
State -
POTW2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
1.98
0.00
0.13
0.00
2.11
6.48
0.00
6.48
0.00
2.63
0.00
0.00
2.63
0.00
0.00
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 87
Exhibit 33: Annual Costs by State Basin for Tier 1 (millions of 2001 $)
Statebasin
VA-Rappahannock
Rappahannock
VA-York
York
VA-James
WV-James
James
VA-E. Shore VA
E. Shore VA
Total
Agriculture
1.04
1.04
0.83
0.83
2.48
0.01
2.49
0.23
0.23
23.64
Urban and
Mixed Open
1.82
1.82
1.90
1.90
11.17
0.00
11.17
0.05
0.05
60.15
Onsite
Systems
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
POTW
1.07
1.07
1.76
1.76
3.60
0.00
3.60
0.00
0.00
41.34
Industrial
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Forest
0.45
0.45
1.19
1.19
1.74
0.01
1.75
-0.01
-0.01
23.47
Subtotal
4.38
4.38
5.67
5.67
18.99
0.02
19.01
0.27
0.27
148.60
Federal/ State
-Agriculture1
1.73
1.73
1.78
1.78
3.39
0.02
3.41
0.29
0.29
37.61
Federal/
State -
POTW2
0.09
0.09
0.17
0.17
0.29
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.00
11.78
Detail may not add to total because of independent rounding. Costs for the Blue Plains WWTF are allocated to DC-Potomac, MD-Potomac, and VA-Potomac
according to the method recommended by MWCOG (2002).
1. Includes several programs for installation and other cost-sharing.
2. POTW capital costs are shared at 50% for MD facilities, at 10% for VA facilities, and at zero for other states and the District of Columbia.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 88
Exhibit 34: Annual Costs by State Basin for Tier 2 (millions of 2001 $)
Statebasin
MD-Susquehanna
NY-Susquehanna
PA-Susquehanna
Susquehanna
DC-Potomac
MD-Potomac
PA-Potomac
VA-Potomac
WV-Potomac
Potomac
MD-W. Shore MD
PA-W. Shore MD
W. Shore MD
DE-E. Shore MD
MD-E. Shore MD
PA-E. Shore MD
VA-E. Shore MD
E. Shore MD
MD-Patuxent
Patuxent
Agriculture
0.04
3.71
20.39
24.13
0.00
1.80
2.24
9.10
5.01
18.15
0.13
0.02
0.15
1.43
0.08
0.12
0.05
1.67
-0.09
-0.09
Urban &
Mixed Open
1.04
6.36
25.52
32.91
2.10
17.70
1.44
22.82
2.50
46.56
14.68
0.01
14.68
0.99
4.90
0.07
0.01
5.98
8.96
8.96
Onsite
Systems
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
POTW
0.00
6.24
30.19
36.42
14.07
7.91
1.60
8.12
1.67
33.37
11.21
0.00
11.21
0.55
4.78
0.00
0.00
5.34
0.01
0.01
Industrial
0.00
0.00
2.04
2.04
0.00
0.83
0.00
1.04
0.56
2.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.81
0.81
Forest
0.04
4.09
14.59
18.73
0.00
0.57
1.00
-0.22
1.48
2.84
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.04
0.89
0.02
0.00
0.95
0.12
0.12
Subtotal
1.12
20.39
92.73
114.23
16.17
28.82
6.28
40.86
11.22
103.35
26.18
0.03
26.21
3.01
10.65
0.20
0.06
13.93
9.81
9.81
Federal/ State
-Agriculture1
1.05
10.96
60.82
72.84
0.00
10.87
6.87
14.85
7.64
40.23
2.66
0.07
2.73
4.91
16.35
0.41
0.16
21.82
0.90
0.90
Federal/
State -
POTW2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.79
0.00
0.51
0.00
3.31
6.80
0.00
6.80
0.00
2.68
0.00
0.00
2.68
0.00
0.00
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 89
Exhibit 34: Annual Costs by State Basin for Tier 2 (millions of 2001 $)
Statebasin
VA-Rappahannock
Rappahannock
VA-York
York
VA-James
WV-James
James
VA-E. Shore VA
E. Shore VA
Total
Agriculture
2.94
2.94
1.97
1.97
7.98
0.03
8.01
0.41
0.41
57.34
Urban &
Mixed Open
4.02
4.02
4.24
4.24
27.91
0.00
27.91
0.26
0.26
145.52
Onsite
Systems
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
POTW
2.72
2.72
3.02
3.02
38.87
0.00
38.87
0.59
0.59
131.54
Industrial
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.04
2.18
0.00
2.18
0.15
0.15
7.65
Forest
0.59
0.59
1.43
1.43
2.29
0.01
2.30
-0.01
-0.01
27.11
Subtotal
10.26
10.26
10.69
10.69
79.23
0.05
79.28
1.41
1.41
369.17
Federal/ State
-Agriculture1
7.28
7.28
5.68
5.68
15.45
0.05
15.5
2.01
2.01
168.98
Federal/
State -
POTW2
0.22
0.22
0.26
0.26
3.50
0.00
3.50
0.05
0.05
16.81
Detail may not add to total because of independent rounding. Costs for the Blue Plains WWTF are allocated to DC-Potomac, MD-Potomac, and VA-Potomac
according to the method recommended by MWCOG (2002).
1. Includes several programs for installation and other cost-sharing.
2. POTW capital costs are shared at 50% for MD facilities, at 10% for VA facilities, and at zero for other states and the District of Columbia.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 90
Exhibit 35: Annual Costs by State Basin for Tier 3 (millions of 2001 $)
Statebasin
MD-Susquehanna
NY-Susquehanna
PA-Susquehanna
Susquehanna
DC-Potomac
MD-Potomac
PA-Potomac
VA-Potomac
WV-Potomac
Potomac
MD-W. Shore MD
PA-W. Shore MD
W. Shore MD
DE-E. Shore MD
MD-E. Shore MD
PA-E. Shore MD
VA-E. Shore MD
E. Shore MD
MD-Patuxent
Patuxent
Agriculture
0.06
7.96
32.07
40.08
0.00
1.94
3.89
13.61
9.80
29.24
0.20
0.03
0.23
2.09
0.15
0.19
0.06
2.49
-0.07
-0.07
Urban &
Mixed Open
1.34
21.58
82.91
105.83
8.35
44.23
4.49
66.52
7.50
131.09
41.93
0.02
41.95
2.39
12.14
0.27
0.05
14.85
19.91
19.91
Onsite
Systems
0.11
1.13
3.82
5.07
0.03
1.02
0.24
1.27
0.38
2.94
1.06
0.00
1.06
0.18
0.61
0.04
0.00
0.83
0.44
0.44
POTW
0.07
10.18
57.68
67.93
25.71
18.27
2.28
21.39
2.42
70.07
28.01
0.00
28.01
0.79
6.62
0.00
0.00
7.41
1.54
1.54
Industrial
0.00
0.00
4.14
4.14
0.00
1.76
0.00
1.24
0.61
3.62
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.87
0.87
Forest
0.05
4.54
16.22
20.81
0.00
0.64
1.12
-0.09
1.65
3.31
0.19
0.00
0.19
0.07
0.99
0.02
0.00
1.08
0.13
0.13
Subtotal
1.63
45.40
196.83
243.86
34.09
67.86
12.02
103.94
22.36
240.27
71.43
0.06
71.49
5.52
20.51
0.52
0.11
26.66
22.81
22.81
Federal/
State -
Agriculture1
1.61
20.31
98.56
120.48
0.00
15.58
11.08
25.89
14.21
66.76
4.11
0.10
4.22
7.31
24.58
0.66
0.23
32.78
1.45
1.45
Federal/
State -
POTW2
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
9.59
0.00
1.57
0.00
11.16
16.47
0.00
16.47
0.00
3.76
0.00
0.00
3.76
0.84
0.84
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 91
Exhibit 35: Annual Costs by State Basin for Tier 3 (millions of 2001 $)
Statebasin
VA-Rappahannock
Rappahannock
VA-York
York
VA-James
WV-James
James
VA-E. Shore VA
E. Shore VA
Total
Agriculture
5.27
5.27
3.19
3.19
15.86
0.07
15.93
0.54
0.54
96.91
Urban &
Mixed Open
10.79
10.79
11.48
11.48
80.69
0.01
80.71
0.96
0.96
417.57
Onsite
Systems
0.44
0.44
0.58
0.58
1.6
0.00
1.6
0.06
0.06
13.03
POTW
4.92
4.92
4.30
4.30
62.82
0.00
62.82
0.68
0.68
247.67
Industrial
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
6.30
0.00
6.30
0.25
0.25
15.35
Forest
0.72
0.72
1.67
1.67
2.84
0.01
2.85
0.00
0.00
30.75
Subtotal
22.15
22.15
21.36
21.36
170.10
0.09
170.20
2.49
2.49
821.28
Federal/
State -
Agriculture1
12.51
12.51
9.26
9.26
28.85
0.10
28.94
2.97
2.97
279.37
Federal/
State -
POTW2
0.41
0.41
0.35
0.35
4.76
0.00
4.76
0.06
0.06
37.86
Detail may not add to total because of independent rounding. Costs for the Blue Plains WWTF are allocated to DC-Potomac, MD-Potomac, and VA-Potomac
according to the method recommended by MWCOG (2002).
1. Includes several programs for installation and other cost-sharing.
2. POTW capital costs are shared at 50% for MD facilities, at 10% for VA facilities, and at zero for other states and the District of Columbia.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 92
In Tier 2, the Susquehanna Basin's share of total annual costs increases to 34%, and the Potomac
Basin's share declines slightly to 26%. The James Basin accounts for 18% of total annual costs,
and for 29% of total POTW costs. Costs for the Maryland West Shore decline from 12% to 6%
of total annual costs, demonstrating the effect of Maryland's relatively high Tier 1 expenditures,
particularly on POTW controls. The Susquehanna Basin has 43% of total agricultural sector
costs; the Potomac Basin's share is much smaller-26% of total sector costs. The Susquehanna
and Potomac Basins each have 25% of the total POTW costs.
The distribution of costs for Tier 3 is similar to Tier 2. The Susquehanna Basin retains the
highest share—32%—with costs dominated by agricultural costs. The Potomac Basin has the
second highest share of total annual costs (28%), and the James Basin the third highest share
(18%). The Potomac Basin has 31% of urban sector costs throughout the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, and the James Basin has 19%. These two watersheds also have high POTW
costs—the Potomac Basin has 28% of total POTW costs and the James has 24%.
Exhibits 36 through 38 provide a summary of capital costs by state basin and basin as well as
sector detail, similar to Exhibits 33 through 35. There are no capital costs for the forestry BMP
and, therefore, this sector is not shown. The distribution of capital costs is similar to the
distribution of annual costs, with some exceptions. In Tier 1, the Potomac contributes 34% of
total capital costs while the Susquehanna and Maryland West Shore Basins each contribute 18%.
The James contributes 11% and the Maryland East Shore contributes 10%; all other basins have
less than 5% of the capital costs. POTW capital costs dominate Tier 1 costs in the Potomac and
the Maryland East and West Shore Basins, while agricultural capital costs contribute most to
Tier 1 costs in the Susquehanna Basin.
In Tier 2, the Susquehanna Basin's share of total capital costs rises to 28%, while the Potomac's
share drops to 27%. The James Basin contributes 22% of total capital costs, and the other basins
all have less than 10% each. The Susquehanna has the highest share of agricultural costs (40%),
the Potomac has the highest share of urban costs (32%), and the James contributes most to
POTW capital costs (30%).
In Tier 3, the Potomac Basin once again has the highest share of total capital costs at 30%. The
Susquehanna contributes 28%, the James Basin contributes 19%, the Maryland West Shore has
11%, and the remaining basins contribute less than 5% each. The Potomac has the greatest share
of urban costs (31%) and POTW costs (29%), reflecting the relatively high implementation of
urban storm water retrofits in the Potomac watershed. The Susquehanna contributes the highest
share of agricultural capital costs (40%), which reflects the large agricultural sector in the
Susquehanna watershed.
3.2 Detailed Cost Estimates
Exhibit 39 shows the BMP costs for each state for Tiers 1-3, calculated by multiplying the acres
shown in Exhibit 4 and the unit costs shown in Exhibit 16 (note that the acres shown in Exhibit 4
are rounded). Negative total costs indicate a reduction in BMP acres compared to the Progress
2000 Scenario because of a change from agriculture to another land use. Negative farmer costs
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 93
indicate a cost savings (i.e., that estimated state and federal contributions exceed the cost of the
BMP). Capital cost-sharing does not exceed 100% of capital costs, since none of the identified
cost-share programs permit this, but the sum of upfront capital cost-share, incentive payments,
and annual maintenance payments exceeds the annual cost of the BMP when farmer costs are
negative.
Exhibit 36: Capital Costs by State Basin for Tier 1 (millions of 2001 $)
Statebasin
MD-Susquehanna
NY-Susquehanna
PA-Susquehanna
Susquehanna
DC-Potomac
MD-Potomac
PA-Potomac
VA-Potomac
WV-Potomac
Potomac
MD-W. Shore MD
PA-W. Shore MD
W. Shore MD
DE-E. Shore MD
MD-E. Shore MD
PA-E. Shore MD
VA-E. Shore MD
E. Shore MD
MD-Patuxent
Patuxent
VA-Rappahannock
Rappahannock
VA-York
York
VA-James
WV-James
James
VA-E. Shore VA
E. Shore VA
Total
Agriculture
1.23
7.47
99.55
108.26
0.00
31.76
10.62
41.93
27.76
112.07
3.28
0.09
3.37
14.42
13.39
0.42
0.39
28.61
-0.03
-0.03
14.95
14.95
12.85
12.85
28.66
0.17
28.82
3.33
3.33
312.23
Urban &
Mixed Open
6.52
13.00
71.35
90.87
2.58
71.01
4.26
70.89
6.84
155.59
48.86
0.01
48.87
3.58
19.11
0.12
0.02
22.83
40.83
40.83
14.08
14.08
14.65
14.65
86.38
0.00
86.38
0.41
0.41
474.50
Onsite
Systems
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
POTW
0.00
0.00
65.68
65.68
130.00
63.64
6.40
17.96
0.00
218.00
208.00
0.00
208.00
3.19
84.35
0.00
0.00
87.54
0.00
0.00
12.58
12.58
23.16
23.16
40.25
0.00
40.25
0.00
0.00
655.20
Industrial
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
7.75
20.48
236.58
264.80
132.58
166.40
21.28
130.79
34.60
485.65
260.14
0.10
260.24
21.18
116.85
0.54
0.41
138.97
40.79
40.79
41.62
41.62
50.66
50.66
155.28
0.17
155.45
3.74
3.74
1,441.93
Detail may not add to total because of independent rounding. Costs for the Blue Plains WWTF
Potomac, MD-Potomac, and VA-Potomac according to the method recommended by MWCOG
are allocated to DC-
(2002).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 94
Exhibit 37: Capital Costs by State Basin for Tier 2 (millions of 2001 $)
Statebasin
MD-Susquehanna
NY-Susquehanna
PA-Susquehanna
Susquehanna
DC-Potomac
MD-Potomac
PA-Potomac
VA-Potomac
WV-Potomac
Potomac
MD-W. Shore MD
PA-W. Shore MD
W. Shore MD
DE-E. Shore MD
MD-E. Shore MD
PA-E. Shore MD
VA-E. Shore MD
E. Shore MD
MD-Patuxent
Patuxent
VA-Rappahannock
Rappahannock
VA-York
York
VA-James
WV-James
James
VA-E. Shore VA
E. Shore VA
Total
Agriculture
2.08
61.95
279.08
343.11
0.00
46.56
32.36
102.41
70.17
251.50
6.54
0.23
6.77
22.29
32.42
1.82
0.67
57.19
1.31
1.31
42.14
42.14
29.52
29.52
111.50
0.47
111.98
6.85
6.85
850.38
Urban &
Mixed Open
8.01
48.37
203.10
259.49
16.14
136.87
11.41
175.10
19.11
358.63
113.57
0.05
113.62
7.40
37.65
0.56
0.10
45.72
69.64
69.64
30.72
30.72
32.56
32.56
215.21
0.02
215.23
2.02
2.02
1,127.63
Onsite
Systems
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
POTW
0.00
65.16
334.65
399.81
154.26
89.14
17.37
71.04
21.30
353.10
218.00
0.00
218.00
5.82
85.86
0.00
0.00
91.67
0.00
0.00
30.59
30.59
35.88
35.88
479.32
0.00
479.32
6.75
6.75
1,615.12
Industrial
0.00
0.00
18.12
18.12
0.00
5.00
0.00
9.29
5.29
19.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.35
7.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.75
0.00
5.75
0.01
0.01
50.81
Total
10.10
175.48
834.96
1,020.53
170.40
277.56
61.13
357.85
115.86
982.81
338.12
0.28
338.39
35.51
155.93
2.38
0.77
194.58
78.30
78.30
103.45
103.45
97.96
97.96
811.78
0.50
812.28
15.63
15.63
3,643.93
Detail may not add to total because of independent rounding. Costs for the Blue Plains WWTF are allocated
Potomac, MD-Potomac, and VA-Potomac according to the method recommended by MWCOG (2002).
to DC-
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 95
Exhibit 38: Capital Costs by State Basin for Tier 3 (millions of 2001 $)
Statebasin
MD-Susquehanna
NY-Susquehanna
PA-Susquehanna
Susquehanna
DC-Potomac
MD-Potomac
PA-Potomac
VA-Potomac
WV-Potomac
Potomac
MD-W. Shore MD
PA-W. Shore MD
W. Shore MD
DE-E. Shore MD
MD-E. Shore MD
PA-E. Shore MD
VA-E. Shore MD
E. Shore MD
MD-Patuxent
Patuxent
VA-Rappahannock
Rappahannock
VA-York
York
VA-James
WV-James
James
VA-E. Shore VA
E. Shore VA
Total
Agriculture
3.24
127.49
469.27
600.00
0.00
60.35
54.92
182.08
134.28
431.64
10.16
0.37
10.52
31.60
51.89
3.08
0.87
87.45
2.68
2.68
76.35
76.35
48.86
48.86
221.89
0.97
222.85
9.55
9.55
1,489.91
Urban &
Mixed Open
10.28
165.82
647.43
823.53
64.40
341.70
35.05
512.67
57.69
1,011.51
324.25
0.17
324.42
18.26
93.70
2.09
0.39
114.44
154.19
154.19
83.06
83.06
88.78
88.78
625.25
0.08
625.33
7.46
7.46
3,232.72
Onsite
Systems
0.59
5.94
20.07
26.60
0.17
5.37
1.27
6.65
1.98
15.45
5.55
0.01
5.56
0.95
3.22
0.19
0.02
4.37
2.33
2.33
2.30
2.30
3.02
3.02
8.39
0.01
8.39
0.32
0.32
68.35
POTW
1.50
105.76
646.11
753.37
303.51
304.15
24.61
219.91
31.50
883.68
528.46
0.00
528.46
9.00
120.68
0.00
0.00
129.68
26.82
26.82
56.39
56.39
48.67
48.67
652.03
0.00
652.03
7.76
7.76
3,086.87
Industrial
0.00
0.00
35.08
35.08
0.00
10.00
0.00
10.76
5.74
26.49
0.40
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.84
7.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
27.19
0.00
27.19
0.63
0.63
97.63
Total
15.61
405.01
1,817.96
2,238.58
368.08
721.58
115.85
932.06
231.19
2,368.77
868.81
0.55
869.36
59.81
269.49
5.37
1.28
335.95
193.86
193.86
218.11
218.11
189.34
189.34
1,534.74
1.05
1,535.79
25.72
25.72
7,975.47
Detail may not add to total because of independent rounding. Costs for the Blue Plains WWTF are allocated
Potomac, MD-Potomac, and VA-Potomac according to the method recommended by MWCOG (2002).
to DC-
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 96
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 1: Delaware (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
234
9,605
0
79,964
361,963
31,612
0
0
483,377
Capital
2,797
74,167
0
617,844
2,796,733
86,086
0
0
3,577,627
Annual O&M
234
9,605
0
79,964
361,963
31,612
0
0
483,377
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
650,607
127,076
39,577
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,167,989
0
31,905
0
0
221,702
1,962
2,240,817
Capital
3,304,451
141,013
234,091
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,602,410
0
137,963
0
0
0
0
14,419,927
Annual O&M
41,375
0
7,166
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,038
0
0
221,702
1,962
286,243
Annual
Land
Rental2
374,773
108,814
17,183
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
500,770
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
57,912
-3,088
8,104
0
0
0
0
0
0
622,371
0
18,505
0
0
0
1,962
705,766
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
592,695
130,164
31,472
0
0
0
0
0
0
545,618
0
13,400
0
0
221,702
0
1,535,051
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
14,685
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
239,875
0
239,875
Capital
3,187,400
0
3,187,400
Annual O&M
63,244
0
63,244
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
2,978,754
Capital
21,184,954
Annual O&M
832,863
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs.
Annual cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of
land from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 97
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 1: District of Columbia (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
60
2,451
0
331,687
0
0
0
0
334,198
Capital
714
18,924
0
2,562,806
0
0
0
0
2,582,444
Annual O&M
60
2,451
0
331,687
0
0
0
0
334,198
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual
Land
Rental2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
0
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal5
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
8,260,558
0
8,260,558
Capital
130,000,000
0
130,000,000
Annual O&M
0
0
0
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
8,594,755
Capital
132,582,444
Annual O&M
334,198
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of
land from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
5. Costs for Blue Plains WWTF are allocated to Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia as recommended by MWCOG (2002). Costs
for the District of Columbia include CSO controls.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 98
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 1: Maryland (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
572,384
340,710
0
4,195,385
18,691,867
0
0
0
23,800,346
Capital
6,857,076
2,630,870
0
32,415,941
144,424,027
0
0
0
186,327,914
Annual O&M
572,384
340,710
0
4,195,385
18,691,867
0
0
0
23,800,346
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
3,891,132
1,024,591
0
157,261
0
830,139
-862,958
1,504,720
222,346
872,566
0
772,924
0
0
-13,153
-145,758
8,253,812
Capital
23,075,131
1,011,164
0
180,675
0
4,481,575
0
8,365,718
1,236,169
7,920,713
0
3,342,256
0
0
0
0
49,613,399
Annual O&M
288,924
0
0
0
0
249,755
-862,958
421,322
62,257
0
0
340,087
0
0
-13,153
-145,758
340,476
Annual
Land
Rental2
1,964,971
893,640
0
133,863
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,992,474
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
-140,342
-99,176
0
-17,721
0
322,303
-223,730
556,747
82,268
623,261
0
394,191
0
0
0
-145,758
1,352,044
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
4,031,475
1,123,766
0
174,982
0
507,836
-639,228
947,974
140,078
249,305
0
378,733
0
0
-13,153
0
6,901,768
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
1,592,527
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal5
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
29,478,054
0
29,478,054
Capital
355,985,619
0
355,985,619
Annual O&M
7,284,694
0
7,284,694
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
63,124,740
Capital
591,926,932
Annual O&M
31,425,516
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of land
from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
5. Costs for Blue Plains WWTF are allocated to Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia as recommended by MWCOG (2002).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 99
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 1: New York (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
1,965
80,840
0
806,622
792,426
0
0
0
1,681,854
Capital
23,545
624,228
0
6,232,423
6,122,733
0
0
0
13,002,928
Annual O&M
1,965
80,840
0
806,622
792,426
0
0
0
1,681,854
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
0
0
0
433,622
0
0
0
0
0
126,281
209,254
1,011,757
0
0
0
29,853
1,810,767
Capital
0
0
0
789,762
0
0
0
0
0
1,146,315
1,163,380
4,375,012
0
0
0
0
7,474,468
Annual O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58,591
445,173
0
0
0
29,853
533,617
Annual
Land
Rental2
0
0
0
331,345
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
331,345
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
0
0
0
-17,297
0
0
0
0
0
15,785
77,424
515,996
0
0
0
29,853
621,761
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
0
0
0
450,919
0
0
0
0
0
110,496
131,830
495,761
0
0
0
0
1,189,006
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
3,635,376
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
0
0
0
Capital
0
0
0
Annual O&M
0
0
0
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
7,127,997
Capital
20,477,397
Annual O&M
2,215,471
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of
land from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 100
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 1: Pennsylvania (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
1,787,376
393,284
0
3,227,571
3,409,722
0
0
0
8,817,952
Capital
21,412,504
3,036,834
0
24,938,052
26,345,454
0
0
0
75,732,844
Annual O&M
1,787,376
393,284
0
3,227,571
3,409,722
0
0
0
8,817,952
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
223,036
37,194
81,106
537,128
0
7,988,447
0
713,633
55,927
1,434,155
86,218
10,923,744
0
0
9,617
158,920
22,249,124
Capital
1,312,681
34,236
489,136
687,003
0
43,146,864
0
3,967,546
310,933
13,018,531
479,342
47,236,144
0
0
0
0
110,682,417
Annual O&M
16,436
0
14,974
0
0
2,400,731
0
199,817
15,659
0
24,141
4,806,447
0
0
9,617
158,920
7,646,743
Annual
Land
Rental2
113,462
32,760
34,313
448,158
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
628,693
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
11,363
-1,304
12,957
-26,168
0
2,400,731
0
199,817
23,713
286,831
36,556
6,029,907
0
0
9,617
158,920
9,142,941
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
211,673
38,498
68,149
563,295
0
5,587,716
0
513,815
32,214
1,147,324
49,662
4,893,837
0
0
0
0
13,106,184
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
13,880,287
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
6,490,146
0
6,490,146
Capital
72,079,813
0
72,079,813
Annual O&M
1,866,433
0
1,866,433
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
51,437,510
Capital
258,495,073
Annual O&M
18,331,128
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of land
from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 101
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 1: Virginia (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
18,367
755,486
0
6,158,798
17,170,631
45,366
0
0
24,148,648
Capital
220,036
5,833,663
0
47,586,385
132,670,093
123,542
0
0
186,433,719
Annual O&M
18,367
755,486
0
6,158,798
17,170,631
45,366
0
0
24,148,648
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
847,877
162,030
201,687
3,383,002
0
9,073,602
-946,558
1,057,642
0
1,467,264
2,881,677
1,730,494
0
0
1,827,469
-105,986
21,580,201
Capital
5,349,858
181,989
1,214,791
4,119,205
0
48,538,411
0
5,880,117
0
13,319,083
16,021,111
7,482,955
0
0
0
0
102,107,520
Annual O&M
66,986
0
37,188
0
0
2,787,656
-946,558
296,140
0
0
806,869
761,418
0
0
1,827,469
-105,986
5,531,181
Annual
Land
Rental2
401,306
138,462
85,476
2,849,546
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,474,789
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
115,364
-9,705
45,673
-219,658
0
4,359,143
-236,639
486,515
0
838,437
1,325,571
1,003,687
0
0
1,827,469
-105,986
9,429,871
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
732,513
171,735
156,014
3,602,660
0
4,714,460
-709,918
571,127
0
628,828
1,556,105
726,808
0
0
0
0
12,150,330
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
3,019,242
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal5
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
8,650,293
0
8,650,293
Capital
93,947,837
0
93,947,837
Annual O&M
1,798,521
0
1,798,521
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
57,398,385
Capital
382,489,077
Annual O&M
31,478,351
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of land
from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
5. Costs for Blue Plains WWTF are allocated to Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia as recommended by MWCOG (2002).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 102
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 1: West Virginia (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
802
33,004
0
270,464
581,455
0
0
0
885,725
Capital
9,612
254,845
0
2,089,761
4,492,653
0
0
0
6,846,872
Annual O&M
802
33,004
0
270,464
581,455
0
0
0
885,725
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
39,340
25,004
0
21,921
0
3,041,942
-9,421
62,432
275
113,956
1,544,232
303,591
0
0
0
-25,815
5,117,457
Capital
321,293
48,685
0
48,760
0
16,227,374
0
347,103
1,531
1,034,433
8,585,385
1,312,778
0
0
0
0
27,927,343
Annual O&M
4,023
0
0
0
0
940,423
-9,421
17,481
77
0
432,385
133,580
0
0
0
-25,815
1,492,733
Annual
Land
Rental2
12,520
18,699
0
15,606
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46,825
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
8,480
-278
0
-279
0
1,465,803
-2,355
28,719
127
28,489
710,346
176,083
0
0
0
-25,815
2,389,320
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
30,859
25,282
0
22,200
0
1,576,139
-7,065
33,714
149
85,467
833,885
127,508
0
0
0
0
2,728,137
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
1,328,544
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
0
0
0
Capital
0
0
0
Annual O&M
0
0
0
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
7,331,726
Capital
34,774,215
Annual O&M
2,378,458
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of
land from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 103
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 2: Delaware (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
12,439
8,644
0
499,772
411,322
54,452
0
0
986,628
Capital
149,013
66,749
0
3,861,523
3,178,105
148,286
0
0
7,403,677
Annual O&M
12,439
8,644
0
499,772
411,322
54,452
0
0
986,628
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
1 ,083,343
254,741
39,577
1,059,660
0
829,226
1,679,761
17,447
7,130
1,061,261
30,401
37,044
0
0
221,972
13,249
6,334,812
Capital
5,522,386
275,772
234,091
1,676,070
0
4,479,396
0
97,000
39,639
9,633,587
169,019
160,183
0
0
0
0
22,287,143
Annual O&M
69,146
0
7,166
0
0
249,124
1,679,761
4,885
1,996
0
8,512
16,299
0
0
221,972
13,249
2,272,111
Annual
Land
Rental2
622,370
219,028
17,183
842,601
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,701,181
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
96,783
-6,040
8,104
-36,708
0
321,637
419,940
8,026
3,280
565,500
13,984
21,485
0
0
0
13,249
1,429,241
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
986,560
260,781
31,472
1,096,368
0
507,590
1,259,821
9,421
3,850
495,760
16,417
15,558
0
0
221,972
0
4,905,571
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
44,020
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
552,811
0
552,811
Capital
5,815,797
0
5,815,797
Annual O&M
230,527
0
230,527
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
7,918,271
Capital
35,506,616
Annual O&M
3,489,266
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs.
Annual cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of
land from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 104
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 2: District of Columbia (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
3,174
2,206
0
2,076,376
0
14,385
0
0
2,096,140
Capital
38,021
17,031
0
16,043,269
0
39,173
0
0
16,137,494
Annual O&M
3,174
2,206
0
2,076,376
0
14,385
0
0
2,096,140
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual
Land
Rental2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
0
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal5
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
14,069,871
0
14,069,871
Capital
154,263,400
0
154,263,400
Annual O&M
4,267,550
0
4,267,550
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
16,166,011
Capital
170,400,894
Annual O&M
6,363,690
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of
land from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
5. Costs for Blue Plains WWTF are allocated to Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia as recommended by MWCOG (2002). Costs
for the District of Columbia include CSO controls.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 105
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 2: Maryland (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
1,039,840
303,006
0
26,216,002
18,922,461
800,481
0
0
47,281,791
Capital
12,457,130
2,339,734
0
202,559,788
146,205,730
2,179,909
0
0
365,742,292
Annual O&M
1,039,840
303,006
0
26,216,002
18,922,461
800,481
0
0
47,281,791
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
8,805,605
2,412,068
961,043
9,858,895
0
-984,682
8,699,357
1,739,112
227,298
43,723
1,213,802
810,839
0
0
-14,655
9,974
33,782,377
Capital
52,510,649
2,589,720
6,002,266
11,539,825
0
-5,313,725
0
9,668,850
1,263,699
396,894
6,748,311
3,506,205
0
0
0
0
88,912,693
Annual O&M
657,487
0
183,744
0
0
-296,530
8,699,357
486,951
63,644
0
339,864
356,769
0
0
-14,655
9,974
10,486,604
Annual
Land
Rental2
4,422,358
2,076,687
386,843
8,364,435
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15,250,323
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
-319,368
-254,001
158,301
-1,131,834
0
-382,549
2,255,389
643,471
84,100
31,231
449,107
413,528
0
0
0
9,974
1,957,348
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
9,124,973
2,666,069
802,742
10,990,729
0
-602,133
6,443,968
1,095,640
143,198
12,492
764,695
397,311
0
0
-14,655
0
31,825,029
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
1,791,593
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal5
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
36,180,908
1,637,472
37,818,381
Capital
392,994,846
12,350,911
405,345,756
Annual O&M
11,651,128
581,548
12,232,676
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
120,674,142
Capital
860,000,742
Annual O&M
70,001,072
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of land
from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
5. Costs for Blue Plains WWTF are allocated to Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia as recommended by MWCOG (2002).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 106
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 2: New York (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
104,690
72,755
0
5,041,389
900,484
235,687
0
0
6,355,003
Capital
1,254,168
561,792
0
38,952,644
6,957,651
641,833
0
0
48,368,088
Annual O&M
104,690
72,755
0
5,041,389
900,484
235,687
0
0
6,355,003
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
1,584,359
237,642
0
2,321,127
0
2,621,314
2,246,571
782,184
319,643
941,937
1,262,326
2,182,852
0
0
0
167,524
14,667,478
Capital
12,404,134
408,479
0
3,954,102
0
14,048,270
0
4,348,670
1,777,101
8,550,427
7,018,088
9,439,027
0
0
0
0
61,948,298
Annual O&M
155,312
0
0
0
0
801,998
2,246,571
219,012
89,500
0
353,451
960,455
0
0
0
167,524
4,993,823
Annual
Land
Rental2
548,943
184,742
0
1,809,053
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,542,738
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
217,389
-8,946
0
-86,601
0
1,029,413
280,821
289,408
118,268
117,742
467,060
1,113,255
0
0
0
167,524
3,705,333
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
1,366,969
246,588
0
2,407,728
0
1,591,901
1,965,750
492,776
201,375
824,195
795,265
1,069,598
0
0
0
0
10,962,145
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
4,089,798
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
6,235,642
0
6,235,642
Capital
65,159,566
0
65,159,566
Annual O&M
2,055,843
0
2,055,843
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
31,347,921
Capital
175,475,952
Annual O&M
13,404,669
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of
land from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 107
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 2: Pennsylvania (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
2,351,317
352,798
0
20,166,570
3,412,988
747,517
0
0
27,031,192
Capital
28,168,437
2,724,214
0
155,818,424
26,370,696
2,035,675
0
0
215,117,445
Annual O&M
2,351,317
352,798
0
20,166,570
3,412,988
747,517
0
0
27,031,192
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
12,529,675
3,657,998
303,268
19,254,172
0
11,140,394
16,610,845
3,097,505
1,022,835
5,639,185
3,238,242
13,298,399
0
0
406,072
734,105
90,932,696
Capital
75,215,200
3,727,866
1,797,060
23,661,964
0
59,484,892
0
17,221,042
5,686,604
51,189,665
18,003,488
57,504,561
0
0
0
0
313,492,341
Annual O&M
941,771
0
55,012
0
0
3,436,828
16,610,845
867,301
286,394
0
906,708
5,851,296
0
0
406,072
734,105
30,096,333
Annual
Land
Rental2
6,251,200
3,175,222
131,355
16,189,839
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25,747,616
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
651,101
-141,993
47,602
-901,274
0
3,436,828
7,382,598
867,301
433,682
1,127,837
1,373,014
7,340,717
0
0
406,072
734,105
22,757,591
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
11,878,574
3,799,991
255,666
20,155,446
0
7,703,566
9,228,247
2,230,204
589,153
4,511,348
1,865,227
5,957,683
0
0
0
0
68,175,104
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
15,615,323
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
31,784,614
2,043,399
33,828,013
Capital
352,016,372
18,123,358
370,139,730
Annual O&M
9,203,774
493,968
9,697,742
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
167,407,224
Capital
898,749,516
Annual O&M
66,825,267
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of land
from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 108
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 2: Virginia (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
972,497
675,841
0
38,488,376
17,864,470
1,264,150
0
0
59,265,334
Capital
11,650,369
5,218,663
0
297,383,150
138,031,087
3,442,593
0
0
455,725,862
Annual O&M
972,497
675,841
0
38,488,376
17,864,470
1,264,150
0
0
59,265,334
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
9,758,239
1,494,822
479,241
10,418,034
0
13,403,197
6,197,876
6,274,538
2,140,090
2,900,010
10,477,739
2,183,733
0
0
2,108,290
36,521
67,872,330
Capital
63,154,108
1,780,341
2,939,844
12,811,532
0
71,609,558
0
34,884,232
11,898,149
26,324,820
58,252,555
9,442,837
0
0
0
0
293,097,977
Annual O&M
790,754
0
89,996
0
0
4,129,431
6,197,876
1,756,871
599,225
0
2,933,767
960,843
0
0
2,108,290
36,521
19,603,573
Annual
Land
Rental2
4,486,546
1,264,260
198,004
8,758,882
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,707,692
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
1,361,854
-94,937
110,531
-683,180
0
6,447,873
1,549,469
2,886,288
984,441
1,657,148
4,819,760
1,266,565
0
0
2,108,290
36,521
22,450,623
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
8,396,385
1,589,760
368,710
11,101,214
0
6,955,324
4,648,407
3,388,251
1,155,649
1,242,861
5,657,979
917,168
0
0
0
0
45,421,708
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
4,077,351
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal5
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
57,856,930
3,411,858
61,268,788
Capital
623,564,696
15,051,365
638,616,061
Annual O&M
12,421,018
2,125,063
14,546,080
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
192,483,803
Capital
1,387,439,899
Annual O&M
93,414,987
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of land
from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
5. Costs for Blue Plains WWTF are allocated to Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia as recommended by MWCOG (2002).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 109
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 2: West Virginia (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
42,740
29,703
0
1,690,402
660,744
81,873
0
0
2,505,462
Capital
512,023
229,355
0
13,061,008
5,105,287
222,961
0
0
19,130,634
Annual O&M
42,740
29,703
0
1,690,402
660,744
81,873
0
0
2,505,462
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
1,553,131
55,979
0
825,639
0
2,779,769
327,115
2,091,315
829,179
381,612
3,324,960
582,122
0
0
0
-19,807
12,731,013
Capital
13,167,381
108,997
0
1,836,510
0
14,825,029
0
11,626,979
4,609,942
3,464,082
18,485,609
2,517,194
0
0
0
0
70,641,723
Annual O&M
164,869
0
0
0
0
859,860
327,115
585,568
232,170
0
930,989
256,134
0
0
0
-19,807
3,336,897
Annual
Land
Rental2
454,004
41,863
0
587,803
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,083,670
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
347,548
-623
0
-10,493
0
1,339,837
81,779
962,005
381,422
95,403
1,529,481
337,631
0
0
0
-19,807
5,044,183
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
1,205,583
56,602
0
836,132
0
1,439,932
245,337
1,129,310
447,756
286,209
1,795,478
244,491
0
0
0
0
7,686,830
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
1,494,612
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
0
Capital
0
Annual O&M
0
Point Sources
Municipal
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
1,667,872
559,099
2,226,971
Capital
21,301,901
5,286,279
26,588,180
Annual O&M
522,764
107,156
629,920
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
18,958,057
Capital
116,360,538
Annual O&M
6,472,279
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of
land from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 110
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 3: Delaware (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
36,847
6,723
0
1,999,088
274,214
72,586
0
0
2,389,458
Capital
441,417
51,915
0
15,446,093
2,118,737
197,669
0
0
18,255,831
Annual O&M
36,847
6,723
0
1,999,088
274,214
72,586
0
0
2,389,458
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
1 ,274,902
341,376
39,594
1 ,747,278
0
1,758,609
2,514,479
87,236
5,243
677,137
60,802
44,238
316,092
285,037
262,177
-22,371
9,391,828
Capital
6,494,628
366,849
234,183
2,764,430
0
9,484,031
0
485,000
29,147
6,146,711
338,038
191,292
2,869,325
2,200,976
0
0
31,604,611
Annual O&M
81,319
0
7,169
0
0
530,383
2,514,479
24,426
1,468
0
17,025
19,465
0
0
262,177
-22,371
3,435,539
Annual
Land
Rental2
732,773
293,868
17,191
1,389,271
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,433,103
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
113,822
-8,035
8,108
-60,545
0
683,912
628,620
40,128
2,412
360,818
27,969
25,658
0
285,037
0
-22,371
2,085,531
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
1,161,080
349,411
31,486
1,807,823
0
1,074,697
1,885,859
47,107
2,831
316,320
32,833
18,580
316,092
0
262,177
0
7,306,297
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
73,355
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
181,326
Capital
951,419
Annual O&M
181,326
Point Sources
Municipal
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
785,664
0
785,664
Capital
8,998,705
0
8,998,705
Annual O&M
286,998
0
286,998
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
12,821,630
Capital
59,810,566
Annual O&M
6,293,321
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs.
Annual cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of
land from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 111
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 3: District of Columbia (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
9,401
1,715
0
8,308,836
0
26,949
0
0
8,346,901
Capital
112,628
13,246
0
64,198,805
0
73,388
0
0
64,398,067
Annual O&M
9,401
1,715
0
8,308,836
0
26,949
0
0
8,346,901
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual
Land
Rental2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
0
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
33,087
Capital
173,609
Annual O&M
33,087
Point Sources
Municipal5
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
25,710,919
0
25,710,919
Capital
303,506,200
0
303,506,200
Annual O&M
6,425,300
0
6,425,300
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
34,090,908
Capital
368,077,876
Annual O&M
14,805,289
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of
land from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
5. Costs for Blue Plains WWTF are allocated to Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia as recommended by MWCOG (2002). Costs
for the District of Columbia include CSO controls.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 112
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 3: Maryland (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
1,886,731
232,846
0
104,843,384
11,069,443
1,507,955
0
0
119,540,360
Capital
22,602,757
1,797,978
0
810,079,790
85,528,832
4,106,536
0
0
924,115,893
Annual O&M
1,886,731
232,846
0
104,843,384
11,069,443
1,507,955
0
0
119,540,360
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
10,880,555
3,370,826
1,922,412
15,681,537
0
-2,704,391
12,885,030
2,873,335
163,730
-2,764,411
2,428,946
863,919
2,296,770
1,850,941
-8,577
-132,705
49,607,917
Capital
64,813,373
3,692,917
12,004,531
18,382,523
0
-14,744,417
0
15,974,733
910,283
-25,093,921
13,504,087
3,735,733
20,848,914
14,292,475
0
0
128,321,230
Annual O&M
811,530
0
367,488
0
0
-794,922
12,885,030
804,534
45,844
0
680,105
380,124
0
0
-8,577
-132,705
15,038,451
Annual
Land
Rental2
5,470,358
2,892,576
774,012
13,300,917
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,437,863
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
-394,193
-362,204
316,602
-1,802,970
0
-1,033,605
3,340,563
1,063,134
60,580
-1,974,579
898,710
440,599
0
1,850,941
0
-132,705
2,270,873
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
11,274,748
3,733,029
1,605,810
17,484,508
0
-1,670,786
9,544,467
1,810,201
103,150
-789,832
1,530,236
423,320
2,296,770
0
-8,577
0
47,337,045
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
1,990,659
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
3,250,804
Capital
17,057,048
Annual O&M
3,250,804
Point Sources
Municipal5
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
85,214,328
2,676,421
87,890,748
Capital
981,622,772
18,239,006
999,861,778
Annual O&M
23,808,244
1,117,102
24,925,346
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
262,280,488
Capital
2,069,355,949
Annual O&M
162,754,961
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of land
from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
5. Costs for Blue Plains WWTF are allocated to Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia as recommended by MWCOG (2002).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 113
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 3: New York (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
310,119
56,586
0
20,165,554
600,322
449,237
0
0
21,581,819
Capital
3,715,185
436,939
0
155,810,576
4,638,434
1,223,383
0
0
165,824,517
Annual O&M
310,119
56,586
0
20,165,554
600,322
449,237
0
0
21,581,819
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
2,715,428
415,873
0
3,722,815
0
5,747,569
3,355,143
3,884,525
233,445
974,582
2,300,132
3,822,385
483,087
380,103
0
237,254
28,272,341
Capital
21,232,593
714,838
0
6,389,951
0
30,775,278
0
21,596,594
1,297,872
8,846,765
12,787,924
16,528,648
4,385,221
2,935,057
0
0
127,490,741
Annual O&M
265,854
0
0
0
0
1,762,030
3,355,143
1,087,667
65,365
0
644,037
1,681,849
0
0
0
237,254
9,099,198
Annual
Land
Rental2
943,070
323,298
0
2,895,287
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,161,655
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
372,113
-15,656
0
-139,950
0
2,260,222
419,393
1,437,274
86,375
121,823
851,049
1,949,416
0
380,103
0
237,254
7,959,416
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
2,343,315
431,529
0
3,862,765
0
3,487,347
2,935,750
2,447,250
147,070
852,760
1,449,083
1,872,969
483,087
0
0
0
20,312,925
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
4,544,220
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
1,131,503
Capital
5,937,023
Annual O&M
1,131,503
Point Sources
Municipal
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
10,184,157
0
10,184,157
Capital
105,760,184
0
105,760,184
Annual O&M
3,399,944
0
3,399,944
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
65,714,039
Capital
405,012,465
Annual O&M
35,212,464
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of
land from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 114
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 3: Pennsylvania (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
3,372,590
273,498
0
80,640,209
1,971,034
1,442,580
0
0
87,699,911
Capital
40,403,133
2,111,882
0
623,072,254
15,229,335
3,928,502
0
0
684,745,106
Annual O&M
3,372,590
273,498
0
80,640,209
1,971,034
1,442,580
0
0
87,699,911
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
21,111,400
6,371,405
528,432
30,058,820
0
15,876,265
24,719,849
12,508,191
746,558
3,849,996
6,335,106
16,622,917
3,544,743
2,800,506
685,345
821,257
146,580,789
Capital
126,820,710
6,496,114
3,122,939
36,977,925
0
84,680,815
0
69,541,155
4,150,602
34,948,310
35,220,968
71,880,344
32,177,379
21,624,763
0
0
527,642,024
Annual O&M
1,587,925
0
95,601
0
0
4,909,712
24,719,849
3,502,294
209,036
0
1,773,830
7,314,083
0
0
685,345
821,257
45,618,932
Annual
Land
Rental2
10,525,234
5,530,128
229,680
25,270,009
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41,555,051
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
1,097,825
-247,434
82,724
-1,408,474
0
4,909,712
10,986,599
3,502,294
316,541
769,999
2,686,085
9,175,850
0
2,800,506
685,345
821,257
36,178,828
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
20,013,575
6,618,839
445,709
31,467,293
0
10,966,553
13,733,249
9,005,898
430,018
3,079,996
3,649,021
7,447,067
3,544,743
0
0
0
110,401,961
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
17,350,359
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
4,106,021
Capital
21,544,394
Annual O&M
4,106,021
Point Sources
Municipal
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
59,952,609
4,136,284
64,088,893
Capital
670,716,278
35,078,315
705,794,593
Annual O&M
16,928,086
1,137,311
18,065,397
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
319,825,974
Capital
1,939,726,117
Annual O&M
155,490,261
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of land
from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 115
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 3: Virginia (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
2,863,404
522,468
0
153,911,083
10,814,275
2,391,345
0
0
170,502,574
Capital
34,303,155
4,034,356
0
1,189,204,823
83,557,256
6,512,225
0
0
1,317,611,815
Annual O&M
2,863,404
522,468
0
153,911,083
10,814,275
2,391,345
0
0
170,502,574
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
15,165,870
2,483,348
764,019
16,416,047
0
18,557,806
9,605,252
27,030,520
1,562,660
1,710,724
17,968,738
2,818,268
2,056,859
1,233,866
926,890
-48,363
118,252,504
Capital
97,987,186
2,966,709
4,708,912
20,185,401
0
98,973,867
0
150,280,207
8,687,842
15,529,089
99,899,881
12,186,672
18,671,127
9,527,582
0
0
539,604,475
Annual O&M
1,226,900
0
144,151
0
0
5,740,238
9,605,252
7,568,546
437,545
0
5,031,247
1,240,038
0
0
926,890
-48,363
31,872,443
Annual
Land
Rental2
6,986,538
2,099,145
313,546
13,801,946
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23,201,175
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
2,112,994
-158,201
177,044
-1,076,395
0
8,944,630
2,401,313
12,434,039
718,824
977,557
8,265,620
1,634,595
0
1,233,866
926,890
-48,363
38,544,411
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
13,052,876
2,641,549
586,975
17,492,442
0
9,613,176
7,203,939
14,596,481
843,836
733,168
9,703,119
1,183,672
2,056,859
0
0
0
79,708,093
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
5,135,459
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
3,944,432
Capital
20,696,534
Annual O&M
3,944,432
Point Sources
Municipal5
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
101,254,416
7,923,629
109,178,044
Capital
984,760,302
38,575,094
1,023,335,396
Annual O&M
29,732,400
4,625,704
34,358,104
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
407,013,014
Capital
2,901,248,220
Annual O&M
240,677,554
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of land
from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
5. Costs for Blue Plains WWTF are allocated to Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia as recommended by MWCOG (2002).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 116
Exhibit 39: Estimated Costs of Tier 3: West Virginia (2001 $)
Urban
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Environmental Site Design / Low-Impact Dev.
Storm Water Retrofits
Storm Water Management on New Dev.
Nutrient Management
Urban Land Conversion
Forest Conservation
Total
Total Annual
126,608
23,101
0
6,761,607
440,496
155,724
0
0
7,507,537
Capital
1,516,750
178,383
0
52,244,033
3,403,525
424,074
0
0
57,766,765
Annual O&M
126,608
23,101
0
6,761,607
440,496
155,724
0
0
7,507,537
Agriculture
Forest Buffers
Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land
Tree Planting
Farm Plans
Cover Crops
Stream Protection w/ Fencing
Stream Protection w/o Fencing
Nutrient Management Plan Implementation4
Grazing Land Protection
Animal Waste Management Systems
Yield Reserve4
Carbon Sequestration
Excess Manure Removal
Conservation Tillage
Total
Total Annual1
2,497,590
77,029
0
1,187,708
0
2,600,177
462,929
10,114,560
603,851
343,079
5,063,244
972,065
206,059
72,145
0
-24,525
24,175,910
Capital
21,113,284
149,985
0
2,641,877
0
13,857,990
0
56,233,407
3,357,199
3,114,295
28,149,858
4,203,377
1,870,497
557,087
0
0
135,248,854
Annual O&M
264,360
0
0
0
0
805,504
462,929
2,832,077
169,078
0
1,417,708
427,709
0
0
0
-24,525
6,354,839
Annual
Land
Rental2
735,191
57,606
0
845,573
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,638,369
Farmer Share
of Annual
Cost3
557,277
-857
0
-15,094
0
1,254,172
115,732
4,652,698
277,771
85,770
2,329,092
563,798
0
72,145
0
-24,525
9,867,979
Federal/State
Share of
Annual Cost
1,940,313
77,886
0
1,202,802
0
1,346,005
347,196
5,461,863
326,079
257,309
2,734,152
408,267
206,059
0
0
0
14,307,931
Forest
Forest Harvesting Practices (Erosion Control)
Total Annual
1,660,679
Onsite Wastewater Management Systems
Denitrification w/ Pumping
Total Annual
379,196
Capital
1,989,648
Annual O&M
379,196
Point Sources
Municipal
Industrial
Total
Total Annual
2,424,046
611,642
3,035,688
Capital
31,501,539
5,736,257
37,237,795
Annual O&M
730,645
121,229
851,873
All Sources
Total
Total Annual
36,759,010
Capital
232,243,063
Annual O&M
15,093,444
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Federal and State cost estimates reflect potential cost sharing through identified programs. Annual
cost is calculated as annualized capital cost, plus annual O&M and land rental where applicable.
1. Total annual cost equals annual farmer cost plus annual Federal/State cost. Negative values for total annual cost reflect the conversion of
land from agriculture to another use.
2. Total annual cost includes land rental payments paid to farmers by Federal/State cost share programs.
3. Negative values for farmer costs reflect that agricultural producers experience a cost savings due to Federal/State contributions.
4. Capital costs for nutrient management plans and yield reserve are multiplied by 10/3 to represent capital costs over 10 years.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 117
The Blue Plains facility treats wastewater from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of
Columbia. Thus, in Exhibit 39, NRT costs for the Blue Plains WWTF are allocated to each of
the jurisdictions according to their corresponding percentage of flow treated by Blue Plains (see
MWCOG, 2002). Costs for CSO controls in the District of Columbia are allocated to the
District.
Exhibit 40 summarizes the capital, O&M, and total annual (i.e., annualized capital plus annual
O&M) costs for each significant municipal and industrial facility in the watershed. Since
Exhibit 40 shows facility-level costs, the costs for the Blue Plains WWTF are not distinguished
by the jurisdictions it serves. The costs in the exhibit represent the total cumulative cost of
achieving each tier, including cost-share funds that offset the cost of NRT at municipal facilities.
Note that Exhibit 40 does not include federal facilities that are in the watershed. Households in
the watershed will not incur direct costs for these facilities and, therefore, they are excluded from
analyses.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 118
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
NPDES
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
O&M
Annual
Costs1
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
O&M
Annual
Costs1
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
O&M
Annual Costs1
Municipal Facilities
Blue Plains2
DC Combined Sewer Overflow
DC Subtotal
Bridgeville
Laurel
Seaford
DE Subtotal
Aberdeen
Aberdeen Proving Grounds-
Aberdeen
Annapolis
Back River
Ballenger Creek
Bowie
Broadneck
Broadwater
Brunswick
Cambridge
Celanese
Centreville
Chesapeake Beach
Chestertown
Conococheague
Cox Creek
Crisfield
Cumberland
Damascus
Delmar
Denton
DC0021199
NA
DE0020249
DE0020125
DE0020265
MD0021563
MD0021237
MD0021814
MD0021555
MD0021822
MD0021628
MD0021644
MD0024350
MD0020958
MD0021636
MD0063878
MD0020834
MD0020281
MD0020010
MD0063509
MD0021661
MD0020001
MD0021598
MD0020982
MD0020532
MD0020494
$0
$130,000,000
$130,000,000
$3,187,400
$0
$0
$3,187,400
$0
$8,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,000,000
$6,904,964
$5,791,500
$5,065,400
$0
$2,600,000
$0
$0
$4,052,200
$0
$0
$1,686,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$63,244
$0
$0
$63,244
$0
$159,146
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,928
$137,789
$116,260
$101,583
$0
$51,782
$0
$0
$80,139
$0
$0
$19,833
$0
$0
$8,260,558
$8,260,558
$239,875
$0
$0
$239,875
$0
$657,893
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$135,615
$568,268
$477,322
$417,378
$0
$213,875
$0
$0
$332,767
$0
$0
$124,944
$0
$53,000,000
$130,000,000
$183,000,000
$3,328,511
$2,487,286
$0
$5,815,797
$0
$8,000,000
$0
$10,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,131,667
$7,172,685
$5,966,672
$5,201,789
$0
$2,750,556
$0
$0
$4,212,200
$0
$0
$1,686,000
$0
$8,900,000
$0
$8,900,000
$74,132
$155,049
$1,346
$230,527
$0
$159,146
$0
$141,129
$0
$0
$0
$0
$26,158
$215,921
$132,516
$109,536
$0
$72,832
$1,696
$28,172
$89,073
$58,071
$830
$19,833
$1,268
$12,267,766
$8,260,558
$20,528,323
$258,583
$292,882
$1,346
$552,811
$0
$657,893
$0
$764,564
$0
$0
$0
$0
$159,054
$663,090
$504,499
$433,834
$0
$244,311
$1,696
$28,172
$351,676
$58,071
$830
$124,944
$1,268
$379,000,000
$130,000,000
$509,000,000
$4,246,599
$3,115,256
$1,636,850
$8,998,705
$2,408,870
$9,945,658
$5,882,960
$253,600,000
$3,180,890
$2,138,663
$3,180,890
$1,636,850
$2,953,049
$11,164,196
$7,603,522
$6,071,524
$1,320,322
$3,765,350
$2,447,471
$6,654,980
$5,323,700
$6,654,980
$1,443,845
$2,459,029
$918,088
$13,400,000
$0
$13,400,000
$82,065
$167,481
$37,452
$286,998
$31,281
$177,594
$111,936
$5,141,129
$68,203
$39,949
$86,565
$29,571
$54,031
$323,912
$161,265
$122,276
$27,209
$95,782
$27,266
$274,756
$112,586
$250,533
$27,892
$38,128
$15,878
$37,482,703
$8,260,558
$45,743,260
$317,392
$340,114
$128,158
$785,664
$181,458
$797,640
$478,700
$20,951,420
$266,511
$173,280
$284,873
$131,618
$238,135
$1,019,927
$635,295
$500,795
$109,522
$330,526
$179,850
$689,650
$444,484
$665,428
$117,906
$191,433
$73,114
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 119
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
Dorsey Run
Easton
Elkton
Emmitsburg
Federalsburg
Frederick
Freedom District
Fruitland
Georges Creek
Hagerstown
Havre De Grace
Hurlock
Indian Head
Joppatowne
Kent Island
La Plata
Leonardtown
Little Patuxent
Maryland City
Maryland Correctional Institute
Mattawoman
Mount Airy
Northeast River
Parkway
Patapsco
Patuxent
Perryville
Pine Hill Run
Piscataway
Pocomoke City
NPDES
MD0063207
MD0020273
MD0020681
MD0020257
MD0020249
MD0021610
MD0021512
MD0052990
MD0060071
MD0021776
MD0021750
MD0022730
MD0020052
MD0022535
MD0023485
MD0020524
MD0024767
MD0055174
MD0062596
MD0023957
MD0021865
MD0022527
MD0052027
MD0021725
MD0021601
MD0021652
MD0020613
MD0021679
MD0021539
MD0022551
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
$0
$0
$6,000,000
$0
$1,300,000
$0
$0
$0
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$4,600,000
$676,000
$0
$20,742,570
$0
$2,511,529
$0
$0
$0
$19,479,986
$0
$2,718,000
$0
$200,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,529,470
O&M
$0
$0
$128,234
$0
$29,282
$0
$0
$0
$40,709
$0
$0
$103,378
$12,603
$0
$415,470
$0
$50,596
$0
$0
$0
$397,854
$0
$53,912
$0
$4,067,523
$0
$0
$0
$0
$200,000
Annual
Costs1
$0
$0
$502,295
$0
$110,329
$0
$0
$0
$165,396
$0
$0
$390,158
$54,747
$0
$1,708,632
$0
$207,173
$0
$0
$0
$1,612,303
$0
$223,361
$0
$16,536,207
$0
$0
$0
$0
$420,039
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
$0
$205,516
$6,000,000
$0
$1,300,000
$266,204
$0
$141,111
$2,122,222
$266,204
$0
$4,769,862
$788,778
$0
$20,742,570
$0
$2,641,307
$0
$0
$0
$19,479,986
$0
$2,718,000
$0
$200,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,695,539
O&M
$0
$29,520
$129,486
$4,669
$29,282
$210,251
$0
$11,381
$54,211
$97,440
$0
$160,897
$19,317
$0
$415,470
$4,030
$61,044
$0
$0
$0
$397,854
$0
$53,912
$0
$4,067,523
$0
$0
$11,611
$0
$229,233
Annual
Costs1
$0
$42,333
$503,547
$4,669
$110,329
$226,847
$0
$20,178
$186,517
$114,036
$0
$458,266
$68,492
$0
$1,708,632
$4,030
$225,712
$0
$0
$0
$1,612,303
$0
$223,361
$0
$16,536,207
$0
$0
$11,611
$0
$459,626
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
$1,636,850
$2,614,386
$7,907,057
$869,735
$2,169,735
$4,219,114
$2,215,865
$1,059,199
$2,846,898
$4,219,114
$1,594,389
$6,271,609
$1,416,748
$1,063,147
$22,765,430
$1,443,845
$3,443,348
$10,515,080
$1,829,855
$1,339,622
$28,065,016
$1,328,042
$4,354,850
$3,759,905
$229,043,560
$3,759,905
$1,501,746
$3,180,890
$12,445,130
$5,100,783
O&M
$33,574
$74,906
$174,147
$25,569
$41,099
$374,508
$59,144
$29,895
$79,406
$276,630
$38,674
$193,076
$33,133
$28,048
$451,692
$29,970
$78,751
$291,813
$22,344
$27,220
$514,993
$19,228
$71,294
$98,699
$5,248,210
$77,129
$23,358
$97,071
$354,631
$260,371
Annual Costs1
$135,621
$237,896
$667,100
$79,791
$176,367
$637,542
$197,288
$95,929
$256,891
$539,664
$138,073
$584,069
$121,458
$94,328
$1,870,966
$119,984
$293,421
$947,359
$136,423
$110,736
$2,264,662
$102,023
$342,790
$333,104
$19,527,569
$311,535
$116,982
$295,379
$1,130,503
$578,371
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 120
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
Poolesville
Princess Anne
Salisbury
Seneca Creek
Snow Hill
Sod Run
Talbot County Regional
Taneytown
Thurmont
Western Branch
Westminster
MD Subtotal
Addison (V)
Bath(V)
Binghamton-Johnson City Joint
Borough
Cooperstown
Corning (C)
Cortland (C)
Elmira/ChemungCo. SO #2
Endicott (V)
Hamilton (V)
Hornell (C)
Lake Street/Chemung County SD
#1
Norwich
Oneonta (C)
Owego #2
Owego (V)
Richfield Springs (V)
NPDES
MD0023001
MD0020656
MD0021571
MD0021491
MD0022764
MD0056545
MD0023604
MD0020672
MD0021121
MD0021741
MD0021831
NY0020320
NY0021431
NY0024414
NY0023591
NY0025721
NY0027561
NY0035742
NY0027669
NY0020672
NY0023647
NY0036986
NY0021423
NY0031151
NY0025798
NY0029262
NY0031411
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
$1,658,000
$0
$23,550,000
$29,520,000
$1,600,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$355,985,619
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
O&M
$33,147
$0
$476,487
$566,020
$32,017
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,284,694
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Annual
Costs1
$136,513
$0
$1,944,675
$2,406,398
$131,767
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$29,478,054
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
$1,658,000
$0
$23,550,000
$29,520,000
$1,712,778
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$368,699,646
$2,423,823
$2,882,193
$448,268
$2,503,139
$3,674,079
$0
$9,940,841
$6,952,548
$2,764,035
$4,950,960
$8,463,821
$3,722,631
$4,950,960
$175,172
$2,882,193
$2,444,284
O&M
$33,147
$0
$495,600
$611,888
$44,864
$17,662
$0
$5,741
$0
$0
$0
$8,252,218
$55,047
$69,643
$175,305
$59,398
$92,485
$21,404
$306,780
$264,880
$61,060
$143,886
$271,098
$108,573
$117,700
$16,282
$66,970
$48,320
Annual
Costs1
$136,513
$0
$1,963,788
$2,452,266
$151,645
$17,662
$0
$5,741
$0
$0
$0
$31,238,214
$210,528
$254,528
$204,060
$219,967
$328,166
$21,404
$944,457
$710,866
$238,365
$461,476
$814,028
$347,369
$435,290
$27,519
$251,854
$205,114
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
$2,527,735
$1,351,203
$27,695,915
$38,105,030
$2,340,748
$8,585,030
$7,352,000
$1,289,441
$1,111,500
$0
$2,794,880
$807,889,172
$2,974,428
$3,993,693
$9,033,298
$3,150,451
$5,361,111
$4,724,930
$15,437,791
$6,952,548
$3,730,476
$7,359,830
$12,995,746
$5,436,683
$7,359,830
$1,812,022
$3,993,693
$3,168,960
O&M
$56,178
$17,650
$619,540
$982,954
$63,097
$266,222
$154,586
$38,594
$31,478
$39,020
$75,140
$18,690,784
$64,674
$95,930
$560,856
$84,551
$128,446
$197,711
$453,234
$305,815
$76,967
$214,750
$419,040
$182,064
$188,494
$45,739
$88,561
$58,719
Annual Costs1
$213,766
$101,889
$2,346,199
$3,358,552
$209,027
$801,442
$612,935
$118,982
$100,773
$39,020
$249,382
$69,057,357
$255,475
$352,114
$1,140,316
$286,643
$472,346
$500,802
$1 ,443,524
$751,801
$316,266
$686,862
$1,252,680
$530,812
$660,606
$161,975
$344,744
$261,999
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 121
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
Sidney (V)
Waverly (V)
NY Subtotal
Altoona City Authority-East
Altoona City Authority-West
Annville Township
Antrim Township
Ashland MA
Bedford Borough MA
Bellefonte Borough
Berwick MA
Bloomsburg MA
Blossburg
Brown Township MA
Burnham Borough
Carlisle Borough
Carlisle Suburban Authority
Chambersburg Borough
Clarks Summit-S. Abington JA
Clearfield
Columbia
Curwensville MA
Danville MA
Derry Township MA
Dillsburg Borough Authority
Dover Township Sewer Authority
Duncansville
East Pennsboro South Treatment
Plant
NPDES
NY0029271
NY0031089
PA0027014
PA0027022
PA0021806
PA0080519
PA0023558
PA0022209
PA0020486
PA0023248
PA0027171
PA0020036
PA0028088
PA0038920
PA0026077
PA0024384
PA0026051
PA0028576
PA0026310
PA0026123
PA0024759
PA0023531
PA0026484
PA0024431
PA0020826
PA0032883
PA0038415
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
O&M
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$124,868
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Annual
Costs1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$535,409
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
$3,374,544
$2,606,072
$65,159,566
$1,428,274
$1,481,376
$2,548,725
$160,759
$3,093,919
$2,860,429
$4,229,766
$4,715,157
$4,935,313
$2,444,284
$2,444,284
$2,472,161
$6,660,935
$0
$6,623,722
$3,583,756
$5,072,176
$3,408,584
$2,374,508
$4,229,766
$1,983,000
$2,722,193
$0
$3,035,449
$4,748,933
O&M
$107,065
$69,949
$2,055,843
$184,710
$188,463
$51,066
$7,913
$75,810
$61,420
$81,123
$137,740
$110,171
$49,624
$49,450
$52,432
$136,597
$0
$194,641
$107,432
$104,021
$69,207
$51,188
$91,402
$120,430
$55,091
$11,171
$65,860
$140,287
Annual
Costs1
$323,532
$237,121
$6,235,642
$276,329
$283,489
$214,559
$18,225
$274,276
$244,909
$352,451
$440,204
$426,757
$206,418
$206,244
$211,014
$563,877
$0
$619,534
$337,319
$429,386
$287,858
$203,506
$362,729
$247,634
$229,712
$11,171
$260,575
$444,917
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
$4,895,591
$3,379,101
$105,760,184
$9,758,274
$13,011,376
$3,418,460
$1,430,899
$4,460,562
$4,188,471
$6,337,548
$6,988,924
$7,456,126
$3,168,960
$3,168,960
$3,235,520
$10,227,835
$1,038,971
$6,623,722
$5,220,606
$7,674,051
$5,045,434
$3,002,478
$6,337,548
$3,223,000
$3,833,693
$2,408,870
$4,370,054
$7,042,000
O&M
$127,000
$107,394
$3,399,944
$500,170
$479,656
$68,242
$26,204
$99,958
$95,308
$125,378
$173,400
$171,969
$57,466
$61,882
$74,538
$192,078
$21,947
$220,445
$171,843
$158,103
$89,924
$68,728
$144,517
$165,702
$77,032
$98,381
$86,837
$198,298
Annual Costs1
$441,038
$324,154
$10,184,157
$1,126,136
$1,314,298
$287,526
$117,992
$386,090
$363,986
$531,914
$621,720
$650,258
$260,746
$265,161
$282,088
$848,164
$88,594
$645,338
$506,730
$650,372
$413,574
$261,329
$551,052
$372,448
$322,953
$252,903
$367,163
$650,022
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 122
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
Eastern Snyder County Regional
Auth
Elizabethtown Borough
Elkland MA
Emporium Borough (Mid-Cameron
Authority)
Ephrate Borough WWTP
Fairview Township
Franklin County Authority-
Greencastle
Gettysburg MA
Greater Hazelton
Gregg Township
Hampden Township
Hampden Township SA
Hanover Borough
Harrisburg SA
Highspire
Hollidaysburg Regional
Houtzdale Borough Municipal
Huntingdon Borough
Hyndman Borough
Jersey Shore Borough
Kelly Township MA
Lackawanna River Basin SA
Lackawanna River Basin SA
Lackawanna River Basin SA
Lancaster Area SA
Lancaster City
Lebanon City Authority
Lemoyne Borough MA
NPDES
PA01 10582
PA0023108
PA01 13298
PA0028631
PA0027405
PA0081868
PA0020834
PA0021563
PA0026921
PA01 14821
PA0028746
PA0080314
PA0026875
PA0027197
PA0024040
PA0043273
PA0046159
PA0026191
PA0020851
PA0028665
PA0028681
PA0027065
PA0027081
PA0027090
PA0042269
PA0026743
PA0027316
PA0026441
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
$3,000,000
$4,083,001
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$22,682,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,513,941
$0
$4,249,333
$1,077,000
$0
$0
O&M
$61,856
$86,431
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$865,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$55,025
$0
$93,253
$8,461
$0
$0
Annual
Costs1
$254,297
$348,344
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,319,985
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$216,287
$0
$365,835
$77,547
$0
$0
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
$3,187,310
$4,083,001
$2,409,411
$2,503,139
$4,613,914
$2,374,508
$2,304,611
$0
$7,840,000
$0
$0
$3,747,289
$60,000
$22,682,000
$3,408,584
$3,408,584
$0
$4,580,956
$2,097,017
$2,724,589
$0
$6,034,411
$2,513,941
$6,660,935
$4,249,333
$1,077,000
$4,039,000
$3,468,413
O&M
$104,746
$86,431
$47,203
$56,125
$105,209
$47,883
$46,741
$0
$163,170
$1,822
$641
$73,618
$0
$947,263
$74,472
$84,480
$0
$99,010
$42,091
$85,654
$0
$133,365
$55,521
$128,655
$93,253
$8,461
$139,109
$77,654
Annual
Costs1
$309,203
$348,344
$201,760
$216,694
$401,178
$200,201
$194,575
$0
$666,083
$1,822
$641
$313,996
$3,849
$2,402,248
$293,123
$303,130
$0
$392,865
$176,609
$260,428
$0
$520,455
$216,784
$555,935
$365,835
$77,547
$398,199
$300,143
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
$3,187,310
$6,105,861
$3,085,734
$3,150,451
$6,945,582
$3,002,478
$2,835,875
$1,494,026
$24,090,000
$918,088
$1,544,208
$5,577,144
$5,190,000
$22,682,000
$5,045,434
$5,045,434
$434,558
$6,893,324
$2,342,031
$3,642,677
$1,926,358
$9,215,301
$3,335,323
$13,580,935
$14,709,333
$24,157,000
$11,659,000
$5,139,232
O&M
$113,409
$142,054
$63,310
$74,822
$171,283
$62,016
$87,706
$40,756
$586,537
$25,596
$38,981
$120,181
$181,365
$1,089,046
$104,127
$168,669
$5,125
$149,919
$48,261
$111,308
$42,475
$187,093
$73,517
$309,619
$293,204
$620,831
$336,057
$123,963
Annual Costs1
$317,866
$533,727
$261,251
$276,914
$616,822
$254,617
$269,619
$136,594
$2,131,842
$84,489
$138,037
$477,938
$514,289
$2,544,031
$427,777
$492,319
$33,001
$592,106
$198,495
$344,976
$166,045
$778,228
$287,468
$1,180,797
$1,236,766
$2,170,434
$1,083,948
$453,630
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 123
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
Lewisburg Area JSA
Lewistown Borough
Lititz Sewage Authority
Littlestown Borough
Lock Haven
Logan Township-Greenwood Area
Lower Allen Township Authority
Lower Lackawanna Valley
Lykens Borough
Mahanoy City
Manheim Borough Authority
Mansfield Borough
Marietta-Donegal JA
Martinsburg
Marysville MA
Mechanicsburg Borough Municipal
Middletown
Mifflinburg Borough Municipal
Millersburg Borough Authority
Millersville Borough
Milton MA
Montgomery Borough
Moshannon Valley JSA
Mount Joy
Mount Union Borough
Mountaintop Area
Mt. Carmel Municipal Sewage
Authority
Mt. Holly Springs Borough
Authority
NPDES
PA0044661
PA0026280
PA0020320
PA0021229
PA0025933
PA0032557
PA0027189
PA0026361
PA0043575
PA0070041
PA0020893
PA0021814
PA0021717
PA0028347
PA0021571
PA0020885
PA0020664
PA0028461
PA0022535
PA0026620
PA0020273
PA0020699
PA0037966
PA0021067
PA0020214
PA0045985
PA0024406
PA0023183
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
$3,693,297
$0
$0
$0
$4,580,956
$2,444,284
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
O&M
$75,717
$0
$0
$0
$94,176
$49,316
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Annual
Costs1
$312,631
$0
$0
$0
$388,031
$206,110
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
$3,693,297
$3,679,787
$4,415,719
$2,722,193
$4,782,679
$2,566,507
$6,002,771
$6,034,411
$2,311,606
$165,765
$2,722,193
$2,882,193
$2,444,284
$2,374,508
$2,374,508
$3,462,978
$3,544,425
$0
$2,722,193
$2,722,193
$3,814,671
$2,566,507
$3,066,885
$2,929,367
$2,465,194
$181,241
$3,234,471
$2,444,284
O&M
$78,960
$80,393
$94,250
$57,995
$123,736
$56,881
$136,328
$141,695
$47,089
$11,192
$57,468
$64,115
$49,379
$49,549
$48,576
$67,602
$72,505
$0
$56,923
$56,514
$76,696
$57,984
$62,920
$56,610
$50,502
$64,537
$79,778
$48,311
Annual
Costs1
$315,874
$316,441
$377,506
$232,616
$430,531
$221,515
$521,389
$528,785
$195,372
$21,825
$232,089
$248,999
$206,172
$201,867
$200,894
$289,743
$299,870
$0
$231,544
$231,135
$321,396
$222,618
$259,652
$244,521
$208,638
$76,163
$287,260
$205,104
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
$7,323,297
$5,471,041
$6,631,584
$3,833,693
$9,372,679
$3,291,183
$9,164,360
$9,215,301
$2,852,541
$1,563,289
$3,833,693
$3,993,693
$3,168,960
$3,002,478
$3,002,478
$5,130,708
$5,258,477
$639,575
$3,833,693
$3,833,693
$5,683,127
$3,291,183
$4,510,730
$4,296,010
$3,218,882
$1,972,495
$4,678,316
$3,168,960
O&M
$136,768
$131,005
$167,511
$75,566
$215,398
$70,668
$211,154
$218,538
$57,051
$29,810
$84,969
$84,049
$66,373
$65,572
$85,887
$90,753
$101,333
$25,758
$81,131
$80,385
$112,144
$77,453
$100,067
$77,537
$63,113
$137,919
$109,540
$61,362
Annual Costs1
$606,537
$481,957
$592,908
$321,486
$816,628
$281,788
$799,021
$809,673
$240,033
$130,091
$330,889
$340,233
$269,653
$258,172
$278,488
$419,874
$438,649
$66,785
$327,051
$326,305
$476,700
$288,573
$389,418
$353,114
$269,595
$264,449
$409,641
$264,641
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 124
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
Muncy Borough MA
New Cumberland Borough
Authority
New Freedom WWTP
New Holland Borough Authority
New Oxford Municipal Facility
Newberry Township
Northeastern York Country
Northumberland Borough
Palmyra Borough Authority
Penn Township
Pine Creek MA
Pine Grove Borough Authority
Porter Tower Joint MA
Roaring Spring Borough
Sayre
Scranton Sewer Authority
Shamokin-Coal Township JSA
Shenandoah Municipal SA
Shippensburg Borough Authority
Silver Spring Township
South Middleton Township MA
Springettsbury Township
St. Johns
Stewartstown Borough
Sunbury City MA
Swatara Township
Towanda MA
Tri-Boro MA
Twin Boroughs SA
NPDES
PA0024325
PA0026654
PA0043257
PA0021890
PA0020923
PA0083011
PA0023744
PA0020567
PA0024287
PA0037150
PA0027553
PA0020915
PA0046272
PA0020249
PA0043681
PA0026492
PA0027324
PA0070386
PA0030643
PA0083593
PA0044113
PA0026808
PA0046388
PA0036269
PA0026557
PA0026735
PA0034576
PA0023736
PA0023264
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$0
O&M
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$63,044
$32,982
$0
$0
$0
Annual
Costs1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$255,485
$161,276
$0
$0
$0
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
$2,998,186
$2,894,913
$2,929,367
$2,819,009
$0
$2,304,611
$3,203,924
$2,548,725
$3,011,935
$4,876,496
$2,929,367
$2,566,507
$0
$0
$3,367,738
$0
$6,660,935
$3,408,584
$3,915,519
$2,374,508
$2,548,725
$0
$0
$2,304,611
$3,197,930
$2,000,000
$160,000
$2,374,508
$2,444,284
O&M
$62,575
$58,383
$61,546
$58,751
$0
$48,327
$66,014
$51,570
$60,600
$97,677
$62,319
$58,279
$1,395
$3,041
$68,131
$85,177
$163,547
$69,167
$80,883
$47,610
$51,419
$29,686
$185
$47,231
$102,080
$50,767
$9,298
$47,736
$50,110
Annual
Costs1
$254,900
$244,083
$249,456
$239,582
$0
$196,161
$271,537
$215,063
$253,807
$410,490
$250,230
$222,914
$1,395
$3,041
$284,162
$85,177
$590,827
$287,818
$332,053
$199,928
$214,912
$29,686
$185
$195,066
$307,218
$179,062
$19,562
$200,054
$206,903
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
$4,403,430
$4,242,256
$4,296,010
$4,123,890
$942,264
$2,835,875
$4,724,971
$3,418,460
$4,424,900
$7,362,568
$4,296,010
$3,291,183
$560,276
$821,382
$4,981,427
$11,673,110
$10,227,835
$5,045,434
$5,841,877
$3,002,478
$3,418,460
$6,654,980
$724,676
$2,835,875
$5,697,930
$7,659,000
$1,271,500
$3,002,478
$3,168,960
O&M
$83,305
$72,483
$99,960
$97,876
$37,444
$65,488
$85,380
$66,052
$86,841
$136,468
$83,751
$75,241
$24,286
$27,964
$83,309
$341,203
$240,030
$96,397
$127,231
$52,918
$65,314
$256,095
$12,242
$58,511
$182,367
$123,800
$32,968
$58,834
$63,114
Annual Costs1
$365,772
$344,611
$375,537
$362,41 1
$97,888
$247,402
$388,473
$285,336
$370,685
$608,755
$359,328
$286,361
$60,226
$80,653
$402,854
$1,089,999
$896,117
$420,047
$501,970
$245,519
$284,599
$682,993
$58,727
$240,424
$547,873
$615,103
$114,531
$251,434
$266,393
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 125
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
Tyrone Borough SA
University Area JA
Upper Allen Township
Washington Township Municipal
Waynesboro Borough
Wellsboro MA
Western Clinton County MA
White Deer Township
Williamsport SA-Central
Williamsport SA-West
Wyoming Valley
York City
PA Subtotal
Alexandria
Allegheny Co. Lower Jackson
Aquia
Arlington
Ashland
Broad Run WRF
Buena Vista
Cape Charles
Caroline County Regional
Clifton Forge
Colonial Beach
Covington
Crewe Stp
Culpepper
Dahlgren (Dahlgren Sanitary
District)
NPDES
PA0026727
PA0026239
PA0024902
PA0080225
PA0020621
PA0021687
PA0043893
PA0020800
PA0027057
PA0027049
PA0026107
PA0026263
VA0025160
VA0090671
VA0060968
VA0025143
VA0024899
VA BROAD
R
VA0020991
VA0021288
VA0073504
VA0022772
VA0026409
VA0025542
VA0020303
VA0061590
VA0026514
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
$0
$780,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,330,000
$5,246,000
$0
$0
$72,079,813
$0
$0
$8,000,000
$0
$2,415,700
$7,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$90,000
$0
$0
$4,200,000
$0
O&M
$0
$6,986
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$137,056
$112,263
$0
$0
$1,866,433
$0
$0
$160,000
$0
$45,093
$149,148
$0
$0
$0
$0
$740
$0
$0
$82,381
$0
Annual
Costs1
$0
$57,021
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$543,107
$448,779
$0
$0
$6,490,146
$0
$0
$743,453
$0
$221,274
$696,135
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,304
$0
$0
$388,694
$0
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
$0
$780,000
$2,360,538
$160,000
$3,297,563
$3,408,584
$0
$2,423,823
$6,634,134
$5,459,102
$0
$0
$352,016,372
$0
$3,234,471
$8,000,000
$0
$2,590,872
$13,500,000
$3,757,275
$2,288,710
$2,487,286
$3,583,756
$265,172
$4,273,345
$2,374,508
$4,200,000
$30,000
O&M
$0
$6,986
$50,070
$15,254
$120,030
$73,375
$0
$52,083
$288,286
$184,866
$71,004
$0
$9,203,774
$0
$126,119
$160,000
$0
$67,818
$159,069
$90,102
$48,501
$55,063
$85,609
$16,310
$130,890
$47,295
$93,433
$0
Annual
Costs1
$0
$57,021
$201,492
$25,518
$331,559
$292,026
$0
$207,564
$713,846
$535,052
$71,004
$0
$31,784,614
$0
$362,014
$743,453
$0
$256,774
$1,143,646
$364,127
$215,420
$236,464
$346,979
$35,650
$442,552
$220,472
$399,746
$2,188
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
$4,338,920
$1,300,000
$2,969,167
$1,271,500
$4,776,149
$5,045,434
$1,014,794
$2,974,428
$16,244,134
$15,219,102
$24,690,000
$11,080,000
$670,716,278
$21,709,370
$4,678,316
$12,000,000
$16,305,230
$2,590,872
$18,224,930
$5,490,628
$2,674,915
$3,115,256
$5,220,606
$3,625,172
$6,296,205
$3,002,478
$6,801,875
$550,000
O&M
$99,159
$27,584
$72,010
$47,511
$151,312
$106,804
$12,018
$63,250
$545,016
$375,425
$601,947
$171,126
$16,928,086
$521,155
$149,719
$195,000
$489,067
$76,193
$195,753
$129,571
$55,864
$62,753
$120,531
$60,648
$175,535
$53,949
$145,678
$13,469
Annual Costs1
$377,488
$110,975
$262,474
$129,074
$457,689
$430,455
$77,114
$254,051
$1,587,030
$1,351,686
$2,185,739
$881,876
$59,952,609
$2,104,456
$490,917
$1,070,180
$1,678,235
$265,150
$1,524,928
$530,012
$250,950
$289,954
$501,278
$325,038
$634,727
$272,925
$641,750
$53,582
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 126
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
Dale City #1
Dale City #8
Doswell
Falling Creek
Farmville
Fishersville
FMC
Fredericksburg
Front Royal
FWSA Opequon
Gordonsville
HI. Mooney
Harrisonburg-Rockingham (North
River Regional)
Haymount STP
Henrico County
Hopewell
HRSD-Army Base
HRSD-Boat Harbor
HRSD-Chesapeake/Elizabeth
HRSD-James River
HRSD-Nansemond
HRSD-VIP
HRSD-Williamsburg
HRSD-York
Kilmarnock
Lake Monticello STP
Leesburg
Lexington-Rockbridge Reg. STP
Little Falls Run
NPDES
VA0024724
VA0024678
VA0029521
VA0024996
VA0083135
VA0025291
VA0068110
VA0025127
VA0062812
VA0065552
VA0021105
VA0025101
VA0060640
VA0089125
VA0063690
VA0066630
VA0081230
VA0081256
VA0081264
VA0081272
VA0081299
VA0081281
VA0081302
VA0081311
VA0020788
VA0024945
MD0066184
VA0088161
VA0076392
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
$0
$0
$3,045,000
$395,818
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,687,559
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$17,700,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
O&M
$0
$0
$57,875
$2,206
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$53,319
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$132,100
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Annual
Costs1
$0
$0
$279,952
$31,074
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$249,327
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,422,990
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
$0
$0
$3,205,000
$395,818
$181,241
$1,443,064
$0
$0
$50,000
$0
$2,809,462
$0
$0
$2,687,559
$300,000
$58,300,000
$81,000,000
$112,000,000
$35,000,000
$27,300,000
$13,100,000
$10,000,000
$15,800,000
$17,700,000
$2,248,904
$2,566,507
$0
$205,516
$0
O&M
$0
$0
$143,615
$19,918
$19,315
$50,295
$13,603
$5,819
$2,469
$6,903
$58,281
$0
$0
$57,246
$500,000
$2,748,200
$209,819
$229,125
$338,604
$184,767
$43,772
$0
$0
$166,896
$65,962
$57,176
$10,322
$14,863
$0
Annual
Costs1
$0
$0
$377,361
$48,786
$32,533
$155,540
$13,603
$5,819
$6,116
$6,903
$263,180
$0
$0
$253,254
$521,879
$7,000,116
$6,117,284
$8,397,471
$2,891,212
$2,175,802
$999,177
$729,317
$1,152,320
$1,457,787
$229,978
$244,355
$10,322
$29,851
$0
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
$1,060,000
$1,060,000
$3,205,000
$5,993,818
$1,972,495
$3,979,086
$2,949,284
$2,215,865
$4,840,000
$6,390,000
$3,862,938
$8,011,100
$7,040,990
$3,750,706
$25,300,000
$71,500,000
$88,813,010
$122,515,080
$45,129,070
$35,885,030
$25,545,130
$26,305,230
$25,350,055
$24,354,980
$2,586,756
$3,291,183
$2,736,978
$2,614,386
$4,000,000
O&M
$24,433
$22,724
$149,018
$457,439
$45,297
$88,878
$87,018
$59,822
$117,049
$276,733
$78,043
$267,500
$232,712
$90,365
$4,770,175
$4,351,500
$556,083
$679,691
$853,532
$579,518
$440,573
$687,846
$312,147
$422,229
$79,166
$78,511
$77,501
$35,274
$37,207
Annual Costs1
$101,741
$100,032
$382,764
$894,578
$189,154
$379,079
$302,115
$221,429
$470,038
$742,766
$359,774
$851,763
$746,223
$363,910
$6,615,346
$9,566,114
$7,033,363
$9,614,920
$4,144,871
$3,196,673
$2,303,622
$2,606,330
$2,160,968
$2,198,479
$267,822
$318,542
$277,114
$225,946
$328,934
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 127
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
Luray
Lynchburg
Massanutten Public Service STP
Massaponax
Mathews Courthouse
Middle River
Montross - Westmoreland
Moores Creek-Rivanna Authority
New Market STP
Noman M. Cole Jr. Pollution
Control Plant
Onancock
Orange
Parham Landing WWTP
Parkins Mill
Proctors Creek
Purcellville
Reedville
Remington Regional
Richmond
Round Hill WWTP
SIL MRRS
South Central
South Wales STP
Stony Creek STP
Strasburg
Stuarts Draft
Tangier Island
Tappahannock
Totopotomoy
NPDES
VA0062642
VA0024970
VA0024732
VA0025658
VA0028819
VA0064793
VA0072729
VA0025518
VA0022853
VA0025364
VA0021253
VA0021385
VA0088331
VA0075191
VA0060194
VA0022802
VA0060712
VA0076805
VA0063177
VA0026212
VA0090263
VA0025437
VA0080527
VA0028380
VA0020311
VA0066877
VA0067423
VA0071471
VA0089915
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,066,885
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,050,000
$0
$0
$7,800,000
$2,622,367
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
O&M
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$59,901
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$618,255
$0
$0
$338,000
$52,058
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Annual
Costs1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$283,574
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,955,715
$0
$0
$906,867
$243,311
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
$0
$54,478,612
$2,685,114
$0
$2,094,204
$247,998
$2,094,204
$11,614,484
$2,487,286
$0
$2,288,710
$3,234,471
$2,423,364
$272,172
$0
$160,000
$2,248,904
$0
$32,050,000
$2,487,286
$0
$7,800,000
$2,622,367
$2,566,507
$278,111
$0
$2,169,205
$0
$0
O&M
$0
$928,781
$57,618
$0
$42,093
$54,207
$41,914
$428,783
$55,524
$0
$53,538
$71,827
$48,416
$22,047
$0
$8,452
$46,528
$0
$816,628
$51,922
$0
$391,448
$55,596
$54,061
$13,538
$11,513
$45,611
$0
$20,668
Annual
Costs1
$0
$4,901,997
$253,448
$0
$194,827
$72,294
$194,648
$1,275,847
$236,926
$0
$220,458
$307,723
$225,156
$41,897
$0
$20,121
$210,544
$0
$3,154,088
$233,324
$0
$960,315
$246,849
$241,241
$33,821
$11,513
$203,814
$0
$20,668
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
$3,360,000
$55,323,612
$3,554,849
$3,952,910
$2,335,350
$3,737,696
$2,335,350
$18,269,464
$3,115,256
$15,338,696
$2,674,915
$4,678,316
$3,119,028
$3,632,172
$1,500,000
$1,271,500
$2,586,756
$1,636,850
$59,935,530
$3,115,256
$0
$12,100,000
$3,594,610
$3,291,183
$2,928,111
$520,000
$2,410,351
$918,088
$2,794,880
O&M
$86,100
$2,022,802
$71,330
$92,755
$48,162
$176,155
$44,268
$666,666
$77,469
$415,696
$64,858
$93,586
$52,112
$96,504
$526,000
$16,531
$48,551
$16,220
$1,617,308
$57,823
$0
$708,448
$85,891
$64,029
$72,663
$34,588
$49,119
$13,372
$133,621
Annual Costs1
$331,150
$6,057,645
$330,591
$381,047
$218,483
$448,751
$214,589
$1,999,089
$304,670
$1,534,373
$259,944
$434,783
$279,588
$361,404
$635,397
$109,263
$237,207
$135,599
$5,988,507
$285,024
$0
$1,590,921
$348,052
$304,060
$286,215
$72,513
$224,910
$80,330
$337,456
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 128
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
Upper Occoquan SA
Urbanna
Warrenton
Warsaw
Waynesboro
West Point
Weyers Cave STP
WidewaterWWTP
Wilderness Shores
Woodstock
VA Subtotal
Berkeley County PSSD
Berkeley County PSSD
Charlestown
Keyser
Martinsburg
Moorefield
Petersburg
Romney
WV Subtotal
Municipal Total
NPDES
VA0024988
VA0026263
VA0021172
VA0026891
VA0025151
VA0075434
VA0022349
VA0090387
VA0083411
VA0026468
WV0020061
WV0082759
WV0022349
WV0024392
WV0023167
WV0020150
WV0021792
WV0020699
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,374,508
$0
$0
$93,947,837
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$655,200,669
O&M
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$47,445
$0
$0
$1,798,521
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,012,892
Annual
Costs1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$220,621
$0
$0
$8,650,293
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$53,118,926
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
$22,601,459
$2,169,205
$3,747,289
$2,328,485
$3,705,516
$2,566,507
$2,487,286
$2,487,286
$3,007,691
$841,111
$619,123,296
$2,803,451
$3,826,474
$3,023,464
$3,679,787
$190,344
$2,566,506
$2,724,589
$2,487,286
$21,301,901
$1,615,116,578
O&M
$1,272,000
$50,577
$74,015
$62,036
$127,144
$58,492
$54,453
$50,527
$69,199
$21,141
$11,187,478
$65,993
$91,831
$72,361
$75,198
$42,604
$51,795
$66,531
$56,451
$522,764
$40,352,603
Annual
Costs1
$2,920,362
$208,781
$347,311
$231,857
$397,394
$245,672
$235,855
$231,929
$288,555
$82,485
$56,341,171
$216,696
$297,527
$234,891
$273,009
$52,836
$189,761
$212,994
$190,158
$1,667,872
$148,348,647
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
$22,601,459
$2,410,351
$5,577,144
$2,763,043
$3,705,516
$3,291,183
$3,115,256
$3,834,629
$3,635,661
$3,491,111
$953,000,102
$3,818,245
$5,598,427
$4,351,506
$5,471,041
$2,213,204
$3,291,182
$3,642,677
$3,115,256
$31,501,539
$3,086,865,979
O&M
$1,272,000
$59,150
$105,163
$71,873
$142,355
$81,605
$70,135
$66,693
$90,618
$60,069
$27,875,160
$87,127
$116,742
$98,245
$107,430
$101,563
$52,335
$92,850
$74,353
$730,645
$81,311,617
Annual Costs1
$2,920,362
$234,940
$511,913
$273,386
$412,604
$321,636
$297,336
$346,359
$355,773
$314,682
$97,379,045
$292,381
$417,692
$332,165
$401,532
$220,536
$229,257
$288,666
$241,817
$2,424,046
$285,526,138
Industrial Facilities
Dupont-Seaford
DE Subtotal
Allen Family Foods
Bethlehem Steel Corporation-
Sparrows Point
Chemetals
Congoleum
Garden State Tanning
DE0000035
MD0067857
MD0001201
MD0001775
MD0001384
MD0053431
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$827,468
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$398,764
$10,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,061
$800,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$45,153
$1,654,936
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 129
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
MD&VA Milk Producers
Mettiki Coal D
Upper Potomac River Commission
W R Grace
Westvaco Corporation-Luke
MD Subtotal
Appleton Paper Springmill
Chloe Textiles Inc.
Consolidated Rail Corporation-
Enola
Empire Kosher Poultry-Mifflintown
Gold Mills Dyehouse
Heinz Pet Foods
Merck & Company
National Gypsum Company-Milton
Plant
Osram Sylvania Products, Inc.
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat
Commission-Bellefonte
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat
Commission-Benner Springs
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat
Commission-Pleasant Gap
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat
Commission-Typlersville
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat
Commission-Upper Spring
P-H Glatfelter Company
Pope &TalbotWis Inc.
Proctor & Gamble Paper Products
Tyson Foods
NPDES
MD0000469
MD0064149
MD0021687
MD0000311
MD0001422
PA0008265
PA0009172
PA0009229
PA0007552
PA0008231
PA0009270
PA0008419
PA0008591
PA0009024
PA0040835
PA0010553
PA0010561
PA0112127
PA0044032
PA0008869
PA0007919
PA0008885
PA0035092
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
O&M
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Annual
Costs1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
$7,350,911
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,350,911
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,166,532
$337,450
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,905,080
$0
$4,674,320
$4,039,977
O&M
$181,548
$0
$0
$0
$0
$581,548
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$126,991
$58,179
$718
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$86,637
$0
$142,312
$79,131
Annual
Costs1
$810,004
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,637,472
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$483,203
$87,029
$718
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$505,990
$0
$541,937
$424,523
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
$7,840,242
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18,239,006
$0
$406,239
$0
$1,315,629
$805,777
$4,812,532
$337,450
$0
$0
$0
$3,180,697
$0
$0
$0
$10,576,472
$1,502,717
$7,424,503
$4,716,300
O&M
$196,844
$0
$109,197
$0
$0
$1,117,102
$23,341
$12,159
$0
$33,331
$21,430
$147,153
$126,782
$2,393
$5,863
$0
$102,575
$0
$0
$0
$256,021
$51,235
$257,765
$97,263
Annual Costs1
$867,134
$0
$109,197
$0
$0
$2,676,421
$23,341
$46,890
$0
$145,808
$90,319
$558,594
$155,631
$2,393
$5,863
$0
$374,505
$0
$0
$0
$1,160,242
$179,708
$892,513
$500,476
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 130
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
PA Subtotal
Allied Signal-Hopewell
Amoco-Yorktown
Brown & Williamson
BWXT
Dupont-Spruance
Dupont-Waynesboro
Georgia Pacific Corporation
Hoechst Celanese
Lees Commercial Carpet
Merck & Company Inc.-Stonewall
Plant-Elkton
Phillip Morris-Park 500
Pilgrims Pride-Hinton
Rocco Farm Foods-Edinburg
Rocco Quality Foods
St. Laurent Paper
Tyson Foods, Inc.
Tyson Foods, Inc.-
Temperanceville
Wampler Foods-Timberville
Westvaco Corporation-Covington
Hall
VA Subtotal
Hester Industries, Inc.
Republic Paperboard
Specratech International, Inc.
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Wampler-Longacre, Inc.
WV Subtotal
Industrial Total
NPDES
VA0005291
VA0003018
VA0002780
VA0003697
VA0004669
VA0002160
VA0003026
VA0003387
VA0004677
VA0002178
VA0026557
VA0002313
VA0077402
VA0001791
VA0003115
VA0004031
VA0004049
VA0002011
VA0003646
VW0047236
VW0005517
VW0005533
VW0005525
VW0005495
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
O&M
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Annual
Costs1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
$18,123,358
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$254,176
$0
$2,000,000
$0
$3,500,000
$5,442,689
$3,848,000
$0
$0
$0
$6,500
$0
$0
$15,051,365
$0
$0
$5,286,279
$0
$0
$5,286,279
$50,811,912
O&M
$493,968
$0
$0
$5,173
$0
$0
$0
$386,421
$0
$0
$0
$1,300,000
$247,682
$0
$0
$35,786
$0
$150,000
$0
$0
$2,125,063
$0
$0
$107,156
$0
$0
$107,156
$3,307,735
Annual
Costs1
$2,043,399
$0
$0
$5,173
$0
$0
$0
$408,151
$0
$170,987
$0
$1,599,228
$712,998
$328,979
$0
$35,786
$0
$150,556
$0
$0
$3,411,858
$0
$0
$559,099
$0
$0
$559,099
$7,651,829
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
$35,078,315
$0
$0
$942,156
$0
$0
$0
$254,176
$0
$2,000,000
$800,000
$11,500,000
$6,109,177
$3,848,000
$0
$0
$150,000
$631,500
$0
$12,340,085
$38,575,094
$0
$0
$5,736,257
$0
$0
$5,736,257
$97,628,672
O&M
$1,137,311
$0
$0
$34,534
$2,588
$0
$0
$425,365
$0
$0
$54,503
$3,200,000
$268,481
$0
$0
$135,464
$1,200
$195,625
$0
$307,945
$4,625,704
$0
$0
$121,229
$0
$0
$121,229
$7,001,346
Annual Costs1
$4,136,284
$0
$0
$115,083
$2,588
$0
$0
$447,095
$0
$170,987
$122,898
$4,183,177
$790,776
$328,979
$0
$135,464
$14,024
$249,614
$0
$1,362,943
$7,923,629
$0
$0
$611,642
$0
$0
$611,642
$15,347,975
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 131
Exhibit 40: Cumulative Point Source Facility Costs by Tier
Facility
Grand Total
NPDES
Tier 1 Costs
Capital
$655,200,669
O&M
$11,012,892
Annual
Costs1
$53,118,926
Tier 2 Costs
Capital
$1,665,928,490
O&M
$43,660,338
Annual
Costs1
$156,000,476
Tier 3 Costs
Capital
$3,184,494,651
O&M
$88,312,963
Annual Costs1
$300,874,113
1. Costs for municipal facilities are annualized at 2.4% for DC, 1.0% for DE, 2.2% for MD, 2.5% for NY, 3.9% for VA, and 0.7% for VW over 20 years. Industrial costs are annualized at 5.76% over 20
years.
2. Costs for Blue Plains are for the total facility and will be shared by the states of Maryland and Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 132
4. REFERENCES
Aust, W.M., R.M. Schaffer, and J.A. Burger. 1996. Benefits and Costs of Forestry Best
Management Practices in Virginia. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 20(1): 23-29. Cited in
U.S. EPA, 2001b.
Austin City Connection. 2001. Septic Tank/Wetland/Mound System. Online at
http ://www. ci .austin.tx.us/wri/treatl 7 .htm.
BLUE Land, Water, Infrastructure. 1999. Creative Storm Water Control Techniques Save Land
Developer $175,000 and Improve Water Quality, http://www.blwi.com/n_fall99.htm
Brown, W., and T. Schueler. 1997. The Economics of Storm water BMPs in the Mid-Atlantic
Region. Final Report prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) for the
Chesapeake Research Consortium. As cited in CWP. (no date). The Economics of Storm Water
Treatment: An Update. Technical Note #90 from Watershed Protection Techniques 2(4): 395-
499.
Camacho, 1992. 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. CBP/TRS 84/93; ICPRB report 92-4.
CAST. 1998. Workshop on Carbon Sequestration in Soils. News Release at www.cast-
science.org/9812carb.htm.
Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1998. Cost and Benefit of Storm Water BMPs. Final
Report prepared for Parsons Engineering Science.
Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee. 2000. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Land Use and Model Linkages to the Airshed and Estuarine Models. Annapolis, MD: January.
Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee. 1998. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Application and Calculation of Nutrient and Sediment Loadings. Appendix H: Tracking Best
Management Practice Nutrient Reductions in the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Coffman, L. S. 2001. Reducing Nonpoint Pollution with Public Outreach/Education Programs
(DRAFT- June 2001). Department of Environmental Resources, Prince George's County,
Maryland.
Delaware Department of Agriculture. 2002a. "Nutrient Management Plan Cost-Share Program."
Dover, DE. Online at http://www.state.de.us/deptagri/Services/farmer/nm_cs.htm.
Delaware Department of Agriculture. 2002b. "Nutrient Management Relocation Program."
Dover, DE. Online at http://www.state.de.us/deptagri/Services/farmer/nm_reloc.htm.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 133
EIA (Energy Information Agency). 2001. Annual Energy Outlook 2002. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency.
Environmental Law Institute. 2000. Forests for the Bay. A report in collaboration with and for
the consideration of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, Chesapeake Bay Program, and USDA
Forest Service. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law Institute. ELI Document # dlO.03.
Hairston-Strang, A. 2002. Maryland Cost Estimates for Riparian Forest Buffer Establishment.
Memo from A. Hairston-Strang, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service to
Allison Wiedeman, U.S. EPA. November 8.
Lichtenberg, Erik, James C. Hanson, A.M. Decker, and AJ. Clark. 1994. "Profitability of
Legume Cover Crops in the Mid-Atlantic Region." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
49(6): 582-585.
Lickwar, P., C. Hickman, and F. W. Cubbage. 1992. "Costs of Protecting Water Quality During
Harvesting on Private Forestlands in the Southeast." Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 16(1):
13-20.
Livingston, E.H. 1999. "A Review of Urban Storm Water Retrofitting in Florida." In
Proceedings of the Comprehensive Storm Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Management Conference,
Auckland, New Zealand, February 22-26, 1999.
Mannering, J.V., D.R. Griffith, and K.D. Johnson. 1985. Cover Crops: Their Value and
Management. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, Report
AY-247. Online at http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/forages/publications/ay247.htm.
Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA). 2002a. Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost
Share (MACS) Program Average Cost of Animal Waste BMPs (BMP 313) Installed from 1997
to 2002. Information provided by J. Rhoderick, MDA Office of Resource Conservation.
Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA). 2002b. Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost
Share (MACS) Program Average Cost of Forest Buffers (BMP 391) Installed from 7/1/2001 to
6/30/2002. Information provided by J. Rhoderick, MDA Office of Resource Conservation.
Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA). 2000. Cost-Share Assistance for Nutrient
Management Plans. Maryland Department of Agriculture, Office of Resource Conservation.
Maryland Department of Environment (MDE). 1997. Watershed and Retrofit Assessments.
Maryland Department of Environment, Water Management Administration.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR). 1999. The Forest Conservation Act: A
Five Year Review.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR). 1996. Technical Appendix for
Maryland's Tributary Strategies. March. Co-authored by Maryland Department of Environment,
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 134
Maryland Department of Agriculture, Maryland Office of Planning, University of Maryland, and
Office of the Governor.
Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center (MASSTC). 2002. Technology Fact
Sheet - Interim Findings, Amphidrome.
Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center (MASSTC). 2001a. Technology Fact
Sheet - Interim Findings, MicroFAST (Model 0.5).
Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center (MASSTC). 2001b. Technology Fact
Sheet - Interim Findings, Recirculating Sand Filter.
Nakao, M., B. Sohngen, L. Brown, and R. Leeds. 1999. The Economics of Vegetative Filter
Strips. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Extension. AE-0006-99. Online at
http ://ohioline. osu. edu/ae-fact/0006, html.
NAHB Research Center, Inc. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2001.
Environmentally Green...Economically Green: Tools for a Green Land Development Program.
National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC). 1998. Fact Sheet: Recirculating Sand Filters.
WWFSOM25.Online at http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfc_etifactsheets.htm.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2001. Clean Water & Oceans: Water Pollution In-
Depth Report, http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/chapl2.asp
in Low Impact Development in Puget Sound: Innovative Storm water Management Practices.
http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound/Programs/lid_cd/abs_bio.pdf
New York Soil and Water Conservation Committee. No date. Request for Proposals:
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Abatement and Control Program (ANPSACP). Round IX
(proposals due January 2002) - Information for Applicants. Online through
http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us/SoilWater/Projects.html.
North Carolina State University (NCSU). 1982. Best Management Practices for Nonpoint Source
Control: Volume III, Sediment. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service,
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University.
Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC). 1994. Urban Retrofit Techniques:
Applicability, Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness. Prepared for Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality.
Nutrient Reduction Technology (NRT) Cost Task Force. 2002. Nutrient Reduction Technology
Cost Estimations for Point Sources in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Palone, R.S. and A.H. Todd, eds. 1998. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: A Guide for
Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers. USDA Forest Service. NA-TP-02-97.
Radnor, PA. Online at www.chesapeakebay.net/.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 135
Pelley, J. 1997. "The Economics of Urban Sprawl." Watershed Protection Techniques 2: 461-
467. Citing Frank, J. 1989. The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review of the
Literature. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP). 2001. Fact Sheet: DEP
Stream Bank Fencing Program - Landowner Participation. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Environmental Protection. Online through http://www.dep.state.pa.us/farmers/.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP). 1998. Fact Sheet:
Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay Program - Landowner Participation in the Financial Assistance
Funding Program. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection.
Online through http://www.dep.state.pa.us/farmers/.
Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. 1998. Who Pays for Sprawl? CBP/TRS 203/98. Prepared for
the Chesapeake Bay Program's Land, Growth, and Stewardship Subcommittee and the
Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee.
Roberts, Roland K., James A. Larson, Donald D. Tyler, Bob N. Duck, and Kim D. Dillivan.
1998. "Economic Analysis of the Effects of Winter Cover Crops on No-Tillage Corn Yield
Response to Applied Nitrogen." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 53(3): 280-284.
Shulyer, L.R. 1995. "Cost Analysis for Nonpoint Source Control Strategies in the Chesapeake
Basin. U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program. EPA 903-R-95-0005.
Tippett, John P., and Randall C. Dodd. 1995. Cost-Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs for
Nutrient Reduction in the Tar-Pamlico Basin. Research Triangle Institute. Report prepared for
the North Carolina Dept. of Environmental, Health, and Natural Resources.
Turhollow, A. 2000. Costs of Producing Biomass from Riparian Buffer Strips. ORNL/TM-1999-
146. Oak Ridge, TN: U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A). 1999. CORE 4 Conservation Practices Training Guide.
Washington, D.C.: USD A, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS). 2001. Table 2.
Normalized Market-Clearing Price Estimates, National-Level Indices. Memorandum from S.
Offutt to M. Gray, subject 2001 Normalized Prices.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Administration (USDA-FSA). 2002a.
Conservation Reserve Program Monthly Contract Report: Practice Summary for Active
CREP Contracts by Program Year. Online (by state) at
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/crpstorpt/04approved/r7crepyr/r7crepyr2.htm.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Administration (USDA-FSA). 2002b.
Conservation Reserve Program: West Virginia Enhancement Program. Washington, D.C.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 136
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Administration (USDA-FSA). 2002c. Pending
Agreements - Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 9/6/02. Online at
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crep/pending_ok.htm.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Administration (USDA-FSA). 2000a.
Conservation Reserve Program: Virginia Enhancement Program. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Administration (USDA-FSA). 2000b.
Conservation Reserve Program: Pennsylvania Enhancement Program. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Administration (USDA-FSA). 1999a.
Conservation Reserve Program: Delaware Enhancement Program. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Administration (USDA-FSA). 1999b. Fact
Sheet: Conservation Reserve Program. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Administration (USDA-FSA). 1997a.
Conservation Reserve Program: Continuous Sign-Up for High Priority Conservation Practices.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Administration (USDA-FSA). 1997b.
Conservation Reserve Program: Maryland Enhancement Program. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). 1999.
1997 Census of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2002.
Forestry Incentives Program (fact sheet for Virginia landowners). Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS).
2001a. 2000 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Delaware Summary. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS).
2001b. 2000 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Maryland Summary. Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS).
2001c. 2000 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: New York Summary. Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS).
200Id. 2000 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Pennsylvania Summary. Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS).
2001e. 2000 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Virginia Summary. Washington, D.C.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 137
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS).
2001f. 2000 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: West Virginia Summary. Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 1998.
Conservation Practice Standard for Wetland Restoration (Code 657). Washington, D.C. August.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). No
date. Fact Sheet: Wetlands Reserve Program. Washington, D.C. Online at
http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/FB96OPAAVRPfact.html.
U.S. EPA. 2002. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. EPA-625-R-00-008.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Research and Development.
U.S. EPA. 200la. Cost Methodology Report for Beef and Dairy Animal Feeding Operations.
EPA-821-R-01-019. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.
U.S. EPA. 2001b. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from
Forestry. Draft. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Prepared by Tetra Tech.
U.S. EPA. 200Ic. Weighted Average Interest Rate for Clean Water SRF Assistance, by State.
Office of Wastewater Management and Region 5 Water Division. Online at
http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwsrf/pdf/ratest.pdf.
U.S. EPA. 2000. Low Impact Development (LID): A Literature Review. EPA-841-B-00-005.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
U.S. EPA. 1999a. Decentralized Onsite Management for Treatment of Domestic Wastes - Septic
Tanks.
U.S. EPA. 1999b. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology.
U.S. EPA. 1997a. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA-840-B-93-001c January 1993/revised January 21, 1997.
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/MMGI/index.html.
U.S. EPA. 1997b. Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
Systems. EPA 832-R-97-001b. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of
Wastewater Management.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 138
U.S. EPA. 1996. Green Development: Literature Summary and Benefits Associated with
Alternative Development Approaches. EPA 841-B-97-001. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
U.S. Federal Reserve Board. 2002a. Federal Reserve Statistical Release E.2: Survey of Terms of
Business Lending, February 4-8, 2002. Washington, D.C.: Federal Reserve.
Online at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/e2/.
U.S. Federal Reserve Board. 2001a. Federal Reserve Statistical Release E.2: Survey of Terms of
Business Lending, February 5-9, 2001. Washington, D.C.: Federal Reserve. Online at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/e2/.
U.S. Federal Reserve Board. 2000a. Federal Reserve Statistical Release E.2: Survey of Terms of
Business Lending, February 7-11, 2000. Washington, D.C.: Federal Reserve. Online at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/e2/.
U.S. Federal Reserve Board. 1999a. Federal Reserve Statistical Release E.2: Survey of Terms of
Business Lending, February 1-5, 1999. Washington, D.C.: Federal Reserve. Online at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/e2/.
U.S. Federal Reserve Board. 1998a. Federal Reserve Statistical Release E.2: Survey of Terms of
Business Lending, February 2-6, 1998. Washington, D.C.: Federal Reserve. Online at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/e2/.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VA DCR). 2001. Virginia Agricultural
BMP Manual. Richmond, VA.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 1993. Discussion Paper: Reducing Nutrients in
Virginia's Tidal Tributaries. May.
Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources (VA SNR). 2000. York River and Lower York Coastal
Basins: Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy. February.
Walsh, M.E., and E. Lichtenberg. 1995. "Estimated Government Savings from Biomass
Production on CRP Acres." In Energy Crops Forum. Online at
bioenergy.ornl.gov/forum/95fall.html.
Wetland Science Institute. 2000. Evaluation of Reforestation in the Lower Mississippi River
Alluvial Valley. Wetland Restoration Information Series Number 3. Laurel, MD: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wetland Science Institute.
Online at HTTP://WWW.PWRC.USGS.GOV/WLI/wris3.htm.
Yeh, C., and B. Sohngen. 1999. Pennsylvania Buffer Templates: Grass and Legume Filter Strip
Worksheets. Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University.
Online at http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/cgi-bin/WaterMap.exe?Map=buffermap420.map&
US+Map.x=349&US+Map.y=99.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 139
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part II. Socioeconomic Impacts of the Tier Scenarios in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 1
1. Background 1
2. Method 2
3. Baseline Forecast 3
4. Impact of Tier Scenarios 5
4.1 Modeling Assumptions 5
4.2 Results 8
5. Summary 9
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Macroeconomic Forecast, 2000-2020, Maryland 4
Exhibit 2. Estimated Incidence of Costs and Distribution of Spending, Tier 3 6
Exhibit 3: Economic Impact, Tier 1, Delaware 10
Exhibit 4: Economic Impact, Tier 1, District of Columbia 11
Exhibit 5: Economic Impact, Tier 1, Maryland 12
Exhibit 6: Economic Impact, Tier 1, New York 13
Exhibit 7: Economic Impact, Tier 1, Pennsylvania 14
Exhibit 8: Economic Impact, Tier 1, Virginia 15
Exhibit 9: Economic Impact, Tier 1, West Virginia 16
Exhibit 10: Economic Impact, Tier 2, Delaware 17
Exhibit 11: Economic Impact, Tier 2, District of Columbia 18
Exhibit 12: Economic Impact, Tier 2, Maryland 19
Exhibit 13: Economic Impact, Tier 2, New York 20
Exhibit 14: Economic Impact, Tier 2, Pennsylvania 21
Exhibit 15: Economic Impact, Tier 2, Virginia 22
Exhibit 16: Economic Impact, Tier 2, West Virginia 23
Exhibit 17: Economic Impact, Tier 3, Delaware 24
Exhibit 18: Economic Impact, Tier 3, District of Columbia 25
Exhibit 19: Economic Impact, Tier 3, Maryland 26
Exhibit 20: Economic Impact, Tier 3, New York 27
Exhibit 21: Economic Impact, Tier 3, Pennsylvania 28
Exhibit 22: Economic Impact, Tier 3, Virginia 29
Exhibit 23: Economic Impact, Tier 3, West Virginia 30
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 1
Part II. Socioeconomic Impacts of the Tier Scenarios in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
At the request of EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program, the EPA National Center for Environmental
Economics (NCEE) evaluated the potential socioeconomic impact of developing revised water
quality criteria, designated uses, and boundaries for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters.
NCEE estimated the direct and indirect effects of compliance using peer-reviewed economic
models of the affected sectors in The Chesapeake Bay watershed. Economic and social impacts
evaluated include changes in employment, wages, income, and the value of regional output, or
goods produced.
1. BACKGROUND
The Chesapeake Bay Program developed revised water quality criteria, designated uses, and
boundaries for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters, as well as the Technical Support
Document for jurisdictions to use when conducting use attainability analyses (UAA) to support
these changes. Among the factors that the Chesapeake Bay Program is evaluating as part of the
UAA is whether the refined designated uses would require pollution controls more stringent than
those required under Sections 301(b)(l)(A) and (B) and Section 306 of the Clean Water Act (i.e.,
nutrient controls) which would result in substantial and widespread social and economic
hardship in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Although the Chesapeake Bay Program did not use
economic factors in developing the revised uses, it is providing information on the potential
costs and economic impacts for three level-effort-scenarios of pollution controls to meet these
uses.
NCEE evaluated the socioeconomic impact of the tier scenarios on the Chesapeake Bay
watershed region, including both the direct and indirect effects of compliance. Measures of
economic impacts include changes in the value of regional output, or goods produced,
employment, as well as wages and income. These measures are important to determining
whether "widespread economic impacts" are present, as defined below and in EPA's Water
Quality Standards Handbook (1995), referred to as the "guidance" hereafter.
EPA's guidance specifies three steps to determining whether impacts are expected to be
widespread:
• Step 1: Define relevant geographic area;
• Step 2: Estimate socioeconomic changes due to pollution control costs; and
• Step 3: Consider the multiplier effect.
Geographic Area
The analysis must define the affected community (the geographic area where project costs pass
through to the local economy), consider the baseline economic health of the community, and
finally evaluate how the proposed project will affect the socioeconomic well-being of the
community. Whereas the financial analysis to determine "substantial" impacts is conducted for
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 2
each affected facility separately, the widespread analysis is conducted for all dischargers jointly
(EPA, 1995). Since the Tier scenarios affect dischargers in a multi-state region, analysis of
socioeconomic changes cannot ignore that expenditures will occur across this wide area (because
a cost to one sector is revenue to another sector). Therefore, the relevant geographic area crosses
state boundaries.
Estimate Socioeconomic Changes
Estimating the socioeconomic changes that will result from the pollution control costs involves
first running a baseline scenario to forecast the conditions that would exist absent the
expenditures, and then running a policy scenario to model the impact of the expenditures. The
difference in magnitude of socioeconomic indicators such employment, unemployment, income,
persons below the poverty line, and tax revenues are the impacts of the controls.
Multiplier Effects
When using economic models to estimate socioeconomic changes, the secondary effects of the
control costs are also captured. These secondary effects reflect that each dollar spent in the
economy on pollution control results in spending of more than one dollar in the economy (i.e., a
multiplicative effect). Similarly, each dollar lost to an employee (i.e., through lost wages) would
result in the loss of more than one dollar to the local economy.
2. METHOD
NCEE used two models to estimate the socioeconomic impacts of the tier scenarios. First, to
obtain a baseline forecast for the six state area, NCEE used the Multi-Region Policy Insight
model produced by Regional Economics Models, Inc. (REMI). The REMI model incorporates
aspects of computable general equilibrium, input-output, and econometric forecasting models
into one model that takes advantage of the relative strengths of each method. The REMI model
features:
• 53 sectors
• 51 regions, including all states plus the District of Columbia
• A strong theoretical foundation which has been peer reviewed and demonstrated
• Forecasts for a large number of output variables including prices and incomes
• Flexibility in analyzing the timing of economic impacts
• Ability to accounts for business cycles, reducing error.
Then, NCEE used IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning), produced by the Minnesota Implan
Group, Inc.(MIG, 2001), to model the expenditures for pollution control. IMPLAN is an input-
output model that, without further calibration, can produce state-level multipliers that are
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 3
directly comparable to RIMS II multipliers.1 IMPLAN data are compiled from state, local and
national sources including:
• U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Benchmark I/O Accounts of the United States
• U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Output Estimates
• U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis REIS Program
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ES202 Program
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey
• U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns
• U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census and Population Surveys
• U.S. Census Bureau Economic Censuses and Surveys
• U.S. Department of Agriculture
• U.S. Geological Survey.
The IMPLAN model features:
• 528 Industrial Sectors, typically at the 4 digit standard industrial classification level
in manufacturing, 2 to 3 digit for other sectors
• All states and counties in the United States
• All elements balanced to the National Income and Product Accounts
• Conformity to I/O accounting definitions
• Modeling flexibility.
The IMPLAN system produces impact estimates measured in changes from the base year,
assuming no other changes in the economy. In other words, the tier scenario impacts are
estimated assuming that the costs and spending took place, but that the underlying structure of
the economy remained the same. Thus, the estimated tier scenario impacts do not incorporate
the changes in the baseline forecast shown below.
3. BASELINE FORECAST
Exhibit 1 provides the highlights of the baseline forecast for the state of Maryland, which is
located entirely in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, through 2010. (The model was no longer
available to NCEE at a later date to run baseline forecasts for other states.) The first column lists
the values for the year 2000.
1 The REMI and IMPLAN frameworks provide a more credible and theoretically sound basis for estimating
socioeconomic impacts compared to the simple use of multipliers. In multiplier analysis, care must be taken to
model both the cost and revenue impacts that will result from controls.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 4
Exhibit 1: Macroeconomic Forecast, 2000-2020, Maryland
(percent growth over year 2000 values)
Factor
GRP (Billions 1992$)
Employment (Thousands)
-Percent of U.S.
Population (Thousands)
RDPI per cap
(Thousands 1992$)
Manufacturing Employment
(Thousands)
Non-Manufacturing
Employment (Thousands)
Farm Employment
(Thousands)
2000
158
3,106
1.8%
5,238
23.4
187.7
2,374.8
17.9
2005
187
(18.6)
3445
(10.9)
1.9
(5.6)
5,599
(6.8)
25.6
(9.2)
183.2
(-2.4)
2,674.4
(12.6)
16.2
(-9.8)
2010
217
(37.1)
3,863
(18.6)
2.0
(9.5)
6,051
(15.5)
27.5
(17.1)
180.9
(-3.6)
2,882.1
(21.5)
14.8
(-17.5)
2015
243
(53.7)
3,818
(23.0)
2.0
(10.1)
6,441
(23.0)
28.8
(22.7)
184.0
(-2.0)
2,991.3
(26.0)
14.1
(-21.5)
2020
268
(69.5)
3,932
(26.6)
2.0
(10.6)
6,780
(29.4)
30.2
(28.7)
187.8
(0.0)
3,087
(30.0)
13.4
(-25.4)
GRP = Gross regional product
RDPI = Real disposable per capita income
The REMI model forecasts that the Maryland economy will grow through 2020. In 2010, gross
regional product (GRP) is projected to be 37.1% higher than in 2000. Employment will also
grow. In 2010, Maryland will have 18.6% more workers than in 2000. Compared to the rest of
the United States, the exhibit shows that in 2000 Maryland employed 1.8% of the nation's
workers, and by 2010, this percentage is expected to grow by 9.5% (i.e., in 2010, MD will have
2.0% of the nation's workers). Population, at 5.2 million in 2000, will grow by 15% by 2010.
People will be better off, as shown by real disposable personal income (RDPI), which is forecast
to expand by 17.1% by 2010.
The economy in the future will continue to evolve. The last three rows of Exhibit 1 show
employment in various sectors. Manufacturing and farm employment will decrease by 3.6% and
17.5%, respectively, while non-manufacturing will continue to expand by 21.5% by the year
2010. Also, by 2020, most of manufacturing jobs have returned, but farm jobs continue to
disappear.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 5
4. IMPACT OF TIER SCENARIOS
To estimate the impact of the tier scenarios, NCEE modeled the tier cost estimates are using
IMPLAN.
4.1 Modeling Assumptions
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annual costs and spending patterns resulting from the Tier 3
scenario.2 These data appear different from those presented in Part I because these data are
presented by payer or payee, rather than by sector. For example, households are assumed to pay
for POTW improvements as well as urban and mixed open nonpoint programs, state-funded
portions of agricultural cost sharing, and septic system improvements. Similarly, the water
supply and sewerage systems sector is assumed to receive money spent for POTW improvements
as well as urban and mixed open nonpoint controls and industrial sector upgrades. This
summary, in reducing some of the sector-level data to simple "payer" and "payee" groups,
illustrates some of the important distributional effects of the Tier 3 scenario.
The total spending amount of $1,135 million exceeds the cost total of $945 million by about
$190 million, representing the flow of federal dollars into the region as a result of the Tier 3
scenario. While in reality the taxpayers of the region would pay some of this cost through
federal taxes, the federal government has a much larger population and more flexibility in
budgeting than the states have. NCEE assumed that the federal budget is exogenous.
Exhibit 2 shows that households (i.e., the public) are the largest paying sector, with
approximately $802 million in expenditures in 2010 under Tier 3 for POTW improvements as
well as urban and mixed open nonpoint programs. The agriculture and forestry (private) sectors
combined face approximately $128 million in costs, and the industrial sector faces $15 million in
costs. Water supply and sewerage systems is the largest payee sector, receiving about $715
million in spending for POTW improvements, urban and mixed open nonpoint programs, and
industrial improvements. The agricultural services sector receives approximately $407 million
for agricultural and forest BMPs, and the residential maintenance and repair sector receives
approximately $13 million for onsite wastewater management system improvements.
To model the pollution control expenditures, the costs are translated into changes in economic
variables for the affected sectors.
POTWs
The POTW sector will face increased cost of treatment, in the form of capital and O&M
expenditures. Some of these costs are paid by state and federal funds. Based on the assumptions
developed by the UAA workgroup and presented elsewhere in this document, capital cost shares
of 50% are expected in MD and 10% in VA; facilities in all other states pay capital cost in
entirety. NCEE modeled these cost shares in IMPLAN as coming from state sources.
2 Tier 1 and 2 show similar patterns, but with lower totals.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 6
Exhibit 2. Estimated Incidence of Costs and Distribution of Spending, Tier 31
Costs ("Payers")
Households
Agriculture &
Forestry
Industry
Totals
State
DE
DC
MD
NY
PA
VA
WV
Subtotal
DE
DC
MD
NY
PA
VA
WV
Subtotal
DE
DC
MD
NY
PA
VA
WV
Subtotal
Amount (millions
of 2001 $)
5.694
31.609
221.609
39.398
187.087
301.867
14.889
802.153
2.159
0
4.262
12.504
53.529
43.680
11.529
127.662
0
0
2.676
0
4.136
7.924
0.612
15.348
945.163
Spending
("Payees")
Water Supply
and Sewerage
Agricultural
Services
Residential
Repair
State
DE
DC
MD
NY
PA
VA
WV
Subtotal
DE
DC
MD
NY
PA
VA
WV
Subtotal
DE
DC
MD
NY
PA
VA
WV
Subtotal
Amount (millions
of 2001 $)
3.175
31.576
205.887
31.766
151.789
280.339
10.543
715.075
9.465
0
51.599
32.817
163.931
123.388
25.837
407.036
0.181
0.033
3.251
1.132
4.106
3.944
0.379
13.026
1,135.137
1. Household costs include POTW improvements, urban and mixed open nonpoint programs, state-funded portions of
agricultural cost sharing, and septic system improvements. Agriculture, forestry, and industrial sector costs include
only the private costs for those sectors. The water supply and sewerage sector receives payments for POTW
improvements, urban and mixed open nonpoint programs, and industrial improvements. The agricultural services sector
receives payments for agriculture and forestry improvements. The residential repair sector receives payments for onsite
wastewater management system improvements.
NCEE assumed revenue neutrality with respect to POTW costs, and modeled the costs as being
passed on to residential customers through higher fees (for household shares) or taxes (for the
state share in Maryland and Virginia). This revenue neutrality is accomplished by decreasing
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 7
household consumption on other goods and services by an amount equal to the annual cost. On
the revenue side, the economic impact of implementing POTW controls is modeled by increasing
output of the water supply and sewerage systems sector by the same annual cost.
Industrial Facilities
Certain industries face increased cost of treatment under the various tiers. NCEE modeled these
costs as a decrease in output. This approach implicitly assumes that these firms sell
undifferentiated products to a competitive national or world market, which seems reasonable
considering the industries represented. This also is a conservative approach. If on the other
hand, firms hold a regional monopoly, the costs would come out of profits, not output, and
employment effects would be minimal.
Water pollution control in the affected industries consists of procedures to remove nitrogen and
phosphorous, not unlike the processes used by a sewage treatment plant. Therefore, the revenues
generated from expenditures on controls fall to the sewage treatment sector input suppliers.
Agriculture
Agriculture will be responsible for a large portion of the control costs. However, the sector will
receive a great deal of cost sharing from state and federal sources. Based on an analysis of the
most recent legislative provisions, the distribution of public funds is approximately 68% federal,
and 32% state. For the state, NCEE assumed revenue neutrality, meaning that costs are passed
on to residents through higher taxes, and modeled the impact of increased taxes as a decrease in
household consumption equal to the state portion of costs. Private sector (on-farm) costs are
modeled as a decreased output of food grains.
The revenue impact of expanding agricultural BMPs is modeled by increasing output of
agricultural services sector by the full costs of BMPs, including state and federal portions.
Forestry
The impact of forestry control costs is modeled by decreasing output in the forestry sector, and
increasing revenues to the agricultural and forestry services sector.
Urban
NCEE modeled urban and mixed open land use control costs similarly to POTWs, but without
cost sharing. Costs are assumed to be passed on to residents through higher fees (revenue
neutrality), who compensate by reducing household expenditures on other goods and services.
The expenditures boost the output of the water supply and sewerage systems sector.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 8
Septic Systems
Many aging septic systems will be upgraded under Tier 3, and NCEE modeled the impact of
these expenditures as a decrease in other household expenditures, and an increase in demand for
the residential maintenance and repair (skilled labor category including plumbers and licensed
contractors).
4.2 Results
Exhibits 3 through 23 provide the IMPLAN model results for each state and tier. The impact
results are measured in terms of output, employment, and value added:
• Output means the dollar value of all goods and services produced in the state.
Negative (positive) numbers mean reductions (increases) in output, that is, declining
(increasing) gross regional product.
• Employment is the total effect on statewide employment, counting all direct and
ripple effects.
• Value Added includes labor income, corporate income and indirect business taxes.
The rows in Exhibits 3 through 23 represent the sectors affected by specific control measures,
and the column labeled Tier Costs represents the direct and "ripple" effects of these
expenditures. For example, the total jobs figures under the Economic Impact sub-heading in the
Tier Cost column represents the economy-wide employment impact in all sectors.
The column labeled Tier Spending shows the stimulus effect of program-related spending to
implement the nutrient and sediment reduction actions. For example, the total jobs figure under
the Economic Impact subheading in the Tier Spending column represents the number of
additional jobs supported. In most instances, this number exceeds the number of jobs lost.
However, a couple of caveats apply. First, the model assumes no supply constraints for labor or
materials. These total impacts can only be realized if there are, in fact, workers available to take
the positions and no other resource constraints are binding. The second caveat is that this is the
long-term effect, and some time will be required before the spending impacts are fully realized.
There are distributional consequences associated with the scenarios. Overall, consumers bear
most of the costs through higher taxes (for agricultural controls) or higher water and sewer fees,
or both. Reductions in disposable income tend to concentrate cost impacts on the retail,
restaurant, and service sectors. Spending impacts occur in many skilled professional and
technical areas such as water treatment and agricultural services.
However, it should be emphasized that because of the small size of the impacts relative to the
size of the sectors themselves, the true implications of these impacts are higher or lower growth,
not absolute expansion or contraction. For example, in Maryland, the Tier 3 scenario results in a
(gross) addition of 3,224 jobs and a loss of 3,172 jobs (for a net increase of 52 jobs). However,
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 9
the baseline REMI forecast for Maryland indicates an estimated 757,000 more jobs in Maryland
by 2010 (see Exhibits 1 and 19). Similarly, in Maryland's agriculture sector, the Tier 3 costs and
spending totals of $17.418 million and $49.608 million, respectively, should be viewed in the
context of the REMI baseline forecast that predicts 17.5% less agricultural employment by 2010
(see Exhibit 1). Although baseline REMI forecasts for the Chesapeake Bay watershed portions
of other states are unavailable, NCEE expects the same kind of growth patterns to prevail
throughout the region.
5. SUMMARY
As could be expected, the fact that spending exceeds costs is translated into net positive impacts
for all three tier scenarios. Moreover, in terms of macroeconomic variables such as employment
and economic output that are important in determining widespread impacts, there is a slight gain
in transferring dollars from consumers who largely purchase goods imported to the region, to
local infrastructure development.
Given the size of the regional economy ($1.4 trillion in personal income in 1999 in the six-state
area and the District of Columbia, including $574 billion in Chesapeake Bay counties; in 2001
dollars, the values are $1.5 trillion and $610 billion, respectively), net impacts over this area are
not likely to be seen. For example, baseline gross regional product in the state of Maryland is
forecast to grow by 37% by 2010, corresponding to 19% growth in employment and 17% growth
in real disposable personal income. The Tier 3 scenario would result in a net increase in output,
employment, and value added above baseline levels. The stimulus results from increased
spending in high wage industries (e.g., wastewater treatment technologies) as well as an influx of
funds for pollution controls (e.g., federal cost shares for agricultural BMPs). Not included are
additional market benefits likely to result from improved water quality (e.g., commercial and
recreational fishing industries). Therefore, the regional economy should expand as a result of the
tier scenarios, but the changes will be nearly impossible to detect given the level of
macroeconomic changes present in the baseline forecast.
The estimated annual cost of Tier 3 for 2010 populations ($1.1 billion in 2001 dollars) represents
0.2% of personal income in the Chesapeake Bay counties in 1999. Even if all capital costs ($7.9
billion) for this scenario were incurred in one year, they represent only 1.4% of personal income
in the Chesapeake Bay counties in 1999. Although these data indicate that the pollution controls
specified in the tier scenarios will not result in substantial and widespread social and economic
hardship, there may be localized areas that need funding priority or special considerations.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 10
Exhibit 3: Economic Impact, Tier 1, Delaware
Source Category
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Forest
Total
Tier 1 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduced Output
$705,766
Reduced Household
Consumption
$491,216
Reduced Household
Consumption
$483,377
Reduced Household
Consumption
$239,875
Reduced Output
$14,685
Cost
$1,934,919
Economic Impact
Total Output ... ($1,099,214)
Total Jobs (14.8)
Value Added .... ($372,563)
Total Output .... ($682,007)
Total Jobs (8 5)
Value Added .... ($418,300)
Total Output .... ($671,123)
Total Jobs (8.4)
Value Added .... ($411,624)
Total Output .... ($333,044)
Total Jobs (4 2)
Value Added .... ($204,268)
Total Output ($17,594)
Total Jobs (0)
Value Added ($5,613)
Total Output . . ($2,803,052)
Total Jobs (35.9)
Value Added .. ($1,412,368)
Tier 1 Spending
Economic Effect
Increased Output:
Ag. Services
$2,240,817
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$483,377
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$239,875
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$14,685
Spending
$2,978,754
Economic Impact
Total Output$ .... 3,324,039
Total Jobs 136.4
Value Added .... $1,929,972
Total Output $717,913
Total Jobs 5.6
Value Added $467,143
Total Output $356 263
Total Jobs 2 8
Value Added $231819
Total Output $21,784
Total Jobs 1
Value Added $12,648
Total Output . . . $4,419,996
Total Jobs 145.8
Value Added ... $2,641,582
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 11
Exhibit 4: Economic Impact, Tier 1, District of Columbia
Source Category
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Total
Tier 1 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $334,198
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $8,260,558
Cost:
$8,594,755
Economic Impact
Total Output .... ($388,133)
Total Jobs (2.6)
Value Added .... ($168,685)
Total Output . . . ($4,593,706)
Total Jobs (63 8)
Value Added ... ($4,163,522)
Total Output .. ($4,981,839)
Total Jobs (66 4)
Value Added . . ($4,332,207)
Tier 1 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$334,198
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$8,260,558
Spending
$8,594,755
Economic Impact
Total Output $496,351
Total Jobs 3.9
Value Added $322,996
Total Output ... $12,268,606
Total Jobs 94 9
Value Added .... $7,983,695
Total Output . . $12,764,957
Total Jobs 98 8
Value Added . . . $8,306,691
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 12
Exhibit 5: Economic Impact, Tier 1, Maryland
Source Category
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Forest
Total
Tier 1 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Household
Consumption
$23,800,346
Reduce Household
Consumption
$29,478,054
Reduce Output
$1,352,044
Reduce Household
Consumption
$2,208,566
Reduce Output
$1,592,527
Cost
$58,431,537
Economic Impact
Total Output .. $32,509,741)
Total Jobs (327.3)
Value Added .. ($15,984,621)
Total Output ... (40,265,124)
Total Jobs (405 4)
Value Added .. ($19,797,843)
Total Output . . . ($2,245,576)
Total Jobs (36.0)
Value Added .... ($901,840)
Total Output ... ($3,016,759)
Total Jobs (30 4)
Value Added ... ($1,483,302)
Total Output . . . ($2,249,093)
Total Jobs (30.4)
Value Added .... ($866,003)
Total Output . ($80,286,293)
Total Jobs (829.5)
Value Added . ($39,033,609)
Tier 1 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$23,800,346
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$29,478,054
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$8,253,812
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$1,592,527
Spending
$63,124,740
Economic Impact
Total Output ... $38,021,437
Total Jobs 309.8
Value Added .... 24,838,506
Total Output . . . $47,092,340
Total Jobs 383 7
Value Added ... $30,765,046
Total Output ... $12,941,719
Total Jobs 464.6
Value Added .... $7,822,882
Total Output .... $2,497,033
Total Jobs 89.6
Value Added .... $1,509,381
Total Output . $100,552,529
Total Jobs 1247.7
Value Added .. $64,935,815
Exhibit 6: Economic Impact, Tier 1, New York
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 13
Source Category
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Urban & Mixed Open
Forest
Total
Tier 1 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Output
Cost: $621,761
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $380,482
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $1,681,854
Reduce Output
Cost: $3,635,376
Cost
$6,319,473
Economic Impact
Total Output .... ($995,942)
Total Jobs (166)
Value Added .... ($347,918)
Total Output .... ($571,230)
Total Jobs (7.3)
Value Added .... ($340,234)
Total Output . . . ($2,525,024)
Total Jobs (32 3)
Value Added ... ($1,503,947)
Total Output . . . ($5,257,087)
Total Jobs (77.8)
Value Added ... ($1,936,036)
Total Output . . ($9,349,283)
Total Jobs (134.0)
Value Added .. ($4,128,135)
Tier 1 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$1,810,767
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$1,681,854
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$3,635,376
Spending
$7,127,997
Economic Impact
Total Output .... $2,846,770
Total Jobs 85 5
Value Added .... $1,600,578
Total Output .... $2,681,489
Total Jobs 23 2
Value Added .... $1,732,476
Total Output .... $5,715,303
Total Jobs 171.5
Value Added .... $3,213,392
Total Output .. $11,243,562
Total Jobs 280.2
Value Added . . . $6,546,446
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 14
Exhibit 7: Economic Impact, Tier 1, Pennsylvania
Source Category
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Forest
Total
Tier 1 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Output
Cost: $9,142,941
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $4,193,979
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $8,817,952
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $6,490,146
Reduce Output
Cost: $13,880,287
Cost
$42,525,305
Economic Impact
Total Output .. ($15,786,146)
Total Jobs (312.2)
Value Added . . . ($5,860,080)
Total Output ... ($6,455,721)
Total Jobs (821)
Value Added ... ($3,844,700)
Total Output .. ($13,573,324)
Total Jobs (172.6)
Value Added . . . ($8,083,583)
Total Output ... ($9,990,172)
Total Jobs (1270)
Value Added ... ($5,949,639)
Total Output . . ($20,687,786)
Total Jobs (256.4)
Value Added ... ($9,174,313)
Total Output . ($66,493,149)
Total Jobs (950.3)
Value Added . ($32,912,315)
Tier 1 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$22,249,124
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$8,817,952
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$6,490,146
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$13,880,287
Spending
$51,437,510
Economic Impact
Total Output . . . $37,405,582
Total Jobs 1,091.2
Value Added . . . $22,923,296
Total Output ... $14,475,079
Total Jobs 132.7
Value Added .... $9,341,364
Total Output ... $10,653,878
Total Jobs 97 6
Value Added .... $6,875,386
Total Output . . . $23,335,759
Total Jobs 680.8
Value Added ... $14,300,874
Total Output . . $85,870,298
Total Jobs 2002.3
Value Added . . $53,440,920
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 15
Exhibit 8: Economic Impact, Tier 1, Virginia
Source Category
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Forest
Total
Tier 1 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $24,148,648
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $8,650,293
Reduce Output
Cost: $9,429,871
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $3,888,106
Reduce Output
Cost: $3,019,242
Cost
$49,136,160
Economic Impact
Total Output . . ($32,577,025)
Total Jobs (327.4)
Value Added .. ($15,256,695)
Total Output .. ($11,669,424)
Total Jobs (1173)
Value Added ... ($5,465,104)
Total Output .. ($15,185,822)
Total Jobs (322.5)
Value Added ... ($6,194,244)
Total Output ... ($5,245,135)
Total Jobs (52 7)
Value Added ... ($2,456,438)
Total Output ... ($4,218,641)
Total Jobs (52.4)
Value Added ... ($1,802,385)
Total Output . ($68,896,047)
Total Jobs (872.3)
Value Added . ($31,174,866)
Tier 1 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$24,148,648
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$8,650,293
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$21,580,201
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$3,019,242
Spending
$57,398,385
Economic Impact
Total Output . . . $37,947,699
Total Jobs 370.0
Value Added ... $24,616,027
Total Output ... $13,593,254
Total Jobs 1325
Value Added .... $8,817,713
Total Output ... $33,751,944
Total Jobs 1,359.8
Value Added ... $19,705,745
Total Output .... $4,722,166
Total Jobs 190.3
Value Added .... $2,756,991
Total Output .. $90,015,063
Total Jobs 2,052.6
Value Added . . $55,896,476
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 16
Exhibit 9: Economic Impact, Tier 1, West Virginia
Source Category
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Urban & Mixed Open
Forest
Total
Tier 1 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Output
Cost: $2,389,320
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $873,004
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $885,725
Reduce Output
Cost: $1,328,544
Cost
$5,476,593
Economic Impact
Total Output . . . ($3,326,288)
Total Jobs (98.3)
Value Added .... ($807,401)
Total Output ... ($1,132,731)
Total Jobs (182)
Value Added .... ($639,673)
Total Output ... ($1,149,237)
Total Jobs (18.4)
Value Added .... ($648,984)
Total Output ... ($1,605,661)
Total Jobs (21 9)
Value Added .... ($574,452)
Total Output .. ($7,213,917)
Total Jobs (1568)
Value Added .. ($2,670,510)
Tier 1 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$5,117,457
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$885,725
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$1,328,544
Spending
$7,331,726
Economic Impact
Total Output .... $7,463,561
Total Jobs 639.4
Value Added .... $2,685,912
Total Output .... $1,264,832
Total Jobs 16.8
Value Added $802,825
Total Output .... $1,937,617
Total Jobs 1660
Value Added $697 290
Total Output .. $10,666,010
Total Jobs 634 5
Value Added ... $4,186,027
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 17
Exhibit 10: Economic Impact, Tier 2, Delaware
Source Category
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Forest
Total
Tier 2 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Output
$1,429,241
Reduce Household
Consumption
$1,569,783
Reduce Household
Consumption
$986,628
Reduce Household
Consumption
$552,811
Reduce Output
$44,020
Cost
$4,582,483
Economic Impact
Total Output ... ($2,233,219)
Total Jobs (32.7)
Value Added .... ($825,394)
Total Output ... ($2,179,494)
Total Jobs (27 3)
Value Added ... ($1,336,764)
Total Output ... ($1,369,839)
Total Jobs (17.1)
Value Added .... ($840,172)
Total Output (767 525)
Total Jobs (9 6)
Value Added .... ($470,751)
Total Output ($52,738)
Total Jobs (0)
Value Added ($16,797)
Total Output .. ($6,602,815)
Total Jobs (86.7)
Value Added . . ($3,489,878)
Tier 2 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$6,334,812
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$986,628
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$552,811
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$44,020
Spending
$7,918,271
Economic Impact
Total Output .... $6,894,606
Total Jobs 70.5
Value Added $997,385
Total Output .... $1,464,862
Total Jobs 11.5
Value Added $952,533
Total Output $820 767
Total Jobs 6 4
Value Added $533 708
Total Output $65,299
Total Jobs 2.7
Value Added $37,914
Total Output . . . $8,593,142
Total Jobs 91.1
Value Added ... $2,521,540
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 18
Exhibit 11: Economic Impact, Tier 2, District of Columbia
Source Category
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Total
Tier 2 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $2,096,140
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $14,178,753
Cost
$16,274,893
Economic Impact
Total Output . . . ($2,434,430)
Total Jobs (16.2)
Value Added .... (1,056,505)
Total Output .. ($16,467,022)
Total Jobs (1095)
Value Added ... ($7,146,436)
Total Output . ($18,901,452)
Total Jobs (1257)
Value Added .. ($8,202,941)
Tier 2 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$2,096,140
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$14,178,753
Spending
$16,274,893
Economic Impact
Total Output .... $3,348,584
Total Jobs 27.3
Value Added .... $2,187,572
Total Output . . . $22,650,558
Total Jobs 1846
Value Added ... $14,797,216
Total Output . . $25,999,142
Total Jobs 2119
Value Added .. $16,984,788
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 19
Exhibit 12: Economic Impact, Tier 2, Maryland
Source Category
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Industrial
Forest
Total
Tier 2 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Household
Consumption
$47,281,791
Reduce Household
Consumption
$36,472,156
Reduce Output
$1,957,348
Reduce Household
Consumption
$10,184,009
Reduce Output
$1,637,472
Reduce Output
$1,791,593
Cost
$99,324,369
Economic Impact
Total Output . . ($64,583,885)
Total Jobs (650.2)
Value Added .. ($31,755,064)
Total Output .. ($49,818,618)
Total Jobs (501 5)
Value Added .. ($24,495,172)
Total Output . . . ($3,250,960)
Total Jobs (52.1)
Value Added ... ($1,305,639)
Total Output .. ($13,910,700)
Total Jobs (1400)
Value Added ... ($6,839,712)
Total Output . . . ($3,030,934)
Total Jobs (15.0)
Value Added .... ($844,142)
Total Output . . . ($2,530,339)
Total Jobs (34 3)
Value Added .... ($974,253)
Total Output ($137,125,436)
Total Jobs (13931)
Value Added . ($66,213,982)
Tier 2 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$47,281,791
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$36,472,156
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$33,782,377
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$1,657,472
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$1,791,593
Spending
$120,985,389
Economic Impact
Total Output . . . $75,533,426
Total Jobs 615.5
Value Added ... $49,344,199
Total Output . . . $58,265,687
Total Jobs 474 8
Value Added ... $38,064,504
Total Output . . . $36,976,367
Total Jobs 316.5
Value Added .... $5,329,929
Total Output .... $2,647,537
Total Jobs 21.6
Value Added .... $1,729,615
Total Output .... $2,809,162
Total Jobs 1008
Value Added .... $1,698,054
Total Output . $176,232,179
Total Jobs 15292
Value Added ..$96,166,301
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 20
Exhibit 13: Economic Impact, Tier 2, New York
Source Category
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Forest
Total
Tier 2 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Output
Cost: $3,705,333
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $3,507,886
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $6,355,003
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $6,235,642
Reduce Output
Cost: $4,089,798
Cost
$23,893,663
Economic Impact
Total Output . . . ($5,935,234)
Total Jobs (99.1)
Value Added . . . ($2,073,386)
Total Output . . . ($5,266,507)
Total Jobs (67 3)
Value Added .. ($3,136,820)
Total Output . . . ($9,540,979)
Total Jobs (121.9)
Value Added . . . ($5,682,768)
Total Output ... ($9,361,778)
Total Jobs (1197)
Value Added ... ($5,576,033)
Total Output ... ($5,913,903)
Total Jobs (87.5)
Value Added ... ($2,177,659)
Total Output . ($36,018,401)
Total Jobs (495.5)
Value Added . ($18,646,666)
Tier 2 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$14,667,478
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$6,355,003
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$6,235,642
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$4,089,798
Spending
$31,347,921
Economic Impact
Total Output ... $17,572,598
Total Jobs 239.9
Value Added .... $4,488,279
Total Output ... $10,132,193
Total Jobs 87.6
Value Added .... $6,546,281
Total Output .... $9,941,888
Total Jobs 86 0
Value Added .... $6,423,327
Total Output .... $4,899,846
Total Jobs 66.9
Value Added .... $1,251,487
Total Output . . $42,546,525
Total Jobs 480.4
Value Added .. $18,709,374
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 21
Exhibit 14: Economic Impact, Tier 2, Pennsylvania
Source Category
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Industrial
Forest
Total
Tier 2 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Output
Cost: $22,757,591
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $21,816,033
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $27,031,192
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $31,784,614
Reduce Output
Cost: $2,043,399
Reduce Output
Cost: $15,615,323
Cost
$121,048,153
Economic Impact
Total Output .. ($39,293,120)
Total Jobs (777.1)
Value Added .. ($14,586,258)
Total Output .. ($33,581,971)
Total Jobs (427 0)
Value Added .. ($19,999,718)
Total Output .. ($41,608,655)
Total Jobs (529.1)
Value Added . . ($24,780,003)
Total Output .. ($48,925,517)
Total Jobs (6221)
Value Added .. ($29,137,555)
Total Output . . . ($3,303,465)
Total Jobs (21.3)
Value Added ... ($1,209,462)
Total Output . . ($23,273,759)
Total Jobs (288 4)
Value Added .. ($10,321,102)
Total Output ($189,986,487)
Total Jobs (2 665)
Value Added . (100,034,098)
Tier 2 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$90,932,696
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$27,031,192
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$31,784,614
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$2,043,399
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$15,615,323
Spending
$167,407,224
Economic Impact
Total Output .. $119,085,857
Total Jobs 2,027.0
Value Added . . . $42,580,088
Total Output . . . $42,509,985
Total Jobs 363.0
Value Added . . . $25,559,464
Total Output . . . $49,985,360
Total Jobs 426 8
Value Added ... $30,054,086
Total Output .... $3,088,150
Total Jobs 25.9
Value Added .... $1,825,244
Total Output . . . $20,449,895
Total Jobs 348 1
Value Added .... $7,312,021
Total Output . $235,119,247
Total Jobs 31908
Value Added . $109,330,903
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 22
Exhibit 15: Economic Impact, Tier 2, Virginia
Source Category
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Industrial
Forest
Total
Tier 2 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $59,265,334
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $58,092,227
Reduce Output
Cost: $22,450,623
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $14,534,946
Reduce Output
Cost: $3,411,858
Reduce Output
Cost: $4,077,351
Cost
$161,597,041
Economic Impact
Total Output .. ($79,950,162)
Total Jobs (803.5)
Value Added . . ($37,442,806)
Total Output .. ($78,367,614)
Total Jobs (787 6)
Value Added .. ($36,701,658)
Total Output .. ($36,154,382)
Total Jobs (767.9)
Value Added .. ($14,747,247)
Total Output .. ($19,607,944)
Total Jobs (1971)
Value Added ... ($9,182,926)
Total Output ... ($5,988,217)
Total Jobs (39.4)
Value Added ... ($1,650,747)
Total Output . . . ($5,697,085)
Total Jobs (70 8)
Value Added ... ($2,434,040)
Total Output ($225,765,404)
Total Jobs (2 666 3)
Value Added ($102,159,424)
Tier 2 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$59,265,334
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$58,092,227
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$67,872,330
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$3,411,858
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$4,077,351
Spending
$192,483,803
Economic Impact
Total Output ... $93,130,804
Total Jobs 908.0
Value Added ... $60,412,368
Total Output ... $91,287,359
Total Jobs 890 1
Value Added ... $59,216,562
Total Output . . . $79,583,349
Total Jobs 1308.4
Value Added ... $18,959,843
Total Output .... $5,361,466
Total Jobs 52.3
Value Added .... $3,477,892
Total Output .... $6,377,074
Total Jobs 256 9
Value Added .... $3,723,193
Total Output . $275,740,052
Total Jobs 34157
Value Added . $145,789,858
Exhibit 16: Economic Impact, Tier 2, West Virginia
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 23
Source Category
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Industrial
Forest
Total
Tier 2 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Output
Cost: $5,044,183
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $2,459,786
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $2,505,462
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $1,667,872
Reduce Output
Cost: $559,099
Reduce Output
Cost: $1,494,612
Cost
$13,731,013
Economic Impact
Total Output ... ($7,022,251)
Total Jobs (207 6)
Value Added ... ($1,704,534)
Total Output ... ($3,191,596)
Total Jobs (51.1)
Value Added ... ($1,802,351)
Total Output ... ($3,250,861)
Total Jobs (521)
Value Added ... ($1,835,814)
Total Output ... ($2,164,080)
Total Jobs (34.7)
Value Added ... ($1,222,094)
Total Output .... ($758,961)
Total Jobs (5 7)
Value Added .... ($303,974)
Total Output ... ($1,806,368)
Total Jobs (24.7)
Value Added .. ($16,950,575)
Total Output . ($18,194,117)
Total Jobs (375.9)
Value Added . ($23,819,342)
Tier 2 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$12,731,013
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$2,505,462
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$1,667,872
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$559,099
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$1,494,612
Spending
$18,958,057
Economic Impact
Total Output ... $18,567,561
Total Jobs 1 590 8
Value Added .... $6,681,908
Total Output .... $3,578,351
Total Jobs 47 4
Value Added .... $2,272,026
Total Output .... $2,382,088
Total Jobs 31.6
Value Added .... $1,512,475
Total Output $776128
Total Jobs 103
Value Added $492 792
Total Output .... $2,179,819
Total Jobs 186.8
Value Added $784,451
Total Output . . $27,483,947
Total Jobs 1,866.9
Value Added .. $11,743,652
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 24
Exhibit 17: Economic Impact, Tier 3, Delaware
Source Category
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Urban & Mixed Open
Septic
POTW
Forest
Total
Tier 3 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Output
$2,085,531
Reduce Household
Consumption
$2,338,015
Reduce Household
Consumption
$2,389,458
Reduce Household
Consumption
$181,326
Reduce Household
Consumption
$785,664
Reduce Output
$73,355
Cost
$7,853,349
Economic Impact
Total Output . . . ($3,258,685)
Total Jobs (47.7)
Value Added ... ($1,204,405)
Total Output. ... ($3,246,111)
Total Jobs (40 6)
Value Added ... ($1,990,959)
Total Output. ... ($3,317,535)
Total Jobs (41.5)
Value Added . . . ($2,034,766)
Total Output .... ($251,754)
Total Jobs (3 2)
Value Added. ... ($154,410)
Total Output. ... ($1,090,820)
Total Jobs (13.6)
Value Added. ... ($669,040)
Total Output ($87 884)
Total Jobs (0 4)
Value Added ($27,990)
Total Output. . ($11,252,789)
Total Jobs (147)
Value Added. .. ($6,081,570)
Tier 3 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$9,391,828
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$2,389,458
Increase Output: Residential
Maintenance & Repair
$181,326
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$785,664
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$73,355
Spending
$12,821,631
Economic Impact
Total Output ... $13,931,885
Total Jobs 571.5
Value Added .... $8,089,020
Total Output .... $3,547,666
Total Jobs 27.8
Value Added .... $2,306,886
Total Output $267 969
Total Jobs 3 3
Value Added $136512
Total Output .... $1,166,488
Total Jobs 9.2
Value Added $758,514
Total Output $108815
Total Jobs 4 5
Value Added $63179
Total Output . . $19,022,823
Total Jobs 6163
Value Added .. $11,354,111
Exhibit 18: Economic Impact, Tier 3, District of Columbia
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 25
Source Category
Urban & Mixed Open
Septic
POTW
Total
Tier 3 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $8,346,901
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $33,087
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $23,228,765
Cost
$31,608,753
Economic Impact
Total Output . . . ($9,693,984)
Total Jobs (64 5)
Value Added ... ($4,207,041)
Total Output ($38,427)
Total Jobs (0)
Value Added ($16,677)
Total Output . . ($26,997,589)
Total Jobs (1795)
Value Added .. ($11,707,862)
Total Output . ($36,730,000)
Total Jobs (244 0)
Value Added . ($15,931,580)
Tier 3 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$8,346,901
Increase Output: Residential
Maintenance & Repair
$33,087
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$23,228,765
Spending
$31,608,753
Economic Impact
Total Output ... $13,334,500
Total Jobs 1083
Value Added .... $8,651,703
Total Output $35,955
Total Jobs 0
Value Added $6,760
Total Output ... $37,107,952
Total Jobs 302 4
Value Added ... $24,241,981
Total Output . . $50,478,407
Total Jobs 4107
Value Added . . $32,900,444
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 26
Exhibit 19: Economic Impact, Tier 3, Maryland
Source Category
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Septic
Industrial
Forest
Total
Tier 3 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Household
Consumption
$119,540,360
Reduce Household
Consumption
$83,670,178
Reduce Output
$2,270,873
Reduce Household
Consumption
$15,147,854
Reduce Household
Consumption
$3,250,804
Reduce Output
$2,676,421
Reduce Output
$1,990,659
Cost
$228,547,148
Economic Impact
Total Output . ($163,284,438)
Total Jobs (1,643.9)
Value Added . . ($80,284,854)
Total Output . ($114,288,074)
Total Jobs (11506)
Value Added .. ($56,193,974)
Total Output ... ($3,771,694)
Total Jobs (60.4)
Value Added ... ($1,514,774)
Total Output . . ($20,690,993)
Total Jobs (208 3)
Value Added .. ($10,173,495)
Total Output . . . ($4,440,389)
Total Jobs (44.7)
Value Added ... ($2,183,282)
Total Output . . . ($4,882,955)
Total Jobs (26)
Value Added ... ($1,484,169)
Total Output ... ($2,811,366)
Total Jobs (38.1)
Value Added .... ($108,504)
Total Output ($314,169,878)
Total Jobs (3,172.0)
Value Added ($152,917,011)
Tier 3 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$119,540,360
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$83,670,178
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$49,607,917
Increase Output: Residential
Maintenance & Repair
$3,250,804
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$2,676,421
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$1,990,659
Spending
$262,280,490
Economic Impact
Total Output .. $190,970,377
Total Jobs 1,556.1
Value Added .. $124,759,412
Total Output .. $133,666,358
Total Jobs 1 089 2
Value Added ... $87,323,155
Total Output ... $54,298,152
Total Jobs 464.8
Value Added .... $7,826,764
Total Output .... $5,185,404
Total Jobs 60.7
Value Added .... $2,567,945
Total Output .... $4,275,624
Total Jobs 34 8
Value Added .... $2,793,164
Total Output .... $2,178,868
Total Jobs 18.7
Value Added $314,071
Total Output . $390,574,783
Total Jobs 3,224.3
Value Added . $225,584,511
Exhibit 20: Economic Impact, Tier 3, New York
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 27
Source Category
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Urban & Mixed Open
Septic
POTW
Forest
Total
Tier 3 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Output
Cost: $7,959,416
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $6,500,136
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $21,581,819
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $1,131,503
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $10,184,157
Reduce Output
Cost: $4,544,220
Cost
$51,901,250
Economic Impact
Total Output .. ($12,749,460)
Total Jobs (2129)
Value Added ... ($4,453,834)
Total Output . . . ($9,758,872)
Total Jobs (124.7)
Value Added .... (5,812,548)
Total Output .. ($32,401,508)
Total Jobs (4141)
Value Added ... (19,298,885)
Total Output ... ($1,698,763)
Total Jobs (21.7)
Value Added ... ($1,011,812)
Total Output .. ($15,289,815)
Total Jobs (1954)
Value Added ... ($9,106,872)
Total Output ... ($6,571,359)
Total Jobs (97.2)
Value Added . . . ($2,420,045)
Total Output . ($78,469,777)
Total Jobs (1066)
Value Added . ($42,103,997)
Tier 3 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$28,272,341
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$21,581,819
Increase Output: Residential
Maintenance & Repair
$1,131,503
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$10,184,157
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$4,544,220
Spending
$65,714,039
Economic Impact
Total Output ... $33,872,114
Total Jobs 462 4
Value Added .... $8,651,396
Total Output . . . $34,409,296
Total Jobs 297 6
Value Added ... $22,231,408
Total Output .... $1,881,611
Total Jobs 24.9
Value Added $915,015
Total Output ... $16,237,262
Total Jobs 1405
Value Added ... $10,490,688
Total Output .... $5,444,273
Total Jobs 74.3
Value Added .... $1,390,541
Total Output .. $91,844,556
Total Jobs 999.7
Value Added . . $43,679,048
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 28
Exhibit 21: Economic Impact, Tier 3, Pennsylvania
Source Category
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Urban & Mixed Open
Septic
POTW
Industrial
Forest
Total
Tier 3 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Output
Cost: $36,178,828
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $35,328,628
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $87,699,911
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $4,106,021
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $59,952,609
Reduce Output
Cost: $4,136,284
Reduce Output
Cost: $17,350,359
Cost
$244,752,640
Economic Impact
Total Output .. ($62,466,143)
Total Jobs (1,235.5)
Value Added .. ($23,188,470)
Total Output . . ($54,380,757)
Total Jobs (691 5)
Value Added .. ($32,286,420)
Total Output . ($134,994,987)
Total Jobs (1,716.5)
Value Added .. ($80,396,163)
Total Output . . . ($6,320,328)
Total Jobs (80 4)
Value Added ... ($3,764,067)
Total Output . . ($42,284,032)
Total Jobs (1,173.4)
Value Added . . ($54,959,687)
Total Output ... ($6,641,117)
Total Jobs (571)
Value Added ... ($2,651,446)
Total Output . . ($25,859,733)
Total Jobs (320.5)
Value Added .. ($11,467,893)
Total Output ($332,947,119)
Total Jobs (5,274.9)
Value Added ($208,714,146)
Tier 3 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$146,580,789
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$87,699,911
Increase Output: Residential
Maintenance & Repair
$4,106,021
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$59,952,609
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$4,136,284
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$17,350,359
Spending
$319,825,974
Economic Impact
Total Output .. $191,962,839
Total Jobs 3,267.4
Value Added . . . $68,637,826
Total Output .. $136,591,093
Total Jobs 1,146.6
Value Added ... $80,731,840
Total Output .... $7,378,455
Total Jobs 93 7
Value Added .... $3,695,425
Total Output ... $93,375,146
Total Jobs 783.8
Value Added ... $55,189,157
Total Output .... $6,504,834
Total Jobs 55 5
Value Added .... $3,911,082
Total Output ... $22,722,108
Total Jobs 386.8
Value Added .... $8,124,469
Total Output . $458,363,925
Total Jobs 5,731.5
Value Added . $220,122,400
Exhibit 22: Economic Impact, Tier 3, Virginia
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 29
Source Category
Urban & Mixed Open
POTW
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Industrial
Forest
Septic
Total
Tier 3 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $170,502,574
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $101,912,953
Reduce Output
Cost: $38,544,411
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $25,506,590
Reduce Output
Cost: $7,923,629
Reduce Output
Cost: $5,135,459
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $3,944,432
Cost
$353,470,048
Economic Impact
Total Output . ($230,011,491)
Total Jobs (23116)
Value Added . ($107,720,556)
Total Output . ($137,482,673)
Total Jobs (1,381.7)
Value Added . . ($64,386,827)
Total Output .. ($62,071,748)
Total Jobs (13183)
Value Added .. ($25,318,849)
Total Output .. ($34,408,916)
Total Jobs (345.8)
Value Added .. ($16,114,619)
Total Output .. ($14,477,606)
Total Jobs (87 4)
Value Added ... ($4,263,483)
Total Output ... ($7,175,529)
Total Jobs (89.2)
Value Added . . . ($3,065,695)
Total Output ... ($5,321,120)
Total Jobs (53 5)
Value Added ... ($2,492,023)
Total Output ($490,949,083)
Total Jobs (5 587 5)
Value Added ($223,362,052)
Tier 3 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$170,502,574
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$101,912,953
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$118,252,504
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$7,923,629
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$5,135,459
Increase Output: Residential
Maintenance & Repair
$3,944,432
Spending
$407,671,551
Economic Impact
Total Output .. $267,931,348
Total Jobs 26124
Value Added .. $173,802,520
Total Output .. $160,148,167
Total Jobs 1,561.5
Value Added .. $103,885,401
Total Output .. $138,656,363
Total Jobs 2 279 5
Value Added ... $33,033,331
Total Output ... $12,451,358
Total Jobs 1214
Value Added .... $8,076,985
Total Output .... $6,021,556
Total Jobs 99
Value Added .... $1,434,569
Total Output 6 569 757
Total Jobs 83 0
Value Added .... $3,240,144
Total Output . $591,778,549
Total Jobs 6 756 8
Value Added . $323,472,949
Exhibit 23: Economic Impact, Tier 3, West Virginia
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 30
Source Category
Agriculture - private
Agriculture - public
Urban & Mixed Open
Septic
POTW
Industrial
Forest
Total
Tier 3 Costs
Economic Effect
Reduce Output
Cost: $9,867,979
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $4,578,538
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $7,507,537
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $379,196
Reduce Household
Consumption
Cost: $2,424,046
Reduce Output
Cost: $611,642
Reduce Output
Cost: $1,660,679
Cost
$27,029,617
Economic Impact
Total Output .. ($13,737,690)
Total Jobs (406 2)
Value Added ... ($3,334,594)
Total Output ... ($6,174,249)
Total Jobs (98.9)
Value Added . . . ($3,486,707)
Total Output ... ($7,741,102)
Total Jobs (1561)
Value Added ... ($5,500,972)
Total Output .... ($492,010)
Total Jobs (7.9)
Value Added .... ($277,847)
Total Output ... ($3,145,223)
Total Jobs (50 4)
Value Added ... ($1,776,163)
Total Output .... ($829,570)
Total Jobs (6.2)
Value Added .... ($332,254)
Total Output . . . ($2,007,075)
Total Jobs (27 4)
Value Added .... ($718,065)
Total Output .. ($34,126,919)
Total Jobs (7531)
Value Added .. ($15,426,602)
Tier 3 Spending
Economic Effect
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$24,175,910
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$7,507,537
Increase Output: Residential
Maintenance & Repair
$379,196
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$2,424,046
Increase Output: Water
Supply & Sewerage
$611,642
Increase Output:
Ag. Services
$1,660,679
Spending
$36,759,010
Economic Impact
Total Output . . . $35,259,384
Total Jobs 3020 9
Value Added ... $12,688,794
Total Output ... $10,722,413
Total Jobs 1421
Value Added .... $6,808,054
Total Output 564,908
Total Jobs 8.6
Value Added $240,684
Total Output .... $3,461,584
Total Jobs 45 9
Value Added .... $2,197,165
Total Output $873,436
Total Jobs 11.6
Value Added $554,395
Total Output .... $2,422,019
Total Jobs 207 5
Value Added $871612
Total Output . . $53,303,744
Total Jobs 3 436 6
Value Added . . $23,360,704
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
III. Screening-Level Analysis of Potential for Economic and Social Impacts 1
1. Application of EPA (1995) Guidance for States Conducting Economic Analyses
as Part of UAAs 2
1.1 Overview of EPA (1995) Guidance 2
1.2 Overview of Screening Analysis 4
1.3 State Analyses of Public Sector Entities 11
1.3.1 Substantial Impacts 11
1.3.2 Widespread Impacts 18
1.3.3 Summary: Determining Whether Impacts are Substantial
and Widespread 22
1.4 State Analyses of Private Sector Entities 25
1.4.1 Substantial Impacts 25
1.4.2 Widespread Impacts 29
1.4.3 Summary: Determining Whether Impacts are Substantial
and Widespread 30
1.5 Considerations Regarding Analysis of Agricultural and Septic Sources 33
2. Screening Analysis for POTWs 34
2.1 Screening Variables 34
2.2 Screening Results 36
2.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results 40
3. Industrial Point Sources 44
3.1 Screening Variable for Industrial Facilities 44
3.2 Screening Results 46
3.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results 47
4. Forestry 50
4.1 Screening Variable for Forestry 50
4.2 Screening Results 51
4.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results 53
5. Screening Analysis for Agriculture 53
5.1 Screening Variables 53
5.2 Screening Results 56
5.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results 75
5.3.1 Crop Sales Screening Variable 75
5.3.2 Livestock Sales Screening Variable 76
5.3.3 MHI Screening Variable 77
6. Screening Analysis for Urban Sources 77
6.1 Screening Variables 78
6.2 Screening Results 78
6.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results 83
7. Screening Analysis for Onsite Wastewater Management Systems 84
7.1 Screening Variables 84
7.2 Screening Results 84
7.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results 85
8. POTW and Urban Sectors Combined 87
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page iii
8.1 Screening Variables 87
8.2 Screening Results 88
8.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results 89
9. Summary 93
10. References 96
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page iv
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Comparison of EPA (1995) Guidance and the Screening Variables
Constructed for the Tier Scenarios 5
Exhibit 2: Secondary Indicators 15
Exhibit 3: Substantial Impacts Matrix 16
Exhibit 4: Impacts from Expenditures on Pollution Controls by Public-Sector
Entities 21
Exhibit 5: Demonstration of Substantial and Widespread Economic and Social
Impacts Checklist: Public-Sector Entities 23
Exhibit 6: Impacts from Expenditures on Pollution Controls by Private-Sector
Entities 30
Exhibit 7: Demonstration of Substantial and Widespread Economic and Social
Impacts Checklist: Private-Sector Entities 31
Exhibit 8: Distribution of POTW Screening Variable Values by Tier Scenario 36
Exhibit 9: Sources of Uncertainty in the POTW Screening Variable 37
Exhibit 10: Facilities with Tier 3 POTW Screening Variable Values Above 1.5% 38
Exhibit 11: Comparison of Estimated Total Household Sewer Costs to MHI: Tier 1
(POTW Screening Variable Values) 41
Exhibit 12: Comparison of Estimated Total Household Sewer Costs to MHI: Tier 3
(POTW Screening Variable Values) 42
Exhibit 13: POTW Screening Variable Data for Allegany County, MD 43
Exhibit 14: Re-calculation of Screening Variable Value for Allegany County: Tier 3
(2001$) 43
Exhibit 15: 2001 Data Used in the Secondary Test: Allegany County, MD 45
Exhibit 16: Secondary Test Indicators for Allegany County, MD 45
Exhibit 17: Distribution of Industrial Point Source Screening Variables 47
Exhibit 18: Comparison of Earnings from Industrial Discharger Category to Total
Earnings 48
Exhibit 19: Estimated Costs for the Upper Potomac River Commission 49
Exhibit 20: Distribution of County Values for Forestry Earnings as a Percent of All
Earnings 51
Exhibit 21: Comparison of Forestry and Logging Earnings to Total Earnings
(Forestry Sector Screening Variable Values) 52
Exhibit 22: Distribution of Crop Screening Values by Tier Scenario 57
Exhibit 23: Comparison of Crop and Portion of Hay BMP Costs to Crop and Hay
Sales: Tier 1 (Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values) 58
Exhibit 24: Comparison of Crop and Portion of Hay BMP Costs to Crop and Hay
Sales: Tier 3 (Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values) 59
Exhibit 25: Distribution of Livestock Screening Values by Tier Scenario 60
Exhibit 26: Comparison of Livestock and Portion of Hay BMP Costs to Livestock
Sales: Tier 1 (Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values) 61
Exhibit 27: Comparison of Livestock and Portion of Hay BMP Costs to Livestock
Sales: Tier 3 (Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values) 62
Exhibit 28: Distribution of MHI Screening Values by Tier Scenario 63
Exhibit 29: Comparison of Average Agricultural BMP Costs to MHI: Tier 1
(Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values) 65
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Pagev
Exhibit 30: Comparison of Average Agricultural BMP Costs to MHI: Tier 3
(Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values) 66
Exhibit 31: Distribution of Agricultural and Related Earnings Screening Variable
Values 67
Exhibit 32: Distribution of Agricultural Earnings Only Screening Variable Values
(with Related Sectors Removed) 68
Exhibit 33: Comparison of Agricultural and Related Earnings to Total Earnings
(Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values) 70
Exhibit 34: Joint Earnings and MHI Screening Variable Values (Tier 1) 71
Exhibit 35: Joint Earnings and MHI Screening Variable Values (Tier 2) 71
Exhibit 36: Joint Earnings and MHI Screening Variable Values (Tier 3) 72
Exhibit 37: Joint Earnings and MHI Screening Variable Values with Related Sectors
Removed (Tier 3) 72
Exhibit 38: Jurisdictions with Earnings Screening Variable Values Greater than 5%
and MHI Values Greater than 1% 73
Exhibit 39: Sources of Uncertainty in Screening Variables for the Agriculture Sector .... 74
Exhibit 40: Agricultural Costs and Screening Variable Values for
Allegany County, MD 75
Exhibit 41: Summary of Crop and Livestock BMP Costs and Sales for Allegany
County, MD 76
Exhibit 42: Livestock Distribution in Allegany County, MD 77
Exhibit 43: Distribution of Urban Screening Variable Values by Tier Scenario 78
Exhibit 44: Counties With Low or Zero Urban Households 80
Exhibit 45: Comparison of Average Household Urban BMP Costs to MHI: Tier 1
(Urban Screening Variable Values) 81
Exhibit 46: Comparison of Average Household Urban BMP Costs to MHI: Tier 3
(Urban Screening Variable Values) 82
Exhibit 47: Urban Screening Data for Allegany County, MD 83
Exhibit 48: Joint Screening Variable Values for Onsite Waste Management Systems 85
Exhibit 49: Comparison of Onsite System Costs to MHI: Tier 3
(Onsite System Screening Variable Values) 86
Exhibit 50: Sources of Uncertainty in the Screening Variables for Onsite Systems 87
Exhibit 51: Onsite System Screening Data for Allegany County, MD 87
Exhibit 52: Distribution of POTW Plus Urban Cost Screening Variable Values 88
Exhibit 53: Comparison of Estimated Total Household Sewer Costs Plus Average
Household Urban BMP Costs to MHI: Tier 1 (Combined POTW plus
Urban BMP Screening Variable Values) 90
Exhibit 54: Comparison of Estimated Total Household Sewer Costs Plus Average
Household Urban BMP Costs to MHI: Tier 3 (Combined POTW plus
Urban BMP Screening Variable Values) 91
Exhibit 55: Sources of Uncertainty in the Total Urban Screening Variable 92
Exhibit 56: Combined Urban Screening Data for Allegany County, MD 92
Exhibit 57: Summary of Screening Analysis Results for Tier 1 94
Exhibit 58: Summary of Screening Analysis Results for Tier 2 94
Exhibit 59: Summary of Screening Analysis Results for Tier 3 95
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 1
III. Screening-Level Analysis of Potential for Economic and
Social Impacts
As described in Part II, one of the factors states may consider in evaluating use attainability is
whether controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b)( 1)(A) and (B) and 306 of
the Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact. EPA's Interim
Economic Guidelines for Water Quality Standards Workbook (EPA, 1995) provides detailed
worksheets and guidance for evaluating whether meeting water quality standards would result in
substantial and widespread economic and social impacts.1 The Chesapeake Bay Program did not
attempt to provide conclusions regarding the affordability of controls to meet Bay water quality
standards because the Water Quality Steering Committee judged it premature to specify
substantial and widespread economic and social impacts thresholds; on a regional, state or large
watershed scale, economic impacts can be mitigated by cost-share, loans, new federal or state
funding programs; and cost and economic analyses to definitively show impacts that would
preclude attainment of these refined uses must be more comprehensive and rigorous than the
present screening analyses.
However, in addition to the analysis described in Part II, the Chesapeake Bay Program
performed a screening analysis to try to rule out areas that would not experience such impacts.
Again, although the tier scenarios likely do not represent the actual control strategies that will be
employed by states, and the Chesapeake Bay Program's estimated costs of these scenarios are
not precise values, the Chesapeake Bay Program wanted to provide states this information as a
starting point for future analyses. The screening analysis described in this part consists of 12
county-level variables or ratios designed to indicate whether either substantial or widespread
economic and social impacts would not be likely. For some sectors, the ratios indicate when the
estimated control costs are small relative to household incomes and, therefore, substantial
impacts are unlikely. For other sectors, the ratios indicates whether the sector is small relative to
the local economy and, therefore, widespread impacts are unlikely. Because these screening
variables cannot indicate when substantial and widespread impacts would occur, this section also
provides direction for states regarding the types of information and economic analyses that they
would need to conduct and submit to support such a claim.
Part III is organized as follows. Section 1 provides information for states conducting economic
analyses as part of UAAs, based on existing EPA guidance in this area. Section 1 also describes,
for comparison, the Chesapeake Bay Program's screening analysis. Sections 2 through 8
describe the screening variables, and results by sector. In each of these sections, an example of a
more comprehensive analysis for one county is provided as groundtruthing for the screening
1 Some members of the Chesapeake Bay Program's UAA workgroup raised the issue of other potential social
impacts stemming from limits on wastewater treatment plants, as a result of water quality standards eventually
imposed by the jurisdictions. Their concern is that nutrient allocation caps on wastewater treatment plants will
promote urban sprawl. Most Chesapeake Bay Program partners contend that urban sprawl is occurring now
regardless of the nutrient reduction measures that may ultimately be required, that it will not necessarily be affected
by POTW caps, and that not all jurisdictions will be imposing such caps. Further, they contend that current policies
and growth trends, left unchecked (i.e., the baseline scenario), would show greater environmental impacts than the
tier scenarios. However, deliberations on this issue may be valuable on a watershed basis as sprawl is also an
interstate issue, and thus are provided in the appendices to this report.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 2
results, as well as to illustrate what an actual analysis of substantial and widespread impacts
would consider. Section 9 provides a summary of the results. Appendices to this report provide
detailed formulas documenting the screening variables, additional maps, and variable values by
county.
1. APPLICATION OF EPA (1995) GUIDANCE FOR STATES CONDUCTING
ECONOMIC ANALYSES AS PART OF UAAs
EPA's (1995) Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards, Workbook, provides
detailed worksheets and guidance for evaluating whether meeting water quality standards would
result in substantial and widespread economic and social impacts. The Chesapeake Bay Program
used a screening method to try to rule out areas that would not require further consideration
because one condition or the other (substantial impacts, or widespread adverse effects) would not
likely occur. Because this screening method does not represent the type of economic analysis
required as part of a use attainability analysis (UAA), this section provides direction for states
regarding the types of information and economic analyses they would need to conduct and
submit as part of a UAA.
Specifically, this section describes EPA (1995) guidance, how the screening analyses differ from
the analyses in EPA guidance, and the type of economic analyses states should perform
(including data to use and level of detail of documentation) for a UAA. The watershed states
with tidally influenced Chesapeake Bay waters—Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and the District
of Columbia—are responsible for defining and adopting the designated uses into their state water
quality standards. Therefore, economic factors may be of relevance in analyses of use
attainability for the Bay.2
Section 1.1 provides an overview of EPA (1995) guidance (EPA's 'Interim Economic Guidance
for Water Quality Standards, Workbook,' March, 1995). Section 1.2 provides an overview of
the screening analysis for substantial and widespread economic and social impacts performed by
the Chesapeake Bay Program. Section 1.3 provides direction to assist states in evaluating
substantial and widespread impacts for public sector entities, and Section 1.4 addresses private
sector entities. Finally, Section 1.5 discusses additional considerations regarding analysis of
agricultural and septic sources.
1.1 Overview of EPA (1995) Guidance
EPA (1995) provides guidance for evaluating whether substantial and widespread social and
economic impacts will result from water quality standards. As stated in this document, EPA
recommends that its guidance, including the various screening levels and measures presented, be
implemented as reference points and used as guides by the states and regions. The measures
outlined in the guidance are not intended to be applied as absolute decision points. States may
use other economically-defensible approaches in lieu of those suggested in the guidance. The
2 Although the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia do not have tidally influenced Bay waters,
economic factors there may be considered by those states that do in adopting water quality standards.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 3
economic impacts to be considered are those that result from treatment beyond that required by
technology-based regulations. All economic impact analyses of water quality standards should
address only the cost of improving the water to meet water quality standards (EPA, 1995).
EPA (1995) guidance applies equally to point and nonpoint sources; the distinction regarding
how to analyze different sources relates only to whether a source is public or private, because
this indicates how the costs will likely be borne. For example, the applicable substantial impact
tests for forestry are impacts on profit and related (e.g., liquidity, solvency) tests for private
businesses, and also apply to industrial point sources. Similarly, the substantial impact tests
described below for public sector entities apply to publically-owned sewage treatment works
(POTWs) as well as municipalities implementing storm water controls.
Substantial Impacts
EPA identifies specific tests of substantial impact, depending on whether the affected discharger
is a public or private entity. For the public sector, there is a two part test. The first part of the
test, called the Municipal Preliminary Screener (MPS), is a screening level ratio designed to
trigger additional tests or screen out the possibility of substantial impacts. Since municipalities
will pass all unfunded costs on to households and businesses, this screening is based on how
household costs compare to household income. The second part of the test involves calculation
of multiple indicators (e.g., bond rating, debt ratio, and tax collection ratio) designed to
characterize the financial health of the community. Then, these two test results are evaluated
jointly.
For the private sector, the primary test of substantial impacts is how control costs affect profits,
based on three years of financial data for the entity. Then, several secondary tests or indicators
(e.g., liquidity and solvency ratios) are used to further characterize whether the entity will bear a
substantial financial impact. Considerations include whether the private entity will absorb the
costs (i.e., out of profits) or will be able to pass all or a portion of costs on to its customers, and
whether the entity is an important part of a larger organization that could pay the pollution
control costs.
Widespread Impacts
If public or private entities will bear substantial financial impacts, the analysis proceeds to
evaluation of whether there will also be an adverse impact on the surrounding community. This
step involves estimating socioeconomic changes due to pollution control costs (e.g., loss of
employment, changes in property values, and higher taxes), and estimating multiplier effects.
That is, the analysis should consider the direct and indirect effects of control costs. Also,
expenditures on pollution control costs are not likely to vanish from the community. In reality,
these expenditures become business revenues and household incomes that can offset adverse
financial impacts experienced by the affected entities.
EPA recommends evaluating socioeconomic impacts by modeling the impact of incremental
control costs using a regional economic model. This approach involves developing baseline
(i.e., without control costs) and policy (i.e., with control costs) scenarios to identify the
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 4
incremental impact of meeting water quality standards. Differences in the model outputs across
the scenarios provide a forecast of the changes in population, income, sector employment, wage
rates, and other economic variables that are attributable to the meeting the standards. Such
simulations can be modeled using econometric models, such as those produced by Regional
Economic Modeling Inc. or Global Insight (formerly DRI-WEFA), that can also forecast future
trends and impacts, or economic impact models such as the Minnesota IMPLAN Group's
IMPLAN model (which provides impact estimates for current conditions; it is not a forecasting
model).
1.2 Overview of Screening Analysis
As described above, EPA (1995) guidance for evaluating whether controls beyond that required
by technology-based regulations (considered the baseline) will result in substantial and
widespread social and economic impacts requires multiple analyses. These analyses are
designed to determine whether costs to meet water quality standards will have a substantial
financial impact on those responsible for paying the costs, and an adverse impact on the
community (i.e., a widespread impact). Conducting a complete analysis of substantial and
widespread impacts for all of the affected point (over 330 point sources) and nonpoint sources in
the 197 counties and independent cities in the watershed would have been very time consuming
and costly. Therefore, to analyze its tiered scenarios of point and nonpoint source controls, the
Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay Program developed a screening analysis to identify where county-
level costs or economic conditions might have little or no potential to meet EPA's criteria for
substantial and widespread social and economic impacts.
The purpose of the screening analysis is to identify areas that can be excluded from further
analysis, so that additional expenditures can be focused on evaluating costs and impacts in the
remaining areas. This screening-level information may be helpful to states in their own
evaluations of meeting Bay water quality standards. However, it should be noted that the
analyses are limited even in this respect because the Tier scenarios do not represent the most
cost-effective mix of controls for achieving the standards, nor do they represent the likely
strategies that will ultimately be implemented by states that would have to form the basis for any
economic evaluations.
Nonetheless, the Chesapeake Bay Program constructed a number of screening-level variables at
the county level that may provide some indication of whether or not both impact conditions
could be met (see Exhibit 1). The intent of the analysis is to evaluate conservatively (i.e., err on
the side of not excluding a county if potential for substantial and widespread impacts exists) the
potential for at least one impact condition, so that areas that do not have potential for either
substantial or widespread impacts can be ruled out. If the potential for one impact can be ruled
out, data collection and analysis to evaluate the second condition would not be necessary since
the area could not meet both conditions. The 12 sector-related screening variables developed by
the UAA Workgroup include:
• Agriculture: Average BMP costs/net cash return
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 5
• Agriculture: Crop plus portion of hay BMP costs/crop plus hay sales
• Agriculture: Livestock plus portion of hay BMP costs/livestock sales
• Agriculture: Average BMP costs/median household income
• Agriculture: Percent of county earnings from agriculture, agriculture services, food
and kindred products, and tobacco sectors/total county earnings
• Forestry: Percent of county earning from forestry and logging/total county earnings
• Urban: Average BMP costs/median household income
• Onsite Treatment Systems: Average BMP costs/median household income
• Onsite Treatment Systems: Percent of households affected in county
• POTWs: Current household sewer rate plus average new household cost/median
household income
• POTWs and Urban Combined: Total sewer costs (current plus new) plus average
urban BMP cost/median household income
• Industrial: Percent of county earnings from industrial sectors containing affected
facilities/total county earnings.
The constructed screening model variables for some sectors indicate when control costs are
small relative to household incomes and, therefore, unlikely to meet EPA (1995) guidance
conditions for substantial impacts. Variables for other sectors indicate whether they are small
relative to the local economy and, therefore, unlikely to meet EPA conditions for widespread
impacts. Whether the screening variables for a particular sector address the potential for
substantial or widespread impacts depends on the availability of data. Readily available data for
constructing the variables include statistics from the Census Bureau's 2000 Census of
Population, the Bureau of Economic Analysis' 1999 Regional Economic Information System, the
Department of Agriculture's 1997 Census of Agriculture, and the Chesapeake Bay Program's
2010 population and land use projections.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 6
Exhibit 1: Comparison of EPA (1995) Guidance and the Screening Variables
Constructed for the Tier Scenarios
Sector
POTWs
(public)
Industrial
(private)
EPA (1995) Tests
Substantial
Verify project costs.
Define affected community
(governmental jurisdiction
responsible for paying
compliance costs) and calculate
annual cost per household.2
Two-part test consisting of:
1. MRS Screener (annual cost
per household/MHI)3 and, if
MRS greater than 1%,
2. Secondary Test (consisting of
scores for six indicators:
a. bond rating
b. net debt/full market value of
taxable property
c. comparison of unemployment
rate to national average
d. comparison of MHI to
national average
e. property tax revenues/full
market value of taxable property
f. property tax collection rate)
with 1& 2 scored jointly.
Verify project costs.
Primary Measure: Impact of
Project Costs on Profit.
Secondary Measures: Liquidity,
Solvency, Leverage.
Widespread
Define the affected community
(geographic area where project
costs pass through to the local
economy; includes total group
of dischargers).4 Estimated
change from precompliance
conditions in socioeconomic
indicators (MHI, unemployment
rate, overall net debt/full market
value of taxable property,
percent households below
poverty line, impact on
community development
potential, impact on property
values).
Consider multiplier effect.
Impact on affected community
(typically, area in which majority
of workers live and where most
of the businesses that depend
on it are located; includes total
group of dischargers):
comparison of unemployment
rate to national average,
unemployment rate in
community after compliance,
MHI, percent of households
below poverty line, change in
expenditures on social services
in affected community, percent
of tax revenues paid by affected
entity, state unemployment rate
after compliance, change in
state expenditures on social
services.
Screening Variables for
the Tier Scenarios1
Substantial
Screening-level MPS2
(e.g., calculated
assuming 100% of
flow is residential, no
funding sources in
several states, no real
income growth) for
each POTW using
available data on
current cost per
household,
Chesapeake Bay
Program estimates of
new control costs per
household, and
county MHI. (Results
reported at county
level by population
weighting individual
facility results for
counties served by
more than one
POTW.)
No Secondary Tests.
None
Widespread
None
Earnings from
discharger
category (at 2-
digit SIC level)
as percent of
total earnings.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 7
Exhibit 1: Comparison of EPA (1995) Guidance and the Screening Variables
Constructed for the Tier Scenarios
Sector
Forestry
(private)
Agriculture
(private)
EPA (1995) Tests
Substantial
Verify project costs.
Primary Measure: Impact of
Project Costs on Profit.
Secondary Measures: Liquidity,
Solvency, Leverage.
Verify project costs.
Primary Measure: Impact of
Project Costs on Profit.
Secondary Measures: Liquidity,
Solvency, Leverage.
Widespread
Impact on affected community
(typically, area in which majority
of workers live and where most
of the businesses that depend
on it are located; includes total
group of dischargers):
comparison of unemployment
rate to national average,
unemployment rate in
community after compliance,
MHI, percent of households
below poverty line, change in
expenditures on social services
in affected community, percent
of tax revenues paid by affected
entity, state unemployment rate
after compliance, change in
state expenditures on social
services.
Impact on affected community
(typically, area in which majority
of workers live and where most
of the businesses that depend
on it are located; includes total
group of dischargers):
comparison of unemployment
rate to national average,
unemployment rate in
community after compliance,
MHI, percent of households
below poverty line, change in
expenditures on social services
in affected community, percent
of tax revenues paid by affected
entity, state unemployment rate
after compliance, change in
state expenditures on social
services.
Screening Variables for
the Tier Scenarios1
Substantial
None
Screening level
estimates of:
1. Average BMP
costs/NCR
2. Crop plus portion of
hay BMP costs/crop
plus hay sales
3. Livestock plus
portion of hay BMP
costs/livestock sales
4. Average BMP
costs/MHI.
Widespread
Earnings from
forestry and
logging as
percent of total
earnings.
Earnings from
agriculture,
agriculture
services, food
and kindred
products, and
tobacco sectors
as percent of
total earnings.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page8
Exhibit 1: Comparison of EPA (1995) Guidance and the Screening Variables
Constructed for the Tier Scenarios
Sector
Urban
(public)
Onsite
(house-
holds)
EPA (1995) Tests
Substantial
Verify project costs.
Define affected community
(governmental jurisdiction
responsible for paying
compliance costs) and calculate
annual cost per household.2
Two-part test consisting of:
1. MRS Screener (annual cost
perhousehold/MHI)3and, if
MRS greater than 1%,
2. Secondary Test (consisting of
scores for six indicators:
a. bond rating
b. net debt/full market value of
taxable property
c. comparison of unemployment
rate to national average
d. comparison of MHI to
national average
e. property tax revenues/full
market value of taxable property
f. property tax collection rate)
with 1& 2 scored jointly.
Not applicable (household
waste management systems not
likely to be funded by
municipalities, and households
are not private businesses).
Widespread
Define the affected community
(geographic area where project
costs pass through to local
economy; includes total group
of dischargers).4
Estimated change from
precompliance conditions in
socioeconomic indicators (MHI,
unemployment rate, overall net
debt/full market value of taxable
property, percent households
below poverty line, impact on
community development
potential, impact on property
values).
Consider multiplier effect.
Not applicable (household
waste management systems not
likely to be funded by
municipalities, and households
are not private businesses).
Screening Variables for
the Tier Scenarios1
Substantial
Screening-level
estimate of annual
cost per
household/MHI (e.g.,
calculated assuming
no funding
assistance, no real
income growth).
Screening-level ratio
of costs/MHI (e.g.,
calculated assuming
no financial
assistance, no real
income growth).
Widespread
None
Percent of
households
affected.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 9
Exhibit 1: Comparison of EPA (1995) Guidance and the Screening Variables
Constructed for the Tier Scenarios
Sector
POTW plus
urban
(public)
EPA (1995) Tests
Substantial
Verify project costs.
Define affected community
(governmental jurisdiction
responsible for paying
compliance costs) and calculate
annual cost per household.2
Two-part test consisting of:
1. MRS Screener (annual cost
perhousehold/MHI)3and, if
MRS greater than 1%,
2. Secondary Test (consisting of
scores for six indicators:
a. bond rating
b. net debt/full market value of
taxable property
c. comparison of unemployment
rate to national average
d. comparison of MHI to
national average
e. property tax revenues/full
market value of taxable property
f. property tax collection rate)
with 1& 2 scored jointly.
Widespread
Define the affected community
(geographic area where project
costs pass through to local
economy; includes total group
of dischargers).4
Estimated change from
precompliance conditions in
socioeconomic indicators (MHI,
unemployment rate, overall net
debt/full market value of taxable
property, percent households
below poverty line, impact on
community development
potential, impact on property
values).
Consider multiplier effect.
Screening Variables for
the Tier Scenarios1
Substantial
Screening-level MRS2
(e.g., calculated
assuming 100% of
flow is residential, no
funding sources for
POTW projects in
several states, no
funding assistance for
urban BMPs, and no
real income growth).
Widespread
None
BMP = Best management practices.
MHI = Median household income.
MPS = Municipal Preliminary Screener (defined as incremental household control costs plus existing household sewer rate
divided by MHI).
NCR = net cash return.
1. County-level variables. See Appendix B for calculation of screening variables.
2. In the case of a sewerage agency serving several communities, once project costs are allocated to each community, the
economic analysis is conducted on a community by community basis. In the case of a community in which only a portion of
the community is served, the affected community is defined as those who will pay the compliance costs. In such cases, it may
be difficult to obtain data for just part of the community, and data for the entire community may be used instead (EPA, 1995).
3. Defined as total annual sewer rate (current rate plus new costs per household) divided by MHI.
4. While a separate financial analysis should be performed for each facility, the impacts on all facilities should be considered
jointly in the analysis of widespread impacts (EPA, 1995).
It is important to recognize that the screening variables do not represent tests of substantial and
widespread impacts. This point is also illustrated in Exhibit 1, which shows the corresponding
EPA (1995) guidance regarding such tests in comparison to what is measured by the constructed
variables. For example, for POTWs, only a screening-level ratio of control costs to median
household income (MHI) is constructed as indication of potential for substantial impacts. This
variable is not the MPS ratio described in EPA (1995) guidance - that is, it does not reflect
verified cost estimates for a cost-effective control strategy, the actual portion of costs that will be
borne by households as opposed to businesses, or estimated MHIs for the point in time at which
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 10
the control costs will be incurred by households. Instead, the constructed variable is only a
screening-level estimate of the MPS, that incorporates several conservative assumptions (i.e.,
tending to overstate the ratio) such as that households bear all costs (although in reality,
businesses and industries will share some of the control costs) and that there is no real growth in
household income between 2001 and the year households incur the costs. And, even if the
screening-level MPS estimate accurately reflects the level of impact for a facility, no analysis is
performed of whether this impact, considered jointly with the results of secondary tests, would
indicate that impacts are substantial.
Similarly, financial data to determine whether substantial impacts would result from controls on
industrial dischargers could be difficult to collect (particularly for privately-owned firms). [It is
EPA policy, however, that applications based on economic considerations must be accompanied
by data that demonstrate the impacts (EPA,1995).] Analysis of these impacts would not be
necessary if any substantial impacts are unlikely to adversely affect the community (e.g., because
the discharger accounts for a relatively small percent of the local economy). Therefore, the
screening variable for industrial dischargers is designed to indicate whether widespread impacts
are possible, however, it is not a test of widespread impacts. The variable is defined as the
earnings in the area attributed to the industrial category of the discharger as a percent of all
earnings in the area. Relatively small values for this screening variable would indicate that the
discharger is unlikely to adversely affect the community even in the extreme condition that
control costs forced it to shut down. However, relatively high values are inconclusive because
there may be multiple employers in the same industrial category that are not affected by the tier
scenarios (data availability prevent greater disaggregation of industrial categories for this
analysis). Also, high values may mean large industries for which control costs can be easily
borne (i.e., they would not face substantial impacts and so there would be no adverse impacts on
the community even if they do represent a large sector of the economy).
Another area of great uncertainty in the screening variables is funding. Under EPA (1995)
guidance, sources of funding (e.g., federal and state grants and cost-share funds) are considered
in making a determination of substantial and widespread impacts. For agriculture, the
Chesapeake Bay Program compiled all available information on current agricultural cost share
amounts for each state. However, due to the large number of programs and sources across states,
this information may be incomplete. In addition, these existing funding levels do not incorporate
the 2002 Farm Bill. The 2002 Farm Bill increases federal conservation funding by 80% above
the level committed by the last (1996) farm bill, including programs for BMPs included in the
tier scenarios. The new law also permits a greater percentage of BMP installation costs (90%, up
from 75% in the 1996 bill) to be granted to limited-resource farmers under the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program. Although the bill includes funding for new conservation programs,
it does not include direct funding for a proposed Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. This is the demonstration program for the yield reserve BMP in the
tier scenarios. Nevertheless, the program may be funded under an innovative technologies
clause (personal communication with T. Simpson, Chair, CBP Nutrient Subcommittee, May
2002). If implemented, this cost-share program could result in annual incentive payments of $20
to $40 per acre. Funding for this program alone would reduce the agricultural costs borne by
farmers in Tier 3 by $25 million to $50 million per year. Therefore, costs paid by farmers may
be lower than those used in the screening analysis, and impacts may be overstated.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 11
As a result, the screening analysis is very limited. In general, screening analysis is used to
identify areas that may not require further research because such analysis would not be
worthwhile. In taking this approach, the Chesapeake Bay Program designed the variables to
avoid ruling out areas that could have impacts. Therefore, true to this design, the potential for
impacts is likely overstated. Nonetheless, as a first step, states can use the results to direct
funding or additional analysis to counties or sectors that may not be ruled out at this stage.
1.3 State Analyses of Public Sector Entities
As described above, analysis of whether costs to public sector entities will result in substantial
and widespread impacts involves a two-part test of substantial impact, and analysis of whether
any substantial impacts will also cause widespread impacts on the community or surrounding
area.
1.3.1 Substantial Impacts
For the public sector (e.g., POTWs, municipalities implementing urban runoff controls), relevant
costs are costs for control beyond technology-based requirements, that reflect the least-cost
means of achieving water quality standards. Therefore, states should estimate the necessary
controls for affected sources by first evaluating whether low cost control options would be
feasible, and then considering more costly controls, if necessary. As described in EPA (1995)
guidance and below, the first step in the analysis of substantial impacts (or in review of facility
submissions regarding substantial impacts) is verifying the project costs. Description of the
steps follows.
Verify Project Costs
The first step of an economic analysis of a publicly financed project is to evaluate the
appropriateness and the cost-effectiveness of the proposed project. Public entities should
consider a broad range of discharge management options including pollution prevention,
end-of-pipe treatment, and upgrades or additions to existing treatment. Specific types of
pollution prevention activities that should be considered are (EPA, 1995):
• public education
• change in raw materials
• substitution of process chemicals
• change in process
• water recycling and reuse
• pretreatment requirements.
Many of these approaches are particularly relevant to industrial indirect discharges to the public
wastewater collection system. Whatever the activity, the applicant must demonstrate that the
proposed project is the most appropriate means of meeting water quality standards and must
document project cost estimates (EPA, 1995). If at least one of the treatment alternatives that
meets water quality standards will not have a substantial financial impact then, regardless of
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 12
whether the discharger prefers to implement a different treatment alternative, the applicant is not
able to demonstrate substantial financial impacts and should not proceed with the analysis
presented in the rest of this guidance. EPA (1995) provides a worksheet to summarize general
information regarding the proposed pollution control project (see Worksheet A).
Documentation of project costs should include assumptions about excess capacity, population
growth, and consideration of alternative technologies where appropriate. The most accurate
estimate of project costs may be available from the discharger's design engineers. If
site-specific engineering cost estimates are not available, preliminary project cost estimates can
be derived from a comparable project in the state or from the judgement of experienced water
pollution control engineers. Capital, O&M, and other project costs can be summarized using
Worksheet B in EPA (1995). For comparative purposes, cost estimates (e.g. capital, O&M, other
project costs) for each alternative considered should be presented in the same units (typically
annualized costs expressed in dollars per year) and for the same year.
Calculate Annualized Cost per Household
Since capital costs will be paid over several years, annualized costs are used to evaluate the
economic burden to the community. The capital portion of project costs is financed by issuing a
municipal debt instrument such as a general obligation bond or a revenue bond. Local
governments may also finance capital costs using bank loans or state infrastructure loans (e.g.,
State Revolving Fund loans). State and federal grant funding may also be available for
technology upgrades or other treatment options.
EPA (1995) also provides a worksheet for calculating the total annualized cost of the project (see
Worksheet B). Capital costs are summed and the portion of costs to be paid for with grant
monies are deducted, as these costs will not need to be financed. Annualized capital costs are
calculated based on the anticipated interest rate. O&M costs are summed to obtain an annual
estimate for a typical year, and the total is added to the annualized capital cost for a total annual
project cost. O&M costs should include the costs of monitoring, inspection, permitting fees,
waste disposal charges, repair, administration, replacement, and any other recurring costs. All
recurring costs should be stated in terms of dollars per year.
Calculate Total Annualized Pollution Control Cost per Household
To assess the burden that pollution control costs are expected to have on households, an average
annualized pollution control cost per household should be calculated for all households in the
community that would bear project costs. To evaluate substantial impacts, therefore, states
should determine which households will actually pay for pollution control, as well as what
proportion of the costs will be borne by households. These apportioned project costs are then
added to existing pollution control costs paid by households.
Thus, the first step in calculating the cost per household is to identify the affected community.
The "community" is the governmental jurisdiction responsible for paying compliance costs. In
practice, pollution control projects may serve several communities, or just portions of a
community. In the case of a POTW serving several communities, the economic analysis is
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 13
conducted on a community by community basis once project costs are allocated to each
community served. In the case of a POTW serving only a portion of a community, the affected
community is defined as those who will pay the compliance costs. In such cases, it may be
difficult to obtain socioeconomic data for just part of the community, and data for the entire
community may be used instead.
If project costs are not distributed simply according to wastewater flow or tax revenues, then
consideration should be given to separately analyzing the impacts on users who pay a
disproportionate share of the costs. This situation can arise, for example, where industrial
dischargers to a sewer system are assessed pollutant surcharges to pay for their share of the cost
of advanced treatment necessitated by the presence of their pollutants. Remaining costs would
then be split among households according to wastewater flow or tax revenues, whichever is
appropriate. The total amount of the pollution control project to be recouped by surcharges
should, therefore, be removed from the total project cost before costs are allocated according to
wastewater flow or tax revenues.
The total annual cost of pollution control per household is based on current costs of pollution
control and the projected annual costs of the proposed pollution control project. The current
sewer rate per household will likely be information known by applicants submitting requests on
behalf of POTWs. However, if the applicant (or reviewer) does not have the necessary
information, the local government's public works department, tax and utilities division, or billing
office should have sewer and water rates available. This information can usually be obtained
from the municipality's website (if available), or by contacting each department by telephone.
Rates may be given in dollars per volume of water used per household. In this case, the rate
should be multiplied by the average household water consumption rate to obtain an average
household sewer rate. To estimate the average amount of water used per household, contact the
POTW for information on total daily residential inflow and the number of households served by
the facility.
EPA (1995) provides worksheets for calculating the cost per household. If the portion of
proposed project costs that households are expected to pay is known or is expected to remain
unchanged, then states should use Worksheet C; if the portion paid by households is based on
flow, then states should use Worksheet C: Option A.
Calculate and Evaluate the Municipal Preliminary Screener Value
Whether or not the community is expected to incur "substantial" economic impacts due to the
pollution control project is determined by jointly considering the results of two tests. The first
test is a "screener" to establish whether the community can clearly pay for the project without
incurring any substantial impacts. The MPS estimates the total annual pollution control costs per
household (existing costs plus those attributable to the proposed project) as a percentage of MHI.
The screener is calculated as follows:
Municipal Preliminary Screener = Average Annual Control Cost per Household
Median Household Income
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 14
The primary source of MHI is the U.S. Census Bureau (see http://www.census.gov). The
Decennial Census of Population and Housing (e.g., the 2000 Census) provides the most
comprehensive coverage with income data at almost any geographic level including for the
Nation, states, counties, and census block group and tract. In years not covered by the Decennial
Census, the Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates program provides model-
based estimates of MHI at the county level. State data centers and some communities may also
provide MHI data. MHI will usually need to be inflated to the current year. This is done using
the CPI index, published by the BLS (see http://www.bls.gov).
Depending on the results of the screener, the community is expected to incur little, mid-range, or
large economic impacts due to the proposed project [see Worksheet D in EPA (1995)]. If the
MPS value is less than 1.0, there is little potential for substantial impacts and the analysis can
conclude with a determination of no substantial impact. The discharger is assumed to be able to
pay for pollution control without incurring any substantial economic impacts, and is required to
meet existing water quality standards. Therefore, states do not need to proceed to the Secondary
Test or evaluate widespread impacts. However, states may want to proceed to the Secondary
Test if the MPS result is less thanl.O, but still fairly close to 1.0, in a jurisdiction in economic
distress.
Communities are expected to incur mid-range impacts when the ratio of total annual compliance
costs to MHI is between 1.0% and 2.0%. If the average annual cost per household exceeds
2.0%, then the project may place an unreasonable financial burden on many of the households
within the community. In either case, applicants move on to the Secondary Test to demonstrate
substantial impacts.
Evaluate Secondary Test
The Secondary Test is designed to build upon the characterization of financial burden identified
in the MPS. The Secondary Test indicates the community's ability to obtain financing and
describes the socioeconomic health of the community. Indicators describe precompliance debt,
socioeconomic, and financial management conditions in the community. Using these indicators
and the scoring system described below, the applicant estimates the impact of the cost of
pollution controls. Specifically, applicants are required to present the following six indicators
for the community:
• Debt Indicators
> Bond Rating - a measure of a jurisdiction's ability to repay its debt
> Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable Property - a
measure of debt burden on residents within the jurisdiction
• Socioeconomic Indicators
> Unemployment Rate - a measure of the economic health of the jurisdiction
»• MHI - a measure of the income of the jurisdiction
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 15
• Financial Management Indicators
> Property Tax Revenue as a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable Property - a
measure of the capacity to support debt based on the wealth of the jurisdiction
> Property Tax Collection Rate - a measure of the strength of the local
government administration, and of the jurisdiction's acceptance of property tax
rates.
A more detailed description of the six indicators, as well as alternative indicators for states with
property tax limitations, are presented below. Exhibit 2 summarizes the indicators, what is
considered to be strong, mid-range, or weak rating, and the associated scoring for the test.
Exhibit 2: Secondary Indicators
Indicator
Bond Rating
Overall Net Debt as Percent of
Full Market Value of Taxable
Property
Unemployment
MHI
Property Tax Revenues as a
Percent of Full Market Value of
Taxable Property
Property Tax Collection
Secondary Indicators
Weak
(score of 1 point)
Below BBB (Standard and
Poor's)
Below Baa (Moody' s)
Above 5%
More than 1% above
National average
More than 10% below
State median
Above 4%
Below 94%
Mid-Range
(score of 2 points)
BBB (Standard and Poor's)
Baa (Moody' s)
2% -5%
National average
State median
2% -4%
94% -98%
Strong
(score of 3 points)
Above BBB (Standard and
Poor's)
Above Baa (Moody' s)
Below 2%
More than 1% below
National average
More than 10% above
State median
Below 2%
Above 98%
Source: See U.S. EPA (1995), Table 2-1.
The debt, socioeconomic, and financial management indicators for the secondary test are
described in detail in EPA (1995).
Calculating the Secondary Score
EPA (1995) provides worksheets for calculating the secondary score. Worksheet E can be used
to record each indicator. A Secondary Score is calculated for the community by weighting each
indicator equally and assigning a value of 1 to each indicator judged to be weak, a 2 to each
indicator judged to be midrange, and a 3 to each strong indicator. A cumulative assessment
score is arrived at by summing the individual scores and dividing by the number of factors used.
Worksheet F can guide states through this calculation.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 16
The cumulative assessment score is evaluated as follows:
• less than 1.5 = weak
• between 1.5 and 2.5 = mid-range
• greater than 2.5 = strong.
If states are not able to develop one or more of the six indicators, they should provide an
explanation as to why the indicator is not appropriate or not available. Since the point of the
analysis is to measure the overall burden to the community, the debt and socioeconomic
indicators are assumed to be better measures of burden than the financial management indicators.
Consequently, if one of the debt or socioeconomic indicators is not available, the state or
discharger should average the two financial management indicators and use this average value as
a single indicator with the remaining indicators. This averaging is necessary so that undue
weight is not given to the financial management indicators.
Evaluate the MPS and Secondary Score
States should then evaluate results of the MPS and Secondary Test to determine whether the
jurisdiction is expected to incur substantial impacts due to the proposed pollution control project.
States should use the Substantial Impacts Matrix shown in Exhibit 3 for this evaluation.
Exhibit 3: Substantial Impacts Matrix
Secondary Score
Less than 1 .5
Between 1 .5 and 2.5
Greater than 2.5
Municipal Preliminary Screener
Less than 1 .0%
?
/
/
Between 1.0% and 2.0%
X
?
/
Greater than 2.0%
X
X
?
Source: See EPA (1995), Table 2-2.
An "X" in the matrix indicates that the impact is likely to be substantial. The closer the
community is to the upper right hand corner of the matrix, the greater the impact. Similarly, the
"/" indicates that the impact is not likely to be substantial. The closer to the lower left hand
corner of the matrix, the smaller the impact. Finally, the "?" symbol in Exhibit 3 indicates that
the impact is unclear.
For communities that fall into the "?"category, if the results of both the Secondary Test and the
MPS are borderline, then the community should move into the category closest to it. For
example, a community with an MPS of 1.8% and a Secondary Score of 1.6 would fall into the
center box. Because of the proximity of the MPS to the 2.0% threshold, and the proximity of the
Secondary Score to the 1.5 threshold, the jurisdiction should be considered to fall into one of the
adjacent "X" categories. If the results are not borderline, then other factors such as the impact
on low or fixed income households or the presence of a failing local industry should be
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 17
considered. [Sources of information may include the Decennial Census of Population and
Housing (http://www.census.gov), state Data Centers (http://www.census.gov/sdc/www). or
municipal financial officers (see local government website or listings for contact numbers]. The
applicant should provide any additional information it feels is relevant; this information may be
critical where the matrix results are not conclusive.
EPA will interpret a "/" rating to mean that the jurisdiction is not expected to incur substantial
impacts as a result of the pollution control project. Communities falling into this category will
not be able to justify water quality standards providing for less protection than the
fishable/swimmable goals of the Act. (If the applicant disagrees with the results of the
Secondary Test, they may present additional information to the Regional EPA Administrator
documenting the unique circumstances of the community.) Since the impacts are not substantial,
there is no need to demonstrate widespread impacts.
EPA will interpret an "X" rating to mean that the community will incur substantial impacts.
Before a water quality standard can be modified or changed, however, communities falling into
this category must demonstrate that impacts are also widespread. For those communities rated
"?," EPA's interpretation will rely on the additional information presented by the state or
applicant. In this case, there is no "correct" set of information; it will be up to the applicant to
collect whatever information it feels is relevant in describing the unique circumstances affecting
the jurisdiction. For example, the matrix may suggest that the community's financial condition
is strong. At the same time, however, a local industry may be failing. In such a case, it is
important to determine the importance of that industry to the local economy (as measured by its
contribution to area employment, payroll, and tax revenues), and whether the industry itself
would be affected by the project. Communities falling into either the "X" or "?" category should
proceed to determine whether the impacts are also expected to be widespread.
Environmental Justice Considerations
It is important to note that the MPS is more likely to indicate potential for substantial economic
impacts in communities that have lower MHIs for two reasons. First, lower income households
already pay a larger portion of household income for utility services such as sewer service; any
subsequent increase in these costs is more likely to push total costs over the threshold of 1.0% of
household income. Second, any incremental cost (e.g., $100) constitutes a larger share of their
household income compared to higher income households, so the MPS is more sensitive to
increases in sewer costs in communities with lower median incomes.
The implication is that a conclusion of substantial economic impacts is more likely for
communities with lower MHIs. It is important, however, that this conclusion not be the deciding
factor for whether to implement measures to improve water quality for two reasons: it is
potentially subverts the principle of environmental justice and it neglects funding resources
outside the community.
The principle of environmental justice is embodied in Executive Order 12898. This executive
order ensures that regulations do not impose disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. If low-income communities
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 18
were exempted from implementing wastewater treatment technologies to improve water quality
simply because their low incomes result in high MPS values and low Secondary Test scores,
then these communities would have poorer water quality precisely because they are low-income
communities. This is contrary to the spirit of the Executive Order.
On the other hand, adhering to the principle of environmental justice may seem to impose
disproportionately higher costs on minority and low-income households to protect health and the
environment. Thus, there may be tension between protecting health and environment and
avoiding high economic impacts. However, the resolution may be to look for additional revenue
sources to offset costs, such as resources at the federal and state level to assist funding for
wastewater treatment plant upgrades. For example, some federal and state sources prioritize
grant funding for communities that could not otherwise afford wastewater treatment plant
upgrades. State revolving funds may also make loans with lower interest rates more available
for lower-income communities, which would result in reduced economic burdens due to lower
annualized capital expenditures. Thus, the initial response to an MPS value greater than 1.0 in a
lower-income community might be to reassess the cost analysis to determine whether all feasible
forms of financial assistance have been included.
However, even if applicants have not identified funding sources, states have the responsibility to
provide environmental protection to low-income communities and assure that applicants do not
use low-income communities as an excuse not to provide pollution control.
1.3.2 Widespread Impacts
The financial impacts of undertaking pollution controls could potentially cause far-reaching and
serious socioeconomic impacts. Conversely, adverse financial impacts experienced by the
affected entities may be offset by the expenditures on pollution controls to attain water quality
standards, since these expenditures do not vanish from the community but become business
revenues and household incomes. Therefore, if a discharger or group of dischargers are expected
to incur substantial impacts, to demonstrate that impacts will also be widespread, the applicant
must examine the estimated change in socioeconomic conditions that occur as a result of
compliance (EPA, 1995).
At a minimum, the analysis must (EPA, 1995):
• define the affected community (the geographic area where project costs pass through
to the local economy)
• consider the baseline economic health of the community
• evaluate how the proposed project will affect the socioeconomic well-being of the
community.
These steps are described below. In all cases, socioeconomic impacts should not be evaluated
incrementally, rather, their cumulative effect on the community should be assessed (EPA, 1995).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 19
Define Relevant Geographic Area
For municipal control projects, the affected community is most often the immediate
municipality. There are, however, exceptions where the affected community includes
individuals and areas outside the immediate community. For example, if business activity in the
region is concentrated in a nearby community and not in the immediate community, then the
nearby community may also be affected by loss of income in the immediate community and
should be included in the analysis. If business activity of the region is concentrated in the
immediate community, then outlying communities dependent upon the immediate municipality
for employment, goods, and services should also be included in the analysis.
As discussed previously, in some instances, several entities potentially may suffer substantial
impacts. For example, this situation can arise where several facilities are discharging to a stream
segment that is being considered for a change in designated use. Although a separate financial
analysis should be performed for each facility, the impacts on all the facilities should be
considered jointly in the analysis of widespread impacts.
Defining the relevant area or community is based on the judgement of the discharger and state,
subject to EPA review.
Evaluate Baseline Economic Health of the Community
In demonstrating that impacts will be substantial, the state will have shown that compliance with
water quality standards would be burdensome to the community. To demonstrate that impacts
will also be widespread, the state must evaluate the change in socioeconomic conditions that will
occur as a result of compliance. Specifically, EPA (1995) recommends evaluating changes in
the following indicators:
• MHI
• community unemployment rate
• overall net debt as a percent of full market value of taxable property
• property values
• percent of households below poverty line
• community development potential.
The first step in estimating the change in these indicators is to identify their precompliance
values. The applicant developed precompliance estimates of the first three indicators for the
jurisdiction paying the immediate project costs as part of the Secondary Test. If the relevant
geographic area for evaluation of widespread impacts defined above differs from the area used to
evaluate the Secondary Test, the applicant will need to estimate precompliance values for this
larger area (see the discussion of the Secondary Test for sources of data). Property values are a
component of the third indicator (i.e., full market value of taxable property). The percent of
households below the poverty line can be found in the Decennial Census of Population and
Housing or, in years between Decennial Censuses, through the Census Bureau Small Area
Income and Poverty Estimates program (for counties). Communities may be faced with
impaired development opportunities if pretreatment requirements or significantly higher user
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 20
fees are imposed by the POTW. Therefore, baseline development opportunities can be
examined by comparing current fees to costs in neighboring communities.
Evaluation of baseline socioeconomic conditions is important because the extent to which
estimated changes can be interpreted as significant depends on the health of the community
before compliance. For example, if a community is in a weak condition before compliance but
the evaluation of widespread impacts suggests that all of the indicators listed above will remain
virtually unchanged, then widespread impacts have not been demonstrated. Alternatively, if the
community is very healthy, the estimated change in the indicators listed above would have to be
very large in order for widespread impacts to occur.
Estimate Changes in Economic Health of the Community
The best way to estimate changes in the socioeconomic conditions in a community is through use
of a macroeconomic or regional economic model because such models capture the complex
industrial and market relationships that are difficult to evaluate otherwise. For example, costs to
one sector are revenues to another, and this distributional effect is important to show because it
is not realistic to assume that the costs vanish from the economy (see Exhibit 4). Indeed, for
large economies, this may be the only way such changes can be adequately modeled. Two
commonly used models include those supplied by REMI (Regional Economic Models,
Incorporated) and the Minnesota IMPLAN Group.
If it is not possible to use a regional model, EPA (1995) provides a worksheet to describe
estimated changes (both positive and negative) qualitatively, (see Worksheet N). Depending on
the size and type of impacts on industrial and commercial discharges, these estimated changes
may be relatively large or small. In addition to changes in income, unemployment, and debt,
affected communities may be faced with impaired development opportunities if pretreatment
requirements or significantly higher user fees are imposed by the POTW. The municipality
should therefore assess the potential for the loss of future jobs and personal income to the
community if businesses would choose not to locate in the affected community. The potential
for impaired development opportunities can be judged, in part, by comparing post-compliance
costs to costs in neighboring communities. The cost of pollution control may also have an
adverse effect on property values. Where property taxes are used to finance the project, property
values may fall in response to higher taxes. Similarly, if the project will be financed through
user fees, demand for property in the community may fall, thus decreasing the value of property
in the community.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 21
Exhibit 4: Impacts from Expenditures on Pollution Controls by Public-Sector Entities
Source Category
Cost Impacts
Revenue and Wage Impacts
POTWs
Municipal expenditures for capital,
operating, and maintenance
Increase in household sewer rates
Revenues: incremental sewer fees accrue to
municipality; incremental sales in sectors
providing control equipment/materials such
as construction, chemicals, and energy
Wages: incremental wages in public sector
and sectors providing control
equipment/materials
Urban Storm Water
Municipal expenditures for capital,
operating, and maintenance
Households: incremental property
taxes or fees
Revenues: incremental sewer fees accrue to
municipality, incremental sales in sectors
providing control equipment/materials (e.g.,
construction and landscape)
Wages: incremental wages in public sector
and sectors providing control
equipment/materials
Note: Cost impacts need to be matched with revenues to another sector, although these revenues may not always
accrue within the project area.
Secondary Impacts
In addition, there may be secondary impacts (not captured by the primary and secondary tests) to
the community. Secondary impacts might include depressed economic activity in a community
resulting from loss of purchasing power by persons losing their jobs due to increased user fees.
The effects of increased unemployment, decreased personal income, and reductions in local
expenditures by the entity or group of entities (public and private) will be compounded as money
moves through the local economy. Some portion of the lost income would have been spent in
the local economy for the purchase of other goods and services and thus for the salaries of other
local employees. These local employees, in turn, would have spent some portion of their income
in the local economy. This multiplier effect means that each dollar lost to an employee results in
the loss of more than one dollar to the local economy. However, as discussed above, the
expenditures for pollution controls also become increased household and business incomes with
similar multiplier effects (i.e., a dollar spent on pollution control results in spending of more than
one dollar in the local economy).
As discussed above, these multiplier effects are captured with the use of a regional economic
model of the area. The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has
also developed several multipliers to estimate the effect of changes in economic activity on
output (sales), earnings, and employment. These multipliers are available by industry sector for
39 or 531 different industry classifications, depending on the level of detail required. EPA
(1995) provides additional information on references for these multipliers. Note, however, that
if multiplier analysis is used, care should be taken to model both the impacts of costs due to
pollution controls as well as increased revenues and wages from these expenditures to evaluate
widespread impacts.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 22
Benefits of Clean Water
Finally, although benefit-cost analysis is not required to demonstrate substantial and widespread
effects under the Federal Water Quality Standards regulation, there may be economic benefits
that accrue to the affected community from cleaner water. For example, whereas the section
above discussed the possibility that property values may fall in response to higher taxes,
improved water quality may cause property values to rise. In rural communities where the
primary source of employment is agriculture, the reduction of fertilizer and pesticide runoff from
farms would reduce the cost of treating irrigation. Another example might be an industrial
facility discharging its wastewater into a stream that otherwise could be used for recreational
cold-water fishing. Treatment or elimination of industrial wastewater to a potential cold-water
fishery would provide a benefit to recreational anglers by increasing the variety offish in the
stream. The economic benefit in these examples is the dollar value associated with the increase
in beneficial use or potential use of the waterbody. The types of economic benefits that might be
realized will depend on both the characteristics of the polluting entity and the affected
community, and should factor into the evaluation of widespread impacts.
Since the assessment of benefits requires site-specific information, it will be up to states to
determine the extent to which benefits can be considered in the economic impact analysis. This
determination should be coordinated with the EPA Regional Office. A detailed description of
the types of benefits that might be relevant is provided in U.S. EPA (2000).
1.3.3 Summary: Determining Whether Impacts are Substantial and Widespread
Using EPA (1995) guidance, states must demonstrate that the pollution control measures needed
to meet water quality standards are not affordable. In addition, states will have to show that
there will be widespread adverse impacts to the community or surrounding area if it is required
to meet standards. EPA (1995) provides a summary checklist of the steps required in this
process, and the information that will be required from states (see Table 4-1 in EPA, 1995, also
updated below in Exhibit 5 for public sector entities). Whether or not the applicant has
successfully demonstrated that substantial and widespread economic and social impacts would
occur, however, will depend upon the EPA Regional Administrator's review of the application.
As discussed above, environmental justice considerations are important (states have the
responsibility to provide environmental protection to low-income communities and assure that
applicants do not use low-income communities as an excuse not to provide pollution control).
Exhibit 5: Demonstration of Substantial and Widespread Economic and Social Impacts
Checklist: Public-Sector Entities
Steps
Information That Will Be Required from Applicant
1. Demonstrate that designated use is a
potential use and not an existing use.
Data from State Water Quality Assessment Documents and
water quality standards regulations.
2. Demonstrate that entity will incur substantial
economic impacts:
a. Identify all reasonable pollution reduction
options
Information on end-of-pipe treatment, possible treatment
upgrades, additions to existing treatment, and pollution
prevention activities including the following:
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 23
Exhibit 5: Demonstration of Substantial and Widespread Economic and Social Impacts
Checklist: Public-Sector Entities
Steps
b. Evaluate costs of all reasonable pollution
reduction options
c. Identify lowest cost pollution reduction
option that allows entity to meet water
quality standards.
d. determine method of financing
e. annualize pollution reduction project
costs
f. allocate project costs
g. apply Municipal Preliminary Screener
test
h. Depending on the results of the
Municipal Preliminary Screener test,
apply Secondary Test.
Information That Will Be Required from Applicant
• change in raw materials
• substitution of process chemicals
• change in process
• water recycling, reuse and efficiency
• pretreatment requirements
• public education.
Assumptions about water demand, treatment capacity,
expansion plans, population growth, and effectiveness of
control in reducing pollution for each option. Estimate of
project costs from design engineers, costs of comparable
projects in the state, or judgment of experienced water
pollution control engineers.
Information on treatment efficiencies for alternative pollution
reduction techniques. Cost estimates for all alternatives.
Information on user fee financing mechanisms such as
Revenue Bonds. Information on tax-based financing
mechanisms such as General Obligation Bonds.
Information on appropriate interest rates and period of
financing.
Information on user groups, wastewater flow by user group,
and surcharges on industrial users.
Information on average total annual pollution control cost
per household and MHI.
Information on results of Municipal Preliminary Screener
test, overall net debt as a percent of full market value of
taxable property, MHI, bond rating, community
unemployment rate, property tax collection rate, and
property tax revenues as a percent of full market value of
taxable property.
3. Determine whether impacts are widespread:
a. Evaluate change in socioeconomic
conditions that occur as a result of
compliance.
Information on changes in MHI, community unemployment
rate, overall net debt as a percent of full market value of
taxable property, percent of households below the poverty
line, impact on community development potential, and
impact on community property values resulting from
compliance.
4. Evaluate economic benefits of cleaner water.
Information on potential benefits of cleaner water including
enhanced recreational opportunities, reduced treatment
costs for downstream users and increased property values.
5. Public comment and debate period.
Be prepared to supply backup information on the
application to modify or change a designated use to the
public.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 24
Exhibit 5: Demonstration of Substantial and Widespread Economic and Social Impacts
Checklist: Public-Sector Entities
Steps
rn 6. If substantial and widespread economic and
social impacts are demonstrated, determine
which pollution reduction option should be
implemented.
rn 7. Grant variance (i.e., when impacts driven by
few pollutants) or redesignate uses.
rn 8. Criteria will be adopted to protect new uses,
or a variance to the water quality standard for
certain pollutants will be granted on a
temporary basis.
rn 9. Effluent limits and permits will be modified.
rn 10. Re-evaluate water quality standards in three
years.
Information That Will Be Required from Applicant
Information on the cost and efficiency of affordable pollution
reduction alternatives.
Information on pollutants reductions and associated costs
driving finding of substantial and widespread impacts.
Information on the "affordable" pollution reduction
technique.
Information on the "affordable" pollution reduction
technique.
Re-evaluation of costs, including new information or
technology that allows attainment of the full designated
uses without causing a substantial and widespread
economic and social impact.
Source: See EPA (1995), Table 4-1.
The state or regulating entity should keep in mind that substantial and widespread impacts driven
by one or a few pollutants should not be the basis for downgrading a waterbody for which the
current use includes criteria for a wide spectrum of pollutants (e.g., fishable/swimmable use,
with acute and chronic aquatic life and human health protection). Instead of downgrading to a
use with only criteria for a few pollutants (e.g., agricultural and industrial use with acute aquatic
life protection for a handful of pollutants), a variance for the pollutants driving the impacts is
appropriate. In this manner, the adverse economic impacts are avoided while maintaining the
maximum level of environmental protection.
It is then up to the state to revise the standards in the water body to reflect the uses that would be
achieved if the discharger adopts the next most protective pollution control technique. The state
will also have to revise its water quality criteria to protect the newly attainable uses. The
discharger's NPDES permit will also be revised to reflect the new limits associated with revised
criteria. Finally, federal regulations require that water quality standards be reviewed every three
years to determine if there is any new information or technology that allows attainment of the
full designated use (in the case of a variance) without causing substantial and widespread social
and economic impacts. If waters have been downgraded, the state should also determine if
economic conditions in the community have changed such that the use can now be upgraded
without causing substantial and widespread social and economic impacts.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 25
1.4 STATE ANALYSES OF PRIVATE SECTOR ENTITIES
For facilities owned by the private sector — such as the industrial facilities, agricultural, and
forestry sources in the tier scenarios — measuring substantial impacts requires estimating
the financial impacts on the entities that will pay for the pollution controls. If the analysis shows
that the entity will not incur any substantial impacts due to the cost of pollution control (e.g.,
there will be no significant changes in the factory's level of operations nor profit), the analysis is
complete. However, if the analysis shows that there will be substantial impacts on the entity,
then the resulting impacts on the surrounding community must be considered (e.g., the impact of
lost employment on the community's employment base, or the impact on the overall economy of
the community). Impacts to the surrounding community are referred to as widespread impacts.
1.4.1 Substantial Impacts
The sections below describe the steps involved in evaluating whether impacts on private-sector
entities will be substantial. Also discussed is how to adapt each of the steps to a range of data
sources. The approach involves two steps, and can be used for a variety of private-sector
entities, including commercial, industrial, residential and recreational land uses, and for point
and nonpoint sources of pollution:
• Verify project costs and calculate the annual cost of the pollution control project
• Conduct financial impact analysis.
Verify Project Costs
The first step in the financial impact analysis is an evaluation of the proposed pollution control
project. Private entities should consider a broad range of discharge management options
including pollution prevention, end-of-pipe treatment, and upgrades or additions to existing
treatment. Specific types of pollution prevention activities to be considered include:
• Change in raw materials
• Substitute process chemicals
• Change in process
• Water recycling and reuse
• Pretreatment requirements.
Whatever the approach, the discharger must demonstrate that the proposed project is the most
appropriate means of meeting water quality standards and must document project cost estimates
(EPA, 1995). If at least one of the treatment alternatives that allows the applicant to meet water
quality standards would not impose substantial impacts, then they are not able to demonstrate
substantial impacts and should not proceed with the analysis presented in the remainder of this
workbook.
Since the most cost-effective approach to meeting water quality standards should be considered,
submissions should list their assumptions about excess capacity, future facility expansion, and
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 26
alternative technologies. The most accurate estimate of project costs may be available from the
discharger's design engineers. These estimates can be compared to estimates available from
EPA.
Calculate the Annual Costs of the Pollution Control Project
In order to perform the economic tests, the cost of the pollution control needed to comply with
the water quality standards are calculated and converted to an annualized cost. Initially,
pollution control costs are expressed in two parts: (1) the capital costs of purchasing and
installing the equipment and (2) the yearly operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. Both the
capital and O&M cost estimates should be provided by the discharger requesting relief. To
assess whether the costs represent the most cost effective means of meeting the water quality
standards, they should be compared to costs at comparable entities that meet the same standards.
For dischargers covered by effluent guidelines, compliance costs have been calculated by the
Agency and are available for comparative purposes.
Instead of paying for total capital costs in the first year of operation, these costs are typically
spread out over several years. Annualizing capital costs produces the amount that will be paid
each year, including financing costs. The applicant should annualize capital costs over the
typical finance period for a loan at the interest rate that the applicant will pay when it borrows
money. If it borrows from the parent firm, the interest charge should be equivalent to the interest
charged by the parent firm. If it is impossible to determine the appropriate interest rate, the
analysis should assume an interest rate equal to the prime rate plus 1%.3
The financial tests discussed below compare the costs of compliance to other costs and revenues
of the applicant. Compliance costs and other costs and revenues should be calculated for the
same year. If compliance costs are estimated assuming construction several years in the future,
they should be deflated back to the year of the financial data. This can be done by assuming that
the inflation rate over the last five years will continue into the future. Likewise, if costs were
estimated for an earlier year, they should be inflated to current year costs. EPA (1995) provides
a worksheet for calculating the annualized cost of pollution control (see Worksheet G).
Conduct Financial Impact Analysis
The purpose of the financial impact analysis is to assess the extent to which existing or planned
activities and employment will be reduced as a result of meeting water quality standards. The
3 Note, however, that entities that pay corporate income taxes may be able to deduct interest payments from their
taxes. If this is the case, then the applicant should calculate the effective interest rate by multiplying the nominal
interest rate by one minus the marginal corporate tax rate. (The marginal tax rate rather than the average rate is
appropriate because it applies to incremental changes in the firm's tax-deductible expenses and income.) Federal
marginal corporate tax rates can be found in Internal Revenue Service Publication 542. State marginal corporate tax
rates are provided by the Federation of Tax Administrators, or by individual state departments of taxation or
revenue. For example, suppose that the nominal interest rate is 7.5%, the corporation pays a flat corporate tax rate of
8.7% to the state, and its federal marginal tax rate is 34%. In this case, the overall marginal tax rate is 42.7% (=
8.7% + 34%), and the effective interest rate is 4.3% [= 7.5% x (1 - 42.7%)]. Therefore, the applicant should
annualize capital costs at a 4.3% interest rate.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 27
tests used are not designed to determine the exact impact of pollution control costs on an entity.
Rather, they merely provide indicators of whether pollution control costs would result in a
substantial impact. There are four general categories of financial tests, divided into a primary
measure of financial impacts and three secondary measures of financial impacts:
• Primary Measure
»• Profit—how much will profits decline due to pollution control expenditures?
• Secondary Measures
> Liquidity—how easily can an entity pay its short-term bills?
> Solvency—how easily can an entity pay its fixed and long-term bills?
> Leverage—how much money can the entity borrow?
Each type of test measures a different aspect of a discharger's financial health. The primary
measure evaluates the extent to which an applicant's profit rate will change, and compares the
profit level to typical profits in that industry. The secondary measures provide additional
information about specific impacts that the discharger would bear if required to meet water
quality standards. Profit and solvency ratios are calculated both with and without the additional
compliance costs (taking into consideration the entity's ability, if any, to increase its prices to
cover part or all of the costs). Comparing these ratios to each other and to industry benchmarks
provides a measure of the impact on the entity.
In some cases, the tests might indicate that the discharger would remain profitable (profit) after
investing in pollution control, but would have trouble borrowing the needed capital (leverage).
This situation would indicate a need to work with the discharger in choosing the technology and
schedule used to meet the regulations. In other cases, the tests might show that the discharger
has a short-term problem with meeting the financial obligation imposed by the standards, but
could handle it in the long-run (liquidity vs. solvency). This is important information when
considering whether or not to grant a variance so as to allow more time for compliance.
For all of the tests, it is important to look beyond the individual test results and evaluate the total
situation of the entity. While each test addresses a single aspect of financial health, the results of
the four tests should be considered jointly to obtain an overall picture of the economic health of
the applicant and the impact of the water quality standards requirement on the applicant's health.
The results should be compared with the ratios for other entities in the same industry or activity.
In addition, the ratios and tests should be calculated for several years of operations. This will
allow long-term trends to be differentiated from short-term conditions.
In addition, the structure, size, and financial health of the parent firm should be considered in
evaluating the impact of pollution controls on a facility. An important factor that may not be
reflected in the measures shown above is the value of an applicant's product or operations to its
parent firm. For example, if a facility produces an important input used by other facilities owned
by the firm, the firm may be likely to support the facility even if it appears to have only
borderline profitability. The results of these tests and other relevant factors, can be used to make
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 28
a judgment as to the likely actions of the applicant (e.g., shut down entirely, close one or more
product/service lines, shift to other products/services, not proceed with an expansion, continue
operations at current levels) faced with the pollution control investment.
Since it is the discharger that will have to pay for the wastewater treatment, the financial tests
presented use data about the discharger's operations. This data, however, may not be readily
available, and if available, the discharger may consider the information to be confidential. It is
EPA policy, however, that applications based on economic considerations must be accompanied
by data that demonstrate the impacts (EPA, 1995).
If the information is not available at the discharger level, it can be estimated from the balance
sheets or income statements of the firm that owns or controls the discharger. Estimates can be
made in a variety of ways. One commonly used approach is to compare the discharger's sales
or revenues to the firm's sales or revenues and apply this ratio to other financial factors. For
example, if the discharger is responsible for 20% of its firm's revenues, than it is assigned 20%
of the firm's current assets and current liabilities. In some cases, particularly with manufacturing
facilities, the discharger may not sell its production directly, but may ship it to another facility
owned by the same firm. In this case, the discharger's share of sales should be calculated by
determining the market value of the goods produced by the discharger, using market prices for
the year being analyzed.
EPA (1995) guidance describes the primary and secondary measures, with examples of specific
tests to be used, and provides worksheets for calculating results (see Worksheets H, I, J, K, and
L). All four primary and secondary measures should be used in the analysis.
Interpreting the Results
In most cases, interpreting the results requires comparisons with typical values for the industry.
Among the sources that provide comparative information are: Robert Morris Associates' (now
RMA) Annual Statement Studies, Mergent (formerly Moody's) Industry Review, Dun and
Bradstreet's Dun's Industry Norms, and Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys. These sources
provide composite statistics for firms grouped into various manufacturing and service industries.
Although benchmarks are available for most financial tests, EPA emphasizes that the discharger
should consider these benchmarks as indicators of financial health and not as definitive
measures.
The financial analysis should be used to determine if there will be a substantial adverse impact
on the applicant. As indicated above, the Profit Test should be considered first. The Profit Test
measures what will happen to the discharger's earnings if additional pollution control is
required. If the discharger is making a profit now but would lose money with the pollution
control, then there is possibility of a total shutdown or the closing of a production line, resulting
in lost employment and reduced local purchases by the discharger. Whether or not these impacts
will be considered widespread is addressed below.
There are more complicated scenarios that involve making a judgment as to the likely impacts on
the discharger, such as situations with questions regarding the timing of compliance. For
example, the Profit Test may indicate that the applicant will continue to maintain profit levels
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 29
typical for its industry after compliance, but the Debt/Equity Ratio may indicate that they will
have trouble financing the project through debt. This problem may be solved by giving them
more time to meet the regulations (a variance), so that they can restructure their debt or find
alternative sources of funds.
Another possible scenario is that the discharger may shift to an alternative economic activity
(e.g., manufacture another product or produce a different crop). While the applicant will not
have gone out of business, this shift may result in reduced profits, employment, and purchases
in the local community that should be considered. In each case, it is important to take the entire
picture presented by the four ratios into account in judging whether or not the discharger will
incur substantial impacts due to the cost of the necessary pollution reductions.
If, using these tests, applicants feel they have demonstrated substantial impacts should proceed
to evaluation of widespread impacts, as described below. If dischargers are not able to
demonstrate substantial impacts, then they must meet existing standards. The same primary and
secondary tests of substantial impacts can be used to analyze the impact on a group of
dischargers, as might be the case in a UAA (EPA, 1995). The difference would be, when the
analysis moves to measuring widespread impacts, the impacts on the total group of dischargers
would be used to measure whether or not the impacts are considered widespread (EPA, 1995).
1.4.2 Widespread Impacts
As described for public-sector entities, the financial impacts of undertaking pollution controls
could potentially cause far-reaching and serious socioeconomic impacts. Conversely, adverse
financial impacts experienced by the affected entities may be offset by the expenditures on
pollution controls to attain water quality standards, since these expenditures do not vanish from
the community but become business revenues and household incomes. Therefore, if a discharger
or group of dischargers are expected to incur substantial impacts, an additional analysis must be
performed to estimate the change in socioeconomic conditions that occur as a result of
compliance (1995).
At a minimum, the analysis must (EPA, 1995):
• define the affected community (the geographic area where project costs pass through
to the local economy)
• consider the baseline economic health of the community
• evaluate how the proposed project will affect the socioeconomic well-being of the
community.
These steps are identical to those described for public sector entities (see Section 1.3.2 above).
In all cases, socioeconomic impacts should not be evaluated incrementally, rather, applicants
should assess their net (i.e., positive and negative) cumulative effect on the community. Exhibit
6 provides a corollary to Exhibit 4 for private sector entities. As for public sector entities, if it is
not possible to use a regional model, EPA (1995) provides a worksheet to describe (positive and
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 30
negative) changes qualitatively (see Worksheet N) (e.g., considering economic stimulus resulting
from expenditures on pollution controls and federal or state cost-share funding). Secondary
impacts and benefits of clean water are also relevant, as described in Section 1.3.2.
Exhibit 6: Impacts from Expenditures on Pollution Controls by Private-Sector Entities
Source
Category
Cost Impacts
Revenue and Wage Impacts
Industrial
Facilities
Industrial sector
expenditures for
capital, operating,
and maintenance
Revenues: incremental sales in sectors providing control
equipment/materials such as construction, chemicals, and energy
Wages: incremental wages in affected industry and sectors providing
control equipment/materials
Agriculture
Agricultural sector
expenditures for
capital, operating,
and maintenance
Revenues: Federal/state cost-sharing income for farmers; incremental
sales in sectors providing control equipment or materials such as
agricultural services
Wages: incremental farm wages (associated with labor intensive
controls), and wages in sectors providing control equipment/materials
Forestry
Forestry sector
expenditures for
labor and materials
Revenue: incremental sales in sectors providing control
equipment/materials
Wages: incremental forestry wages (associated with labor intensive
controls)
Note: Cost impacts need to be matched with revenues to another sector, although these revenues may not always
accrue within the project area.
1.4.3 Summary: Determining Whether Impacts are Substantial and Widespread
Using EPA (1995) guidance, states must demonstrate that the pollution control measures needed
to meet water quality standards are not affordable. In addition, states will have to show that
there will be widespread adverse impacts to the community or surrounding area if it is required
to meet standards. EPA (1995) provides a summary checklist of the steps required in this
process, and the information that will be required from states (see Table 4-1 in EPA, 1995, also
updated below in Exhibit 7 for private sector entities). Whether or not the applicant has
successfully demonstrated that substantial and widespread economic and social impacts would
occur, however, will depend upon the EPA Regional Administrator's review of the application.
As discussed above, environmental justice considerations are important (states have the
responsibility to provide environmental protection to low-income communities and assure that
applicants do not use low-income communities as an excuse not to provide pollution control).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 31
Exhibit 7: Demonstration of Substantial and Widespread Economic and Social Impacts
Checklist: Private-Sector Entities
Steps
Information That Will Be Required from Applicant
1. Demonstrate that designated use is a
potential use and not an existing use.
Data from State Water Quality Assessment Documents and
water quality standards regulations.
2. Demonstrate that entity will incur substantial
economic impacts.
a.
Identify all reasonable pollution reduction
options
b.
Evaluate costs of all reasonable pollution
reduction options
c.
Identify lowest cost pollution reduction
option that allows entity to meet water
quality standards.
Information on end-of-pipe treatment, possible treatment
upgrades, additions to existing treatment, and pollution
prevention activities including the following:
• change in raw materials
• substitution of process chemicals
• change in process
• water recycling, reuse and efficiency
• pretreatment requirements
• public education.
Assumptions about water demand, treatment capacity,
expansion plans, population growth, and effectiveness of
control in reducing pollution for each option. Estimate of
project costs from design engineers, costs of comparable
projects in the state, or judgment of experienced water
pollution control engineers.
Information on treatment efficiencies for alternative pollution
reduction techniques. Cost estimates for all alternatives.
3. Evaluate entity's financial health:
a. annualize pollution reduction project
costs
b. Primary Measure: profitability
c. Secondary measures:
solvency
Information on appropriate interest rates and period of
financing.
Information that will allow evaluation of whether an entity
will remain profitable after incurring the cost of pollution
reduction including:
• revenues,
• cost of goods sold,
• portion of corporate overhead assigned to the entity,
and
• total annualized pollution reduction project costs.
Information that will allow evaluation of the entity's ability to
meet its fixed and long-term obligations including:
• long-term debt
• current debt
• net income after taxes
• depreciation.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 32
Exhibit 7: Demonstration of Substantial and Widespread Economic and Social Impacts
Checklist: Private-Sector Entities
Steps
rn liquidity
rn leverage.
rn 4. Determine whether impacts are widespread:
rn a. Define community
rn b. Evaluate effect on employment
rn c. Evaluate effect on tax revenue,
rn d. Assess impairment of development
opportunities
rn e. Collect any relevant additional
information that demonstrates
widespread socioeconomic impacts.
rn 5. Evaluate economic benefits of cleaner water.
rn 6. Public comment and debate period.
rn 7. If substantial and widespread economic and
social impacts are demonstrated, determine
which pollution reduction option should be
implemented.
rn 8. Grant variance (i.e., when impacts driven by
few pollutants) or redesignate uses.
Information That Will Be Required from Applicant
Information that will allow evaluation of how easily an entity
can pay its short-term bills such as:
• current assets
• current liabilities
• total annualized pollution reduction project costs.
Information that will allow evaluation of the extent to which a
firm already has fixed financial obligations and therefore
how much money it will be able to borrow including, long-
term liabilities, and owner equity.
Information on the geographical boundary of the area in
which the majority of the entity's workers live and where
most of businesses that depend on the entity are located.
Current unemployment, change in unemployment due to
investment in pollution reduction.
Information on the likely effect on assessed value of
property tax revenues if the entity must adopt pollution
reductions.
Information on the likelihood that the need to adopt pollution
reductions in the affected community would discourage
other businesses from locating in the area in the future.
Any additional information that suggests that there are
unique conditions in the affected community that should
also be considered.
Information on potential benefits of cleaner water including
enhanced recreational opportunities, reduced treatment
costs for downstream users, and increased property values.
Be prepared to supply backup information on the
application to modify or change a designated use to the
public.
Information on the cost and efficiency of affordable pollution
reduction alternatives.
Information on pollutant reductions and associated costs
driving finding of substantial and widespread impacts.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 33
Exhibit 7: Demonstration of Substantial and Widespread Economic and Social Impacts
Checklist: Private-Sector Entities
Steps
rn 9. Criteria will be adopted to protect new uses,
or a variance to the water quality standard for
certain pollutants will be granted on a
temporary basis.
rn 10. Effluent limits and permits will be modified.
rn 11. Re-evaluate water quality standards in three
years.
Information That Will Be Required from Applicant
Information on the "affordable" pollution reduction
technique.
Information on the "affordable" pollution reduction
technique.
Re-evaluation of costs, including new information or
technology that allows attainment of the full designated
uses without causing a substantial and widespread
economic and social impact.
Source: See EPA (1995), Table 4-1.
1.5 Considerations Regarding Analysis of Agricultural and Septic Sources
Agricultural and septic sources of nutrients to the Bay can be classified as private and public-
sector entities, respectively. However, there are some considerations for applying EPA (1995)
guidance to evaluate these sources.
Agriculture
Although agricultural operations are privately owned, the primary and secondary tests described
in Section 1.4 may not be applicable to farms. First, many are small family farms that may not
be operated solely for business purposes. The U.S. Department of Agriculture classifies small
family farms (less than $250,000 in sales) based on the operators' expectations from farming,
stage in the life cycle, and dependence on agriculture: (1) limited resource, (2) retirement, (3)
residential/lifestyle, (4) farming occupation/lower sales, and (5) farming occupation/higher sales
farms (USDA, 2000b). USDA data indicate that a majority of farms are small operations that
derive household income primarily from off-farm sources (USDA, 2000b). States should
consider this reliance on other income sources — some of which, if from sectors such as
agricultural services, may benefit from pollution control requirements — in analysis of this
sector.
In addition, the agricultural industry as a whole is highly subsidized, which means that EPA
guidance for evaluating private sector business impacts may be less appropriate than for other
privately owned sources in the basin. Many agricultural producers do not meet the profitability
requirement in EPA guidance (private sector entities must be profitable before implementing
pollution controls for substantial impacts to result from such costs). Data from the BEA REIS
indicate that, on average, farming in most watershed counties is not profitable, with average
realized net income for the five years between 1996 and 2000 below zero for about half of the
counties partially or wholly in the watershed. However, data are not publically available at the
individual farm level to determine the profitability of individual operations. As stated above,
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 34
EPA policy is that dischargers must provide the financial information to support use attainability
analyses or variance requests. For businesses where all profits are not converted to owner
salaries (e.g., corporate farms), the impact on profits can likely be tested.
Septic Sources
Controls on septic sources would be paid for by the public sector. Households with septic
systems would not receive increases in user fees or taxes for these controls, but incur expenses to
meet local requirements to install specific technology. Thus, the tests of substantial impact
described in Section 1.3 do not apply because they are designed for a municipality (the
preliminary municipal screener and benchmarks for this value indicate whether further
characterization of the financial health of the community is warranted). However, states can
consider the joint requirements that any (substantial) financial impacts on a sector would also
have to have a widespread adverse impact on the community or surrounding area. Information
on the number of households on septic systems may be indicative of whether such an impact can
occur.
2. SCREENING ANALYSIS FOR POTWs
The remaining sections of Part III describe the Chesapeake Bay Program's screening analysis,
including variables for each sector and results.
For the POTW sector, control costs consist of annualized capital plus O&M costs for nutrient
reduction technologies (NRT). Municipalities will pass costs not funded by assistance grants on
to residential and nonresidential customers in the form of increased sewer fees. As described in
Section 1, EPA (1995) guidance provides preliminary and secondary tests of whether such costs
would result in substantial impacts on the public sector (the preliminary test acts as a trigger for
performing the additional, more data intensive secondary test), and a list of variables to evaluate
to determine if such impacts will also be widespread. Data and methods for determining if
impacts will be widespread are complex, and best accomplished with regional economic models
(similar to those mentioned above). Data to conduct the secondary test of substantial impact
would also be difficult to collect Bay-wide. However, a screening-level estimate of what the
preliminary test might indicate is possible, and can be performed as a first step in focusing
additional analysis so that resources are not devoted to data collection for areas that clearly will
not face any substantial impacts.
2.1 Screening Variables
The CBP constructed a screening-level estimate of what the preliminary test might indicate at the
county level:
• Current residential sewer rate (household weighted average rate across POTWs in
county incurring costs) plus estimated annual incremental control costs per
household as a percent of county MHI.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 35
Data regarding the percentage of fee increases that residential customers will bear would be
specific to each facility, and are generally not available. Therefore, a conservative assumption
that households bear 100% of fee increases can be used (for screening purposes) to generate the
highest possible (i.e., most conservative) screening values. The actual portion of the rate
increase borne by households can be investigated if analysis proceeds further for any particular
community.
To estimate this variable, the CBP collected current sewer rate data from state, county, and
municipal sources for 176 of the 297 POTWs identified as "significant" dischargers (i.e., that
will require controls in Tiers 1-3). The CBP used a placeholder value of $200 for the 121
facilities for which no rate information could be located. MHI is from the 2000 Census of
Population and Housing (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002), adjusted to 2001 dollars using the CPI
(BLS, 2002).
To correspond with the estimated POTW costs, which reflect facility-estimated 2010 flows
(including increases in 2010 capacity for some facilities that more than double current flows),
per-household estimates of costs reflect estimated 2010 service populations. Households served
in 2010 is derived by multiplying the number of households served in 2000 by the rate of
population increase from 2000 to 2010, as projected by the Chesapeake Bay Program for the
county containing the POTW. Data on population served in 2000 are from local and state
sources, where available, or from the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey (U.S. EPA, 1998)
adjusted to 2000 using county-level population data from the U.S. Census. For the 37 facilities
where no data are available, households served in 2000 is estimated based on the average flow
(assuming 100% residential flow), average indoor use of 64 gallons per person per day, persons
per household in the County from the 2000 Census, and the CBP's 2010 county population
projections.4
In counties that have multiple POTWs incurring costs under a tier scenario, the screening
variable is a service population weighted average of the individual POTW screening values.
This approach can obscure some high municipal screening values among municipalities that
have small population weights in the county totals. However, substantial impacts in these small
municipalities are not likely to have widespread impacts if they are too small to have much
influence on a county-level value. The Blue Plains WWTF in Washington, D.C. serves residents
of more than one county. To calculate screening values for communities served by this facility,
control costs are allocated to households in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, MD,
Washington, DC, and Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, VA, based on the contributions of each
jurisdiction to total flow (MWCOG, 2002; Jones, 2003). However, costs for the 43% CSO
reduction in the District of Columbia required under all Tiers are allocated to District residents
only.
Similarly, control costs for nine facilities administered by the Hampton Roads Sewer District
(HRSD) (Williamsburg, York, Army Base, Nansemond, VIP, Boat Harbor, James River,
4 For 8 facilities, average 2000 flow is zero (indicating the facility was not operating by 2000 but would be
operating by 2010). For these facilities, number of households served is based on average 2010 flow.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 36
Chesapeake-Elizabeth, and West Point) are allocated to households in fourteen jurisdictions (the
Counties of Gloucester, Isle of Wight, James City, King William, and York, and the independent
cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk,
Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg), according to the method provided by HRSD. In the city and
county of Baltimore, two WWTFs (Patapsco and Back River) each serve populations in both the
city and the county. Costs for those facilities are allocated to Baltimore City and County
according to the percentage of flow from each facility that serves the city and the county,
according to the Baltimore Department of Public Works.
2.2 Screening Results
Exhibit 8 provides a summary of the POTW screening values by tier scenario. For Tier 1,
approximately 95% of the jurisdictions (counties and independent cities) have screening values
in the range 0% to 1%; the remaining counties have values in the 1% to 2% range. In Tiers 2
and 3, the screening variable values are somewhat greater. Nevertheless, more than 80% of
counties in both Tier 2 and Tier 3 have screening values of less than 1%.
IUU/0
ono/
yUyo
OUyo
Tno/
lUyo
cno/
DU/o
cno/
OUyo
A no/
tU/o
ono/
OUyo
4 no/
lU/o
no/.
D >2% - 3%
TieM
Tier 2
Tier 3
Exhibit 8: Distribution of POTW Screening Variable Values
by Tier Scenario
There are four main sources of uncertainty regarding these screening results (Exhibit 9). The
assumption that households incur 100% of incremental control costs is likely to have the greatest
impact and is discussed further below. The second source of uncertainty is the use of a
placeholder value of $200 for 121 POTWs for which current sewer rate data are not available.
The direction and degree of bias caused by this assumption is unknown. Third, service
population data are estimated for 37 facilities based on treated flows, which is consistent with the
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 37
assumption that households incur 100% of costs, but may overstate the actual number
households served.
Exhibit 9: Sources of Uncertainty in the POTW Screening Variable
Assumption
Residential customers bear 100% of additional costs
for most POTWs.
No real income growth through 2010
Number of households served is calculated based on
flow for 37 POTWs where other data are unavailable.
Current annual residential sewer rate placeholder of
$200 for 121 POTWs where other data are
unavailable.
Direction
of Bias
+
+
?
?
Comments
Actual MPS values will be lower after accounting for
costs borne by industrial and commercial users.
Actual MPS values will be lower in areas for which real
personal income is forecast to grow by 2010, and lower
in areas where real income growth is forecast to decline
by 2010.
MPS screening values may or may not reflect actual
MPS values.
MPS screening values may or may not reflect actual
MPS values.
+ = assumption results in overestimating screening variable value
? = impact of assumption on screening variables is unknown.
As an example of the impact of these uncertainties, the following comparison illustrates how the
values might change when corrected for the proportion of costs that will be actually borne by
households. Exhibit 10 provides data for the 34 POTWs with screening values of 1.5% or more
for Tier 3. The exhibit shows the number of households used to calculate the screening variable,
and the number of households implied from POTW flow. If residences will most likely pay for
100% of incremental costs, then the two estimates should be similar; large differences may
indicate that nonresidential customers (i.e., businesses and industries) account for a large
proportion of flow and will likely incur a proportion of incremental costs.5 Therefore, the
screening values for these facilities probably overstate the actual MPS. This appears to be the
case for the majority of these facilities: the ratio of the estimate to the imputed household
estimate is less than 100% for all but 5 of the facilities, and is 50% or less for 21 of the 34
facilities. The last column of Exhibit 10 shows what the screening values would be if only a
portion of incremental costs (equal to the ratio) accrue to residential customers. For example, if
54% of annual costs for the Bridgeville facility in Sussex, DE, accrue to households, then the
value would be 1.5% rather than 2.0%.
5 Inflow and infiltration may also be affecting flows.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 38
Exhibit 10: Facilities with Tier 3 POTW Screening Variable Values Above 1.5%
County
Sussex, DE
Dorchester, MD
Bedford, PA
Blair, PA
Blair, PA
Juniata, PA
Mifflin, PA
Perry, PA
Schuylkill, PA
Tioga, PA
Tioga, PA
Union, PA
York, PA
York, PA
Accomack, VA
Accomack, VA
Amherst, VA
Augusta, VA
Hanover, VA
Facility Name
Bridgeville
Hurlock
Hyndman Borough
Logan Township-
Greenwood Area
Martinsburg
Twin Boroughs Sanitary
Authority
Brown Township Municipal
Authority
Marysville Municipal
Authority
Pine Grove Borough
Authority
Blossburg
Elkland Municipal Authority
Gregg Township
New Freedom WTP
Stewartstown Borough
Tangier Island
Onancock
Lynchburg
Weyers Cave STP
Doswell
NPDES Number
DE0020249
MD0022730
PA0020851
PA0032557
PA0028347
PA0023264
PA0028088
PA0021571
PA0020915
PA0020036
PA0113298
PA0114821
PA0043257
PA0036269
VA0067423
VA0021253
VA0024970
VA0022349
VA0029521
Screening
Variable Value
2.0%
2.7%
1.8%
2.3%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.9%
1.6%
1.6%
2.5%
1.7%
1.6%
2.4%
1.9%
1.6%
1.7%
1.6%
Number HH
Served
(Screening
Variable)
760
501
462
462
1,166
633
699
2,902
1,002
733
785
181
608
434
459
652
18,073
526
569
Number HH
Served
(Imputed)1
1,406
6,928
513
2,375
2,652
1,954
2,158
7,017
2,684
1,294
2,702
3,104
6,661
1,575
314
1,591
72,028
634
25,232
Ratio of
Screening
Variable HH to
Imputed HH
54%
7%
90%
19%
44%
32%
32%
41%
37%
57%
29%
6%
9%
28%
>100%
41%
25%
83%
2%
Adjusted
Screening
Variable Value
1.5%
0.7%
1.7%
0.9%
1.4%
1.0%
0.9%
1.4%
1.4%
1.2%
0.9%
1.5%
0.5%
0.7%
2.4%
1.2%
1.1%
1.5%
0.6%
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 39
Exhibit 10: Facilities with Tier 3 POTW Screening Variable Values Above 1.5%
County
Henrico, VA
Lancaster, VA
Mathews, VA
Middlesex, VA
Northampton, VA
Northumberland, VA
Nottoway, VA
Rappahannock, VA
Richmond, VA
Shenandoah, VA
Shenandoah, VA
Westmoreland, VA
Westmoreland, VA
Clifton Forge City,
VA
Grant, WV
Facility Name
Hopewell
Kilmarnock
Mathews Courthouse
Urbanna
Cape Charles
Reedville
Crewe STP
Remington Regional
Warsaw
Stony Creek STP
New Market STP
Colonial Beach
Montross-Westmoreland
Clifton Forge
Petersburg
NPDES Number
VA0066630
VA0020788
VA0028819
VA0026263
VA0021288
VA0060712
VA0020303
VA0076805
VA0026891
VA0028380
VA0022853
VA0026409
VA0072729
VA0022772
WV0021792
Screening
Variable Value
2.5%
2.5%
2.8%
2.5%
1.5%
2.3%
1.6%
1.6%
2.0%
3.0%
2.1%
1.6%
3.2%
3.4%
1.6%
Number HH
Served
(Screening
Variable)
7,511
579
186
325
791
304
963
3,7382
9462
278
659
1,803
1922
706
960
Number HH
Served
(Imputed)1
194,897
1,705
307
382
1,021
248
1,335
3,738
946
1,682
3,559
5,357
192
8,071
4,014
Ratio of
Screening
Variable HH to
Imputed HH
4%
34%
60%
85%
77%
>100%
72%
100%
100%
17%
19%
34%
100%
9%
24%
Adjusted
Screening
Variable Value
0.3%
1.7%
1.9%
2.3%
1.3%
2.3%
1.4%
1.6%
2.0%
1.0%
1.3%
1.4%
3.2%
1.2%
0.9%
1. Imputed number of households served is calculated as 2000 average flow in gallons, divided by 64 gallons of indoor water use per person per day times the average
number of people per household for the county from the 2000 Census, updated to 2010 using the CBP's estimated population growth factors for each county.
2. Estimated number of households served for the screening variable MPS is imputed from 2000 flow and, therefore, the number of households served in the screening
analysis is the same as the number that would be imputed from the flow. An analysis of substantial and widespread impacts may show that less than 100% of the
flow is attributable to households.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 40
Exhibit 11 maps the POTW screening variable by county for Tier 1. Values in the 1% to 2%
range tend to occur in coastal counties in Virginia and Maryland. Rappahannock County, VA,
has the highest Tier 1 value (1.5%).
Results for Tiers 2 and 3 are very similar. The map in Exhibit 12 shows results for Tier 3; the
map for Tier 2 is in Appendix E. In Tier 3, several coastal counties and cities along the
Rappahannock River and the Eastern Shore have the highest screening values, although values
are below 3% with the exception of Clifton Forge City, VA. Other areas with concentrations of
MPS values above 1% include the Northwest Virginia-West Virginia region, Central
Pennsylvania, and Northeastern Pennsylvania. Most of these locations (except the independent
cities) have small service populations (e.g., fewer than 7,000 households each), which tends to
increase the per-household cost compared to facilities that serve larger populations. Also, many
of them have MHIs below $35,000.
As noted above, many of the counties with screening values greater than 1.5% may have actual
MPS values that are lower (because households account for less than 100% of treated flow and,
therefore, may incur less than 100% of incremental costs). Therefore, the MPS results can only
indicate where substantial impacts are unlikely, and calculation of actual MPS values and
secondary tests for substantial impact may produce different results.
2.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results
To further investigate how well the POTW screening variable reflects the actual MPS value, this
section provides more comprehensive analysis of the results for Allegany County, MD.
Exhibit 13 provides a summary of the estimated costs and POTW screening variable across the
modeling scenarios. There are three POTWs serving Allegany County. The screening variable
value is 0.8% under Tiers 1 and 2 and 0.9% under Tier 3, indicating substantial impacts are
unlikely. A more detailed investigation of rates, flows, and the MPS for Tier 3 (Exhibit 14)
produces the same result (a value of 0.7 %, also indicating substantial impacts are unlikely).
Thus, under EPA guidance (1995), consideration of secondary tests for substantial impact is not
necessary. Moreover, sensitivity analyses indicate that the ratio remains below 1% even if the
analysis excludes anticipated grant funding equal to 50% of capital costs.
This detailed evaluation does not include review of the accuracy of the control costs and the
technology selection (i.e., whether costs reflect the most cost-effective controls). Because the
screening variable value is below 1% for Tier 3, even if it were calculated without the 50% grant
funding, potential estimation errors most likely do not affect this result. Current sewer rates
account for the largest portion of the screening variable value (the data in Exhibit 14 result in a
ratio of 0.63% before adding the cost of the tier controls), and provide the greatest source of
error in the screening variable. Thus, basinwide, actual MPS values may differ substantially
from the screening variable values.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 41
District of
Columbia
N/A
0% -1%
>1% - 2%
>2% - 3%
>3% - 3.4%
Chesapeake Bay 30
Land in Basin < 2%
30 60 90 120 150 Miles
Note: POTW costs include current sewer fee and additional per-household costs.
Exhibit 11: Comparison of Estimated Total Household Sewer Costs to MHI: Tier 1
(POTW Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 42
District of
Columbia
N/A
>2% - 3%
>3% - 3.4%
Chesapeake Bay 30
Land in Basin < 2%
30 60 90 120 150 Miles
Note: POTW costs include current sewer fee and additional per-household costs.
Exhibit 12: Comparison of Estimated Total Household Sewer Costs to MHI: Tier 3
(POTW Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 43
Exhibit 13: POTW Screening Variable Data for Allegany County, MD (2001$)
Estimate
POTW Costs Borne by Households1 ($/yr)
POTW Costs Borne by State1 ($/yr)
POTW Screening Variable as percent of county MHI
Tierl
399,844
242,874
0.8%
Tier 2
496,943
252,145
0.8%
Tier3
1,024,409
533,205
0.9%
1. Households pay for 50% of capital costs and 100% of annual O&M costs. The state grant pays for the remaining 50% of
capital costs.
Exhibit 14: Re-calculation of Screening Variable Value for Allegany County: Tier 3
(2001$)
Item
2010 Average Flow1 (mgd)
Percent Residential Flow2
20 10 Households Served3
Tier 3 Total Capital Cost1
Tier 3 O&M Cost1
Expected Grant Funding
Tier 3 Capital Cost Borne by Households4
SRF Loan Rate
Tier 3 Annualized5 Capital Cost Borne by Households
Tier 3 Annual Cost per Household6
Current Yearly Sewer Rate7'8'9
Estimated Annual Sewer Rate under Tier 310
Estimated 2001 MHI11
Estimated MPS Value12
Population-weighted Average MPS Value for County
Georges Creek
0.67
100%
2,348
$2,846,898
$79,406
50%
$1,423,449
2.2%
$88,743
$72
$208
$280
$32,764
0.85%
Cumberland
9.60
94%
20,313
$6,654,980
$250,533
50%
$3,127,841
2.2%
$195,000
$21
$208
$229
$32,764
0.70%
Celanese
1.02
50%
3,253
$7,603,522
$161,522
50%
$1,960,881
2.2%
$118,507
$61
$240
$301
$32,764
0.92%
0.74%
1 . Estimated by the Point Source Nutrient Reduction Task Force Workgroup.
2. Personal communication with R. Snyder and K. Hanft, Allegany Public Works, 2002.
3. 2000 population served escalated to 2010 levels using the Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay Program's projected growth rate
for the county (1.04) and divided by 2.56 persons per household. 2000 populations based on personal communication
with the Allegany County Utilities Division and the Cumberland facility.
4. Estimated by multiplying percent residential flow by total capital cost less grant funding.
5. Annualized at the state SRF rate (U.S. EPA, 2001) over 20 years.
6. Annualized cost borne by households plus the household share of annual O&M costs divided by estimated 2010
households served.
7. Source: Harford County Benchmarking Study, 2000.
8. Celanese serves Bowling Green, MD which has different sewer rates than the rest of the service population so a weighted
average is used based on population.
9. Average household water usage assumed to be about 93,440 gallons per year based on 100 gpd/person (Viessman &
Hammer, 1998) and 2.56 persons per household (2000 Census) to calculate Bowling Green rates.
10. Current sewer rate plus annual cost per household.
11. U.S. 2000 Decennial Census (2002) in 1999 dollars updated to 2001 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (i.e.,
assuming no real income growth from 1999 to 2001).
12. Estimated sewer rate under Tier 3 (in 2001 dollars) divided by estimated MHI (in 2001 dollars).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 44
In addition, number of households served and the percent of costs that will be borne by
households also influence the screening variable value. For example, residential flow accounts
for 50% to 74% of average daily flow for the Celanese facility and between 58% and 100% for
Georges Creek. These discrepancies may be due to how inflow and infiltration is reported
(however, correcting inflow and infiltration could influence the estimated treatment costs).
Although the results for Allegany County indicate that there is no need to perform the secondary
test, the CBP collected data for the secondary test to evaluate the feasibility of conducting the
test. Exhibit 15 provides the data collected to calculate values for the six indicators used to
construct the secondary test score. The indicator scores, shown in Exhibit 16, result in a
secondary test score of 2. A secondary score of 2 combined with a MPS value of less than 1.0
implies that the impact is not likely to be substantial (see Exhibit 3).
3. INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES
Control costs for industrial point sources include annualized capital costs and annual O&M costs
for NRT such as biological nitrogen removal (BNR). These costs will be borne by
establishments designated as major industrial point dischargers by the Chesapeake Bay Program.
As describe in Section 1.4, EPA (1995) guidance describes tests (i.e., profit tests and assessment
of liquidity, solvency, and leverage) for evaluating whether private sector entities may incur
substantial financial impacts. However, since some of this data may not be readily available
(e.g., for privately owned companies), it would be difficult to conduct these tests for all
industrial dischargers in the basin. Instead, it may be more cost-effective to first identify areas in
which substantial financial impacts also have the potential for widespread adverse impact on the
surrounding area. The current economic condition of the affected community and the role of the
affected entities is considered in such an evaluation (EPA, 1995). Similar to the POTW analysis,
this evaluation is best performed with a regional model. However, there may be some readily
available data related to potential for widespread impacts that could serve to focus subsequent
analysis.
3.1 Screening Variable for Industrial Facilities
A screening-level variable that might in indicate when widespread impacts are unlikely is the
earnings in the county that are generated by the discharger. However, this data is not available
from any national database because of nondisclosure requirements. What is available is the
earnings derived from the industrial category that the discharger is classified in, although this
will include earnings from businesses that are not affected by the tier scenarios. Therefore, the
screening variable can only show where widespread impacts are unlikely because the sector that
contains an affected business accounts for a small share of local earnings.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 45
Exhibit 15: 2001 Data Used in the Secondary Test: Allegany County, MD
Item
Bond Rating
Net Debt1
Market Value of Property
Community Unemployment
Rate
National Unemployment
Rate
Community MHI
State MHI
Property Tax Revenues
Property Tax Collection
Rate
Source
Allegany County FY 2003 Budget, May 23, 2002
Allegany County Finance Office
Allegany County
(http://www.qov.allconet.orq/finance/presentations.htm)
BLS, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, 2002
BLS, Current Population Survey, 2002
U.S. 2000 Decennial Census, 2002
U.S. 2000 Decennial Census, 2002
Allegany County Tax Office and Allegany County Finance
Office
Allegany County Tax Office and Allegany County Finance
Office
Value
Standard and Poor's: A-
Moody's: Baal
$47,537,740
$2,027,094,175
7.6%
4.8%
$32,764
$56,200
$33,680,300
95%
1. Allegany County component unit debt only; does not include any other component units of the Allegany County
reporting entity. Includes Nursing Home portion of 1978 and 1992 bond issues.
Exhibit 16: Secondary Test Indicators for Allegany County, MD
Indicator
Bond Rating
Overall Net Debt as Percent
of Full Market Value of
Taxable Property
Unemployment
MHI
Property Tax Revenues as
a Percent of Full Market
Value of Taxable Property
Property Tax Collection
Rate
Secondary Indicator Ratingsi
Weak
Below BBB (S&P)
Below Baa (Moody' s)
Above 5%
More than 1% above
National Average
More than 10% below
State Median
Above 4%
< 94%
Mid-Range
BBB (S&P)
Baa (Moody' s)
2% -5%
National Average
State Median
2% -4%
94% -98%
Strong
Above BBB (S&P)
or Baa (Moody' s)
Below 2%
More than 1% below
National Average
More than 10%
above State Median
Below 2%
> 98%
Average Secondary Test Score
Score
3
2
1
1
3
2
2
na = not applicable; S&P = Standard and Poor's Corporation; Moody's = Moody's Bond Record.
1. Weak is a score of 1 point, midrange is a score of 2 points, and strong is a score of 3 points.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 46
The earnings data for this variable are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional
Economic Information System (BEA REIS), and reflect data for 1999 at the two-digit SIC level
for the following industries, which contain the industrial dischargers with nutrient controls:
• Agricultural services, forestry, and fishing, including aquaculture (SIC 07-09)
• Food and kindred products and tobacco (SIC 20-21)
• Pulp and paper (SIC 26)
• Chemicals and allied products (SIC 28)
• Transportation and public utilities (SIC 40-49)
• Other manufacturing (SIC 20-39, except as assigned elsewhere).
However, not all industrial facilities will incur positive costs in Tier 3, according to the estimates
developed by the NRT Cost Task Force (2002). Thus, the screening variable does not take into
account sector earnings in counties that contain a significant discharger but where the estimated
costs for the discharger in Tier 3 are zero. As an example, there are three significant dischargers
in Chesterfield County, VA: one that is classified in food and kindred products and tobacco, one
in pulp and paper, and one in chemicals and allied products. However, the NRT Cost Task Force
estimate indicates that the discharger in the chemicals and allied products sector will not incur
costs in Tier 3. Thus, the screening variable for this county is the percentage of earnings derived
from food and kindred products and tobacco, plus earnings derived from pulp and paper.
3.2 Screening Results
Exhibit 17 provides a summary of the industrial point source screening values. Because the
value of the screening variable does not depend on the tier scenario, the results are identical for
all three tiers. Approximately 91% of the 187 counties where relevant subsector earnings are
known have screening values in the range from 0% to 1%; an additional 3% have screening
values between 1% and 5%. Only 6% of counties have affected sectors that account for 5% or
more of earnings, and the affected dischargers account for even smaller shares of local earnings.
The instances of relatively high indicator values are rarely in counties that have dischargers in
multiple potentially affected sectors, although where this does happen, the variable reflects the
combined earnings of those sectors. These results do not reflect the 8 counties with missing
BEA earnings data for at least one sector containing a potentially affected discharger.
This screening analysis does not mean that the counties with higher variable values will
experience widespread impacts. It also does not indicate whether any dischargers would even
incur substantial impacts. It only indicates where the broad, multi-firm industries that contain a
discharger are too small to contain single firm capable of having widespread impacts on
economic conditions such as total employment, output, or tax revenues. Therefore, it is possible
that the counties with high values will not experience substantial and widespread impacts. For
example, the county with the highest screening value is Bradford, PA (26.6%). The annual Tier
3 control cost for the industrial discharger in that county is less than $6,000. If the discharger is
large enough to have a widespread effect on the local economy, this annual cost would not have
a substantial impact on its financial status. If, however, the company is small enough that a
$6,000 annual cost increase would have a substantial financial impact, then it probably accounts
for only a very small share of the 26.6% of earnings in the industrial category it falls under.
Thus, it is not likely to have a widespread impact.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 47
1% 6%
1%
91%
1%
n>2%-3%
Exhibit 17: Distribution of Industrial Point Source Screening
Variables
To determine the impacts of nutrient control costs, an analysis of substantial and widespread
impacts would be needed for the counties with higher screening variable values as well as those
with missing values. Such an analysis would consist of evaluating the financial impacts on the
discharger and, if determined to be substantial, whether there would also be widespread adverse
impacts to the community (U.S. EPA, 1995).
The map in Exhibit 18 shows the values of the screening variable for widespread industrial
sector impacts. The highest values occur in scattered locations throughout the watershed,
although several adjacent counties in east-central Pennsylvania and northern Maryland have
indicator values in the higher portion of the observed range. The screening variable value is
missing for the counties that have incomplete BEA data. Therefore, they appear as white (N/A)
on the map.
3.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results
To further investigate how well the industrial discharger screening variable reflects the
likelihood of widespread impacts, this section provides more comprehensive analysis of the
results for Allegany County, MD.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 48
District of
Columbia
N/A
Chesapeake Bay 30
Land in Basin < 2%
30 60 90 120 150 Miles
Note: N/A includes Basin counties with missing earnings data.
>2% - 3%
>3% - 5%
>5% - 26.6%
Exhibit 18: Comparison of Earnings from Industrial Discharger Category
to Total Earnings
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 49
There is only one industrial discharger in Allegany County that would incur compliance costs
under Tier 3. The affected discharger is the Upper Potomac River Commission (UPRC, or the
Commission), which is in SIC 2621 (pulp and paper). Thus, the screening variable would
consist of the percentage of earnings derived from the pulp and paper sector by place of work in
1999. However, the BEA did not disclose data for earnings from pulp and paper in Allegany
County in 1999 (or for any year between 1996 and 2000) and, therefore, the screening variable
for widespread impact potential is not defined. This indicates that either there were fewer than
three firms in the pulp and paper sector, or that one firm accounted for over 80% of earnings.
Based on the results of the screening variable, the potential for widespread impacts in Allegany
County is unknown (i.e., there could be one large facility that contributes substantially to
earnings, but there could also be just one or two small firms). Therefore, the possibility of
widespread impacts cannot be ruled out; a more comprehensive analysis is needed to determine
whether impacts would indeed be substantial and widespread.
The UPRC operates the Westernport wastewater treatment facility, which treats primarily
industrial waste from the Mead-Westvaco Corporation's Luke Mill (approximately 98% of flow)
and municipal sewage from the towns of Westernport and Luke, Maryland, and Piedmont, West
Virginia. Estimated costs for this facility are shown in Exhibit 19. These costs would most
likely be passed on to the mill.
Exhibit 19: Estimated Costs for the Upper Potomac River Commission (2001$)
Scenario
Tierl
Tier 2
TierS
Capital
$0
$0
$0
O&M
$0
$0
$109,197
Total Annualized
$0
$0
$109,197
Thus, the first step in the comprehensive analysis is to test the screening analysis results by
assessing the importance of the pulp and paper industry in Allegany County. According to the
1997 Economic Census, there is only one establishment involved in paper manufacturing in
Allegany County. This establishment employs between 1,000 and 2,499 full-time and part-time
workers, but the Economic Census does not disclose data on payroll or sales and shipments. The
Allegany County Department of Economic Development (2002), however, reports that the paper
company Westvaco employs 1,500 people in the county, or about 5% of the total number of
workers employed. Westvaco company documents indicate that the company operates eight
paper mills in the United States, including one in the town of Luke in Allegany County.
Plant-specific data on sales and profits for the Luke paper mill are unavailable from the
company's published financial report. However, the paper segment of Mead-Westvaco
generated $1.1 billion in sales and $50.8 million in operating profits in 2001; $1.2 billion in sales
and $140.6 million in operating profits in 2000; and $1.1 billion in sales and $62.0 million in
operating profits in 1999. The nutrient control costs shown in Exhibit 19 for the facility operated
by the UPRC are very small compared to these profits. Thus, it is unlikely that these costs would
have a substantial financial impact on the facility.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 50
Given that substantial impacts are unlikely for this facility, the evaluation of widespread impacts
is not necessary. However, had the earnings data been available to calculate the widespread
indicator, it could have misleadingly shown potential for impact (because a large share of
earnings in the county may be attributable to this sector). This implies that the widespread
indicator alone (or the inability to calculate an indicator value in some cases) is not sufficient as
indication of the potential for both substantial and widespread impacts.
4. FORESTRY
Controls for nutrient pollution from forest harvest sites consist of BMPs to reduce erosion and
sediment runoff on harvest sites. The costs of implementing BMPs will be borne by logging
operations and other private sector entities involved in timber extraction.
As discussed in Section 1.4, EPA (1995) guidance describes tests (i.e., profit tests and
assessment of liquidity, solvency, and leverage) for evaluating whether private sector entities
may incur substantial financial impacts. However, these tests require data that are not readily
available for all the forestry operations in the basin. Thus, it would not be a worthwhile analysis
to screen for potential substantial impacts. Additional analysis must be performed to
demonstrate that any substantial impacts would also result in widespread adverse impacts on the
community (EPA, 1995). This evaluation may be best performed with a regional model.
However, there may be some readily available data related to potential for widespread impacts
that could serve to focus subsequent analysis.
4.1 Screening Variable for Forestry
Although the tests of substantial and widespread impact listed in EPA (1995) guidance are not
readily constructed for entities involved in timber harvesting in the Bay watershed, a screening
variable can be constructed to narrow down areas that are unlikely to experience such impacts.
For example, small shares of earnings from forestry and related sectors may indicate that any
impacts would not result in widespread adverse impacts on a community (because it does not
rely on those sectors for earnings). Therefore, the Chesapeake Bay Program constructed a
screening variable defined as earnings from forestry plus estimated earnings from the logging
sector as a percent of all earnings in the county.
The earnings data for this variable are from the BEA REIS, and reflect 1999 earnings by place of
work. REIS provides data on earnings from forestry and from lumber and wood products except
furniture, which includes logging as well as sawmills, manufacturers of lumber, prefabricated
wood buildings, wood containers, and other wood products. If the screening variable included
earnings from the entire lumber and wood products sector, it would tend to overstate the
importance of forestry and logging. Thus, the screening variable includes earnings from forestry
plus a portion of the earnings from lumber and wood products. The proportion is from the 1997
Economic Census, which indicated that nationally, logging subsector payroll equals 10.8% of the
total payroll from lumber and wood products (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 51
4.2 Screening Results
Exhibit 20 provides a summary of the screening variable values. Because the value of the
screening variable does not depend on the tier scenario, the results are identical for all three tiers.
Estimated earnings from forestry and logging account for less than 1% of total earnings in 95%
of jurisdictions. In only 1% of jurisdictions does the indicator value exceed 2%. The maximum
value of 2.59% occurs in Buckingham County, VA. This result suggests that widespread
impacts due to forestry BMPs are unlikely in most areas, regardless of whether costs impose
substantial impacts on businesses. Thus, a finding of substantial and widespread impact based
on the forestry BMPs is unlikely to occur.
4% 1%
95%
D >2% - 2.59%
Exhibit 20: Distribution of County Values for Forestry
Earnings as a Percent of All Earnings
The map in Exhibit 21 shows that the counties with the highest screening variable values are
scattered in central Pennsylvania, central and coastal Virginia, and most of the West Virginia
counties in the watershed. The two counties with values in excess of 2% are Buckingham, VA
(2.6%) and Snyder, PA (2.2%).
The BEA's nondisclosure policies result in some uncertainty regarding these screening results.
As reported in Section 2.4, the BEA does not disclose earnings data when there are just one or
two firms in a sector, or when one firm contributed more than 80% of the earnings in a sector.
The BEA did not disclose forestry earnings data for 95 of the 197 Basin counties in 1999. State-
level percentages, which are disclosed for all states except Delaware and West Virginia, range
from 0.05% to 0.2%, indicating that the degree of bias resulting from undisclosed data is likely
to be small. Earnings data from slightly larger sector breakouts support this notion. For
instance, earnings from forestry, fishing,
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 52
District of
Columbia
Maryland
N/A
0% -1%
Chesapeake Bay
Land in Basin <2%
50
50
100 Miles
>2% - 2.59%
Exhibit 21: Comparison of Forestry and Logging Earnings to Total Earnings
(Forestry Sector Screening Variable Values)
and the BEA "other" category (U.S. citizens employed by international organizations and foreign
embassies), or FFO, are disclosed for 16 of the 95 counties where disaggregated forestry
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 53
earnings data are not available; earnings from this larger sector range from 0.01% to 2.0%, with
an average of 0.03%. Earnings from an even larger sector, agricultural services combined with
forestry, fishing and other (ASFFO), are disclosed for an additional 42 counties, and range from
0.1% to 2.8% with an average of 0.5%. State-level data from Maryland, the District of
Columbia, Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia indicate that forestry accounts for at most 70%
of the combined earnings of FFO and at most 3% of the combined earnings of ASFFO (state-
level data on forestry earnings in Delaware and West Virginia are not disclosed and thus these
ratios cannot be calculated for those states). Thus, the bias introduced by the nondisclosure of
forestry earnings data is likely to be small.
4.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results
To further investigate how well the forestry sector screening variable reflects the likelihood of
widespread impacts, this section provides more comprehensive analysis of the results for
Allegany County, MD.
The screening variable value for Allegany County rounds to zero, indicating that substantial and
widespread impacts due to forest harvest BMPs would be extremely unlikely. Forestry and
estimated logging accounted for 0.01% of all county earnings in 2000, demonstrating that
impacts on this sector are not likely to change the economic variables that are indicative of
widespread impacts.
5. SCREENING ANALYSIS FOR AGRICULTURE
Controlling nutrient pollution from agricultural operations requires BMPs including forest
buffers, grass buffers, wetland restoration, retirement of highly erodible land, tree planting, soil
conservation and water quality plans, cover crops, streambank protection, nutrient management
plans, grazing land protection, animal waste management systems, yield reserve (i.e., enhanced
nutrient management planning), carbon sequestration, export of excess nutrients, and
conservation tillage. The costs of the BMPs will be paid by farming operations involved in crop
and livestock production, and by state and federal governments through agricultural BMP cost-
sharing and grant programs.
5.1 Screening Variables
Although data required for the analysis of substantial and widespread impacts on agricultural
operations are not readily available, screening variables can be constructed to narrow down areas
that are unlikely to experience such impacts. For businesses where all profits are not converted
to owner salaries (e.g., corporate farms), the impact on profits can be tested:
• BMP costs as a percent of net cash return (NCR) from agricultural sales plus
government payments ("NCR screening variable").
However, data are not readily available to construct this ratio for the individual farms for which
such a business indicator would be appropriate. County level data including the NCR may not
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 54
provide an accurate indication of the potential for impacts. Nationally, 80% of farms are small
family farms that have very low average net income (less than $5,000) from the farm operation
(USDA, 2000b). Many of the these farms lose money on farming, but farm households have
higher incomes and greater wealth than the average U.S. household (USDA, 2002). Data on
sales and corporate ownership reveal that most farms in the Bay watershed are small,
unincorporated farms. For example, the USDA National Commission on Small Farms defines
small farms as those grossing less than $250,000 annually in agricultural sales (USDA, 2000b),
and small farms account for more than 85% of farms in 149 out of the 168 counties with more
than one farm that are partially or wholly in the watershed (28 counties, primarily the
independent cities of Virginia, had no farms, and one additional independent city had one farm,
according to the 1997 Census of Agriculture). Similarly, unincorporated farms account for more
than 90% of the farms in 147 of the 168 counties with more than one farm. In addition,
according to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, approximately 50% of the farms in the Chesapeake
Basin counties were unprofitable (total production expenses exceeded the market value of
agricultural products sold, resulting in negative net cash return).6 Within the 168 counties with
more than one farm, the percentage of farms with negative net cash return ranged from 23%
(Worcester, MD) to 74% (Warren, VA and Fairfax, VA), and was over 50% for 104 counties
(see Exhibit C-4 in Appendix C). Because many farms are unprofitable to start, which means
that there is no basis for claiming substantial and widespread economic and social impacts will
occur from meeting water quality standards, the results of the screening analyses for agriculture,
and the maps in particular, should be used with caution.
The NCR screening variable reflects EPA (1995) guidance for evaluating impacts on private
entities by calculating control costs as a percentage of pre-tax profits. EPA (1995) indicates that
profits should be measured as business income minus expenses, including depreciation and
changes in net inventories (i.e., the value of a net inventory increase should be added to profit or
the value of a net inventory decrease should be subtracted). A proxy for profit at the county
level is net cash return from agricultural sales (NCR) plus government payments, from the 1997
Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2000a). NCR is the market value of agricultural products sold
minus cash operating expenditures.7 Because these expenditures can include the farm owner's
own income, low profits may understate the amount of income the farmer actually receives from
the business.
EPA (1995) recommends that profit tests on private entities be based on three consecutive years
of profit data because of potential variability in profits from year to year. However, Census of
Agriculture data are only available every five years (e.g., 1987, 1992, 1997). In addition, annual
data on realized net income from the BEA REIS cannot be used to impute net cash return for
years other than 1997 because the two data series reflect different definitions and data sources.
However, REIS data do indicate that realized net income in 1997 was lower than average for
6 Net cash return does not include depreciation, inventory changes, or government payments, except for receipts
from placing commodities in the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) loan program.
7 For this indicator, NCR and government payments are prorated for the proportion of agricultural land in the
county that lies in the Bay watershed (see Appendix B for details). The implicit assumption in this adjustment is that
net farm income is distributed evenly over the agricultural land in a county.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 55
most counties in the watershed between 1996 and 2000. If the same trend holds true for NCR,
then the screening variable based on 1997 NCR will tend to overstate the potential for impacts.
As a measure of profit, NCR is incomplete because it does not account for depreciation,
inventory changes, or government payments [other than receipts from placing commodities in
the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) loan program]. To compensate for the lack of
government payments, non-CCC government payments are added. However, the Census of
Agriculture does not release data on depreciation or inventory changes.8
Two additional variables can help to characterize BMP costs relative to sales in farm subsectors.
As with the other screening variables, these variables only show areas where costs are not likely
to meet the criteria for having substantial and widespread impacts:
• Crop BMP costs (including a portion of hay crop BMP costs) as a percent of crop
and hay sales
• Livestock BMP costs (plus a portion of hay crop BMP costs) as a percent of
livestock and livestock products sales.
Data for crop and livestock-related sales are the "market value of agricultural products sold"
from the 1997 Census of Agriculture (USD A, 2000a), inflated to 2001 dollars using USD A price
indices (USDA, 2001).9 Hay BMP costs will accrue to both the crop sector (where hay is grown
for sale) and the livestock sector (where hay is grown for onsite use). Therefore, these costs are
distributed between the crop and livestock sectors according to the percentage of sales derived
from each sector within the county. All hay sales, however, are included in the crop sales
variable because hay grown by livestock operations is more likely to be used on the farm for feed
and bedding rather than sold in the market.
Comparison of BMP costs to household income may also provide some indication of where
substantial impacts are unlikely:
• Mean per-farm BMP costs as a percent of estimated MHI ("MHI screening
variable").
Mean per-farm costs are total county-level BMP costs divided by the 2010 projection of the
number of farms within the watershed portion of the county. County MHI is from the 2000
Decennial Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002), adjusted to 2001 dollars using the Consumer
Price Index (BLS, 2002). For individual counties, farm MHI may be larger or smaller than
8 The Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program funding is not included in the adjusted
NCR estimate to avoid double-counting these payments, first as income and again as BMP cost offsets.
9 The county-level data are prorated to reflect the portion of agricultural land in the county within the watershed,
as in the NCR indicator; however, agricultural sales may or may not be distributed evenly over the agricultural land
within a county.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 56
county MHI; however, nationwide, MHI for farm households is larger than MHI for all
households (USDA, 2002).
Note that the household cost variable is not based on EPA guidance—EPA (1995) provides
profitability tests for businesses. Consequently, there is no benchmark for determining what
percentage of total household income the business-related expenses could equal before imposing
substantial impacts; benchmarks for public sector MPS screener values do not apply to business-
related expenses. Thus, this variable can only identify when BMP costs are small relative to
household income.
The four screening variables described above may help to narrow down areas where substantial
impacts are unlikely. To help identify where substantial impacts would not also be widespread,
the relative importance of the agricultural sector the local economy can be calculated:
• Earnings from agriculture and related sectors in the county as a percent of all
earnings in the county.
For this variable, the earnings data are from the BEA REIS (BEA, 2001) and reflect 1999
earnings by place of work (i.e., they are based on earnings made by people who work within a
county rather than by people who live within a county). The ratio includes earnings from sectors
upstream (agricultural services) and downstream manufacturing (food and kindred products,
tobacco) to account for potential impacts on sectors that depend on farming. However, the
inclusion of these additional sectors potentially makes this screening variable more ambiguous.
Upstream sectors may see a rise in business activity due to implementation of BMPs; the effects
on downstream sectors are also difficult to determine because many food processing businesses
may receive inputs from outside the watershed or also benefit from improving Bay water quality
(i.e., seafood producers in coastal counties). Therefore, results for this screening variable are
also shown without earnings for the related sectors to test the sensitivity of including those
sectors.
5.2 Screening Results
This section contains results for the crop sales, livestock sales, and MHI screening variables.
Results for the NCR screening variable are not discussed (values are reported in Appendix C)
because NCR is a poor measure of farm profitability and the presence of subsidies distorts
financial conditions such that a standard analysis of private business impacts is infeasible.
Furthermore, most of the operations in the watershed are not strictly business operations; they
are small, unincorporated "family farm" operations where off-farm income often subsidizes farm
operations. Therefore, at the county level, this variable does not provide much information
Exhibit 22 shows the distribution of values for the crop sales screening variable by tier scenario.
Under Tier 1, 85% of counties have values below 1%, which means county-wide BMP costs
equal less than 1% of annual crop and hay sales. More than 25% of counties have values below
zero, which indicates net cost savings or net revenue from cost-share programs. In Tier 2,
approximately 74% of counties have screening variable values below 2% and costs remain less
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 57
than 1% of sales for more than 40% of counties. In Tier 3, variable values remain below 2% for
about half of the counties.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
30%
10%
0%
• 5% or more
• 2% - <5%
n o% - •
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Negative values indicate a cost savings compared to the 2000 Progress scenario.
Exhibit 22: Distribution of Crop Screening Values by Tier Scenario
Maps in Exhibits 23 (Tier 1) and 24 (Tier 3) illustrate the shift in screening variable values
across the tier scenarios; the map for Tier 2 is in Appendix D. In Tier 1, the highest values occur
in or near West Virginia. In contrast, net cost savings accrue to much of central Virginia and
coastal Maryland, primarily because of federal and state incentive payments for implementation
of certain BMPs (in addition to maintenance payments and installation grants) in those states.
Some net cost savings persist in Tier 3, particularly in Maryland, again due to incentive
payments. Two counties, Cameron County in Pennsylvania and York County in Virginia, appear
white because the Census of Agriculture does not report crop sales for those counties.
The screening variable values based on livestock sales (Exhibit 25) tend to be higher than the
variable values based on crop sales across all tier scenarios. Approximately 71% of counties
have values below 1% in Tier 1, and a few counties have values in the 2% to 5% range or higher.
In Tier 2, almost 50% of counties have variable values less than 1%; in Tier 3 this share falls to
30%. There are higher proportions of counties with the higher values compared to the crop
sector results.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 58
N/A
-2.1% - <0%
0% - <1%
1% - <2%
2% - <5%
5% - 5.3%
Chesapeake Bay
Land in Basin <2%
50
50
100 Miles
Note: Negative ratio values indicate a cost savings
compared to the 2000 Progress scenario.
Exhibit 23: Comparison of Crop and Portion of Hay BMP Costs
to Crop and Hay Sales: Tier 1 (Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 59
N/A
-2.3% - <0%
0% - <1%
1% - <2%
2% - <5%
5% - 9.6%
Chesapeake Bay
Land in Basin <2%
50
50
100 Miles
Note: Negative ratio values indicate a cost savings
compared to the 2000 Progress scenario.
Exhibit 24: Comparison of Crop and Portion of Hay BMP Costs
to Crop and Hay Sales: Tier 3 (Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 60
I uu/o
o no/
5JU/0
a no/
OU/o
7 no/
/ U/o
cno/
OU/o
>i no/
4U/0
ono/
oU/o
9 no/
ZU/o
•ino/
IU/o
no/
1
15% or more
12% - <5%
D <0%
I I I
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Negative values indicate a cost savings compared to the 2000 Progress scenario.
Exhibit 25: Distribution of Livestock Screening Values by Tier Scenario
Regional maps for Tier 1 (Exhibit 26) and Tier 3 (Exhibit 27) illustrate how the screening
variable values change across the compliance scenarios; the map for Tier 2 is in Appendix D.
The largest shift occurs in Virginia, where the variable for many counties is relatively small or
even negative in Tier 1, but exceed 5% in Tier 3. This shift primarily reflects a large increase in
BMP costs for pasture land such as stream protection and grazing land protection. Other areas
with higher Tier 3 screening values include watershed counties in New York, northern and
western Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Unlike Virginia, the higher screening variable values
in Pennsylvania are also attributable to higher implementation of animal waste system and
manure exporting BMPs, which account for half of private livestock BMP costs in Tier 3. In
New York animal waste system BMPs account for about one-third of private livestock BMP
costs in Tier 3. In Virginia and West Virginia, the major cost driver is BMPs on pasture land;
animal waste system and manure export BMPs account for just 10% of private livestock BMP
costs in Virginia and 5% in West Virginia.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 61
N/A
-2.1% - <0%
0% - <1%
1% - <2%
2% - <5%
5% - 7.3%
Chesapeake Bay
Land in Basin <2%
50
50
100 Miles
Note: Negative ratio values indicate a cost savings
compared to the 2000 Progress scenario.
Exhibit 26: Comparison of Livestock and Portion of Hay BMP Costs
to Livestock Sales: Tier 1 (Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 62
N/A
-2.9% - <0%
0%-<1%
1% - <2%
2% - <5%
5% - 55.7%
Chesapeake Bay
Land in Basin <2%
50
50
100 Miles
Note: Negative ratio values indicate a cost savings
compared to the 2000 Progress scenario.
Exhibit 27: Comparison of Livestock and Portion of Hay BMP Costs
to Livestock Sales: Tier 3 (Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 63
Thus, checking the accuracy of pasture BMP costs is the key validation issue. The higher
screening variable values are almost entirely caused by high costs for BMPs on pasture land
(streambank protection with and without fencing, grazing land protection, riparian forest buffers
on pasture, farm plans on pasture) rather than other livestock BMPs, such as animal waste
management and exporting manure out of areas with excess nutrients. This result raises the
question of whether the pasture BMP costs in the screening analysis overstate costs. Given the
heterogeneous nature of the BMPs (e.g., for grazing land protection) and their uneven
application, it is possible that controls need only be applied to an unknown fraction of the acres
in the Watershed Model to achieve the runoff reduction on all pasture acres affected by the
BMPs (see the groundtruthing analysis in Section 5.3 for further discussion). Documentation for
the sources of cost information do not provide a basis for applying costs to a portion of the acres
with BMP-related loadings reductions in the Watershed Model. For Pennsylvania, another key
issue is how much the animal waste system and manure export costs overlap impacts of the
CAFO rule.
The MHI screening variable looks at impacts on households. However, it is important to
recognize that there is no benchmark for such a comparison (i.e., what percent of household
income business-related expenses can comprise before imposing substantial financial impacts on
the household business). Thus, the potential for substantial impacts may be small even when the
MHI screening variable values are above 1% or 2%.
Exhibit 28 summarizes the distribution of MHI screening variable values by tier. The results
show that the values are less than 1% in over 66% of counties in Tier 1, approximately 23% of
counties in Tier 2, and approximately 15% of counties in Tier 3. Negative values indicate net
cost savings, which are primarily due to revenues from state and federal cost-share programs.10
High values are not evidence of substantial impact; they merely indicate counties that cannot be
screened from further impact analysis on the basis of low BMP cost estimates relative to county
MHI. A finding of substantial impact would require additional data and analysis regarding the
actual financial impacts on farm households or businesses.
Because the MHI values in the denominator are constant across the tiers, the increase in
screening variable values reflects increasing mean BMP costs per farm household. Although
BMP costs increase substantially across the tiers (from $74 million in private costs in Tier 1 to
$133 million in Tier 3), the per-household cost remains below 5% of MHI for over 92% of
households in Tier 2 and 65% of households in Tier 3.
10 Federal and state cost-share programs do not permit funds provided for installation of BMPs to exceed the
installation cost. However, net average costs can be negative because certain cost-share programs provide annual
maintenance and one-time incentive payments in addition to the installation cost-share (see Appendix E).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 64
5% or more
2% - <5%
D<0%
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Negative values indicate a cost savings compared to the 2000 Progress scenario.
Exhibit 28: Distribution of MHI Screening Values by Tier Scenario
The map in Exhibit 29 provides a spatial overview of the Tier 1 county-level results for the MHI
screening variable. Approximately 12% of counties have values of 2% or higher; these counties
tend to be located along the West Virginia-Virginia border, the Virginia shoreline, in Delaware,
and in central Pennsylvania. Additional information would need to be collected for these areas
to determine if, in fact, substantial impacts are likely. Areas of cost savings compared to the
2000 Progress scenario are evident in coastal Virginia and Maryland. Thus, under Tier 1, most
of the jurisdictions in the Bay watershed show little potential for substantial financial impacts.
The map of screening variable values for Tier 3 (Exhibit 30) shows much higher screening
variable values throughout much of the watershed; the map for Tier 2 is in Appendix D. Values
are least affected in Maryland, where many counties show net negative Tier 3 costs.
The final screening variable, which indicates counties where widespread economic impacts are
unlikely, does not change with the tier scenarios because it is based on an earnings ratio rather
than BMP implementation rates. The chart in Exhibit 31 shows the percentage of jurisdictions,
including the independent cities, in each of the value ranges for the screening variable. Four
percent of jurisdictions have negative agricultural income and, therefore, have negative values.
Earnings in agricultural and related sectors account for less than 5% of total earnings in 85% of
watershed jurisdictions.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 65
N/A
-2.3% - <0%
0% - <1%
1% - <2%
2% - <5%
5%-6.1%
Chesapeake Bay
Land in Basin <2%
so
50
100 Miles
Note: Negative ratio values indicate a cost savings
compared to the 2000 Progress scenario.
Exhibit 29: Comparison of Average Agricultural BMP Costs to MHI: Tier 1
(Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 66
N/A
•3.2% - <0%
0% - <1%
1% - <2%
2% - <5%
5% - 20.4%
Chesapeake Bay
Land in Basin <2%
so
50
100 Miles
Note: Negative ratio values indicate a cost savings
compared to the 2000 Progress scenario.
Exhibit 30: Comparison of Average Agricultural BMP Costs to MHI: Tier 3
(Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 67
4%
15%
36%
23%
D<0%
5% or more
22%
Negative values indicate net negative earnings in the agricultural and related sectors.
Exhibit 31: Distribution of Agricultural and Related Earnings
Screening Variable Values
There is a slight downward bias in several screening variable values in Exhibit 31 because of
BEA's nondisclosure policies. In 121 of the 197 Basin jurisdictions, the BEA did not release
sector-level earnings data for agricultural services for 1999, which indicates that either there
were only 1 or 2 agricultural services providers in the county, or one provider accounted for at
least 80% of sector earnings. However, given the generally small percentages of earnings
derived from agricultural services (ranging from 0.1% to 0.6% for the basin states), the resulting
bias is likely to be small.
Similarly, BEA data on earnings in food and kindred product manufacturing are not disclosed in
75 of the 197 Basin jurisdictions. Again, this indicates that either there were fewer than 3
agricultural services providers in the county or one provider accounted for at least 80% of sector
earnings. The proportions of place of work earnings from this sector range from 0% in
Washington, D.C. to 1.4% in Delaware and Pennsylvania, so the degree of bias due to
nondisclosure is again likely to be small.
The earnings screening variable can overstate the potential for widespread impacts for two
reasons. First, the agricultural services sector may actually experience increased income (rather
than negative impacts) from BMP implementation. Second, earnings from the food and kindred
products sector may not reflect earnings related to crop and livestock production. For instance,
Northumberland County, VA has one of the highest values of this indicator (19.6%) because
most of the major employers in that county produce and process seafood (J. Gambaccini,
Northern Neck Planning District Commission, personal communication, April, 2002). The
seafood industry in Northumberland County will not be adversely affected by agricultural BMPs
and may, in fact, benefit from improved water quality. The same may be true for other coastal
jurisdictions with high indicator values; coastal counties account for half of the counties with
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 68
screening variable values that exceed 10% and about a quarter of those with values in the 5% to
10% range. Therefore, the screening variable may identify these counties as having widespread
impact potential when in fact widespread impacts are unlikely because the related sectors may
not be affected by agricultural BMPs or may benefit from water quality improvements.
The potential bias of including the agricultural services and food manufacturing sectors is clear
in a comparison of Exhibit 31 with Exhibit 32. The share of jurisdictions with earnings from
farming only (i.e., without the additional sectors included in the results in Exhibit 31) above 5%
declines from 15% to 4%.
14%
17%
D<0%
5% or more
Negative values indicate net negative earnings in the agricultural sector.
Exhibit 32: Distribution of Agricultural Earnings
Only Screening Variable Values (with Related Sectors
Removed)
The agricultural earnings screening variable cannot be interpreted as a demonstration of
widespread impact; it merely shows where there is almost no potential for widespread impact
given the broad industry classifications and within the limits of BEA data availability. Because
the industry classifications are broad and most of the jurisdictions have data reported for
agricultural income and at least one of the two other industries, the jurisdictions (Exhibit 31)
with less than 5% of reported earnings coming from agriculture and related sectors are unlikely
to experience widespread impacts even if there are substantial impacts in the agricultural sector
under any tier scenario. In particular, some businesses in the agriculture services industry will
most likely benefit from the influx of federal and state funding through cost-share programs.
Additional analysis would be needed to demonstrate widespread impacts in the remaining 15%
of jurisdictions (Exhibit 31) with earnings shares above 5%. EPA (1995) guidance lists variables
for evaluation to determine whether widespread impacts are likely; the screening analysis serves
only to focus such an effort.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 69
The map in Exhibit 33 shows the spatial distribution of the widespread indicator values
throughout the watershed. The noncoastal jurisdictions with higher indicator values (e.g.,
greater than 5%) are predominantly located in east-central Pennsylvania and along the West
Virginia-Virginia state boundary.
Having screening indicators for both substantial and widespread impacts for agriculture provides
an opportunity to evaluate when potential exists for both conditions. The scatter plot in Exhibit
34 shows the combined results for the MHI screening variable (Tier 1) and the widespread
screening variable for each jurisdiction. Most of the data points are close to the one of the axes,
indicating low potential for either type of impact. The MHI variable values that exceed 1% are
generally associated with widespread variables below 5%. Similarly, the high widespread
screening variable values tend to be associated with MHI variable values that are less than 1%.
Thus, under Tier 1, there is little evidence of potential for substantial and widespread impacts.
The scatter plots in Exhibits 35 and 36 show outcomes for the Tier 2 and Tier 3 MHI screening
variables, respectively, and widespread screening variables. While more points have a MHI
variable value above 1% in Tiers 2 and 3, many of these points have widespread variable values
of less than 5%. Thus, although the potential for substantial impacts is higher under Tiers 2 and
3, many jurisdictions are still unlikely to experience both substantial and widespread impacts.
The plots in Exhibits 35 and 36 use the original widespread screening variable, which includes
earnings in agricultural related sectors. A variable based solely on agricultural income would
have substantially fewer scatter points with high widespread variable values. Exhibit 37
illustrates the impact using the MHI screening variable values for Tier 3 and the recalculated
widespread screening variable. Comparing the two Tier 3 charts shows that most of the scatter
points to the right of 5% along the widespread screening variable axis in Exhibit 36 are no longer
present in Exhibit 37.
Exhibit 38 lists the counties that have initial widespread screening variable values greater than
5% and MHI values greater than 1%. It also shows that all but 6 of the widespread variable
values fall below 5% when the related industries are excluded from the widespread screening
variable. The counties with values that continue to exceed 5% are primarily located along the
Virginia-West Virginia border and southwest of Richmond, VA.
As noted in Section 5.2, the values for the screening variable can be biased for several reasons
(see Exhibit 39). For example, the MHI values reflect the assumption that the ratio of BMP
costs to MHI in 2010 would be the same as it is in 2001. If household incomes increase more
rapidly than BMP costs, then the values are overestimated. Furthermore, all of the variables
incorporate current cost share percentages for some BMPs. Changes in the cost share
assumptions would alter the values of the screening variables. Lower cost share amounts would
increase private costs and variable values, and higher shares would decrease private costs and
variable values. Third, BMP costs use constant average unit costs although costs may differ by
location. Finally, the screening variable uses county MHI, which may differ from farm
household incomes. The USDA reports that, on average, farm households have higher incomes
and greater wealth than all U.S. households (USDA, 2002).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 70
N/A
0% -1%
>1% - 2%
>2% - 5%
>5% - 22.9%
Chesapeake Bay
Land in Basin <2%
40
40
80 Miles
Note: Negative ratio values indicate net negative earnings
in agriculture and related sectors.
Exhibit 33: Comparison of Agricultural and Related Earnings to Total Earnings
(Agricultural Sector Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 71
0)
re
re
O)
c
'E
0)
o
V)
E
-5%
Exhibit
0)
.5
re
>
O)
c
'E
0)
0
(O
I
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
n r
,
D
n
n
n n n
CP DD Q
H^n'n^i fite D D
^j^tSSSti^1^ ° DD n
~°%™fff ' nn' D ' D
OHf^ n 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
2% -T
Earnings Screening Variable
34: Joint Earnings and MHI Screening Variable Values (Tier 1)
16% n
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
n
n
._.
D ^
n
n n
n
n "^J,0""1 n
D4%isss s ° H, °
°o -D^
^^^° *
f>0/. rfn i U~l n , n
-5%
5%
15%
10%
n D
Earnings Screening Variable
20%
25%
Exhibit 35: Joint Earnings and MHI Screening Variable Values (Tier 2)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 72
16%
14%
0)
_re
^
re
O)
_c
0)
O
12%
10%
D8%
6%l
-5%
0%
-2%
20%
25%
5% 1 n% 1 *»%
/O I U.-4JO I O /O
Earnings Screening Variable
Exhibit 36: Joint Earnings and MHI Screening Variable Values (Tier 3)
o>
£1
_re
re
o>
c
'E
o>
O
V)
-5%
16%
14%
12%
10%
n
n
-2%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Earnings Screening Variable
Exhibit 37: Joint Earnings and MHI Screening Variable Values with
Related Sectors Removed (Tier 3)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 73
Exhibit 38: Jurisdictions with Earnings Screening Variable Values Greater than 5%
and MHI Values Greater than 1%
Jurisdiction
Lebanon, PA
Franklin, PA
Perry, PA
Lancaster, PA
Allegany, NY
Queen Annes, MD
Yates, NY
Suffolk, VA
Northampton, VA
Bradford, PA
Cumberland, VA
Pendleton, WV
Columbia, PA
Page, VA
Highland, VA
Northumberland, PA
Amelia, VA
Shenandoah, VA
Adams, PA
Rockingham, VA
Sussex, DE
Northumberland, VA
Accomack, VA
Earnings
Screening Variable
(including related industries)
5.0%
5.1%
5.4%
6.2%
6.3%
6.5%
6.5%
6.8%
7.9%
8.1%
8.7%
8.8%
9.2%
9.7%
9.9%
10.0%
10.3%
10.5%
11.2%
13.9%
15.0%
19.6%
22.9%
Earnings
Screening Variable
(farm income only)
0.9%
1.8%
4.4%
1.0%
2.8%
1.9%
3.1%
0.7%
7.0%
1.8%
8.7%
8.8%
0.2%
7.2%
9.9%
0.2%
10.3%
3.0%
3.4%
2.9%
4.6%
1.5%
3.8%
MHI
Screening Variablei
4.4%
5.8%
3.5%
2.3%
4.4%
1.6%
2.9%
19.3%
11.7%
3.9%
6.9%
11.3%
2.8%
3.2%
17.1%
3.7%
3.7%
4.2%
2.3%
4.0%
6.9%
1.1%
10.6%
1. The 1 % breakpoint used to compile data for this table should not be interpreted as a threshold for analysis for the
MHI screening variable. This variable differs from the MPS screening variable used for the POTW analysis, where
the 1% threshold comes from EPA (1995) guidance. There are no guidance thresholds for the MHI variable and
jurisdictions with values above 1% may not incur substantial impacts.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 74
Exhibit 39: Sources of Uncertainty in Screening Variables for the Agriculture Sector
Source
Values to not reflect any real growth in
MHI or agricultural sales and income.
Current BMP cost shares are used to
estimate farmer costs.
Average unit BMP costs are applied to all
BMP acres throughout the watershed.
MHI is for county rather than farm
household.
BEA earnings data for agriculture-related
sectors is not reported for some counties.
Net cash return and sales data are
prorated based on percentage of
agricultural land in watershed.
Net cash return plus government
payments does not account for
depreciation, inventory changes, or
noncash benefits (e.g., consumption of
farm products).
Net cash return in 1997 is relatively low for
most counties for the period 1996-2000.
Direction of Bias
+
+
?
?
-
?
?
+1
Comments
Cost-to-income ratios may be overestimated.
Under the 2002 Farm Bill, cost shares may be higher,
which would reduce farmer costs.
Actual BMP costs will vary from site to site.
Nationally, farm household MHI is slightly greater than
overall MHI (USDA, 2002), but this may vary from
county to county.
Some variable values are slightly lower than they would
be had BEA earnings data been complete.
Prorating data implies a uniform distribution of sales
and net returns over agricultural land; county portions
within the watershed may have higher or lower average
sales and net returns.
Profit would equal net cash return minus depreciation
and net inventory change; depreciation and inventory
change are not available from the Census of
Agriculture.
Impacts on profits should be determined based on three
consecutive years so that one bad (or good) year does
not generate a false positive (or negative) result (U.S.
EPA, 1995).
+ = assumption results in overestimating potential for impacts
- = assumption results in underestimating potential for impacts
? = impact of assumption on indicator values is unknown
1. Potential impact on indicators is positive for most counties and may be zero or negative for others; see comment.
Regarding the cost share assumptions, there is great uncertainty in the extent of costs that will
actually be borne by farmers. The 2002 Farm Bill increases federal overall conservation funding
by 80% above the level committed by the last (1996) farm bill. In addition, the new law permits
a greater percentage of BMP installation costs (90%, up from 75% in the 1996 bill) to be granted
to limited-resource farmers under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Therefore,
costs paid by farmers may be lower than those used in the screening analysis, and impacts may
be overstated. As one example, although specific provisions for the yield reserve BMP in the
tier scenarios are not included in the bill, the program may be funded under an innovative
technologies clause of the bill (personal communication with T. Simpson, Chair, CBP Nutrient
Subcommittee, May 2002). If implemented, this cost-share program could result in annual
incentive payments of $20 to $40 per acre that are not included in the screening analysis.
Funding for this program alone would reduce the agricultural costs borne by farmers in Tier 3 by
$17 million to $42 million per year.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 75
Also, due to the large number of programs and sources across states, the cost-share information
may be incomplete. The cost-share assumptions in the impact analysis are very complex because
they vary by state, program, and BMP (see Part I). Cost shares may include a variety of contract
arrangements including a capital cost share, an annual rental payment, an up-front incentive
payment, and an annual maintenance cost. For this analysis, the CBP did not factor in the
substantial annual rental payments but instead assumed that they would offset any revenue losses
resulting from BMP implementation. If instead, rental payments more than offset any losses
(e.g., BMPs are implemented on marginal land such that little revenue is lost), the screening
analysis may overstate impacts.
5.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results
To further evaluate how well the screening variables reflect the likelihood of substantial and
widespread impacts, this section provides more comprehensive analysis of the results for
Allegany County, MD. Exhibit 40 contains a summary of the estimated costs and screening
variable values across the modeling scenarios.
Exhibit 40: Agricultural Costs and Screening Variable Values for
Allegany County, MD (2001$)
Estimate
Private Agricultural Costs
State and Federal Agricultural Costs1
Till crop plus portion of hay costs as percent of crop and hay sales
Livestock plus portion of hay costs as percent of livestock and product sales
Agricultural BMP costs per farm as percent of county MHI
Agriculture and related sector earnings as percent of total earnings by place of
work
Tierl
83,109
287,560
0.1%
3.7%
0.9%
0.9%
Tier 2
108,304
488,090
-1.0%2
5.3%
1.1%
0.9%
TierS
163,273
795,238
-2.3%2
8.5%
1.7%
0.9%
1. Assumes that all needed BMPs are cost shared at current rates.
2. Costs are negative (i.e., net income to the farmer increases because of cost-share program funding).
As noted above, some indicator variables in the screening analysis are conservative and, as such,
may overestimate potential for impacts.
5.3.1 Crop Sales Screening Variable
The screening analysis indicates that estimated costs for BMPs on cropland represent less than
half a percent of the value of crop sales under Tiers 1 and 2, and net revenue increases under
Tier 3. Exhibit 41 provides a summary of the BMP costs and sales data used to calculate the
Tier 3 ratio. The negative value for the till crop screening variable under Tiers 2 and 3 results
from a combination of reductions in some BMPs compared to the 2000 Progress scenario (e.g.,
conservation tillage, nutrient management plan, and farm plans) and net earnings from cost-share
program incentive and annual maintenance payments that exceed BMP costs (e.g., forest and
grass buffers and land retirement). Thus, BMP-related revenues could actually improve crop-
related financial ratios and, therefore, do not currently indicate a substantial negative impact.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 76
Exhibit 41: Summary of Crop and Livestock BMP Costs and Sales for Allegany County,
MD
Item
BMP Costs for Tier 3 (2001 dollars)3
Market Sales (1997 dollars)
Market Sales (2001 dollars)
Ratio of BMP Costs to Sales
Cropland1
($27,101)
$1,150,000
$1,185,385
-2.3
Livestock2
$190,374
$2,172,000
$2,238,831
8.5
1. BMPs include forest buffers, grass buffers, conservation tillage, wetlands restoration, erodible land retirement,
carbon sequestration, nutrient management, yield reserve, farm plans, and cover crops.
2. BMPs include forest buffers, wetlands restoration, farm plans, stream protection, and grazing land protection.
(There are no costs for livestock BMPs, animal waste management systems and excess manure hauling, because
the Watershed Model does not apply these BMPs in Allegany County under any tier scenario.)
3. The cost of BMPs for hay land is split between crops and livestock based on the shares of crop and livestock sales
in the county. In Allegany County, sales of livestock and livestock products accounts for about 65% of total sales
and hay BMP costs are $4,220. Thus, livestock BMP costs include $187,615 for pasture BMPs plus $2,759 in hay
costs (about 65% of total hay BMP costs); cropland BMP costs include negative $28,562 for cropland BMPs plus
the remaining hay BMP costs of $1,461 ($4,220-$2,759).
5.3.2 Livestock Sales Screening Variable
The preliminary economic framework indicates that potential costs for livestock-related BMPs
represent 3.7% to 8.5% of sales from livestock and livestock products in the county. Exhibit 41
shows the BMP costs and sales data used to calculate the ratio for Tier 3. Because profit data are
not available at the sector level, it is unknown whether the livestock subsector is initially
profitable.
Livestock BMP costs include $136,508 for streambank protection on 3,620 acres (with or
without fencing) and $53,705 for grazing land protection on 5,376 acres; there are no animal
waste BMPs (i.e., animal waste management systems or excess manure hauling) required under
Tier 3. The degree of pasture land BMP implementation may be excessive given the number of
animals in the county that are typically pastured, and their distribution by farm size category.
Detailed information from the 1997 Census of Agriculture in Exhibit 42 indicates that most
farms with either cattle or sheep have fewer than 100 animals. Thus, this source indicates that
the livestock industry is not concentrated at a few large farms with high intensity grazing.
Furthermore, a comparison of the total number of animals in Exhibit 42 with the amount of
grazing land being protected in Tier 3 suggests the possibility that either grazing intensity is
generally very low, which implies that the unit BMP cost per acre overstates likely costs for this
county, or that intense grazing occurs on relatively few acres, which implies that BMP acres are
overstated. Because livestock BMP costs are driving the MHI screening variable value in
Exhibit 38, any question regarding the accuracy of these costs extends to this indicator as well.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 77
Exhibit 42: Livestock Distribution in Allegany County, MD
Category
Cattle & calves inventory
Sheep & lambs inventory1
Total
Animals
in 1997
5,341
241
Number of Farms with Animals (total animals)
1-9
Animals
34
(191)
10-19
Animals
43
(D)
8
(114)
20-49
Animals
35
(1,076)
50-99
Animals
27
(1,839)
3
(127)
100-199
Animals
12
(1,442)
0
(0)
200-499
Animals
1
(D)
0
(0)
Source: 1997 Census of Agriculture.
D = Withheld to prevent disclosing data for individual farms.
1. The size thresholds for sheep differ slightly; the smallest size category is 1-24 animals and the next smallest is
25-99 animals.
5.3.3 MHI Screening Variable
The screening analysis indicates that total potential per farm BMP costs represent between 0.9%
and 1.7% of MHI in the county. Data on large and corporate farms in Allegany County indicates
that most farms are both small and operated by families, individuals, or partnerships rather than
corporations. The 1997 Census of Agriculture reported that only one of the 239 farms in
Allegany County met the USDA definition of "large" (i.e., over $250,000 in sales), and only 3
were corporation owned (all by family corporations). Because 99.6% of the farms in the county
are small farms and 98.8% are not corporate, this variable is more relevant to farm financial
conditions and, therefore, is a useful indicator of whether farms in Allegany County would not
experience substantial financial impacts.
Based on the screening analysis results, it appears that there is little potential for substantial
impacts. Total BMP costs are small relative to household incomes, and the crop sector
potentially has net cost savings. Although the livestock variable is higher, the pasture BMP
costs appear to be overstated for the number of animals in the county.
6. SCREENING ANALYSIS FOR URBAN SOURCES
Controls for urban sources in the Watershed Model include riparian forest buffers,
environmental site design, storm water retrofits, storm water management on new and recent
development, urban nutrient management, urban growth reduction, and forest conservation.
These practices apply to pervious and impervious urban land, as well as mixed open land, which
represents herbaceous land not classified as agricultural, forest, or urban (such as parks and golf
courses). Urban controls are likely to be implemented by municipal governments, which will
pass on costs to households in the form of taxes and fees.
6.1 Screening Variables
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 78
A screening variable for substantial impacts can be constructed to represent the MPS due to
urban source controls at the county level:
• Urban BMP costs per urban household as a percent of county MHI
and may reflect a conservative or high per-household cost if controls on mixed open land (e.g.,
parks, golf courses) are implemented and paid for at the county level and, therefore, spread over
a larger population base.
The number of urban households is based on urban population data from the 2000 Census of
Population and Housing (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). In the 2000 Census, urban areas include
incorporated cities, towns, and villages and unincorporated Census-designated places with 2,500
or more people, plus "urbanized areas" and "urban clusters" (i.e., fringes of urbanized areas).
For each county, urban households in the watershed in 2010 is based on the 2000 Census data on
urban population, the proportion of the county population within the watershed, population
projections to 2010 using a methodology developed by the CBP, and the number of people per
household from the 2000 Census (see Appendix B). The implicit assumptions in this method
are:
• The proportion of urban population in the watershed is equal to the proportion of
total population in the watershed
• Urban population growth from 2000 to 2010 is equal to overall population growth
within the watershed.
MHI at the county level is from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2002), adjusted to 2001 dollars using the CPI (BLS, 2002).
6.2 Screening Results
Exhibit 43 provides a summary of the urban screening variable values by tier scenario. In Tier
1, only 1% of jurisdictions incur costs that exceed 1% of MHI, indicating that 99% of
jurisdictions are not likely to experience substantial impacts due to urban BMPs. In Tier 2,
screening variable values are slightly higher in a few jurisdictions, but almost 95% still have
values below 1%. In Tier 3, about 79% of jurisdictions have screening variable values in the 0%
to 1% range; another 13% have values in the 1% to 2% range. The remaining 8% have variable
values above 2%. The screening variable values can show where substantial impacts are
unlikely to occur, but they cannot be used to demonstrate substantial impacts. Analyses similar
to the secondary test for POTWs would be needed to show substantial impacts. Furthermore, a
widespread test is also required to show socioeconomic impacts such as reduced personal
income and increased unemployment.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 79
IUU70
ono/
yu /o
ono/
70%
cno/
bUTo
50%
A no/
4U /o
ino/
oU /o
ono/
ZU 70
•ino/
TUvo
no/.
^^^^
I >3% - 5%
I >2% - 3%
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Exhibit 43: Distribution of Urban Screening Variable Values by Tier Scenario
The Tier 3 results reflect the impact of high storm water retrofit costs (approximately $377
million per year). Because the retrofit costs account for almost 89% of annual costs, the
screening variable values are highly dependent on those costs. Consequently, it is important to
consider a few sources of upward bias in these estimates. First, the retrofit costs used in the
screening analysis are high compared to other regional estimates. Thus, the screening analysis
generates a high estimate of the number of jurisdictions potentially triggering a secondary test.
Second, the retrofit costs do not include any federal or state cost share funding and they do not
reflect "piggy back" opportunities that would reduce implementation costs. These factors
contribute to the likelihood that costs and screening variable values are overstated. Finally,
many of the counties with high screening variable values tend to have small urban populations in
the Bay watershed compared to the number of urban retrofit acres (Exhibit 44). This raises a
question about either the accuracy of assuming constant average unit control costs for all acres or
the method used to allocate population among urban and nonurban categories. Furthermore, 32
counties have zero urban population according to the 2000 Census and, therefore, have no urban
population estimates in 2010 (Exhibit 44). Nevertheless, the watershed model indicates urban
BMPs would be applied. Exhibit 43 excludes these counties because the screening variable
value cannot be calculated.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 80
Exhibit 44: Counties With Low or Zero Urban Households (2001$)
County
Garrett, MD
Fulton, PA
Jefferson, PA
McKean, PA
Potter, PA
Sullivan, PA
Amelia, VA
Appomattox, VA
Bath, VA
Buckingham, VA
Caroline, VA
Charles City, VA
Craig, VA
Cumberland, VA
Goochland, VA
Greene, VA
Highland, VA
King and Queen, VA
King George, VA
Lancaster, VA
Louisa, VA
Madison, VA
Mathews, VA
Middlesex, VA
Nelson, VA
New Kent, VA
Northampton, VA
Northumberland, VA
Rappahannock, VA
Rockbridge, VA
Surry, VA
Hampshire, WV
Hardy, WV
Morgan, WV
Pendleton, WV
2010 Urban
Households
353
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
125
384
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
291
0
0
0
0
0
Urban BMP Costs1
$123,815
$112,299
$22,984
$3,353
$64,091
$81,671
$104,888
$192,873
$150,116
$214,330
$336,518
$37,715
$26,434
$120,646
$425,780
$205,180
$47,836
$54,701
$330,038
$115,533
$318,911
$482,391
$96,519
$90,929
$242,694
$251,407
$114,348
$125,719
$232,370
$615,282
$99,517
$291,341
$199,913
$164,703
$132,863
Mixed Open BMP
Costs1
$4,745
$8,711
$247
$445
$39,015
$37,765
$13,155
$5,657
$5,103
$17,435
$15,767
$4,205
$2,223
$10,735
$13,010
$6,043
$8,486
$7,092
$6,111
$5,337
$17,426
$6,928
$5,557
$5,341
$10,319
$5,421
$4,523
$7,035
$6,571
$12,085
$4,014
$7,850
$5,820
$5,636
$6,697
Urban and Mixed Open BMP
Costs per Urban Household
$364
n/a
n/a
$543
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,051
$1,143
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$2,156
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a = result is undefined.
1. Estimated based on acres of urban BMPs in the Watershed Model and the unit cost (in $/acre) for each BMP (see Part I
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 81
N/A
0% -1%
>1% - 2%
>2% - 3%
>3% - 5%
>5% - 21.7%
Chesapeake Bay
Land in Basin <2%
50
Note: N/A category includes Basin counties
that do not have urban populations in 2000.
50
100 Miles
Exhibit 45: Comparison of Average Household Urban BMP Costs to MHI: Tier 1
(Urban Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 82
N/A
0% -1%
>1% - 2%
>2% - 3%
>3% - 5%
>5% - 21.7%
Chesapeake Bay
Land in Basin <2%
50
50
100 Miles
Note: N/A category includes Basin counties
that do not have urban populations in 2000.
Exhibit 46: Comparison of Average Household Urban BMP Costs to MHI: Tier 3
(Urban Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 83
Additional sources of uncertainty include the assumption that urban MHI estimates are
comparable to county MHI estimates, and assumptions made to derive urban population
estimates from Census and Chesapeake Bay Program data. These assumptions include that
urban population growth rates equal overall county population growth rates, and that populations
are evenly spread out in counties that are partially in the watershed (e.g., if 45% of county
population is in the watershed, then 45% of the urban population is in the watershed). Finally,
there is no attempt to incorporate real growth in MHI because projections are not available. If
urban incomes rise more rapidly than prices in general between 2001 and 2010, then the values
of the screening variable are overestimated, and vice versa.
The spatial distribution of screening variable values for Tier 1 (Exhibit 45) shows that the two
counties with values above 1% are Goochland, Virginia (1.05%), and McKean, Pennsylvania
(1.01%). Both values are very close to 1% and may indicate that substantial impacts are
unlikely. Also note that both counties are listed in Exhibit 44 as having relatively low urban
populations, particularly compared to Tier 3 BMP implementation, which raises a question about
whether the BMP cost estimates have an upward bias. For Tier 3 (Exhibit 46), counties with
higher screening variable values tend to be located in inland areas where population density
tends to be lower. Counties that do not have urban populations appear white on the maps
because the indicator is not applicable to those counties.
6.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results
To continue to investigate how well the urban screening variable functions to focus the analysis
away from areas not likely to experience substantial and widespread impacts, this section
provides more comprehensive analysis of the results for Allegany County, MD.
Exhibit 47 provides a summary of the estimated costs and urban screening variable across the
modeling scenarios. Costs for urban areas range from $0.3 million under Tier 1 to $2.6 million
under Tier 3, with the higher Tier 3 costs reflecting the more costly retrofitting of urban areas
with storm water controls. The screening variable value incorporates an estimate of 19,386
urban households in Allegany County in 2010. Nonetheless, household costs for BMPs on urban
and mixed open land represent less than half a percent of household income in Allegany County
under all tiers, indicating that substantial and widespread impacts from urban source controls are
not likely.
Exhibit 47: Urban Screening Data for Allegany County, MD (2001$)
Estimate
Urban and Mixed Open Costs
Urban BMP costs per household as
percent of county MHI
Tierl
$334,503
0.0%
Tier 2
$854,364
0.1%
TierS
$2,572,116
0.3%
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 84
7. SCREENING ANALYSIS FOR ONSITE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
The BMP in the Watershed Model for onsite wastewater management systems (OSWMSs) is
denitrification plus more frequent pumping. The tier scenarios specify this control as an upgrade
for a very small percent of existing systems, and as the selected technology for all new OSWMSs
anticipated in the watershed by 2010. OSWMSs are most common in rural areas, but households
designated as urban by the Census also have OSWMSs. For instance, many of the "independent
cities" of Virginia, cities that also function as counties, contained households served by septic
systems or cesspools according to the 1990 Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 1993).
7.1 Screening Variables
A screening variable can be constructed similar to the MPS for households using onsite waste
management systems:
• Average per household BMP cost as a percent of county MHI.
Few households (i.e., less than 1% of existing onsite systems under Tier 3) are expected to incur
increased costs as a result of onsite system BMPs. Therefore, even if impacts were found to be
substantial, they not likely be widespread. Thus, another screening variable can be constructed
to represent the share of households affected:
• Number of households in the county implementing septic system BMPs in 2010
divided by 2010 households in the portion of the county within the watershed.
The number of households in the county within the watershed in 2010 is based on the
Chesapeake Bay Program's data on 2000 population, data from the 2000 Census on population
per household (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002), and the Chesapeake Bay Program's 2010 population
projections (see Appendix B).
7.2 Screening Results
Tier 3 is the only control scenario that includes the onsite system BMP for existing systems. For
this scenario, 23% of counties have MHI screening variable values below 2%; 61% have
indicator values in the 2% to 3% range; and 16% have variable values in the 3% to 4% range.
These results reflect no funding to offset costs.
The widespread screening variable is based on the share of households affected by this BMP.
All counties fall in the 0% to 1% range for this variable; the maximum value is 0.8% (Mathews,
Virginia). Thus, it is unlikely that any jurisdiction would experience substantial and widespread
impacts based on this BMP. Exhibit 48 demonstrates this result using combined substantial and
widespread screening variable data for Tier 3.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 85
0.0% 6
0.0% 1.0%
Affected Housholds Screening Variable
Exhibit 48: Joint Screening Variable Values for Onsite
Waste Management Systems
2.0%
Exhibit 49 contains a map showing the Tier 3 MHI screening variable values. Although the
joint variable analysis shows that no jurisdiction is likely to have substantial and widespread
impacts, this map is informative because it shows the distribution of household incomes
throughout the watershed. That is, the BMP cost per household is the same in all areas, so the
changes in the variable value reflect the level of MHI. Household incomes tend to be highest
(greater than $57,000) in the counties surrounding Washington, D.C. Counties in the next ring
(i.e., having variable values in the 2% to 3% range) have incomes ranging from $38,000 to
$57,000. Washington, D.C., itself, is in this second income bracket. Incomes in the remainder
of the watershed are generally below $38,000.
Sources of uncertainty for the MHI screening variable overlap with some sources of uncertainty
for other screening variables. Exhibit 50 summarizes these factors.
7.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results
To further investigate how well the onsite system screening variables reflect the likelihood of
substantial and widespread impacts, this section provides more comprehensive analysis of the
results for Allegany County, MD. Exhibit 51 provides a summary of the estimated costs and
screening variables for onsite systems across the modeling scenarios. Because so few existing
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 86
systems will implement this control, substantial and widespread impacts are unlikely in Allegany
County.
N/A
0% -1%
>1% - 2%
>2% - 3%
>3% - 3.7%
Chesapeake Bay
Land in Basin <2%
50
50
100 Miles
Exhibit 49: Comparison of Onsite System Costs to MHI: Tier 3
(Onsite System Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 87
Exhibit 50: Sources of Uncertainty in the Screening Variables for Onsite Systems
Source
No real income growth through 2010.
Constant unit BMP costs for all onsite
systems.
Direction of Bias
+
?
Comments
Actual MRS values will be lower in areas for which real
person income is forecast to grow by 2010, and lower in
areas where real income is forecast to decline by 2010.
Actual BMP costs will vary from site to site.
+ = assumption results in overestimating screening variable values
? = impact of assumption on screening variable values is unknown.
Exhibit 51: Onsite System Screening Data for Allegany County, MD (2001$)
Estimate
Onsite System BMP Costs
Onsite system costs per household implementing
onsite system BMPs as percent of county MHI
Percent of households incurring onsite system BMP
costs
Tierl
0
0.0%
0.0%
Tier 2
0
0.0%
0.0%
TierS
80,507
3.1%
0.3%
8. POTW AND URBAN SECTORS COMBINED
Some households may experience impacts from controls on more than one sector. For instance,
urban households may see increasing costs due to both urban area controls and POTW controls.
Farm households may also experience impacts from both agricultural BMPs and onsite system
BMPs. However, onsite system BMPs only occur in the Tier 3 scenario, and affect only 1% of
all (farm and nonfarm) existing systems (representing failed systems and opportunities for
upgrades). Therefore, the extent of this combination of controls is very limited (because it
applies to 1% of existing systems, which may be less than 1% of farm households in a
jurisdiction because some nonfarm households will likely be affected).
8.1 Screening Variables
A screening variable can be constructed for combined POTW and urban costs that may be
indicative of where substantial impacts are not likely:
• Average urban BMP costs plus average POTW costs (current residential sewer rate
plus incremental annual costs per household) per urban household as a percent of
MHI.
Estimated 2010 urban households reflect data from the 2000 Census and CBP population
projections, as described in Section 5.2. Incremental POTW costs reflect costs to all the POTWs
serving a county, divided by the total number of urban households. For urban households served
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 88
by POTWs with no incremental costs under the tier scenarios (e.g., "insignificant" POTWs),
total costs reflect current fees as estimated by the weighted average rate (weighted by the
number of households served) for significant POTWs in the county. MHI is from the 2000
Census, adjusted to 2001 dollars using the CPI. Similar to the urban screening variable, this
variable is not defined for counties that do not have an urban population.
Given the relatively greater data needs for evaluating potential for widespread impacts, there is
no screening variable to identify areas that would not experience widespread impacts from costs
in these sectors.
8.2 Screening Results
Exhibit 52 provides a summary of the screening variable values by tier scenario. The variable
values are below 1% for more than half of the counties in the watershed in all three tiers. In Tier
1, over 90% of counties have screening variable values of less than 1%, and all counties have
values of less than 2%. In Tier 2, almost 70% of counties have values of less than 1% and 94%
have values of less than 2%, while in Tier 3, almost 55% of counties have a screening variable
value of less than 1% and 83% have a value of less than 2%.
60%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
• >3% - 5%
D >2% - 3%
Tier"!
Tier 2
TierS
Exhibit 52: Distribution of POTW Plus Urban Cost Screening Variable
Values
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 89
Exhibits 53 and 54 provide a geographic overview of the screening variable values for Tier 1
and Tier 3, respectively. Exhibit 53 shows that most of the counties with Tier 1 variable values
in the >1% - 2% range are along the lower Rappahannock in Virginia, with a few on the eastern
shore of Maryland and in Pennsylvania and western Virginia. Several of the inland counties
with higher values in Tier 1 are counties with low urban populations relative the BMP costs.
Exhibit 54 shows that most of the counties with high values in Tier 3 are in southern New York,
northern and western Pennsylvania, and inland areas of Virginia and West Virginia. About two-
thirds of the counties with variable values above 1% also have relatively small urban populations
in the watershed. Counties that do not have urban populations appear white on the maps because
the indicator is not applicable to those counties.
Because this screening variable includes information from both the urban sector and POTWs,
sources of uncertainty that relate to those sectors also affect this variable. Exhibit 55 provides a
summary of those sources of uncertainty, which are discussed in greater detail in Sections 3.3
(POTWs) and 7.3 (Urban Sources).
8.3 Groundtruthing of Screening Results
To investigate how well the MPS-based screening variable for the urban combined sectors
reflects actual MPS value, this section provides more comprehensive analysis of the results for
Allegany County, MD. Exhibit 56 provides a summary of the estimated costs and MPS
screening variable across the tier scenarios. Costs for controls in urban areas range from $0.3
million under Tier 1 to $2.6 million under Tier 3, with the higher Tier 3 costs reflecting the more
costly retrofitting of urban areas with storm water controls. The screening variable value
incorporates an estimate of 19,386 urban households in Allegany County in 2010. When
combined with POTW rate increases, household costs for BMPs on urban and mixed open land
represent 0.8% to 1.2% of MHI.
EPA (1995) guidance indicates that a secondary test should be employed to further characterize
the financial health of a community that has an MPS value over 1%. However, before drawing
any conclusions regarding the potential for impacts of an MPS value of 1.2%, the accuracy of the
POTW or urban BMP costs needs to be evaluated. Data from the 2000 Census indicate that the
largest city in Allegany County (Cumberland, with a population of 21,518) has a density of 3.7
people per acre; the highest density is found in Lonaconing, with 4.5 people per acre, but only
1,205 people. (For comparison, the District of Columbia has 15 people per acre; Baltimore has
13). With lower population densities, urban retrofits may be less costly than the unit BMP costs
(i.e., towards the lower end of case study cost ranges, instead of the mean values used in the
screening analysis). In addition, federal or state cost-share funds have not been included as
offsets to urban BMP costs. Thus, actual costs may be lower than indicated. If that is the case,
then it is unlikely that urban households will experience substantial impacts from potential
combined costs under any of the tier scenarios in Allegany county.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 90
District of
Columbia
N/A
0% - 1%
Chesapeake Bay
Land in Basin < 2%
30
30
60
90
120 150 Miles
Note: POTW costs include current sewer fee and additional per-household costs.
N/A category includes Basin counties that do not have urban populations in 2000.
m >2% - 3%
m >3% - 4%
Zl >4% - 6.6%
Exhibit 53: Comparison of Estimated Total Household Sewer Costs Plus Average
Household Urban BMP Costs to MHI: Tier 1 (Combined POTW plus Urban BMP
Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 91
District of
Columbia
N/A
>2% - 3%
>3% - 4%
Chesapeake Bay
Land in Basin < 2%
30
30
60
90
120
150 Miles
Note: POTW costs include current sewer fee and additional per-household costs.
N/A category includes Basin counties that do not have urban populations in 2000.
• >4% - 24.2%
Exhibit 54: Comparison of Estimated Total Household Sewer Costs Plus Average
Household Urban BMP Costs to MHI: Tier 3 (Combined POTW plus Urban BMP
Screening Variable Values)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 92
Exhibit 55: Sources of Uncertainty in the Total Urban Screening Variable
Source
Residential customers bear 100% of
additional costs for most POTWs.
No real income growth through 2010.
Number of households served is
calculated based on flow for 37 POTWs
where other data are unavailable.
Current annual residential sewer rate
placeholder of $200 for 121 POTWs where
other data are unavailable.
Proportion of urban population in
watershed equals proportion of total
population in watershed.
Urban population growth equals overall
county population growth.
Urban MHI is assumed equal to overall
MHI.
Constant unit BMP costs applied to all
BMP acres in the Basin.
Direction of Bias
+
+
?
?
?
?
?
?
Comments
Actual MPS values will be lower after accounting for
costs borne by industrial and commercial users.
Actual MPS values will be lower in areas for which real
person income is forecast to grow by 2010, and lower in
areas where real income is forecast to decline by 2010.
MPS screening values may or may not reflect actual
MPS values.
MPS screening values may or may not reflect actual
MPS values.
Actual MPS values will be lower in areas where urban
population is concentrated within the watershed, and
higher in areas where urban population is concentrated
outside the watershed.
Actual MPS values will be lower in urban areas that
grow faster than the remainder of the county and actual
MPS values will be higher in urban areas that grow less
fast than the remainder of the county.
MPS screening values may or may not reflect actual
MPS values.
Actual BMP costs will vary from site to site.
+ = assumption results in overestimating screening variable value
? = impact of assumption on screening variable values is unknown
Exhibit 56: Combined Urban Screening Data for Allegany County, MD (2001$)
Estimate
Urban & Mixed Open BMP Costs ($/yr)
POTW Costs Borne by Households (50% of capital costs plus O&M
costs) ($/yr)
POTW Costs Borne by State (50% of capital costs) ($/yr)
Combined (POTW plus urban area control) Costs as Percent of
County MHI
Tierl
334,503
399,844
242,874
0.8%
Tier 2
854,364
496,943
252,145
0.9%
TierS
2,572,116
1,024,409
533,205
1.2%
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 93
9. SUMMARY
This section provides a summary of the sector-level screening analysis results. Consistent with
the purpose of the screening analysis, the results indicate the jurisdictions (i.e., counties and
independent cities) that are unlikely to incur substantial and widespread impacts, based on the
values calculated for the screening variables. Note, however, that these variables are screening
variables only, and more accurate data and actual tests of substantial and widespread impacts
could produce different results.
Exhibit 57 provides a summary for Tier 1. Tier 1 generally represents baseline conditions that
are expected to prevail regardless of any additional nutrient reduction programs or actions. Tier
1 may not, however, fully reflect baseline controls associated with the final CAFO rule, CZARA,
and long-term CSO controls.11
As the summary shows, almost all jurisdictions incurring POTW or urban costs have substantial
impact screening variable values less than 1%, and thus may be unlikely to incur substantial and
widespread impacts. Similarly, the analysis of joint POTW and urban costs indicates that 92%
of jurisdictions have screening variable values of less than 1%. Not included in this analysis are
baseline household costs that may result from CSO controls, except the 43% reduction in CSOs
in the District of Columbia. The timing and funding (e.g., cost share grants) for such programs
are site-specific and not certain. Appendix E provides sensitivity analyses for three jurisdictions
and additional information about CSOs in the Basin.
All jurisdictions have forestry sectors that represent a small share (less than 3%) of earnings.
The small values indicate that the sector is small relative to the county economy and, therefore, a
sector-level substantial impact (if any) is unlikely to have widespread ramifications.
Finally, 92% of jurisdictions have small agricultural substantial and widespread screening
variable values (BMP costs represent less than 1% of MHI or agriculture represents less than 5%
of earnings in the jurisdictions). This result reflects the earnings screening variable for farm
income and related sectors. When only farm income is considered, 97% of jurisdictions are not
likely to incur substantial and widespread impacts based on the low screening variable values.
Under Tier 2 (Exhibit 58), the urban sector is the least affected, with 95% of jurisdictions not
likely to incur substantial and widespread impacts since BMP costs represent a small share of
household income (e.g., less than 1%). POTW control costs in 85% of jurisdictions result in
screening variable values of less than 1%. Finally, combined POTW and urban costs are below
1% in 69% of jurisdictions. Most of the remaining jurisdictions have substantial screening
variable values in the 1% to 2% range and, therefore, may also have low potential for substantial
and widespread impacts. An analysis of substantial and widespread impacts could be performed
to verify this result.
11 Aside from controls specified in Tier 1 for the District of Columbia, the tier scenarios do not include controls
on CSOs and SSOs because these sources are regulated separately, and costs are associated with protection of human
health parameters such as fecal coliforms reduction. However, the Chesapeake Bay Program recognizes that the
areas in the Bay watershed required to implement CSO and SSO measures will bear this additional cost burden, and
thus the appendices include additional information on potential CSO and SSO costs.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Page 94
Exhibit 57: Summary of Screening Analysis Results for Tier 1
Sector
POTW
Urban
Urban Combined
Industrial
Agriculture1
Forestry
Onsite Waste Management
Screening Analysis Results
96% of jurisdictions have POTW screening variable values < 1%
99% of jurisdictions have urban screening variable values < 1%
92% of jurisdictions have combined POTW/urban screening variable values < 1 %
n/a
92% of jurisdictions have MHI screening variable values < 1% or agricultural and
related earnings < 5%
100% of jurisdictions have earnings from forestry of < 3%
n/a
n/a = screening analysis not applicable for this scenario
1. The estimate increases to 97% if the earnings variable based solely on farm earnings is used.
Exhibit 58: Summary of Screening Analysis Results for Tier 2
Sector
POTW
Urban
Urban Combined
Industrial1
Agriculture2
Forestry
Onsite Waste Management
Screening Analysis Results
85% of jurisdictions have POTW screening variable values < 1%
95% of jurisdictions have urban screening variable values < 1%
69% of jurisdictions have combined POTW/urban screening variable values < 1 %
95% of jurisdictions have industrial screening variable values < 5%
89% of jurisdictions have MHI screening variable values < 1% or agricultural and
related earnings < 5%
100% of jurisdictions have earnings from forestry of < 3%
n/a
n/a = screening analysis not applicable for this scenario
1. Excludes 8 counties with missing earnings data for one or more sectors that include a substantial discharger.
2. The estimate increases to 97% if the earnings variable based solely on farm earnings is used.
The forest sector analysis is unchanged because the screening variable does not depend on tier
scenario costs. The agricultural sector analysis shows that 89% of jurisdictions have MHI
screening variable values of less than 1% or agricultural and related earnings screening variable
values of less than 5%. This result is based on the more conservative earnings variable, which
includes agricultural services and manufacturing industrial categories. The percentage increases
to 97% if the earnings variable is based solely on farm earnings.
The Tier 2 screening analysis for industrial point sources shows that in most of jurisdictions
having complete data, earnings from sectors with potentially affected dischargers (i.e.,
dischargers that have positive costs in Tier 2) represent less than 5% of all earnings. In fact,
95% of all jurisdictions have earnings variable values less than 1%. The screening variable for
eight jurisdictions cannot be evaluated because of missing BEA data. An analysis of substantial
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 95
and widespread impacts could provide information for these jurisdictions as well as for those
with the larger shares of earnings from the sector (e.g., > 5%).
Under the Tier 3 scenario (Exhibit 59), 81% of jurisdictions have POTW screening variable
values of less than 1%, 79% have urban screening variable values of less than 1%, and 52% have
screening variable values of less than 1% for combined urban and POTW costs.
Exhibit 59: Summary of Screening Analysis Results for Tier 3
Sector
POTW
Urban
Urban/POTW Combined
Industrial1
Agriculture2
Forestry
Onsite Waste Management
Screening Analysis Results
81% of jurisdictions have POTW screening variable values < 1%
79% of jurisdictions have urban screening variable values < 1 %
52% of jurisdictions have combined urban/POTW screening variable values < 1 %
94% of jurisdictions have industrial screening variable values < 5%
88% of jurisdictions have MHI screening variable values < 1% or agricultural and
related earnings < 5%
No jurisdictions have earnings from forestry of >3%
Only 1 % of existing systems (fewer than 1 % of total households) affected
1. Excludes 8 counties with missing earnings data for one or more sectors that include a substantial discharger.
2. The estimate increases to 97% if the earnings variable based solely on farm earnings is used.
Tier 3 results for agriculture in Exhibit 59 are nearly identical to Tier 2 results despite BMP cost
increases. This similarity happens because the earnings variable is constant across the tier
scenarios, and it becomes the binding constraint on the meeting both conditions.
One additional sector incurs costs under Tier 3—the household onsite waste management BMP.
The screening analysis indicates that onsite waste management BMPs affect fewer than 1% of
total households (less than 1% of existing onsite systems), such that any substantial financial
impacts are not likely to have a widespread impact on the community.
Groundtruthing of the screening variable values for Allegany County, Maryland provides
insights into the validity of the screening analysis variables. For example, better POTW sewer
rate and residential service data generate slightly lower MPS values, which do not contradict the
outcome of the screening analysis. This confirms that the conservative design of the screening
analysis prevents false conclusions of a county having little or no potential meet EPA impact
criteria.
The comprehensive analysis of the agricultural sector indicates that the agricultural variables
most likely overstate the potential for impacts. In particular, the livestock cost screening
variable generates uncertain results that, on closer inspection, are not indicative of a high
likelihood for impacts. Instead, the results indicate that the conservative design of the screening
analysis has a tendency to generate uncertain results in instances where substantial impacts may
not be seen. The BMP costs in the livestock screening variable may not reflect cost-effective
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 96
control measures given the level of intensity of animal agriculture in the county and, thus, the
result may reflect an upward bias in the BMP costs rather than a potential for impact.
The macro economic model results shown in Part II provide an important perspective that is
missing from the screening analysis—that one sector's cost is another sector's revenue. Thus, the
net economic impact of a tier scenario depends ultimately on complex industrial and market
relationships that cannot be evaluated without a macro economic model. Results from model
simulation for Maryland demonstrate that the net economic impact is positive. In particular,
model results indicate a net increase in overall economic output and employment because costs
in each sector are offset by revenues they generate in other sectors. This happens because the
expenditures occur in sectors with higher regional output and employment multipliers, and some
of the expenditures represent an influx of federal funds to the region. These two factors -
coupled with the effect that annual compliance costs are small compared to the regional
economy - negate any potential for adverse widespread impacts at the watershed level. It is
possible that the same factors will limit potential for widespread impacts at other levels of
aggregation as well. These regional modeling results do not include the market benefits (e.g., to
commercial and recreational fishing industries) in coastal counties, that may result from
improved water quality.
10. REFERENCES
Allegany County Department of Economic Development. 2002. Fast Facts: Brief Economic
Facts. Online at http://www.alleganyworks.org/fast_facts.htm.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2001. Regional Economic Information System, 1969-
1999. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2002. Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
U.S. City Average, All Items, 1982-1984=100. Online at http://www.bls.gov.
Harford County Benchmark Study. 2000. Questions for Bench Marking: Allegany County.
Online at http://www.co.ha.md.us/dpw/ws/benchmark/.
Jones, Edgar (Fairfax County, VA). 2003. Personal email communication to Bob Ehrhart, VA
DEQ, June 3 0,2003.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). 2002. Cost Allocation
Methodology for the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant. COG staff document approved by
BPTC, April 14, 2002.
Personal communication with Allegany County Utilities Division. 2002.
Personal communication with Cumberland Wastewater Treatment Plant. 2002.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 97
Personal communication with J. Gambaccine. 2002. Northern Neck Planning District
Commission.
Personal communication with R. Snyder and K. Hanft. 2002. Allegany Public Works
Department.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2000 Decennial Census of Population and Housing. Department of
Commerce, Economics, and Statistics Administration.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. 1997 Economic Census. Department of Commerce, Economics and
Statistics Administration. Online at http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/econ97.html.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1993. Geographic Areas Reference Manual. Department of Commerce,
Economics and Statistics Administration. Online at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/garm.html.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A). 2002. Income, Wealth, and the Economic Well-Being
of Farm Households. Ashok K. Mishra, Hisham S. El-Osta, Mitchell J. Morehart, James D.
Johnson, and Jeffery W. Hopkins, Farm Sector Performance and Well-Being Branch, Resource
Economic Division, Economic Research Service. Agricultural Economic Report No. 812.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A). 2001. Table 2. Normalized Market-Clearing Price
Estimates, National-Level Indices. Memorandum from S. Offutt to M. Gray, subject 2001
Normalized Prices.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A). 2000a. 1997 Census of Agriculture. National
Agricultural Statistics Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A). 2000b. Agriculture Fact Book 2000. Office of
Communications. Online at http://www.usda.gov/new/pubs/fbookOO/contents.htm.
U.S. EPA. 2001. Weighted Average Interest Rate for Clean Water SRF Assistance, by State.
Office of Wastewater Management and Region 5 Water Division. Online at
http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwsrf/pdf/ratest.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses. EPA-240-R-00-003. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of the Administrator.
U.S. EPA. 1998. 1996 EPA Office of Water Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS) for the United
States and U.S. Territories. Report 2: Population Served and Flows for Publicly Owned
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Currently in Operation.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards, Workbook. Office
of Water.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Page 98
Viessman and Hammer. 1998. Water Supply and Pollution Control. Addison Wesley: Menlo
Park.
------- |