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
------- |