vvEPA
   United States
   Environmental Protection
   Agency
A Compilation of Cost Data
Associated with the Impacts and
Control of Nutrient Pollution   r
                                         ~
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
EPA 820-F-15-096
                                       February 2015

-------
General Abbreviations and Acronyms
BNR         biological nutrient removal
BMP         best management practice
CWA         Clean Water Act
ENR         enhanced nutrient removal
EPA         [United States] Environmental Protection Agency
gpd          gallons per day
HAB         harmful algal bloom
Ib            pound
ug/L         micrograms per liter
mg/L         milligrams per liter
mgd         million gallons per day
MLE         modified Ludzack-Ettinger
O&M         operations and maintenance
QAPP        quality assurance project plan
TA          total ammonia nitrogen
TIN         total inorganic nitrogen
TMDL       total maximum daily load
TN          total nitrogen
TP          total phosphorous
TSS          total suspended solids
WWTP       wastewater treatment plant

-------
                                                                            Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nutrient pollution, defined as excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus in aquatic systems, is
one of the leading causes of water quality impairment in the United States. This report compiles
current information regarding the costs associated with impacts of nutrient pollution on a number
of economic sectors, and the costs associated with addressing nutrient pollution at the sources and
in the environment (e.g., mitigation, restoration). The data were collected from the technical, peer-
reviewed literature that met screening criteria described in the report. This report provides users
with a collection of good quality economic information from years 2000-2012 and references to
assist with the development of policies and tools to reduce nutrient pollution. The intent is to
provide the baseline cost information that users can evaluate and use to form their own conclusions
as to the appropriate management actions for controlling nutrient pollution.
Economics is a major factor in the management and control of nutrient pollution. There are often
concerns about the costs associated with controlling nutrient pollution, including the development,
implementation, and enforcement of pollution control plans, wastewater treatment plant upgrades,
municipal stormwater controls, agricultural best management practices, homeowner septic system
improvements,  and other actions. However,  it should be recognized that there are also costs
associated with  the impacts from uncontrolled nutrient pollution and delayed action. The adverse
biological and ecological effects of nutrient pollution can result in economic  losses from local to
national scales across multiple industries or economic sectors.
Although it may not be appropriate to directly compare the costs of controlling nutrients to the
economic impacts associated with nutrient pollution because the studies vary in their analyses,
methodologies, starting conditions and initial assumptions to make them directly intercomparable,
the document will help users to understand the substantial economic costs of not controlling nutrient
pollution. The control costs data  and information compiled for this report are instructive in that
they provide relative order of magnitude estimates appropriate for screening or feasibility analyses,
and can be used to add perspective  to the costs of not implementing controls. Readers can take the
information in this report to inform and initiate the process at the state, tribal, and local level to
develop policies and tools to reduce nutrient pollution. A survey of the information suggests that
nitrogen and phosphorus may be expensive to control after they are in  the environment. Preventing
them from entering the system is potentially a more cost-effective strategy towards addressing
nutrient pollution and its impacts.

Costs Associated with Nutrient Pollution Impacts
Excessive nutrient loading to waterbodies  can lead to excessive plant and algal growth, resulting in a
myriad of adverse economic effects. Several  studies have documented significant economic losses or
increased costs1 associated with anthropogenic nutrient pollution in the following categories:

   •  Tourism  and recreation. Studies from  Ohio, Florida, Texas, and Washington (Section III.A.l)
       provide quantitative estimates of declining restaurant sales, increased lakeside business
       closures, decreased tourism-associated spending in local areas, and other negative  economic
       impacts of algal blooms. For example, a persistent algal bloom in an Ohio lake caused
       million to $47 million in lost local tourism revenue over two years.
 Unless otherwise indicated, all dollar values are updated to 2012$ using appropriate indices.


                                           ES-1

-------
                                                                               Executive Summary
       Commercial fishing. Several studies (Section II.A.2) document the negative impacts of algal
       blooms to commercial fisheries throughout coastal areas of the United States, including
       reduced harvests, fishery closures, and increased processing costs associated with elevated
       shellfish poisoning risks. For example, a HAB outbreak on the Maine coast prompted
       shellfish bed closures, leading to losses of $2.5 million in softshell clam harvests and
       $460,000 in mussel harvests.
       Property values. Elevated nutrient levels, low  dissolved oxygen levels, and decreased water
       clarity can depress the property values of waterfront and nearby homes. Studies in the New
       England, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and Southeast regions (Section  III.A.3) have demonstrated
       these impacts using hedonic analyses2 that measure the impact of water clarity or direct water
       quality metrics such as pollutant concentrations on property sales price. In New England, for
       example, a 1-meter difference in water clarity is associated with property value changes up to
       $61,000 and in Minnesota, property values  changed up to $85,000.
       Human health. Algal blooms can cause a variety of adverse health  effects (in humans and
       animals) through direct contact with skin during recreation, consumption through drinking
       water, or consumption of contaminated shellfish, which can result in neurotoxic shellfish
       poisoning and other effects. For example, a study from Florida (Section III.A.4)  documented
       increased emergency room visit costs in Sarasota County for respiratory illnesses resulting
       from algal blooms. During high algal bloom years, these visits  can cost the county more than
       $130,000.
       Drinking water treatment costs. Excess nutrients in source water for drinking water treatment
       plants can result in increased costs associated with treatments for health risks and foul taste
       and odor. For example, a study in Ohio (Section III.B.l) documents expenditures of over
           million  in two years to treat drinking water from a lake affected by algal blooms.
       Mitigation. Nutrients that enter waterbodies can accumulate in bottom sediments, acting as
       constant sources of loadings to the water column. As such, in-lake mitigation measures such
       as aeration, alum treatments, biomanipulation, dredging, herbicide treatments, and
       hypolimnetic withdrawals may be necessary to address the resultant constant and persistent
       algal blooms. Several studies (Section III.B.2) have documented these measures and the
       costs associated with them for individual waterbodies. These costs range from $11,000 for a
       single year of barley straw treatment to over $28 million in capital and $1.4 million in annual
       operations and maintenance for a long-term dredging and alum treatment plan.
       Restoration. There are substantial costs associated with restoring impaired waterbodies, such
       as developing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), watershed plans, and nutrient trading
       and offset programs (Section III.B.3). For example, there are several trading and offset
       programs that have been developed specifically to assist in nutrient reductions. One
       developed for the  Great Miami River Watershed in Ohio for nitrogen and phosphorus had
       estimated costs of over $2.4 million across  3 years.
2 Hedonic means of or relating to utility. In a hedonic econometric model, the independent variables relate to
quality, such as the quality of a home one might buy.


                                             ES-2

-------
                                                                            Executive Summary
Costs Associated with Nutrient Pollution Control
Addressing the problem of nutrient pollution entails the deployment of nutrient pollution controls
for point and/or nonpoint sources. Data were extracted and compiled from recent studies related to
the costs for treatment systems and other controls that have been employed by point and nonpoint
sources to reduce the discharge of nutrients to surface waters. Highlights of the data and
information collected are provided here.
   •   Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. The capital and operation and maintenance (O&M)
       costs for nitrogen and phosphorus were found to vary based on numerous factors, including
       the types of treatment technologies and controls used and the scale of the plant (Section
       IV.A.I). Many of the best performing plants (in terms of final effluent concentrations
       achieved) utilized some form of biological nutrient removal (BNR) process paired with
       filtration. Unit costs for these types of systems were generally lower as the size of the plant
       increased. Most treatment technologies designed for nitrogen removal were  reported to
       achieve effluent concentrations between 3 mg/L and 8 mg/L, and most treatment schemes
       for phosphorus removal (which typically involved one or more treatment processes) were
       reported to achieve effluent concentrations at or below 1 mg/L.
   •   Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems. Limited data were available to assess costs
       associated with nutrient control in small communities, with all available data originating from
       three sources (Section IV.A.2).  Data regarding phosphorus removal were extremely limited,
       and associated costs could not be reliably estimated.
   •   Industrial Wastewater Treatment. Data on nutrient control in industrial wastes were largely
       limited to one source on meat and poultry products processors and reported on the nutrient
       control performance of three treatment strategies (Section IV.A.3). In general, an enhanced
       aeration treatment process produced the most reliably low nitrogen effluent concentrations,
       while chemical phosphorus removal produced the most reliably low  phosphorus effluent
       concentrations.
   •   Crops and Agricultural Fields. Costs associated with the control of nutrients in  runoff from
       crops and agricultural fields varied by treatment technology. For example, vegetated basins
       were reported to cost between $0.15 and $1.08 per pound of nitrogen removed, while
       removals by terracing were reported at $1.11 per pound of nitrogen removed and $2.84 per
       pound of phosphorus removed.

   •   Livestock Management. Methods for controlling nutrients originating from livestock include
       livestock feed and waste management planning, separating livestock  from surface waters,
       capture and treatment of runoff, and improved pasture management programs and practices
       (Section IV.B.2). Barn waste management programs have been estimated to reduce nitrogen
       loadings by approximately 1% and phosphorus loadings by 3% to 8% at costs ranging from
       $2.42 per acre to $6.06 per acre
   •   Urban and Residential Runoff. Costs associated with the control of nutrients in  stormwater
       runoff from urban and residential areas were reported for a range of structural and non-
       structural best management practices. For example, infiltration basins were found to have a
       phosphorus removal efficiency  of 65% with costs ranging from $819/m3 to  $l,768/m3, and
       programs to identify and correct illicit discharges into storm sewer systems had costs (based
       on 20-year present worth) as low as $8.82 per pound of nitrogen removed and $35 per
       pound of phosphorus removed.


                                           ES-3

-------
                                                                                Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary	1
  Costs Associated with Nutrient Pollution	1
  Costs Associated with Nutrient Pollution Control	3
I.    Introduction	1-1
  LA.   What is nutrient pollution and why is it a concern?	1-1
  I.B.   What can state, tribal, and local governments do?	1-2
  I.C.   How can this report help?	1-2
  I.D.   What is the scope of this  report?	1-3
  I.E.   What doesn't this report include?	1-4
  I.F.   How is the rest of this report organized?	1-5
II.   Method	II-l
  II.A.    Model of Nutrient Pollution Pathways	II-l
  II.B.    Literature Review Search Categories	II-2
  II.C.    Literature Review Screening Criteria	II-5
  II.D.    Literature Sources	II-6
  II.E.    Data Quality Review	II-6
  II.F.  Project Spreadsheet/Database	II-7
III.    Cost of Nutrient Pollution	III-l
  III.A.    Economic Losses	III-l
     III.A.l.    Tourism and Recreation	III-2
     III.A.2.    Commercial Fishing	III-4
     III.A.3.    Property Values	III-5
     III.A.4.    Human Health	III-9
     III.A.5.    Anecdotal Evidence and Additional Studies	III-9
  III.B.    Increased  Costs	III-ll
     III.B.l.    Drinking Water Treatment	III-ll
     III.B.2.    Mitigation Costs in Lakes	111-12
     III.B.3.    Restoration Costs	111-19
     III.B.4.    Anecdotal Evidence and Additional Studies	111-22
  III.C.    Data Limitations	111-22
IV.    Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control	IV-1
  IV.A.    Point Source Control Costs	IV-1
     IV.A.l.    Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants	IV-2

-------
                                                                          Table of Contents
     IV.A.2.   Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems	IV-19
     IV.A.3.   Industrial Wastewater Treatment	IV-24
  IV.B.   Nonpoint Source Control Costs	IV-25
     IV.B.l.   Crops and Agricultural Fields	IV-26
     IV.B.2.   Livestock Management	IV-27
     IV.B.3.   Urban and Residential Runoff	IV-28
  IV.C.   Data Limitations	IV-30
V.   References	V-l

Appendices
Appendix A: Additional Evidence Of The Costs Of Nutrient Pollution	A-l
Appendix B: Cost-Benefit Analyses Of Nutrient Rulemakings	B-l
Appendix C: Anecdotal Point Source Control Costs	C-l
Appendix D: Municipal WWTP Technology Abbreviations and Acronyms	D-l
Appendix E: Users' Guide for the EPA's Compilation of Cost Data Associated with the Impacts
and Control of Nutrient Pollution	E-l
                                           II

-------
                                                                               List of Tables
List of Tables
Table II-l. Categories Used for Collecting Nutrient Control Cost Data	II-2
Table II-2. Sectors and Types of Impacts Used for Economic Cost Data	II-2
Table II-3. Categories Used for Collecting Cost Data Related to Mitigation and Restoration Costs II-
5
Table III-l. Estimated Tourism and Recreation Economic Losses due to HABs	III-2
Table III-2. Estimated Commercial Fisheries Losses Due to Reduced Water Quality	III-5
Table III-3. Estimated Decreases in Property Values due to Reduced Water Quality	III-6
Table III-4. Estimated Human Health Economic Impacts	III-9
Table III-5. Increased Drinking Water Treatment Costs Attributable to Algal Blooms	111-12
Table III-6. Mitigation Costs Associated with Excess Phosphorus in Lakes	111-13
Table III-7. Costs of Developing TMDLs	111-20
Table III-8. Summary of Costs to Administer Nutrient Trading and Offset Programs	111-21
Table III-9. Summary of Nutrient Pollution Cost Documentation	111-23
Table IV-1. Summary of Cost and Performance Data for Municipal WWTPs	IV-3
Table IV-2. Nitrogen Cost and Treatment Performance for Municipal WWTPs	IV-5
Table IV-3. Total Phosphorus Cost and Treatment Performance for Municipal WWTPs	IV-12
Table IV-4. Cost and Performance  Data for Decentralized Treatment Systems	IV-19
Table IV-5. Effluent Quality, Capital Costs, and Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs for Meat
and Poultry Processors1	IV-24
Table IV-6. BMP Cost and Performance  for TN and TP Control for Crops and Agricultural Fields
	IV-26
Table IV-7. BMP Cost and Performance  for TN and TP Control for Livestock Management....IV-27
Table IV-8. BMP Cost and Performance  for TN and TP Control for Urban and Residential Runoff
	IV-29
Table IV-9. Summary of Nutrient Control Cost Documentation	IV-30
                                            III

-------
                                                                                List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure II-l. Relationship of nutrient discharges to economic impacts associated with water quality in
lakes and flowing waters	II-3
Figure II-2. Relationship of nutrient discharges to economic impacts associated with water quality in
estuaries and coastal waters	II-4
Figure IV-1. Capital costs and treatment capacities for municipal WWTPs (2012$)	IV-4
Figure IV-2. Annual O&M costs and treatment capacities for municipal WWTPs (2012$)	IV-4
Figure IV-3. Capital cost and nitrogen effluent concentration for municipal WWTPs (2012$)	IV-6
Figure IV-4. Annual O&M cost and nitrogen effluent concentration for municipal WWTPs (2012
$)	IV-6
Figure IV-5. Capital cost and nitrogen removal for municipal WWTPs (2012$)	IV-7
Figure IV-6. Annual O&M cost and nitrogen removal for municipal WWTPs (2012$)	IV-7
Figure IV-7. Capital costs forTN treatment technologies (2012$)	IV-9
Figure IV-8. Annual O&M costs forTN treatment technologies (2012$)	IV-10
Figure IV-9. Effluent TN concentrations for municipal treatment technologies	IV-11
Figure IV-10. Capital cost and phosphorus effluent concentration for municipal WWTPs (2012$)...
	IV-12
Figure IV-11. Annual O&M cost and phosphorus  effluent concentration for municipal WWTPs
(2012$)	IV-13
Figure IV-12. Capital cost and TP removal for municipal WWTPs (2012$)	IV-14
Figure IV-13. Annual O&M cost and TP removal for municipal WWTPs	IV-15
Figure IV-14. Capital costs  forTP treatment technologies (2012$)	IV-16
Figure IV-15. Annual O&M costs for TP treatment technologies (2012$)	IV-17
Figure IV-16. Effluent TP concentrations for municipal treatment technologies	IV-18
Figure IV-17. Capital costs  and treatment capacities for decentralized  treatment systems (2012$)	
	IV-21
Figure IV-18. Annual O&M costs and treatment capacities for decentralized treatment systems
(2012$)	IV-21
Figure IV-19. TN effluent quality and decentralized treatment system capacity	IV-22
Figure IV-20. Capital costs  and TN effluent quality for decentralized systems (2012$)	IV-23
Figure IV-21. Annual O&M costs and TN effluent quality for decentralized systems (2012$). ...IV-23
                                            IV

-------
                                                                               I. Introduction
I.     INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings from an effort to compile the most current information regarding
the costs associated with impacts of nutrient pollution for a number of economic sectors, and the
costs associated with addressing nutrient pollution at the sources and in the environment (e.g.,
mitigation, restoration). This work is provided to help  states,  tribes, and other stakeholders consider
an array of cost data from various sources, geographic locations, scales, and waterbody types to
facilitate and encourage the development of policies and tools at the state and local levels to reduce
nutrient pollution.

LA.   What is nutrient pollution and why is it a  concern?
In this report, the term "nutrient" refers to nitrogen (N) and  phosphorus (P), two essential elements
for the growth and proliferation of flora (e.g., plants and algae), which in turn support various
grazers and consumers across the food web. In aquatic environments, N and P are available in
organic and  inorganic forms and in dissolved and particulate  forms. N and P can come from natural
sources through physical, chemical, geological and biological  processes, but they can also come from
anthropogenic sources like agriculture (e.g., animal manure, synthetic fertilizer application),
municipal and industrial wastewater discharges (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, septic systems),
stormwater runoff, and fossil fuel combustion.
While some  amount of N and P is needed to support aquatic communities, excess N and P (or
"nutrient pollution") can cause an overstimulation and overabundance of plant and algal growth that
can lead to a number of deleterious environmental, human health and economic impacts (Dodds et
al., 2009; Weaver, 2010). For example, nutrient pollution can  lead to harmful algal blooms (HABs)
that produce toxins that can sicken people and pets, contaminate food and drinking water sources,
kill fish and  other fauna, and disrupt the balance of natural ecosystems. As it decays, the large
amount of organic material generated by the bloom can cause oxygen concentrations in the water to
decline below levels needed to support many aquatic organisms, leading to areas called "dead zones"
in many lakes, estuaries and coastal waters. HABs can  also raise the cost of drinking water treatment,
depress property values, close beaches and fishing areas, and  negatively affect the health and
livelihood of many Americans.
In the summer of 2014, a massive bloom of cyanobacteria (or blue-green algae)  in Lake Erie resulted
in the closure of drinking water facilities that served 500,000  people in Toledo, OH (e.g., The Blade,
August 2, 2014; New York Times, August 8, 2014). The shutdown garnered national attention and
brought focus to the problem of algal blooms around the country.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)  Fiscal Year 2014 National Water
Program Guidance, "nitrogen and phosphorus pollution is one of the most serious and pervasive water
quality problems" (U.S. EPA, 2013). The finding that nutrient pollution is the leading cause  of use
impairment in U.S. waters is supported by data from states' water quality assessment reports,
National Aquatic Resources Surveys, and associated reports to Congress.
An Urgent Call to Action—Report of the State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group (U.S. EPA, 2009)
acknowledged that the degradation of surface waters associated with nutrient pollution has been
extensively studied and documented. The report concluded that the rate and impact of nutrient
pollution will continue to accelerate when coupled with continued population growth. Several
                                            1-1

-------
                                                                                 I. Introduction
scientific studies indicate that global climate change, mainly warming conditions, is expected to
exacerbate the nutrient pollution problem (e.g., Paerl and Huisman, 2008; O'Neil et al, 2012; Paerl
and Paul, 2012) while federal, state and local governments struggle to address the sources of nutrient
pollution.
Whether in groundwater, lakes or reservoirs, rivers or streams, estuaries or marine coastal waters, the
impacts from nutrient pollution continue to increase year after year. The Urgent Call to Action report
(U.S. EPA, 2009) noted that current actions to control nutrients have largely been inadequate.
Therefore, reducing nutrient pollution continues to be a high priority for the EPA.

I.B.   What can state, tribal, and local governments do?
The EPA has released several documents in recent years about actions  that state, tribal, and local
governments can do  to reduce nutrient pollution. Essentially they all encourage states and tribes to
make strong progress to achieve near-term reductions in nutrient loadings as they work to develop
numeric nutrient criteria in water quality standards to guide longer term reductions.
In terms of the activities identified for controlling nutrient pollution, the EPA's National Water
Program Guidance (U.S. EPA, 2013) states:
       EPA encourages states to begin work immediately settingpriorities on a watershed or statewide
       basis, establishing nutrient reduction targets,  and adapting numeric nutrient criteria for at least one
       class of waterbodies by no later than 2016.
The State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group outlined an approach and strategy for addressing
nutrient pollution in An Urgent Call to Action (U.S. EPA, 2009). It advocated that a common
framework of responsibility and accountability for all point and nonpoint pollution sources is central
to ensuring balanced and equitable upstream and downstream environmental protection. The group
concluded that available tools to reduce nutrient loadings are underutilized and poorly coordinated.
It also  called for broader reliance on incentives,  trading, and corporate  stewardship.
In the  "Recommended Elements of a State Framework for Managing Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Pollution"3, the EPA described the eight elements a state should include in a Nutrient Pollution
Reduction Strategy. States should identify the  watersheds that contribute the largest loadings of
nutrients, target pollution reduction activities in  those watersheds via controls on all sources of
nutrient loading, and develop numeric nutrient criteria.

/. C.   How can this report help?
Although the EPA and its partners agree that  action to reduce nutrient pollution is needed, states
and tribes face challenges in doing so. Economics is a major factor in the management and control
of nutrient pollution. The 2009 Urgent Call to Action report noted that cost data associated with
nutrient-related pollution impacts were limited; this report aims to rectify that deficiency.  States and
tribes need a better understanding of the impacts of nutrient pollution, including the costs to local
economies, in order to evaluate these impacts  against the costs to curtail nutrient pollution. In many
3 The framework was provided as an attachment to the EPA Memorandum from Nancy K. Stoner, Acting
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, to Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10. March 16, 2011.
"Working in Partnership with States to Address Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution through Use of a
Framework for State Nutrient Reductions."
                                             1-2

-------
                                                                                  I. Introduction
cases, these economic considerations can drive a state or tribe's decision to pursue nutrient controls,
including the development and implementation of nutrient water quality standards.
This report provides users with an extensive compilation of current, sound economic information
and references to assist stakeholders — state and tribal managers, local governments, legislators, the
regulated community, and the general public — in understanding and evaluating the costs of
removing nutrients at their source or preventing the manifestation of nutrient pollution (e.g., HABs),
relative to the costs associated with no or delayed action (e.g., HAB impacts). The information in
this document will also help regulators at all levels of government evaluate, verify, or refute cost
estimates provided by interested parties.
Controlling nutrient pollution is costly, but the costs of not acting or delaying action can also be
significant. As this report shows, the adverse effects of nutrient pollution cause economic losses
across many sectors and  scales (i.e., local to national) and incur costs  to protect human health and
aquatic life. For example, a number of published studies pointed to substantial economic losses in
sectors like recreation, tourism, aquaculture, fisheries, real  estate, and public/private water supply
due to harmful algal blooms. In addition, significant costs were reported forwaterbody mitigation
(e.g., alum addition) and  restoration of nutrient-polluted water bodies.
The assessment of the actual costs associated with the impacts of nutrient pollution, as well as the
costs for controlling the pollution, are site specific and depend on a number of factors, such as the
characteristics of the waterbody/watershed (e.g., geographic location, type of waterbody, level of
impairment, nutrient sources) and the form of the nutrient criteria (narrative4 vs. numeric)  and
stringency of water quality criteria and standards. The control costs data and information compiled
for this report are instructive in that they provide relative order of magnitude estimates appropriate
for screening or feasibility analyses, and can be used to add perspective to the costs of not
implementing controls. Readers  can take the information in this report to inform and initiate the
process at the state, tribal, and local level to develop policies and tools to reduce  nutrient pollution.

l.D.   What is the scope of this report?
This report compiles data and information from the technical literature related to the economic
impacts of nutrient pollution (i.e., the  cost associated with not taking or delaying action to  reduce
nutrients in receiving waters, resulting in negative impacts  such as economic losses and increased
costs), and the costs associated with the control of nutrient pollution (i.e., point and nonpoint
source controls, restoration, and mitigation). Where data were available, this  report includes
information on nutrient reductions  expected from various control strategies  to provide additional
perspective on the range of performance relative to the cost of implementing the strategy.
This compilation focuses on data from peer-reviewed, government-funded, academic and other data
sources with comparable data quality objectives and procedures. The main body  of this report
includes results from studies that met the screening criteria specified in the Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) for this project. In accordance with EPA policies, the QAPP ensured the
quality and reproducibility of the data collected and subsequently used for this  report. The QAPP
established the project approach for data assessment and acceptance. The screening criteria were
established to identify relevant (e.g., quantitative cost data were provided), recent studies from
technical, peer-reviewed  literature.
1 Narrative criteria are descriptive, non-numeric expressions for the desired condition of a given parameter.

                                              1-3

-------
                                                                                   I. Introduction
The main body of this report does not include results from anecdotal reports that mention impact
costs due to nutrient pollution (e.g., media reports, newspaper and magazine articles) that could not
be traced or independently verified. However, Appendix A contains those for readers interested in
the full gamut of reported costs.
Similarly, the results of cost-benefit studies and other reports of methodologies for developing cost
estimates to support state-specific criteria derivation (e.g., the costs to attain proposed water quality
criteria and associated effluent limitations) were also excluded from the body of the report because
these analyses were conducted with specific assumptions and conditions that are different from the
purpose  of this study. We did,  however, consider and use the source data from those cost-benefit
studies. Appendix B contains those references.
A companion spreadsheet to this report contains the compiled cost data and information.

I.E.   What doesn 't this report include?
This report focuses solely on impacts of anthropogenic sources of nutrients on surface waters such
as streams, lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters. Due to resource limitations, this report does not
include nutrient-related impacts on wetlands,  on groundwater, from air deposition, from overflows
of combined sewer systems,  or from groundwater sources.
While this report provides cost data on the impacts and controls  for nutrient pollution to inform
decision  making, this report does not compare the results in these two cost categories. It would not
be appropriate to do so because the various studies vary in their analyses, methodologies, starting
conditions and initial assumptions, making it difficult to compare them directly. In addition, not all
costs are relevant to every localized nutrient analysis.
In addition, the reader should not use the results in this report to claim that certain investments to
upgrade  a given facility or implement a BMP will eliminate the exact costs reported here for impacts
associated with nutrient pollution in a site-specific area. This report provides baseline cost
information for each category that would not necessarily be valid to extrapolate to a specific
circumstance. We expect readers to evaluate the information and to form their own conclusions
about the appropriate management actions for controlling nutrient pollution based on these data.
This report does not attempt to calculate the economic benefits5  of water free from nutrient
pollution. For interested readers, Appendix B describes some  state-level cost and benefit studies.
Moreover, the concept of benefits relates to another framework for considering the impacts of
nutrient pollution—and reversing or preventing such pollution—in terms  of ecosystem services6,
which is  not included in this  report.
5 Market values do not represent the total economic value that may be affected by nutrient pollution. See Chapter 1
of Restore America's Estuaries' "The Economic and Market Value of Coasts and Estuaries: What's at Stake?"
(Pendleton, 2008) for an easy-to-understand discussion of how economic activities that generate few revenues still
generate significant economic value (e.g., bird watching and beach going). This total economic value is the subject
of benefits analyses.
6 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) defines ecosystem services as the benefits people obtain from
ecosystems, including provisioning services, such as food, water, timber, and fiber; regulating services that affect
climate, floods, disease, wastes, and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual
benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling.
                                              1-4

-------
                                                                               I. Introduction
I.F.   How is the rest of this report organized?
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
       •   Section II highlights the methods used to collect and compile cost information for this
           project, including use of graphical conceptual models to describe how nutrients affect
           the ecology of a waterbody and how nutrient pollution changes that ecology and affects
           various uses. The conceptual model served as a guide and framework for this project.
       •   Section III summarizes the costs attributable to impacts of nutrient pollution and
           controlling its effects.

       •   Section IV summarizes the data and information related to the costs to control the
           sources of nutrients. This information can be used as the basis for developing and
           reviewing cost estimates.
       •   Section V provides the references.

       •   Appendix A includes additional evidence of the costs of nutrient pollution.
       •   Appendix B summarizes cost-benefit analyses that have been performed in support of
           various nutrient rulemaking efforts.
       •   Appendix C provides supplemental anecdotal point source control costs.
       •   Appendix D  provides a compilation of the abbreviations and acronyms used in Section
           IV related to treatment technology abbreviations and acronyms.
       •   Appendix E provides a users' guide for using the project spreadsheet that contains all the
           data compiled for the project (described in Section II.F).
                                            1-5

-------
                                                                                    II. Method
II.    METHODS

This section describes the methods used to compile the costs related to the economic impacts of
nutrient pollution. It also presents information on the cost of nutrient source control and
remediation.

II.A.  Model of Nutrient Pollution Pathways
Contributions to nutrient pollution originate from various sources, resulting in many potentially
adverse effects to uses of surface waters (Box  1). Examples of uses that are impacted by nutrient
pollution include municipal water supply, recreation, aquatic life, agricultural and industrial water
supply, and wildlife habitat. The following discussion is presented to delineate the scope of this
document in terms of analyzing nutrient-related costs, and to define the categories used as the basis
for the literature review for nutrient control costs.
Conceptual models have been developed to portray the
pathways where nutrients entering waterbodies and
watersheds may lead to potential economic losses and
impacts to uses. This report uses a conceptual model by
Weaver (2010) that relates nutrient enrichment to
impacts on human health and aquatic life in areas such
as commercial and recreational fishing, tourism,
aquaculture, swimming, species diversity, organism
condition, ecosystem function, and nursery areas. For
example, Weaver  (2010) illustrates the pathway from
nutrient pollution to algal dominance changes, decreased
light availability, and increased organic decomposition.       °     ^
   Box 1. Uses Potentially Impacted by
          Nutrient Pollution
States and tribes identify the specific uses of
waters within their jurisdictions. In general,
those uses include:
 o  Municipal water supply
 o  Recreation (swimming, boating)
 o  Aquatic life, including cold water and
    warm water fisheries
 o  Agricultural and industrial water supply
These primary responses can then result in secondary
responses that include presence of harmful algae, loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and
low dissolved oxygen levels. Dodds et al. (2009) also identify effects of increased nutrients that could
influence the value of freshwater ecosystem goods and services.

Figures II-l and II-2 show modified versions of Weaver's (2010) conceptual model for lakes and
flowing water (Figure II-l) and for estuarine and coastal waters (Figure II-2). There are some slight
differences between the two models, such as the list of potentially impacted sectors. There are also
no examples of short-term, direct waterbody mitigation approaches in estuarine and coastal waters.
As detailed in the figures, anthropogenic sources of nutrient pollution that may need to be site-
specifically controlled to reduce negative impacts include:
        •   Municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants
        •   Agricultural sources
        •   Urban stormwater
        •   Septic systems.
                                             11-1

-------
                                                                                  II. Method
Figures II-l and II-2 thus illustrate the pathways from potential sources of nutrient pollution to the
potential economic losses and increased costs that may result from nutrient impairment in fresh and
estuarine waters:
       •  Commercial fisheries losses
       •  Recreation and tourism losses
       •  Reductions in property values
       •  Increased costs to treat municipal drinking water
       •  Short-term, waterbody mitigation costs (e.g., dredging, alum treatments, aeration,
          destratification of the water column)
       •  Costs of regulatory actions triggered by impaired water quality (e.g., total maximum daily
          loads (TMDLs), watershed plans).

II.B.  Literature Review Search Categories
As described in the previous section, the modified versions of Weaver's model portray the pathways
where nutrients may lead to economic losses and negative impacts to uses. From these models,
Table II-l presents the categories of nutrient sources used as the basis for the extensive literature
search and review for nutrient control costs.

Table 11-1. Categories Used for Collecting Nutrient Control Cost Data
Cost Category
Point source
Non-point source
Subcategory
Municipal treatment
Industrial treatment
Onsite systems
Urban runoff
Cropland management
Livestock management
Commercial forestry
Table II-2 presents the categories used as the search criteria for the literature review for economic
impact costs associated with nutrient pollution.

Table II-2. Sectors and Types of Impacts Used for Economic Cost Data
Sector
Tourism-related Industries
Commercial Fisheries
Households
Other Industry
Municipalities
Economic Impact
Lost revenue
Lost revenue
Decreased property value
Cost of illness
Increased operational costs
Increased cost of drinking water treatment
                                           11-2

-------
                                                                                                                                                II. Method



External Nutrient
Sources
Agriculture
ndustrial Sources
Municipal Sources
Septics
Urban Runoff


1
Nutrient
Loading [1]
Nitrog
en


Mitigating Natural Factors

Color
Residence
Depth
Turbidity
>
^ Phosphorus
Point
Con
Municif
Source
rols
1
Nonpoint
Source
Controls
al Urban Runoff
Industrial
Decentralized

Cropland
Livestock
Forestry

Long-Term
Restoration
TMDLs
Pollutant
Watershed
Planning







f

Short-term Mitigation
Aeration
Chemical treatment
Artificial circulation
Vegetation harvesting
Biomanipulat on
Water level manipulation



Primary Responses

Algal Dominance
Changes
- shift to blue-green
algae
- benthic dominance to
pelagic dominance
Decreased Light
Availability
- extreme Chl-a
concentrations
- reduced periphyton
growth
Secondary Responses
Harmful Algae
_^. - nuisance blooms
-toxic blooms
Loss of SAV
- reduced SAV spatial
> coverage
- reduced SAV species
diversity

Increased Organic
Decomposition
— > - extreme Chl-a U
concentrations


JLow Dissolved Oxygen
- anoxia/hypoxia
- altered redox
chemistry


->
->
->
->
-^
->
Impacts to Designated
Uses
Primary contact
recreation
Secondary contact
recreation
Drinking water (surface
water)
Wildlife habitat
Aquatic life (spawning,
rearing, etc.)
Industrial water supply
Agricultural water
supply
   Source: Based on Weaver (2010} and Dodds et ai. (2009)
                                                                                                                                    Economic Sectors Negatively
                                                                                                                                          Impacted
                                                                                                                                  •Tourism-related industries
                                                                                                                                  (lodging, restaurants, etc.}
                                                                                                                                  • Commercial fisheries
                                                                                                                                  • Households (housing values,
                                                                                                                                  adverse health effects, increased
                                                                                                                                  drinking water treatment costs}
                                                                                                                                  • Private industries {increased
                                                                                                                                  operating costs}
                                                                                                                                  • Municipalities (drinking water
                                                                                                                                  treatment)
  Figure 11-1. Relationship of nutrient discharges to economic impacts associated with water quality in lakes and
  flowing waters.

Source: Based on Weaver (2010); Dodds et al. (2009).
[1] Loads to surface -waters. Infiltration throughout the -watershed may also contaminate groundwater used for drinking -water source -water.
                                                      11-3

-------
                                                                                                                                                                 II. Method









Point
Con



External Nutrient
Sources
Agriculture
ndustrial Sources

Nutrient Loading [1]


Municipal Sources 	 .
Septics
Urban Runoff



t




i
1
Nonpoint
source
Source
trols
Controls
Municipal
Urban Runoff
Treatment
Industrial Cropland
Treatment Management
Decentralized

Livestock
Management
Forestry







. Nitrogen










Mitigating Natural
Factors
Color
Flushing
Residence
Depth
Turbidity


J,


Long-Term
Restoration
TMDLs
Pollutant
Trading

Watershed
Planning



















                                                                             Increased Organic
                                                                             Decomposition
                                                                             - extreme Chl-a
                                                                             concentrations
                                                                             - bacterial respiration
                                                                                                    Secondary Responses
Algal Dominance
Changes
- diatoms to flagellates
- benthic dominance to
pelagic dominance

Decreased Light
Availability
- extreme Chl-a
concentrations
- excess epiphytic
growth
-excess macroalgal
growth
                                                                                                   Harmful Algae
                                                                                                   - nuisance blooms
                                                                                                   - toxic blooms
                                                                                                   Loss of 5AV
                                                                                                   - reduced SAV spatial
                                                                                                   coverage
                                                                                                   - negative SAV spatial
                                                                                                   coverage trends
Low Dissolved Oxygen
-anoxia
- hypoxia
- biological stress
                                                 Economic Sectors Negatively
                                                        Impacted
                                               •Tourism-related industries
                                               (lodging, restaurants, etc.)
                                               • Commercial fisheries
                                               • Households (housing values,
                                               adverse health effects, etc.)
                                               • Private industries (increased
                                               operating costs)
 Source: Based on Weaver (2010)
 1. Loads to surface waters. Infiltration throughout the watershed may also contaminate groundwater used for drinking water source water.

Figure 11-2. Relationship of nutrient discharges to economic impacts associated with water quality in estuaries
and coastal waters.

Source: Based on  Weaver (2010).
[1] Loads to surface -waters. Infiltration throughout the -watershed may also contaminate ground-water used for drinking -water source -water.
                                                            11-4

-------
                                                                                     II. Method
After a waterbody becomes negatively impacted (or "impaired" from a regulatory standpoint) due to
nutrient pollution, costs may also be incurred from actions taken to mitigate the impacts directly in a
waterbody. Further costs were reported in restoration efforts from regulatory and non-regulatory
actions to address the impairment of a waterbody. Table II-3 presents the categories used as the
basis for the literature review for collecting cost data related to direct waterbody mitigation and
restoration costs.

Table 11-3. Categories Used for Collecting Cost Data Related to Mitigation and
Restoration Costs
Cost Category
Mitigation
Restoration
Subcategory
Lakes/reservoirs
Rivers/streams
Coasts/estuaries
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Pollutant trading
Watershed planning
II.C.  Literature Review Screening Criteria
Based on the abundant amount of data and information that exist in the technical literature related
to the impacts of, and costs to control, nutrient pollution, screening criteria were used to focus the
literature review effort. The following describes the specific criteria used to select the literature (e.g.,
studies, reports, papers) from which cost data were considered for this project:

        •   Quantitative cost data were provided.

        •   The cost data were developed based on the control of, or impacts from, actual or
           existing occurrences of nutrient pollution.

        •   The cost data were developed from original research or methods to avoid secondary
           interpretation by authors and researchers.

        •   The reported cost data were directly related to the  impacts from, or controls for, nutrient
           and nutrient pollution. Cost data were also included from studies and reports related to
           dissolved oxygen or harmful algal bloom (HAB) impacts that were or may be attributable
           to nutrients.

        •   In general, cost data prior to the year  2000 were not considered, especially for nutrient
           controls. Post-2000 cost data better reflect recent technologies (i.e., state-of-the-art) as
           well as improved control performance. For costs of economic impacts and mitigation
           and restoration, older data were considered if it was directly attributable to nutrient
           pollution and more recent data were not available.  The majority of the literature review
           ended in 2012. A few publications that came  to our attention after 2012 were considered,
           if time allowed for a thorough review.

        •   As a means to assure data quality and reproducibility, studies, reports, or papers
           containing cost data were selected only from  published, peer-reviewed literature or from
           documents prepared for use by the U.S. Government or state governments with similar
           standards for quality and associated data quality objectives.
                                             11-5

-------
                                                                                    II. Method
II.D.  Literature Sources
Based on the search categories and screening criteria in Sections II.B and II.C, the literature was
reviewed to identify possible sources of cost data and information relevant to impacts from nutrient
pollution. Several resources were used as the primary source of studies, reports, and papers:

       •   Existing studies related to nutrient pollution impacts and control costs performed and
           underway by the EPA  Office of Water and other EPA offices. Data already analyzed as
           part of EPA regulatory impact analyses met EPA-approved quality data objectives and
           procedures. For example, the studies that formed the basis for biological nutrient
           removal (BNR) treatment technology unit costs originally developed by EPA's Office of
           Wastewater Management were used for EPA's economic analysis of numeric nutrient
           criteria for Florida waters because they provide appropriate and relevant estimates for
           this project.

       •   A general Internet search for cost data was conducted using websites such as Google
           Scholar. In addition, website searches were performed of journals by relevant industry
           associations (e.g., Water Environment Research Foundation). Key search  terms included,
           but were not limited to, those listed in Section II.B.

       •   The subscription-based, online information service ProQuest Dialog.
       •   Studies, reports, and papers  provided by EPA regional offices and state water quality
           protection representatives.

ll.E.  Data Quality Review
For this project, the quality of secondary data and information collected from the literature review
were assessed considering the five assessment factors recommended by the EPA Science Policy
Council's A. Summary of General .Assessment Factors for Evaluating the Quality of Scientific and Technical
Information (U.S. EPA 2003). The five factors excerpted directly from the EPA Science Policy
Council's guidance are:
       •   Soundness: The extent to which the scientific and technical procedures, measures,
           methods, or models  employed to generate the information are reasonable for, and
           consistent with, the intended application.

       •   Applicability and Utility: The extent to which the information is relevant for the
           agency's intended use.
       •   Clarity and Completeness: The degree of clarity and completeness with which the
           data, assumptions, methods, quality assurance, sponsoring organizations, and analyses
           employed to generate the information are documented.
       •   Uncertainty and Variability: The extent to which the variability and uncertainty
           (quantitative and qualitative) in the information or in the procedures, measures, methods,
           or models are evaluated and characterized.
       •   Evaluation and Review: The extent of independent verification, validation, and peer
           review of the  information or of the procedures, measures, methods, or models.
Each of the studies, reports, and papers collected as part of the literature review were assessed for
quality as described in the guidance. If a source met the data quality requirements contained in the
                                            11-6

-------
                                                                                    II. Method
QAPP prepared for this project, cost data were extracted from the source for use in this report. All
dollar values were updated from the original reported results to 2012 dollars (2012$) using the
Consumer Price Index.

II.F.   Project Spreadsheet/Database
The detailed data and information collected and extracted for this project were compiled in a project
spreadsheet that can be accessed through the EPA's nutrient pollution policy and data website at
http://www2.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/reports-and-research. Appendix E provides a brief
users' guide to assist interested parties in navigating the spreadsheet and on the use of the detailed
data.
Relevant or recently published material that could be considered for this report for any future
updates were retained elsewhere. Likewise, information that was excluded from the scope of this
work as outlined in Section I.C (e.g., nutrient impacts in wetlands and groundwater) was also
collected and retained for any future expansion of this report. Researchers and other parties may
submit information we may have missed or new information that was not available at the time of
review to the project lead (sengco.mario@epa.gov). If those submissions pass the screening and
quality control requirements, they will be added to any updates of the database of information and
the report.
                                            11-7

-------
                                                                      I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
III.  COST OF  NUTRIENT POLLUTION

This section summarizes the results of a literature search of recent studies documenting the adverse
economic impacts of anthropogenic (human-caused) nutrient pollution. All dollar values were
updated from the original reported results to 2012 dollars (2012$) using the Consumer Price Index.7
Excessive nutrient loading to waterbodies in the United States can lead to overenrichment and algal
blooms, resulting in a myriad of adverse economic effects in sectors that include commercial
fisheries, real estate, and tourism and recreation, and an increase in health care and drinking water
treatment costs. Additionally, mitigation measures that local governments use to reduce the effects
in the water (such as algal blooms) can cost millions of dollars for a single year of treatment.
A number of studies reported estimates of economic losses and increased costs that have resulted
from the processes described in Section II. To provide some differentiation regarding the available
information, the studies were screened using certain criteria for reliability (see Box 2). The studies
summarized here do not encompass all impacts
of nutrient pollution; instead, they represent a
subset of what has occurred or is available in the
literature between the years 2000 and 2012,
including some relevant information before
2000 where more recent information is
insufficient. The literature does  not provide
complete information on many  such impacts
throughout the United States since there is not
adequate documentation of all impacts.
Anecdotal and other information on costs of
nutrient pollution are  summarized in Section
III.A.5 and Section III.B.4. Appendix A
provides further details.
This literature review relates to the economic losses and increased  costs associated with nutrient
pollution; it does not include studies documenting the benefits of reduced nutrient loadings. For an
overview of selected cost-benefit analyses of specific nutrient-reducing regulatory programs, see
Appendix B.
   Box 2. Screening Criteria for Studies of the
    Economic Impacts of Nutrient Pollution
o  Quantitative estimates of adverse economic
   impacts from nutrient pollution
o  Primary studies
o  Specific to nutrients, dissolved oxygen, or algal
   blooms
o  Estimates related to actual or existing occurrences
   of nutrient pollution (e.g., excludes estimates
   related to projected nutrient pollution, such as a
   proposed nutrient criteria rule)
o  Peer-reviewed, government-funded, academic, or
   other quality data sources.
III.A.  Economic Losses
The studies summarized here document the economic losses arising from anthropogenic nutrient
pollution. However, some of the losses documented in this section are the result of "red tides," a
type of harmful algal bloom (HAB) that affects coastal areas. Red tides can occur naturally; as such,
the impacts associated with red tide events may be partially or fully attributable to natural drivers
rather than to anthropogenic nutrient loading. In some cases, however, the impacts associated with
harmful algal blooms are likely attributable to nutrient runoff from human sources (e.g., Gulf of
Mexico hypoxic zone). Evidence has  shown that red tide events have been increasingly frequent and
severe  in recent decades, with anthropogenic nutrient pollution providing significant quantities of
nutrients that drive blooms, especially near shore (Heisler et al. 2008; Hochmuth et al. 2011).
 For drinking water treatment costs, the Construction Cost Index was used to update estimates to 2012$.


                                            MM

-------
                                                                    I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
The areas of economic impact were divided into tourism and recreation; commercial fishing;
property values (separated into specific geographic areas of the country); and human health.

III.A.1.   Tourism and Recreation
Harmful algal blooms were the primary examples of nutrient-related impacts found in the literature
review. These blooms can lead to beach closures, health advisories, aesthetic degradation, and other
impacts that are damaging to tourism industries surrounding affected waterbodies. Table III-l
summarizes documented impacts of HABs to local tourism and recreation industries from examples
in Ohio, Texas, Washington, and Florida.

Table 111-1. Examples of Estimated Tourism and  Recreation Economic Losses due
to HABs
Study
Davenport and Drake
(20 11); Davenport etal.
(2010)
Oh and Ditton (2005)
Evans and Jones (2001)
Larkin and Adams (2007)
Morgan et al. (2009)
Dyson and Huppert (2010)
State
OH
TX
TX
FL
FL
WA
Waters
Grand Lake St. Marys
Possum Kingdom
Lake
Galveston Bay
Ft Walton Beach and
Destin areas
Southwest coast
Beaches in Grays
Harbor and Pacific
Counties
Economic Losses (2012S)1
• $37-$47 million estimated loss in tourism
revenues in 2009 and 2010.
• 5 lakeside business closures.
• $632,000 loss due to regatta cancellation.
$263,000 decline in park revenues.
• 5% (2001) and 1.9% (2003) decrease in total
economic output.
• 57% (2001) and 19.6% (2003) decline in
state park visitation.
• In 2000, 85 shellfish bed closure days
resulted in $13.2- $15.3 million direct
impact and $21.3-$24.6 million total
impact.
• $4.2 million and $5.6 million in reduced
restaurant and lodging revenues,
respectively, during HAD events.
• Reduced daily restaurant sales of $1,202 to
$4,390 (13.7%-15.3%) during HAB events.
• Typical closure (2-5 days) results in $2.23
million in lost labor income and $6.13
million in sales impacts due to decreased
visitation.
HABs = harmful algal blooms
1 All economic losses updated to 2012$ using the Consumer Price Index.
For example, Grand Lake St. Marys is the largest inland lake in Ohio, covering 13,000 acres. It is a
shallow lake that supplies water for the city of Celina and the village of St. Marys. As a result of
agricultural runoff, failing home sewage systems, internal nutrient loading, and other runoff, the lake
is hyper-eutrophic, experiencing large algal blooms and frequent fish kills (Davenport and Drake,
2011). In 2009, sampling showed dangerously high levels of toxins produced by blue-green algae,
and the Ohio EPA subsequently posted signs advising people to avoid contact with the water. Algal
blooms in 2010 caused scum and fish kills throughout the lake, as well as 23 reported cases of
human illnesses and dog deaths.
These advisories  and blooms have had profound impacts on the area's tourism industry, which had
previously accounted for $158 million in annual economic activity (Davenport and Drake, 2011;
Davenport et al. 2010). According to Davenport and Drake (2011), small businesses around the lake
                                           111-2

-------
                                                                      I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
have lost $37 million to $47 million in revenues, and several local marinas and boat dealers have
gone out of business. Additionally, a nearby state park has lost approximately $260,000 in revenues
(Davenport and Drake, 2011; Davenport et al., 2010). A regatta was also canceled as a result of the
algal blooms, resulting in a loss of $632,000 (Davenport et al., 2010).
Another example of the adverse economic impacts of HABs on lake tourism economies is the
golden algae (Prymnesiumparvum] outbreaks  in Possum Kingdom Lake in Texas in 2001 and 2003.
These events had significant adverse effects on the industries supporting recreational fishing in the
lake (Oh and Ditton, 2005). During the golden algae outbreak of 2001, over 200,000 fish were killed,
including many prized game species. In 2003, another golden algae outbreak caused a fish kill of
more than 1.4 million fish. Oh and Ditton (2005) found that state  park visitor numbers during the
outbreak years declined 57% and  19.6%, respectively.
Oh and Ditton (2005) estimated the economic impacts  of associated decreases in recreational
expenditures  in three counties surrounding the lake using angler surveys  together with economic
modeling software (IMPLAN8). Their estimates showed a decrease of 5% and 1.9% in total
economic output in five tourism sectors9 in 2001 and 2003, respectively. The authors note that there
are also likely to be longer-term adverse impacts associated with golden algae outbreaks since anglers
perceive diminished fishing opportunities in the area as a result of publicized events.
HABs can also have adverse effects in coastal areas. For example,  authorities in Washington State
regularly sample shellfish in coastal razor clam fisheries for toxins  produced by HABs. These algal
toxins cause adverse health effects, including amnesic or paralytic shellfish poisoning (Dyson and
Huppert 2010). When the toxins exceed critical levels, recreational razor clam fisheries close,  causing
local economic impacts. Dyson and Huppert (2010) surveyed visitors to  four razor clam fishing
beaches in two counties in coastal Washington to collect data on expenditure and visitation patterns
during fishery openings and closures. They used these data in an economic input-output model10,
estimating that a typical closure (2 to 5 days) results in lost labor income of $2.23 million and a total
spending impact of $6.13 million  at the four beaches.
In other coastal areas, red tides11 can discolor water, cause fish kills, contaminate shellfish, and cause
respiratory distress in humans and other mammals  (Evans and Jones 2001). These effects can result
in significant economic impacts, including lost tourism  and recreation opportunities. For example, in
2000 a red tide event in Galveston Bay had a profound economic impact on Galveston County in
Texas. Evans and Jones (2001) used IMPLAN to estimate that this event, which resulted in 85 days
of shellfish bed closures, had a direct economic impact of $13.2 million to $15.3 million on the
county. Including indirect and induced effects, the total impact was $21.3 million to $24.6 million.
8 IMPLAN is a regional economic impact model that can be used to forecast the direct, indirect, and induced
economic impacts of programs, policies, or events.
9 Includes food and beverage stores; food services and drinking places; general stores not otherwise classified;
hotels and motels; and other amusement-gambling and recreation businesses.
10 Dyson and Huppert (2010) used a custom input-output model (a simple linear representation of the
economy) designed for the two counties. The input for this model is expenditures by razor clammers, and the
outputs are net sales impact, labor employment, and labor income.
11 As noted above,  red tide events are natural phenomena; as such the impacts of red tide documented in
these studies may be at least partially attributable to natural drivers rather than anthropogenic nutrient
loading. However,  as noted above (see Section III .A), anthropogenic nutrient loading likely contributes to
increased frequency and severity of such events.


                                            111-3

-------
                                                                      I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
Several authors have also used modeling to estimate the tourism and recreation impacts of red tide
events in Florida. Larkin and Adams (2007) used a time series model to estimate that restaurant and
lodging revenues decline by $4.2 million and $5.6 million, respectively, per month along a 10-mile
stretch of shoreline. This represents 29% of revenue in the restaurant sector and 35% in lodging
along that 10-mile stretch of shoreline. The authors note that their results capture only month-to-
month variation, while the effects of daily fluctuations and other shorter term conditions are not
captured.
According to Morgan et al. (2009), the Small Business Association provided 36 businesses in
southwest Florida with loans between $5,680 and $96,295 as a result of red tide disasters between
1996 and 2002. Morgan et al. (2009) used daily sales data from three coastal restaurants in southwest
Florida to estimate the impact of red tide events on revenues. They found that individual restaurant
sales decreased by $868 to $3,734 (13.7% to 15.3%) each day during red tide events.
As noted by Morgan et al. (2009), Larkin and Adams (2007), and Evans and Jones (2001), the
documented tourism impacts arising from algal blooms are localized. In response to outbreaks that
impede recreation in one area, visitors may shift their activities to other areas. To the extent that this
occurs, the adverse economic impacts associated with HABs represent transfers of economic activity
between areas, rather than a  true economic loss. As such, the tourism results presented in this
section represent only the impacts within the geographic boundaries specified within each study.
The impacts described do not necessarily represent true economic losses considering larger
geographical areas. On the other hand, there may be a halo effect12 in which localized events spur
avoidance of a much larger area surrounding the affected waterbody, expanding the geographic size
and severity of impacts associated with a particular event.

III.A.2.    Commercial Fishing
HABs can have extremely damaging impacts to commercial fishing industries in marine coastal areas
of the United States due to fish kills, shellfish poisoning, and associated additional processing of
affected harvests. In Galveston Bay, Texas, for example, the red tide event  that resulted in
significant adverse impacts to the tourism and recreation industries (as described in Section III.A.l)
also caused economic losses  to the commercial oyster industry when shellfish beds were closed for
85 days. According to Evans and Jones (2001), economic losses were valued at $240,000 for the
decline in harvests between September and December 2000.
Red tide events also have significant adverse  economic impacts elsewhere in the country. Jin et al.
(2008) developed estimates of the impacts of a 2005 red tide event that affected commercial
shellfisheries in New England. Due to that event, shellfish beds in Massachusetts, Maine, New
Hampshire, and 15,000 square miles of federal waters were closed for over  a month during the peak
harvest season. As a result, Maine and Massachusetts received federal emergency assistance. In
Maine, these closures from April to August in 2005 caused losses of $2.5 million in softshell clam
harvests and $460,000 in harvests of mussels (Jin et al., 2008). Jin et al. (2008) also estimated that
impacts to the shellfish industry in Massachusetts may have been as high as $21 million.
In Alaska, for example, HABs can cause paralytic shellfish poisoning, which has led to human
fatalities and illnesses, and economic losses to shellfish industries since 1990 (RaLonde, 2001). As a
result of that poisoning, shellfish harvesters must conduct costly additional  testing and processing of
12 The halo effect is a phenomenon in which a localized event causes larger collateral economic impacts,
usually in reference to large-scale reductions in seafood consumption in response to local fish kills or health
warnings (Anderson et al. 2000; Hoagland et al. 2002).


                                            111-4

-------
                                                                     I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
their harvests. RaLonde (2001) used harvest revenue data and sales prices of raw and processed
clams and crabs to estimate the economic impact of these requirements. In 1998, necessary
processing of geoduck clams in Alaska coastal fisheries reduced revenues by $1.1  million. Processing
of crabs from the Kodiak/Aleutian crab fishery resulted in losses of $293,000 (RaLonde 2001).
In addition to HABs, nutrient pollution can reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations, which can
cause adverse economic impacts to commercial fisheries. In the Patuxent River in Maryland,
reductions in dissolved oxygen resulting from nutrient pollution led to a 49% reduction in crab
harvests. This reduction caused lost revenues of $304,000 annually (Mistiaen et al., 2003).
Low dissolved oxygen has also caused decreased harvests of commercial fish species in the Neuse
River and Pamlico Bay in North Carolina. Huang et al. (2010) estimated the lagged effects of
hypoxia on commercial harvests of brown shrimp in these waterbodies. The authors used
bioeconomic modeling, assuming that the environmental effects associated with a hypoxia event
accumulate over a 60-day period.13 They found that between 1999 and 2005, the brown shrimp
harvest declined by 13.1% (or $44,100) due to hypoxia in the Neuse River. In Pamlico  Sound, there
was a 13.4% decline worth $1.7 million over the same 7-year period.
Table III-2 summarized losses  sustained by commercial fisheries as a result of nutrient loading and
algae blooms.

Table 111-2.  Estimated Commercial  Fisheries Losses  Due to Reduced Water Quality
Study
Evans and Jones
(2001)
Jin et al. (2008)
Mistiaen et al. (2003)
RaLonde (2001)
Huang etal. (2010)
State
TX
ME
MD
AK
NC
Waters
Galveston Bay
Maine Coast
Patuxent River
Coast
Neuse River
and Pamlico
Bay
Water
Quality
HABs
HABs
Low
dissolved
oxygen
HABs
Hypoxia
Resource
Impact
Shellfish bed
closures (85 days)
Reduced shellfish
harvests due to bed
closures
Reduced crab
harvests due to
population decline
Shellfish
poisoning2
Reduced brown
shrimp harvests
due to population
decline
Economic Losses
(2012S)1
$240,000 (oysters)
$2,450,000 (softshell
clams); $460,000
(mussels)
$304,000 per year
$1,097,500
(geoduck); $292,900
(crab)
$44, 100 (Neuse
River); $1,708,900
(Pamlico Sound)
HABs = harmful algal blooms
1 All economic losses updated to 2012$ using the Consumer Price Index.
 Requires processing of harvest which reduces price compared to raw sales.

III.A.3.    Property Values
Studies have shown that elevated nutrient levels, low dissolved oxygen levels, and decreased water
clarity have resulted in depressed property values of waterfront and nearby homes. Table III-3
summarizes the results of such studies in the New England, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and Southeast
13 The authors also estimated harvest reductions under alternative lagging assumptions (between 30 days and
100 days); these alternative assumptions also resulted in significant effects, with harvests reduced by 9.23%—
14.92%.
                                            111-5

-------
                                                                      I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
regions. These studies are hedonic analyses, in which the authors use water quality metrics as
variables in house-price regression models to estimate the implicit price of the water quality metric.
Most authors use water clarity measures, but some use more direct measures of pollutant
concentrations.

Table 111-3.  Estimated Decreases in Property Values due to Reduced Water Quality
Study
Gibbs et al. (2002)
Poor etal. (2001)
Boyle etal. (1998)
Michael et al. (2000)
Poor et al. (2007)
Kashian and Kasper
(2010)
Krysel et al. (2003)
Ara et al. (2006)
Czajkowski and Bin
(2010)
Walsh etal. (2011)
State
NH
ME
ME
ME
MD
WI
MN
OH
FL
FL
Waters
Lakes
Lakes and ponds
Lakes
Lakes
Rivers
TainterLake;
Lake Menomin
Lakes
Lake Erie
St. Lucie River;
St. Lucie Estuary;
Indian River
Lagoon
Orange County
Lakes
Water Quality
Poor water clarity
Poor water clarity
Poor water clarity
Poor water clarity
Elevated DIN
Algal blooms
Poor water clarity
Poor water clarity
Poor water clarity
Elevated TN, TP,
chlorophyll
Impact on Home Price (2012S)1
$1,911 to $16,713 (1% to 6.7%) per 1
meter change in Secchi depth
$3,917 to $13,535 (3.5% to 8.7%) per
1 meter change in Secchi depth
$616 to $60,624 (less than 1% to
78%) per 1 meter change in Secchi
depth
$1,296 to $15,713 (1.0% to 29.7%)
per 1 meter change in Secchi depth
$22,014 (8.8%) per 1 mg/L increase
in dissolved inorganic nitrogen
$128 to $402 decrease/shoreline foot
compared to next comparable lake
$1,678 to $84,749 per 1 meter change
in clarity
$25 increase per 1 centimeter
increase in clarity; 1.93% change per
1 meter change in clarity
$6,397 (0.6%) increase in average
property value for a 1% increase in
clarity
17% increase in pollutant causes
waterfront properties to decrease:
trophic state index = $12,346 (2.1%);
TN = $10,307 (1.8%); TP = $7,418
(1.3%); chlorophyll = $4,106 (0.7%)
Secchi depth is a measure of water transparency in lakes and is related to water turbidity.
mg/L = milligrams per liter
TN = total nitrogen
TP = total phosphorus
1 All economic impacts updated to 2012$ using the Consumer Price Index.
New England— Several studies use hedonic analysis to assess the impacts of reduced water clarity
on home values in Maine (Boyle et al., 1998; Michael et al. 2000; and Poor et al. 2001) and New
Hampshire (Gibbs et al. 2002). Boyle et al. (1998) examined the impacts of water clarity on lakefront
home prices (full-time resident homes and vacation homes) in seven groups of lakes across Maine.
In four of the markets evaluated, water clarity was a significant variable impacting home prices, with
lower clarity resulting in lower home prices. In these markets, a 1 meter increase in water clarity led
to a price increase of 1% to 25%. A decrease in water clarity had larger impacts, ranging between
less than 1% to greater than 78% for a 1 meter decrease.
Michael et al. (2000)  conducted a similar analysis using home sales around 32 lakes in three distinct
markets in Maine, but used a wider variety of water quality variables including historical clarity,
current clarity, and seasonal variability in clarity. They found that results varied widely depending on
                                             111-6

-------
                                                                      I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
residents' perceptions of water quality versus actual water quality metrics, and the timing of the sale
versus the water quality measurement. For example, seasonal variation had a much larger impact
(8.1% change in house price for a 1 meter change in clarity over the course of a season) than year-
to-year variation (1% change in house price for a 1 meter change in clarity from one year to the
next). Across all of the variables, the authors found that a 1 meter change in water clarity resulted in
a house price change of 1% to 29.7%.
Poor et al. (2001) similarly evaluated the impact of water clarity on lakefront home prices in four
markets throughout Maine, comparing the results using objective measures (secchi depth
measurements) and subjective measures (survey of lakefront property purchasers) of water clarity.
They found that objective measures were a better predictor of sales prices, with a 1  meter change in
water clarity resulting in a 3.0% to 6.0% change in house price. Subjective measures of water clarity
tended to underestimate clarity (compared to the objective measures), and had a larger impact on
house prices (with a  1 meter change resulting in a 3.2% to 8.7% change). However, the subjective
measures were worse predictors of sales prices.
Gibbs et al.  (2002) conducted a hedonic analysis of lakefront property sales in four markets in New
Hampshire, also using water clarity as the water quality variable. They found that a 1 meter change in
water clarity resulted in a 0.9% to 6.6% change in property sale price.
Mid-Atlantic— Poor et al. (2007)  conducted a hedonic study of waterfront and non-waterfront
property sales in the St. Mary's River watershed in Maryland using concentrations of dissolved
inorganic nitrogen (DIN) from around the watershed. According to their results, a 1 mg/L change
in the dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentration14 at the nearest monitoring station corresponds to
an 8.8% change in home price.
Midwest— Ara et al. (2006) did a study evaluating the impact of water clarity on house prices near
18 Lake Erie beaches in Ohio. At the mean distance to the beach (12.6 kilometers), a 1 meter change
in water clarity was associated with a 1.93% change in home value. The authors noted that, as the
distance to the beach increased, the impact of clarity on value decreased.
Krysel et al. (2003) did a hedonic study in the Mississippi River headwaters area of Minnesota, using
lakefront property sales on 37 lakes, grouped into six distinct markets. They found that water quality
had a significant impact on property price in all markets, with a 1 -meter change in water clarity
resulting in a price change between $1,678 and $84,749 depending on the location/market.15
Kashian and Kasper (2010) evaluated two lakes in Wisconsin which both suffer from severe algal
blooms, comparing lakefront property sale prices on these lakes to properties on nearby lakes that
are not eutrophic. They found that in the degraded lakes,  property values were lower by $128 to
$402 per shoreline foot in relation to the next comparable lake.
Southeast— Walsh et al. (2011) assessed the impacts  of multiple pollutant concentrations on home
values within 1,000 meters of lakes in Orange County, Florida. They estimated the implicit price
associated with a 17% change in concentrations of total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP),
chlorophyll, and trophic state index (a composite of the three other nutrient pollutants).  For
waterfront properties, the impacts ranged from less than 1% of the sales price for chlorophyll to
14 Average concentrations across the monitoring stations used were between 0.082 mg/L and 0.956 mg/L; as
such, a 1 mg/L would represent a relatively large change in water quality.
15 Lwo lakes had higher price effects ($300,571 and $522,018 for a 1-meter change), but these are in a national
forest and on an Indian Reservation with considerable publicly owned lakeshore property; as such, additional
factors not included in the analysis likely drive the price effects.


                                             111-7

-------
                                                                      I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
2.1% for trophic state index. A 17% change in TN concentrations led to a 1.8% impact on home
values; for TP the impact was 1.3%. The authors note that the impacts were much higher for
waterfront homes, with the impacts diminishing with distance to the beach.
Also in Florida, Czajkowski and Bin (2010) used water quality data on the St. Lucie River, St. Lucie
Estuary, and Indian River Lagoon to quantify the impact of water quality measures on waterfront
home prices in urban coastal housing markets. They found that a 1% increase in water clarity results
in the average property price increasing by $6,397 (0.6%), with a range of $2,240 to $10,597 (0.2% to
0.9%).
Variability and Uncertainty—There are several notable sources of variability and uncertainty in
all hedonic studies that attempt to discern the impact of water quality on property values. Due to
methodological, locations!, and situational variability, comparisons across study results and
applications of results to  other waterbodies can be problematic.
First, the impacts of water clarity are location-dependent. As noted by Gibbs et al. (2002), real estate
markets, baseline water clarity, environmental conditions, and population preferences are likely to be
highly variable, including within a single region. Gibbs et al. (2002) found that there is little
comparability even between Maine and neighboring New Hampshire, with different lake sizes,
average home prices, levels of development, and proximity to highways and urban areas.
Poor et al. (2007)  noted that their study area was a county adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay, where
public opinion polls have shown that local homeowners are knowledgeable about water quality
issues and willing to pay for improvements. As such, their results may not be representative of other
areas where public education and advocacy for water quality is not as strong. Similarly, Walsh et al.
(2011) evaluated the impact of voluntary neighborhood programs where residents pay taxes to
control nutrients in particular lakes; in neighborhoods where these programs exist, impacts of water
quality changes to home prices are more pronounced.
Baseline water clarity is also an important factor. If water quality is already poor, a 1-meter change
can have a larger impact on public perception and sales price than if water quality is high (Michael et
al. 2000; Gibbs et al. 2002).16 Other lake or property characteristics can also influence purchase price,
and excluding these characteristics from analyses can result in biased or uncertain results. For
example, Gibbs et al. (2002) note that lake clarity has a larger impact on purchase prices when the
lake has a larger surface area.
Methodological specifications can also influence the results of hedonic analyses, introducing
additional uncertainty.  As noted by Michael et al. (2000), authors frequently select water quality
variables based on data availability rather than on the best representation of homebuyers'
perceptions  of water quality. They show that the use of different variables (such as seasonal
variation,  current water quality, or historical averages) results in  a broad range of implicit prices for
water quality. This result  indicates that the selection of the water quality variable is important to the
validity of the model, but that it is unclear which measure is the best indicator of water quality
impacts.
Another source of variability across studies is the use of disparate variables to measure water quality.
For example, some studies attempt to isolate the impact of water clarity alone, while others use
interaction variables which capture the  impacts of multiple characteristics. For example, Gibbs  et al.
16 Most authors address this issue by using non-linear functional forms for water quality variables.


                                             111-8

-------
                                                                     I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
(2002) use a water quality variable that accounts for lake size in conjunction with water clarity,
arguing that their variable is more robust because it accounts for more of the lake's characteristics.

III.A.4.    Human  Health
HABs can cause a variety of adverse health effects  (in humans and animals) through direct contact
with skin during recreation, consumption through drinking water, or consumption of contaminated
shellfish, which can result in neurotoxic shellfish poisoning and other effects. According to
Davenport and Drake (2011), the HABs in Grand Lake St Marys (described in Section III.A.l)
resulted in 23 reported cases of human illnesses and dog deaths. Additionally, proximity to coastal
areas where red tide conditions are present may lead to respiratory illness through inhalation of
associated airborne toxins (through beach visitation, for example)  (Hoagland et al. 2009).
Hoagland et al. (2009) assessed the relationship between red tide blooms and emergency room visits
for respiratory illnesses in Sarasota County, Florida and developed estimates of the associated costs.
Controlling for other factors that may explain emergency room visits,17 the authors used a statistical
exposure-response model to estimate that there are approximately 39 annual emergency room visits
due to red tide during low bloom levels and 218 during high bloom levels. Based on estimated
medical treatment costs of $58 to $240 per illness and lost productivity of $335 per illness (for 3
days), red tide events in Sarasota County result in $21,000 to $138,600  in human health impacts.
Hoagland et al. (2009) noted that their study was limited to emergency room visits and excluded the
impacts of milder cases of respiratory illnesses. The economic impacts of these cases are likely to be
small on an individual case basis (for instance, requiring over-the-counter medicine purchases or
short-term  loss of work or leisure time; Hoagland et al. 2009), but could be significant when
aggregated. Additionally, Hoagland et al. (2009) did not account for the pain and suffering associated
with illnesses, nor for the potential for red tide to contribute to long-term chronic respiratory
illnesses. Table III-4  summarizes  the economic impacts of HABs with respect to human health.

Table 111-4. Estimated Human Health Economic Impacts
Study
Hoagland et al. (2009)
State
FL
Waters
Coast
Water Quality
HABs2
Health Impacts (2012S)1
• $21,000 per year for low bloom levels.
• $138,600 per year for high bloom levels.
HABs = harmful algal blooms
1 All impacts updated to 2012$ using the Consumer Price Index.
 Varying level of HABs causing respiratory illnesses.

III.A.5.    Anecdotal Evidence and Additional Studies
The studies described in Section III.A.l through Section III.A.4 meet the evaluation criteria shown
in Box 2 in Section III.A Additional studies may provide supporting information on the adverse
impacts of anthropogenic nutrient loading. These include both anecdotal evidence of adverse
economic impacts  from nutrient pollution, such as newspaper accounts of algal bloom events, and
additional studies that use broader assumptions or methodologies than those meeting the criteria.
Appendix A provides more detail on the anecdotal evidence and additional studies.
Anecdotal Evidence—Many HAB events and excessive nutrient concentrations have caused
economic impacts  that receive the attention of local news outlets. Table A-l in Appendix A provides
17 Including low temperatures, a high incidence of influenza outbreaks, high pollen levels, and large numbers
of tourists.
                                            111-9

-------
                                                                      I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
details of anecdotal evidence of impacts in the commercial fishing, tourism and recreation, and real
estate industries. For example, liver toxins produced by algae near beaches in Buckeye Lake, Ohio
have necessitated warnings against swimming for three summers, resulting in revenue losses to
surrounding tourism businesses (Hunt 2013). According to The Columbus Dispatch (Hunt 2013),
the Ohio EPA has spent over $700,000 on identifying sources of excessive phosphorus and
reducing in-lake algae. In Northwest Creek, Maryland, HABs have necessitated the closures of
beaches, cancelation  of planned events, 18 fish kills, and declines  in property values. The Baltimore
Sun (Wheeler 2013) reports that plans to restore the creek would  cost approximately $1 million.
Additional Studies—Table A-2 in Appendix A provides details of studies that do not meet the
economic impact evaluation criteria but nonetheless provide quantitative estimates of the economic
impact of nutrient pollution. In some cases, the impacts documented in these studies were not fully
attributable to anthropogenic nutrient pollution (i.e., algal blooms and other manifestations were
attributable to natural causes) or used modeling to estimate the impacts of prospective events  rather
than past events. However, these studies still provide evidence of the magnitude of economic
impacts that anthropogenic nutrient pollution can inflict.
For example, Athearn (2008) used regression analysis as well as input-output modeling to estimate
the economic impacts of a 2005 red tide event on the commercial fishing industry in Maine. The
author estimated that this  event resulted in $6 million in losses to softshell clam, mahogany quahog,
and mussel harvesters, as well as $14.8 million in  lost sales and $7.9 million in income (including
indirect and induced impacts; 2005$). However, some of these impacts may also have been
attributable to flooding and other concurrent events.
Additionally,  some studies compile estimates of the economic impacts  of nutrient pollution at the
national level across multiple sectors. For example, Anderson et al. (2000) estimated the potential
annual impacts of HABs nationally by compiling  estimates in public health, fisheries, recreation and
tourism, and monitoring and management. The authors note that their results are underestimates
due to additional unquantified  categories of impacts, but estimated that (2000$):
       •   Shellfish and ciguatera fish poisoning18 resulted in $33.9 million to $81.6 million in public
           health expenditures annually.
       •   Wild harvest and aquaculture losses associated with shellfish poisoning, ciguatera,  and
           brown  tides  resulted in $18.5 million to $24.9 million in annual commercial fishing
           losses.
       •   Tourism industries in North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington lost up to $29.3 million
           annually.
       •   Monitoring and management programs (such as routine shellfish toxin monitoring)
           distributed among  12 states cost $2.0  million to $2.1 million annually.
Dodds et al. (2009) also developed national level  estimates of the  impacts of nutrient pollution. They
compared nutrient concentrations for EPA ecoregions to reference conditions to identify areas
potentially impacted by nutrient pollution, then estimated annual  impacts to  recreation, real estate,
spending on threatened and endangered species recovery, and drinking water. Their results for each
sector were (2001$):
18 Ciguatera fish poisoning (or ciguatera) is an illness caused by eating fish that contain toxins produced by a
marine microalga called Gambierdiscus toxicus. People who have ciguatera may experience nausea, vomiting, and
neurologic symptoms, such as tingling fingers and toes.


                                           111-10

-------
                                                                     I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
                million—$589 million in annual fishing expenditure losses and $182 million—$567
           million in annual boating expenditure losses  (based on lake area closures and
           expenditures)
           $0.3 billion—$2.8 billion in annual property value losses (depending on the assumed land
           availability)
           $44 million in spending to develop conservation plans for 60 species impacted by
           eutrophication
                million in annual expenditures on bottled water due to taste and odor issues in
           public water supplies attributable to eutrophication.

lll.B. Increased Costs
The studies summarized in this section document the increased cost associated with anthropogenic
(human-caused) nutrient pollution. The majority of these costs will be incurred by government
entities including federal, state, and local governments, or passed on to consumers through utility
bills, for example.

III.B.1.    Drinking Water Treatment
Excess nutrients in source water for drinking water treatment plants can result in a number of
potential health risks and increased treatment costs. For example, algal blooms can result in taste
and odor issues which often require treatment plants to add granular or powdered activated carbon.
Drake and Davenport (2011)  indicate that some municipalities are purchasing equipment to monitor
for and treat the toxins associated with HABs. Excess algae also produce precursors to carcinogenic
and toxic disinfection byproducts. These byproducts form when disinfectants used in water
treatment plants (e.g., chlorine) react with natural organic matter, such as decaying vegetation or
algae. EPA regulates these disinfection byproducts due to their harmful effects on human health.
Hence, increased concentrations could result in increased treatment costs for removal. Lastly, high
levels of nitrates in source water above the maximum contaminant level are a concern because
nitrates have been linked to health effects such as methemoglobinemia, a condition involving a
decrease in the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen, also known as blue baby syndrome.
Higher pollutant concentrations of nutrients and algae in the source water result in higher treatment
costs for municipalities and their residents due to the additional treatment needed to remove the
pollutants. For example, drinking water treatment plants may need to install additional process
controls or increase chemical  addition to target nutrients or algae in source waters. However, studies
documenting these increased  costs are not readily available. Table III.5 shows the results from the
two recent studies that met the screening criteria for this project. Numerous anecdotal reports on
the increased costs and impacts associated with excess nutrients in source water can  be found in
Appendix A.
Drake and Davenport (2011)  reported increased drinking water treatment costs for Grand Lake St.
Marys in Ohio associated with a 2010 blue-green algae outbreak, which prompted recreational,
human health, and fish consumption advisories for the lake. As of October 2010, the City of Celina
estimated that it had spent $13.1 million, of which $3.6 million was total operations and maintenance
(O&M) costs to date to install treatment controls and set up toxic algae testing. This estimate is
conservative and does not account for the alum, lime, and sludge costs associated with the high
organic loads resulting from the algal bloom.
                                           111-11

-------
                                                                      I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
EPA Region 6 tasked a contractor, The Cadmus Group Inc. (2014), who compiled data from the
City of Waco, Texas, to estimate the total costs incurred from 2002 through 2012 to address poor
drinking water quality due to excess nutrients. They estimated that the City incurred $70.2 million in
costs, with 92% attributable to upgrades to the drinking water treatment process, 4% for nutrient-
related watershed water quality monitoring, 2% for increased treatment chemical usage, 1% for
influent and treated water monitoring beyond regulatory sampling requirements, and  1% for
increased energy usage related to the treatment plant upgrades. Also, they estimated that the City of
Waco potentially lost up to $10.3 million in revenue due to taste and odor problems resulting in
decreased water sales to neighboring communities prior to the treatment plant upgrades (although
some of the lost sales might have been attributable to drought conditions).

Table 111-5. Increased  Drinking Water Treatment Costs Attributable to Algal
Blooms
Date
2010



2002-2012


State
OH



TX


Waters
Grand Lake St. Marys



Lake Waco


Water Quality
Blue-green algae
outbreak



High total phosphorus
and chlorophyll-a
concentrations


Costs (2012S)1
$13,080,000 ($3,570,000 inO&Mto
date)2
Watershed Monitoring = $2,597,1 18
Influent/Treated Water Monitoring =
$740 705
Chemical Usage = $1,169,151
Plant Upgrades = $64,877,721
Plant Energy Costs = $812,755
Lost Revenue from purchased water =
$10,300,000
Source: Davenport and Drake (2011) for Ohio; The Cadmus Group Inc. (2014) for Texas.
1 Costs updated to 2012$ using the construction cost index.
 For treatment installation, toxic algae testing set-up, and total O&M (excludes alum, lime, and sludge costs).

III.B.2.    Mitigation Costs in Lakes19
In this section, the term "mitigation" refers to approaches that attempt to address the nutrients in
the waterbody directly, prevent the manifestation of the nutrient problem (e.g., limit nutrient
availability, uptake, and formation of algal blooms), and moderate algal blooms and their impacts in
the system. Other terms for these approaches include waterbody management (as opposed to
watershed management where nutrients are controlled at sources in the watershed), or in-lake/in-
system management. Most of the examples found were done in lakes and freshwater systems at
varying scales. There were no examples in estuarine or marine waters at this time.
Phosphorus that enters a waterbody with poor outflow or circulation will settle and accumulate in
the bottom sediments,  acting as a constant source of phosphorus loadings to the water column.
Constant, uncontrolled inputs over long periods of time (e.g., from agricultural or urban runoff) can
exacerbate this legacy load. These releases often lead to constant and persistent algal blooms,
eutrophication, and macrophyte growth. Source reduction efforts in these watersheds will do little to
reduce these effects due to the continued release of legacy phosphorus  from the sediments (i.e.,
internal loading).
Thus, mitigation measures are often needed to  reduce phosphorus  loads and achieve the desired
water quality. The costs associated with these measures can be significant. Table III-6 summarizes
19 All unit costs in this section are presented per acre treated (not per acre of lake area).
                                           111-12

-------
                                                                 I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
studies documenting the costs of various mitigation measures that have been used in or considered
for particular lakes. The details are provided after the table.

Table 111-6. Mitigation Costs Associated with Excess Phosphorus in Lakes
Study
State
Waterbody
Description
Capital Costs
(2012S)1
Annual
O&M
Costs
(ZOm/yr)1
Aeration System
Berkshire Regional
Planning
Commission (2004)
ENSR Corporation
(2008)
ENSR Corporation
(2008)
Chandler (2013)
Chandler (2013)
City of Lake Stevens
(2013)
MA
MA
MA
MN
MN
WA
Onota Lake
Lovers Lake
and Stillwater
Pond
Lovers Lake &
Stillwater Pond
Twin Lake
Twin Lake
Lake Stevens
Deep-hole system.
Hypolimnetic aeration only.
Based on vendor quote.
Artificial circulation
Solar powered system.
Bubbler system.
Actual costs over 6 years,
includes power consumption,
staffing, and repairs.
$355,621-$41 1,772
$94,907
$117,195
$139,157
$232,424
Not reported
$49,912
$5,260
$7,990
$4,945
$34,616
$35,000-
$110,000
Alum Treatment
ENSR Corporation
(2008)
Barr (2005)
Barr (2005)
Barr (20 12)
Chandler (2013)
The LA Group
(2001)
Osgood (2002)
Herrera
Environmental
Consultants (2003)
King County (2005)
Burghdoff and
Williams (20 12)
MA
MN
MN
MN
MN
NY
SD
WA
WA
WA
Lovers Lake
and Stillwater
Pond
Keller Lake
Kohlman Lake
Spring Lake
Twin Lake
Cossayuna Lake
Lake Mitchell
Green Lake
Lake Hicks
Lake Ketchum
Treatment to last 15 years for
application area of 19 acres for
Lovers Lake and 9.25 acres for
Stillwater Pond.
Treatment for the whole lake,
based on lake-specific data.
Treatment for the whole lake,
based on lake-specific data.
Treatment for the whole lake,
based on lake-specific data;
intended to last 10-32 years.
Alum addition to 19 of the 20
acres of the lake twice in 3
years (intended to last 10-20
years).
Partial lake treatment (35 of
776 acres); intended to last 5
years.
Based on $150,000 in the first
year, $120,000 for 2 years after,
and $100,000 per year
thereafter.
Intended to last 10 years.
Also includes public outreach
costs.
Whole lake treatment intended
to last 4 years.
$211,676-$243,667
$58,780
$165,759
$986,000-$1,086,000
$146,377
$22,687
$127,623-$238,246
$1,883,115
$54,762
$198,015
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
                                         111-13

-------
                                                                       I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
Study
Burghdoff and
Williams (20 12)
Tetra Tech (2004)
Cedar Lake
Protection and
Rehabilitation
District (20 13)
Hoyman(2011)
State
WA
WA
WI
WI
Waterbody
Lake Ketchum
Lake Lawrence
Cedar Lake
East Alaska
Lake
Description
Costs represent single dose for
a year to treatment the water
column only (not sediment).
Whole lake treatment intended
to last 10 years.
Partial lake treatment; costs
represent 2 applications over 10
years.
Whole lake treatment; life of
treatment not specified.
Capital Costs
(2012S)1
$36,745
$986,921
$2,175,881
$168,221
Annual
O&M
Costs
(ZOm/yr)1
$0
$204,192
$0
$0
Barley Straw
Chandler (2013)
MN
Twin Lake
Costs represent a yearly cost.
$11,057
$0
Biomanipulation
Chandler (2013)
MN
Twin Lake
Costs based on a total of four
stockings conducted in years 1,
2, 4, and 6 over a 10-year
period.
$279,403
$0
Dredging
ENSR Corporation
(2008)
Barr (2005)
Barr (2005)
Chandler (2013)
The LA Group
(2001)
Tetra Tech (2004)
MA
MN
MN
MN
NY
WA
Lovers Lake
and Stillwater
Pond
Keller Lake
Kohlman Lake
Twin Lake
Cossayuna Lake
Lake Lawrence
Removal of 32,850 cubic yards
from Lovers Lake and 28,500
cubic yards from Stillwater
Pond; intended to last 10 years
or less.
Dredging for the whole lake.
Dredging for the whole lake.
Dredging for the whole lake.
Partial lake treatment (300 out
of 776 acres).
Includes alum treatment;
intended to last >50 years.
$1,546,246
$628,944-$l,390,731
$968,692-$2,143,112
$2,541,824
$5,905,143-
$9,794,369
$28,124,132
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,404,218
Herbicide Treatment
Berkshire Regional
Planning
Commission (2004)
The LA Group
(2001)
MA
NY
Onota Lake
Cossayuna Lake
Represents actual costs for
application of the herbicide
SONAR over the whole lake,
with follow-up spot treatment.
Partial lake treatment (35 out of
776 acres); intended to last 5
years.
$172,264
$29,169
$0
$0
Hypolimnetic Withdrawal
Chandler (2013)
MN
Twin Lake | Lasts 20 years.
$583,532
$39,561
Capital costs = fixed, one-time expenses incurred on the purchase of land, buildings, construction, and equipment
used in the production of goods or in the rendering of services. O&M = Operation and Management.
1 Costs updated to 2012$ using the Consumer Price Index.
The studies described in this section meet the evaluation criteria in Section II.E. Table  A-3 in
Appendix A summarizes additional anecdotal evidence of mitigation costs. Note that mitigation in
the absence of controlling inputs from existing point and non-point sources will not likely be
effective in the long term because the phosphorus will continue to accumulate in sediments,
resulting in the need for future mitigation.
                                            111-14

-------
                                                                     I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
There are several mitigation techniques that can be used to reduce legacy nutrient loads, most of
which primarily target the sediment. Costs for these measures are waterbody specific and depend on
the selected technique, extent and history of nutrient pollution, past mitigation measures employed
(if any), hydrologic characteristics (e.g., water depth, circulation), climate/rainfall, and water quality
(e.g., acidity, hardness, presence of other contaminants). Thus, it may be difficult to compare costs
across waterbodies and technologies.
Aeration System— Aeration involves the addition of oxygen to the hypolimnion  layer (e.g., the
lake bottom waters) to reduce the release of phosphorus from lake sediment. Sediment-bound
phosphorus is most soluble, and thus readily released, in oxygen-poor waters. Oxygenating these
waters results in  less phosphorus released into the water column from sediments. The effectiveness
of aeration in controlling algae depends on both sufficient oxygen to meet the hypolimnetic demand
and an adequate  supply of phosphorus binders either naturally or through the addition of reactive
aluminum or iron compounds to bind phosphorus before it enters the water column. Aeration
systems typically require installation  of capital equipment and annual maintenance  and operation of
that equipment.
Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (2004) estimated costs of a deep-hole aeration system for
Onota Lake in Massachusetts. The system was estimated to cost $355,621—$411,772 and included
three columns, air lines, ballast, a compressor house, compressor, ventilation system, electric
circuitry, and air valving system. Annual O&M is approximately $49,912 and included an annual
service contract.  Unit costs based on treating this 617-acre lake were approximately $580 to $670 per
acre for capital and $81 per acre per year for O&M. Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (2004)
did not report the expected useful life  of the aeration system equipment.
ENSR Corporation (2008) estimated costs for hypolimnetic aeration for two lakes in Massachusetts
(Lovers Lake and Stillwater Pond). Based on vendor quotes, they estimated capital costs of $94,907
and annual O&M of $5,260 for both lakes. ENSR Corporation (2008) also estimated costs  for
artificial circulation (which operates  under the same concept as aeration) for the lakes of $117,195 in
capital and $7,990 per year for O&M. These estimates equate to unit costs associated with aeration
techniques of approximately $1,700—$2,100 per acre for capital and $95—$140 per acre per year  for
55.5 total acres (37.7 for Lovers Lake and 17.8 for Stillwater Pond). ENSR Corporation (2008)
estimated a useful life for the aeration  equipment of 15 years.
Chandler (2013)  estimated costs for  two aeration systems for Twin Lake in Minnesota: a solar-
powered system  and a bubbler system. The Solar Bee solar-powered mixing system consists of a
tube with an impeller that pulls water from the bottom of the tube to the surface. The colder water
then plunges outside of the tube, causing the lake to de-stratify and presumably improve dissolved
oxygen. The tube can be placed at a  depth below the thermocline to access cold water. Capital costs
are $139,157, and O&M costs are minimal because the system is solar-powered, and only labor
associated with spring placement and fall removal is necessary (for an estimated annual cost of
$4,945). Unit costs for the 20-acre lake are approximately $6,958 per acre for capital and $247 per
acre per year for O&M. Chandler (2013) estimated a useful life for the solar-powered aeration
system of 20 years.
The alternative aeration system considered by Chandler (2013) was a bubbler system, which consists
of flexible tubing (soaker hoses) installed at the lake bottom and pumps that provide compressed air
to the tubing. Chandler (2013) estimated capital costs and O&M costs of $232,424 and $34,616 per
year, respectively, based on a past lake aeration project. This equates to  $11,600 per acre for capital
                                           111-15

-------
                                                                     I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
and $1,731 per acre per year for O&M. Chandler (2013) estimated a useful life for the bubbler
aeration system of 20 years.
City of Lake Stevens (2013) in Washington reported the actual annul O&M costs associated with its
existing aeration system over the past six years. Historically, operating costs were around $35,000 per
year for power consumption and staffing. However, recently, due to repairs and replacement parts,
operating costs have increased to about $110,000 per year. Unit costs for the 1,013 acre lake range
from $35—$109 per acre per year. The City of Lake Stevens (2013) did not specify the useful life of
the aeration system.
Alum Treatment— Aluminum sulfate, otherwise known as alum, is a chemical commonly used to
mitigate nutrient pollution in lakes. When added to the water column, the alum precipitates as a floe,
which removes phosphorus from the water. The floe then settles on the sediment at the bottom of
the lake. If enough alum is added,  the settled floe forms a barrier that prevents the release of
phosphorus from sediment. Costs for alum treatment vary based on the number of applications
needed over a given timeframe. In most cases, the time period over which the alum treatment will
last is highly lake-specific and depends on the extent of controls on existing inputs, initial alum dose,
natural water circulation, and extent of phosphorus pollution/target concentrations or reductions.
Several studies have examined the use of alum as a mitigation technique for phosphorus in lakes.
Barr (2005) evaluated alum treatment as a potential mitigation technique for internal phosphorus
loading in two Minnesota lakes.  For Kohlman Lake, which had an estimated sediment internal
loading rate of 9.7 mg-rrf2 d"1, the study recommended alum  treatment as a feasible option, with an
estimated capital cost of $165,759  for a single application. This equates to unit costs of $2,240 per
acre to treat all 74 acres of the lake. The authors estimated alum treatment costs for Keller Lake to
be $58,780 for a single application, or $816 per acre to treat all 72 acres of the lake. However, they
recommended other mitigation options  due to the lake's lower sediment internal loading rate. Barr
(2005)  does not indicate how long the alum treatment will last before another treatment would be
necessary.
Barr (2012) calculated the alum dose necessary to treat phosphorus in the sediment of Spring Lake,
Minnesota. The study based its dosage calculation on treating the upper 6 cm of sediment across the
entire lake, and estimated a capital cost of $986,000-$1,086,000. The treatment is for the entire 409
acres of the lake, resulting in unit costs of $2,411 to $2,655 per acre. The range in costs represent the
difference between a one-time full application of alum and breaking the full dose up into three
separate applications (higher costs because there is more labor and start-up associated with each
application even though the amount of alum does not change). Barr (2012) estimates that the alum
treatment could last 10 to 32 years.
Burghdoff and Williams  (2012) conducted a study to identify the best methods of controlling the
internal and external phosphorus sources and resulting algae  blooms in Lake Ketchum, Washington.
Authors showed that alum treatment of the sediment could reduce average lake phosphorus
concentration from 277 |J.g/L to 71 |J.g/L over a four-year period. They estimated the costs of
treatment for phosphorus in the upper 10 cm of sediment to be $198,015. They also estimated costs
for treating only the water column with  alum to be $36,745 annually. Note that while the sediment
alum treatment is higher,  it lasts for 4 years, whereas the water column alum addition must be
repeated  each year. Both treatment options would treat all 25.5 acres of the lake, resulting in unit
costs of approximately $7,800 per  acre and $1,400 per acre, respectively.
Cedar Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District (2013) estimated the alum dose necessary to treat
phosphorus associated with excess algae growth in Cedar Lake, Wisconsin. The study recommended
                                           111-16

-------
                                                                    I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
a partial lake treatment of the upper 6 to 8 cm of sediment at water depths greater than 20 feet. The
authors estimated that the costs associated with this recommendation would be nearly $2.2 million
for two applications, with a useful life of approximately 10 years, and would reduce phosphorus
concentrations from 0.068 mg/L to 0.030 mg/L. Cedar Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District
(2013) did not specify the total number of acres to be treated so unit costs cannot be estimated.
Chandler (2013) studied the feasibility of alum treatment for the eutrophic conditions caused by
phosphorus in Twin Lake, Minnesota. Chandler (2013) concluded that alum addition for 19 of the
20 acres of the lake twice in 3 years would cost $146,377 or approximately $7,700 per acre, and
reduce phosphorus concentrations from 70 |J.g/L to 20  |J.g/L.
ENSR Corporation  (2008) assessed alum treatment as a technique to reduce the release of
phosphorus from sediment in Lovers Lake and Stillwater Pond, Massachusetts. The authors
indicated that partial lake treatment (19 of 37.7 acres for Lovers Lake and 9.25 of 18.7 acres for
Stillwater Pond) would provide sufficient treatment for  15 years at a one-time cost of $211,676—
$243,667 or $7,493-$8,625 per acre.
Herrera Environmental Consultants (2003) reported on the use of alum to treat phosphorus
associated with periodic blue-green algae blooms in Green Lake, Washington. The study determined
that a 23 mg/L alum dose would reduce phosphorus concentration from 13 |J.g/L to 2 |J.g/L for
about 10 years at a one-time cost of approximately $1.9 million or $7,261 per acre to treat all 259
acres of the lake.
Hoyman (2011) studied the feasibility of alum treatment for reducing internal phosphorus loading in
East Alaska Lake, Wisconsin. The authors concluded that an alum application rate of 132 g/m2 to
areas of the lake with depths greater than 10 feet, and 40 g/m2 to areas with depths between 5 and
10 feet would provide a 90% reduction in internal phosphorus loading. The study estimated the one-
time cost of this treatment at $168,221 or $4,143  per acre to treat the 41-acre lake.
King County (2005) identified alum treatment as  a management strategy for reducing phosphorus
concentrations in Lake Hicks, Washington. The goal was to reduce phosphorus concentrations to
less than 20 |J.g/L, at which point the lake would  no longer be listed as impaired for nutrients. The
study reported that alum treatment for Lake Hicks, including pre- and post-treatment monitoring,
would cost $54,762  for a single application or $13,690 per acre to treat 4 acres. The study did not
specify how long they expect the alum treatment  to last, however, they reference Welch  and Cooke
(1999), which states  that benefits of alum treatment could last for more than 10 years.
Osgood (2002) gave recommendations on an alum treatment plan for Lake Mitchell, which serves as
the water supply for the City of Mitchell, South Dakota. The report concluded that three years of
whole-lake alum applications (acres not specified) would be sufficient to reduce phosphorus
concentrations in the lake from 241 |J.g/L to 90 |J.g/L, with per application costs of $238,246 for the
first year, $204,042 for the next two years, and $127,623 annually thereafter. Osgood (2002) does not
specify how long the annual treatments would last.
Tetra Tech (2004) examined the feasibility of alum treatment as a method for the inactivation of
phosphorus cycling  in Lake Lawrence, Washington. The authors estimated that a 6-day, whole-lake
alum treatment (330 acres) would provide water quality benefits lasting more than 20 years. They
reported that the one-time capital cost of treatment would be $986,921 or $2,991 per acre and the
cost of 80 days of monitoring per year would be $204,192 or $619 per acre per year.
The LA Group (2001) considered alum treatment as a technique for the management of aquatic
vegetation in Cossayuna Lake. The study reported that treating 35 of the lake's 776 acres with alum
                                           111-17

-------
                                                                     I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
would cost $22,687 for a single application or $648 per acre. This cost covers a five-year planning
period.
Barley Straw— Barley straw application is a method in which straw is placed along the edge of
waterbodies so that it degrades and releases a chemical that inhibits new algal growth. Barley straw
does not remove nutrients; as  such, it needs to be applied annually to be effective (Chandler, 2013).
Chandler (2013) evaluated barley straw as a potential mitigation strategy for Twin Lake in
Minnesota. Assuming a straw application rate of 300 Ibs/acre, and accounting for delivery, materials,
and labor, the study calculated an annual application cost of $11,057, or $553 per acre for the 20-
acre lake.
Biomanipulation— Biomanipulation involves the introduction of piscivores to control the
population of planktivorous fish, which feed on zooplankton. Fewer planktivorous fish allow
zooplankton populations to thrive and consume more algae (Chandler, 2013). Chandler (2013)
developed a plan to use biomanipulation to control algae in Twin Lake in Minnesota. The plan
consisted of three parts: removing rough fish (planktivores), stocking the lake with pike and bass
(piscivores), and monitoring fish migration to determine if the stocking was successful. The authors
estimated that the total costs for this plan, assuming a total of four stockings, would be $279,403, or
$13,970 per acre for the 20-acre lake.
Dredging— Dredging can be used to remove phosphorus trapped in lake-bottom sediment, which
reduces internal phosphorus cycling. Barr (2005) investigated dredging as an option to remove
phosphorus from Keller and Kohlman lakes in Minnesota. The study determined that dredge depths
of 15 cm in Kohlman Lake and 10 cm in Keller Lake would be necessary to remove excess total
phosphorus. The authors  estimated the total capital cost of dredging and sediment disposal to be
$968,692-$2,143,112 for the 74-acre Kohlman Lake and $628,944-$l,390,731 for the 72-acre Keller
Lake; unit costs are $13,090 to $28,961 per acre for Kohlman Lake and $8,735 to $19,316  per acre
for Keller Lake. The authors did not report how long the impacts of dredging would last.
Chandler (2013) considered dredging as an option to reduce phosphorus concentrations in Twin
Lake, Minnesota. The report determined that sediments from dredging would have to be disposed
offsite because of limited space surrounding the lake. Estimated total capital costs were $2,541,824,
based on a dredging depth of 15 cm across the 20-acre lake, construction of an onsite dewatering
facility, and shipment of dewatered solids to a landfill; unit costs are $127,091 per acre. Chandler
(2013) did not report how long the impacts of dredging would last.
ENSR Corporation (2008) evaluated a plan to dredge sediment from Lovers Lake and Stillwater
Pond in Massachusetts. The study determined that not all sediments were nutrient rich, and thus
full-lake dredging was not necessary. Based on dredging two feet of sediment at water depths greater
than 20 feet for a total of 19 acres, capital costs would be $1,546,246 (for unit costs of $81,339 per
acre). The authors stated that they expect the benefits  of dredging to last for at least 10 years.
Tetra Tech (2004) reported on the feasibility of dredging Lake Lawrence, Washington. They
recommended dredging a total of 2,100,600 cubic yards of sediment at depths of 0—2.5 m  across the
lake. Total  capital costs for dredging 330 acres, sediment transport and  disposal, and post-dredging
alum treatment would be $28,124,132, and total O&M costs would $1,404,218. Unit costs are
$85,225 per acre for capital and $4,255 per acre for O&M. The authors expected that the benefits of
the dredging and alum treatment would last for more than 50 years.
The LA Group (2001) estimated costs for a partial dredging of Cossayuna Lake  in New York.
Estimated capital costs to excavate 4 to 6 feet of sediment across 300 of the lake's 776 acres were
                                           111-18

-------
                                                                     I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
between $5,905,143 and $9,794,369; unit costs were estimated to be $19,683 to $32,647 per acre.
The authors did not report how long the dredging benefits will last.
Herbicide/Copper Sulfate Treatment— Herbicide treatment is used to remove nuisance algae
species caused by the presence of excess nutrients. The Berkshire Regional Planning Commission
reported that in 1998, approximately one-third of Lake Onota was covered with milfoil and was
virtually unusable for recreational purposes. In 1999, due to the critical need to combat the milfoil,
the City implemented a whole lake treatment with the herbicide SONAR. In 2000, they conducted
follow-up spot treatment. The total cost of the treatment was $172,264, and the program
successfully eliminated well over the contractually required 90% of the milfoil. Unit costs for the
617-acre lake are $279 per acre.
Copper sulfate is an algaecide that kills excess algae in lakes. Note that this treatment is not feasible
in all waters because fish populations in waters with total alkalinity values less than 50 mg/L are
sensitive to copper. The LA Group (2001) estimated the cost of annual copper sulfate doses to
compare to the cost of alum  treatment of 35 acres out of 776 acres in Cossayuna Lake in New York.
They estimated the total cost of treatment over 5 years as $29,169, assuming annual doses, which
translates to approximately $833 per acre for 5 years of treatment.
Hypolimnetic Withdrawal— Hypolimnetic withdrawal involves  the direct removal of
phosphorus-laden lake bottom waters. A hypolimnetic withdrawal system includes a pipe and
perforated riser that is installed along the lake bottom, near the deepest point. The pipe connects to
a shoreline treatment system  consisting of pumps, tanks to hold chemicals, and a clarifier to settle
treated water (Chandler, 2013). In smaller lakes, water must be added back in to maintain lake levels.
Chandler (2013) estimated costs of hypolimnetic withdrawal for Twin Lake in Minnesota to be
$583,532 for capital (including construction, engineering and design, and contingency) and $39,561
per year for O&M (including electricity, chemicals, and settled flocculent disposal); unit costs for this
treatment are approximately  $29,000 per acre for capital and $2,000 per acre per year for O&M for
the 20-acre lake. Chandler (2013) indicated that the technique should last 20 years.

III.B.3.    Restoration Costs
In addition to economic impacts and costs associated with nutrient pollution in surface waters, there
are also costs for activities that aim to restore impaired waterbodies.

Development and Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and
Watershed Plans
Under CWA Section 303(d),  states and tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. The
states and tribes identify all waters where required pollution controls are not sufficient to attain or
maintain applicable water quality standards. They are then required to establish priorities for the
development of TMDLs for  waters listed on the Section 303(d) list. The costs for the development
and implementation of TMDLs and watershed plans developed for Clean Water Act section 319
purposes vary based on watershed size and complexity. For example, in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed the Chesapeake Bay Regulatory and Accountability Program Grants, which resulted from
Executive Order 13508, help jurisdictions develop new regulations, design TMDL watershed
implementation plans, reissue and enforce permits, and provide technical and compliance assistance
to local governments and regulated entities. The amounts each jurisdiction receives in grants  (federal
and state combined) range from approximately $900,000 per year in West Virginia to $5.7 million
per year in Maryland.
                                           111-19

-------
                                                                     I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
However, developing a TMDL and/or implementation plan for a much smaller watershed is likely
to cost much less. U.S. EPA (2001) estimated the cost of developing TMDLs based on performing
eight basic steps:
       •   Characterizing the watershed
       •   Modeling and analyzing the waterbody and its pollutants to determine the reduction in
           the pollutant load that would eliminate the impairment
       •   Allocating load reductions to the appropriate sources
       •   Preparing an implementation plan
       •   Developing a TMDL support document for public review
       •   Performing public outreach
       •   Conducting formal public participation and responding to it
       •   Managing the effort (including tracking, planning, legal support, etc.).
As shown in Table III-7, U.S. EPA (2001) provides unit costs of developing TMDLs at different
levels of aggregation: a single cause of impairment, the need for multiple TMDLs, and a submission
that may range from a single TMDL for a single waterbody to many TMDLs for all the waterbodies
in a watershed. The estimates reflect TMDL costs from 35 states and cover more than 60 types of
causes submitted over the  period April 1998 through September 2000. These estimates in Table III-
7 do not cover the implementation of the TMDLs.

Table 111-7. Costs of Developing TMDLs
Level of Aggregation
Cost per single cause of impairment (for
single TMDL)
Cost per single waterbody (for single
TMDLs to multiple TMDLs)
Cost per submission (for single
waterbody to multiple waterbodies)
National Average Cost
$27,000-$29,000 (2000S)1
$49,000-$54,000
$136,000-$165,000
Typical Cost Range
$6,000-$154,000 (2000$)'
$26,000 to >$500,000
$26,000 to >$ 1,000,000
Source: U.S. EPA (2001).
 Estimates reflect TMDL costs from 35 states and cover more than 60 types of causes submitted over the period
April 1998 through September 2000.

Setting Up Programs for Water Pollutant Trading and Offsets
Water pollutant trading is an approach that can be used to achieve water quality goals by allowing
sources to purchase equivalent or better pollution reductions from another source, typically at a
lower cost. Similarly, water quality offset occurs where a source implements controls that reduce the
levels of pollution for the purpose of creating sufficient assimilative capacity to allow for the
discharge of a pollutant for which they may otherwise have to install more expensive treatment or
controls. The use of trading and offsets can improve nutrient impaired waterbodies potentially at
lower costs. Several states have developed policies and programs to encourage trading and offsets as
a means to reduce the burden on sources in complying with TMDLs and applicable water quality
criteria.
Breetz et al. (2004) performed a comprehensive survey of water quality trading and offsets in the
United States. As part of the survey, the costs to administer the trading and offset programs were
                                           111-20

-------
                                                                            I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
compiled along with general information about the program. Table III-8 presents a summary of the
costs associated with trading and offsets related to nutrients.

Table 111-8. Summary of Costs to Administer Nutrient Trading and Offset Programs
Program Name
   (Location)
 Type of
Program
Nutrient(s)
 Involved
             Description of Costs (2012$)
Boulder Creek
Trading Program
(CO)
  Offset
  Nitrogen
The total cost was estimated at $1.58-$1.70 million. Costs
included the costs of gathering data for planning and
evaluation, construction, materials, labor, and time. The overall
cost was brought down by the donation of volunteer labor,
time, materials, and land easements from landowners.	
Chatfield
Reservoir Trading
Program (CO)
 Trading
 Phosphorus
A $122 application fee to cover administrative costs is required
for point sources to apply for increased discharge through
trading. Credits that enter the pool are sold at a price that
reflects the cost of nonpoint-source reduction projects, costs
associated with the pooling program, and costs incurred by the
Authority to administer the trading program. Exact costs are
unknown, but the monitoring program was estimated to  cost
$71,OOP/year.	
Cherry Creek
Basin (CO)
 Trading
 Phosphorus
Coming from a combination of property taxes and user fees,
the budget for 2003 was $1.7 million, of which at least 60%
had to be spent on the construction and maintenance of
pollution reduction facilities.  The remaining 40% is used in
research,  planning documents, technical reports, and
administrative costs. State grants finance a smaller portion of
the work, particularly that involving educational campaigns
about nonpoint-source pollution and construction of pollution
reduction facilities.
Long Island
Sound (CT)
 Trading
  Nitrogen
The trading program carried out two years of credit exchange
with relatively limited financial resources, besides the state and
federal funds used to implement nitrogen removal projects.
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
employs the equivalent of two full-time employees to work on
the exchange; the advisory board does not receive monetary
compensation.	
Rahr Malting
Company Permit
(MM)
  Offset
Nitrogen and
 phosphorus
During the two-year permitting phase, Rahr spent about
$20,000 ($14,600 for consultants and $5,500 for staff time),
while the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) spent
about $63,000 on staff time. During the implementation phase,
Rahr spent about $2,700 on staff time, the MPCA spent about
$40,000 on staff time, a local citizen's group spent about $900,
and nonpoint sources spent about $600 on legal assistance. The
grand total for transaction costs during these two phases was
about $128,000, 81% of which were borne by the MPCA as it
designed the overall program structure.	
New York City
Watershed
Program (NY)
  Offset
 Phosphorus
For development of the comprehensive strategies in the Croton
System, the New York City Department of Environmental
Protection allocated up to $1.2 million to each county required
to develop a water quality protection plan.	
Tar-Pamlico
Nutrient
Reduction Trading
Program (NC)
 Trading
Nitrogen and
 phosphorus
The Tar-Pamlico Basin Association gave $182,000 to the state
Department of Environmental Management during Phase I to
fund a staff position, and the trading ratio includes 10% for
administrative costs.
                                               111-21

-------
                                                                     I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
Program Name
(Location)
Great Miami River
Watershed Water
Quality Credit
Trading Pilot
Program (OH)
Type of
Program
Trading
Nutrient(s)
Involved
Nitrogen and
phosphorus
Description of Costs (2012$)
Estimated 3-year project cost of $2,430,810 including
$607,000 to fund BMPs. The program receives in-kind support
primarily in the form of water quality monitoring, and the
training of soil and water conservation professionals by other
organizations.
Source: Breetz et al. (2004)

III.B.4.    Anecdotal Evidence and Additional Studies
Similar to the Section III.A.5, this section presents anecdotal evidence and additional studies related
to increased costs of nutrient pollution, including drinking water treatment costs and mitigation
costs. Appendix A provides more detail on these studies.
Anecdotal Evidence—A large body of anecdotal evidence (such as newspaper articles) documents
the need for increased expenditures on drinking water treatment as a result of algal blooms. Some of
this evidence is shown in Table A-l in Appendix A. In some cases, health hazards resulting from
HABs have caused drinking water treatment plants to go offline altogether, as happened in Carroll
Township on Lake Erie, a facility serving 2,000 residents (Henry, 2013). Also on Lake Erie, the City
of Toledo has  spent more  than $3,000 to $4,000 per day on carbon activated filtration during bloom
events (Lake Erie Improvement Association 2012). In the summer of 2014, about 500,000 residents
in Toledo lost access to drinking water due to a large algal bloom that affected the city's treatment
facilities.
KDHE (2011) reports that the City of Wichita installed an $8.5 million ozone facility at Cheney
Reservoir to control taste and odor problems, and that there have been incidences throughout the
state of drinking water treatment  plants being forced to shut down during moderate to  severe algal
blooms due to the inability to adequately treat the source water.
For mitigation, UOBWG (2007) presents costs for ongoing or completed mitigation projects that
the basin workgroup identified as necessary to meet phosphorus load reductions under Florida's
Upper Ocklawaha River Basin TMDL. Mitigation techniques include alum treatment, dredging, fish
removal, and modification of hydrodynamics. The workgroup identified 14 restoration  and water
quality improvement projects totaling approximately $162 million. These projects are summarized in
Table A-3 in Appendix A.
Additional Studies—Table A-2  in Appendix A provides details of studies that do not  meet the
evaluation criteria but nonetheless provide quantitative estimates of the increased drinking water
treatment costs associated with nutrient pollution. In some cases, the additional needs for treatment
were not fully attributable  to anthropogenic nutrient pollution (i.e., algal blooms and other
manifestations were attributable to natural causes) or the technologies evaluated are outdated.
However, these studies still provide evidence of the scale of increased drinking water treatment costs
associated with anthropogenic nutrient pollution.

III.C.  Data Limitations
As described in the previous section, there are a number of studies documenting the economic
impacts of nutrient pollution in surface waters across the United States (Table III-9). These studies
demonstrate that the impacts associated with surface water nutrient pollution can be very damaging
to locally important economic industries (e.g., tourism in Florida communities, lakefront real estate
in areas of Maine, and others). However, a number of additional reports do not meet the screening
                                           111-22

-------
                                                                   I. Cost of Nutrient Pollution
criteria for documentation of impacts due to various reasons (e.g., method not clearly described, data
sources not identified or documented). These additional studies (also reflected in Table III-9)
suggest that the economic impacts from nutrient pollution may be more widespread than the
screened studies indicate.

Table 111-9. Summary of Nutrient Pollution Cost Documentation
Impact
Tourism and recreation
Commercial fishing
Property values
Human health
Drinking water
treatment costs
Mitigation costs
Restoration costs
Number of
Studies Found
(Number that
Match Criteria)
13(7)
9(5)
15(9)
2(1)
11(2)
31(31)
14 (14)
Waterbody Types
Lakes, bays, rivers, coasts
Bays, rivers, coasts
Lakes, rivers, coasts
Coasts
Lakes, rivers, coasts
Lakes
Watersheds
Locations
MD, OH, FL, TX, WA; national
ME, MD, NC, FL, TX, AK;
national
ME, NH, VT, MD, OH, SC, FL,
WI, MN, HI; national
FL; national
OH, IA, FL, CA, KS, TX;
national
MN, MA, WA, WI, SD, NY
CT, NY, PA, OH, MN, CO, CA,
OR; national
                                          111-23

-------
                                                             IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
IV.  COST OF NUTRIENT  POLLUTION CONTROL

Attaining numeric or narrative water quality standards for nutrients entails the deployment of
nutrient pollution controls for point and/or nonpoint sources in most waterbodies. This section
summarizes the data and information collected from recent studies related to the costs for treatment
systems and other controls that have been employed by point and nonpoint source to reduce the
discharge of nutrients to surface waters. All dollar values were updated to 2012 dollars (2012$) for
technologies based on the Construction Cost Index and for best management practices based on the
Consumer Price Index.
The types and extent of controls required to reduce nutrient pollution will depend on a number of
factors, including for example, the number and types of sources contributing to the pollution
requiring controls, geographic location, and stringency of water quality standards. In addition, the
extent of the nutrient pollution controls required may also depend on the specific control plans (e.g.,
TMDLs, watershed plan) established by state and local regulatory authorities. Therefore these
factors should be considered prior to use of cost data provided throughout this  section.

IV.A. Point Source Control Costs
Point sources include discharges of pollutants from either municipal WWTPs or industrial waste
treatment facilities directly to surface waters through pipes, outfalls, and conveyance channels.
Although these facilities play a vital role in maintaining public health and protecting natural waters
by providing waste treatment services to businesses and local communities throughout the United
States, they can be significant contributors of nutrient pollution to waterbodies of the United States.
This section summarizes cost and treatment effectiveness information extracted during the literature
search for technologies used at point source facilities to control the discharge of nutrients. This
section is organized according to the type of point source20:
       •   Municipal WWTPs
       •   Decentralized treatment systems for small communities
       •   Industrial wastewater treatment plants.

Most cost data collected during the course of the literature review were normalized to a unit cost
based on the information provided in each source; however, a portion of the data collected for
treatment of industrial sources of nutrient pollution was not normalized since treatment capacities
were not available for individual facilities.
All the studies from which data were extracted include the cost and some measure of nutrient
control performance (i.e., effluent concentration and/or percent removal), however the reported
costs may not be specific to the associated performance measure for a single pollutant by itself. For
example, a source may provide the capital cost for a treatment system designed to remove total
nitrogen and total phosphorus and the associated treatment performances for both pollutants.
However, if the system was designed primarily for phosphorus removal, then the costs will be driven
by removal of phosphorus and may overestimate costs for removing nitrogen alone. In the vast
20 Stormwater discharges from many municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) are regulated under section
402(p) of the Clean Water Act and are required to obtain NPDES permits for their point source discharges. For
organizational purposes in this report, and to acknowledge that not all MS4s are regulated at this time, costs and
performance for urban and residential runoff are contained in the nonpoint source section.


                                            IV-1

-------
                                                              IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
majority of cases where performance metrics for both nitrogen and phosphorus were provided for a
facility, the source did not indicate which (if any) parameters were design limiting and determinative
of final capital and annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
This section limits the discussion of results to descriptive analysis due to the character of the
information collected in the literature review. The discussion does not include statistical analysis or
modeling of the collected data. Extracted data do not in all cases include independent observations,
nor do the data necessarily constitute a representative and statistically valid sample set of nutrient
removal facilities throughout the United States. The resulting dataset contains information collected
from a diverse set of research articles and reports, each focused on the site-specific situation and
needs for nutrient pollution control, and do not constitute a comprehensive survey of nutrient
treatment in the United States. In addition, not all cost and performance data correspond to
individual facilities. Some studies and reports included cost and nutrient treatment performance
curves, but the original data upon which these curves were based were not available. In these cases,
multiple data points were extracted from the curves, which served to capture the cost and
performance information in the performance curves.
The  nutrient control information collected and compiled for this project provides a snapshot of
recent cost and performance information for a variety of treatment technologies. This  information
can be used to gauge the reasonableness of nutrient cost-to-treat estimates developed by
government agencies, discharger associations, and other interest groups. This information may also
prove a useful starting point in the development of cost estimates and in conducting related
literature searches.

IV.A.1.    Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Local governments use municipal WWTPs to control and treat sanitary wastewater and sometimes,
when the municipality possesses a combined sewer system, stormwater. Some publicly owned
treatment works also provide treatment services for discharges from industrial and commercial
facilities. This section summarizes the cost and performance data collected for nutrient controls at
municipal WWTPs.
As described in Table IV-1, the collected records represent empirical and modeled results for a
variety of locations, nutrient types, and WWTPs. Highlights include:

       •   Cost data represented treatment design  capacities for plants ranging from 0.1 million
           gallons per  day (mgd) to 683 mgd.
       •   Costs  associated with the construction of new WWTPs, as well as costs associated with
           the upgrade, expansion or retrofit of existing facilities were collected.
       •   Cost data were developed on either the  basis of engineering cost estimates  (i.e., modeled
           estimates) or realized,  empirical costs for completed facilities.
       •   Costs  data were collected for over 30 point source control technologies and various
           combinations thereof.
       •   Cost data were representative of projects located in a variety of states and geographic
           regions.
                                            IV-2

-------
                                                             IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
Table IV-1. Summary of Cost and Performance Data for Municipal WWTPs
Category
Total number of records
Number of Records
370
Records which Include Data for Nitrogen and/or Phosphorus *
Nitrogen only
Phosphorus only
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
128
144
98
Records for New Plants or Retrofit/Expansion of Existing Plants
New construction
Retrofit/Expansion
47
323
Records for a Modeled Estimate or Empirical Data
Empirical
Modeled
12
358
WWTP Locations
EPA Region 1
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 3
EPA Region 4
EPA Region 5
EPA Region 6
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 8
EPA Region 9
EPA Region 10
Outside United States
Location not reported 2
2
2
53
6
37
3
0
1
1
189
2
74
Treatment Capacity
0.10mgd-0.99mgd
1.00mgd-4.99mgd
5.00 mgd- 9.99 mgd
10.00 mgd- 49.99 mgd
> 50.00 mgd
43
101
25
119
82
 Ninety-eight records include cost and performance data for both nitrogen and phosphorus.
 A location was registered as "Not Reported" for modeled estimates where the authors did not indicate an assumed
location in their methodology. Location information was included for all records associated with empirical results.
Several sources reviewed during the literature search merit special note for those investigating issues
regarding nutrient control at municipal WWTPs. U.S. EPA (2008) provides a broad synthesis of
information on nutrient removal at these facilities, including a survey of commonly used treatment
technologies, their capabilities and limitations, and planning level costs for treatment technologies.
The TMDL report (U.S. EPA, 2001) also documents detailed case studies for plants located in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. In 2011, the Washington State Department of Ecology produced a
technical report wherein they developed cost estimates for a suite of treatment technologies to
achieve a number of different effluent quality performance targets. The suite of technologies
evaluated was diverse and representative of the variety of existing treatment strategies employed in
the United States.
An examination of all collected and compiled cost data for municipal WWTPs  (Figures IV-1 and
IV-2) shows some economies of scale for nutrient control technologies, demonstrated by the
downward sloping diagonal below which there are no observations.  Economies of scale are
efficiencies gained from operating a larger plant resulting in a reduced average cost per unit of waste
                                            IV-3

-------
                                                           IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
treated. These efficiency gains are present for both new plants and for the retrofitting of existing

treatment plants.
   100-
                       1.0             10.0            100.0

                            Treatment Capacity (mgd)
                                                                       O New Construction

                                                                       A Retrofit'Expansion
Figure IV-1. Capital costs and treatment capacities for municipal WWTPs (2012$).
  ro
  0)
  Q.

  O)
     10-
      * .
S  0.1
o
 o

 ~ra
  =j
    0.01-
   0.001-
         0.1
                       A     A A


                  AA   AAA A
                                       A
                                        A  A A

     A A   "



A    A      A

                        1              10             100

                            Treatment Capacity (mgd)
                                                                       O New Construction

                                                                       A Retrofit/Expansion
                                                                   1000
Figure IV-2. Annual O&M costs and treatment capacities for municipal WWTPs

(2012$).
                                          IV-4

-------
                                                            IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
Cost and Performance Information - Nitrogen
Cost and performance data were collected and compiled for several forms of nitrogen including
total ammonia nitrogen, total inorganic nitrogen, and total nitrogen (TNI). Costs and treatment
performance ranges for each form of nitrogen are summarized in Table IV-2.
Capital costs (Figures IV-3 and IV-5) were typically less than $25 per gpd, with the exception of a
single aerobic lagoon facility with capital costs approaching $100/gpd. Annual O&M costs (Figures
IV-4 and IV-6) for total ammonia nitrogen were typically below $0.10/gpd/year and for TN were
frequently below $0.25/gpd/year, though costs were observed as high as $0.51/gpd/year. Total
inorganic nitrogen O&M costs displayed a greater range than those for the other nitrogen
parameters with costs ranging as high as $1.85/gpd/year. All costs  for total inorganic nitrogen were
derived from a single literature source (WASDE, 2011).

Table IV-2. Nitrogen Cost and Treatment Performance for Municipal WWTPs
Effluent
Quality
(mg/L as N)
Removal
Efficiency
Range (%)
Capital
Cost Range
(S/gpd)1
Annual O&M
Cost Range
(S/gpd/year)1
Technologies
Total Ammonia Nitrogen (n = 3)
0.6-1.4
94-98
1.27-3.58
0.05-0.09
Variety of biological nutrient removal
(BNR) systems and filtration
technologies.
Total Inorganic Nitrogen (n = 129)
3.0-8.0
79-92
<0.10-
98.40
< 0.01 -1.85
Activated sludge, lagoons, membrane
bioreactors, rotating biological
contactors, sequencing batch reactors,
and trickling filters.
Total Nitrogen (n = 95)
2.0-16.4
29-94
<0.10-
22.17
0.02-0.51
Variety of BNR, typically paired with
filtration or other tertiary treatment
systems.
1 All costs are presented in 2012 dollars (2012$).
                                           IV-5

-------
                                                       IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
    100-
     10-
  Q.
  en
  o
 O
  Ci.
  ra
 O
      1-
    0.01-
   0.001-
^

n c
ntl I
D
D
A
A
A


n
° ,_,
n n
a
n n
n



n
n





°i
n






Pollutant
OTA
A TIN
[OJTN


                          5                  10
                     Effluent Nitrogen Species Concentration (mg/L as N)
                                                                15
Figure IV-3. Capital cost and nitrogen effluent concentration for municipal
WWTPs(2012$).
10-
03

-------
                                                        IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
    100-
     10
 T3
 CL
 CD
  -
  in
  0
 0
  CL
  Co
 O
    0.01-
   0.001-
                         25              50              75
                            Nitrogen Species Percent Removal
                                                                           Pollutant
                                                                             TA
                                                                            D
                                                                             TN
                                                                     100
Figure IV-5. Capital cost and nitrogen removal for municipal WWTPs (2012$).
     10
  CL
  CD
 E
 O
 O
 O
 75
 i  0.01
   0.001-
                                      D
                                            n
                                               D
n
 n
                         25              50              75
                            Nitrogen Species Percent Removal
Pollutant
O TA
A TIN
DTN
                                                                     100
Figure IV-6. Annual O&M cost and nitrogen removal for municipal WWTPs
(2012$).
                                        IV-7

-------
                                                                    IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
The greatest diversity in treatment technologies for nitrogen was associated with the control of TN
(Figures IV-7 and VI-8). The majority of records for TN control include some form of BNR and
some form of filtration. Most TN treatment technologies are able to achieve effluent concentration
between 3 mg/L as N and 8 mg/L as N (Figure IV-9).
                                     Box 3. Process Optimization
  When upgrading an existing plant to meet new nutrient effluent limitations, it is not always necessary to
  design and construct entirely new treatment units. Plants that possess adequate capacity can consider adopting
  process optimization measures in order to increase nutrient removal. Process optimization involves making
  alterations to operationally controlled factors (e.g., aeration control, mean cell retention time) in order to
  increase the quantity of nitrification or denitrification occurring. An example of this is adding cycled aeration
  to existing activated sludge processes (see "AS + CA' in Figures IV-7 and IV-9) in order to increase total
  nitrogen removal. Process optimization measures can often be a more cost-effective means of controlling
  nutrients as compared to designing and installing new treatment processes.
                                                 IV-8

-------
                                                               IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control

UForMemBRorRO
UCT+Ferm + Fil-
UL- 1 -1
IF + RBC + Dfll
TC 4. ICAQ 4. Hfil a. Ml P -

1 r + Ab + brK
1 r + Ao + bAh

SBR + CA + MLE
bbK
KoU + Ab + UTII
rUU + UnrT
Dnn -

UX + (jt\

U A + CA
MLt
^ UTI 1 + U A
Q Uhll
g UTII
r* A
0 CA"
^. Bpho + Fil-
•£ Bpho + ChPr+Fil-
fl> Dn,h^,-

ro BNR + DFll

^ BNR
AQ 4. QRDj. Tr -i- nfil

AS + SBR + IFAS"
AQ 4. CRD -





AS + MLE
AC 4- ICAC 4. RAC-


AS + Dfll

Ao + L-A + MLt + bpno

Ab + UA

Ab + bKK

AS + AL + SF

Ab

AO + MLE
AU + L,f\ + Ab + Unrr
AL + Dfil + ChPr-


























































1












































1






I 	 r~
1 	 l_

__J
~l_l_r

— 1 — 1 — 1
1 	 1 	 t






1
i
l







i
l






i
i




r
L
i

1

1
I
1
i
i
1
l



— I
	 1



l

m-




1
1
_n
LJ

11
i
i
i



i

i i
i i
i
i
i i i
i i i
i

i i
i i

-i — i — i-
J — ' — '

i i
i i
































i



























































































































                           0.01            0.10            1.00            10.00  25.00
                             Capital Costs to Control Total Nitrogen Pollution ($/gpd)

Refer to Appendix D for a key to abbreviations and acronyms. Technologies associated with only a single record are
represented by a vertical bar.


Figure IV-7. Capital costs for TN  treatment technologies (2012$).
                                             IV-9

-------
                                                             IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control








MLE


Dfil~
5
CA~




















































r
L




























r
L




























i
J

























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































                        00         0.1         0.2   _    0.3         0.4        0.5
                         Annual O&M Costs to Control Total Nitrogen Pollution (S/gpd/year)

Refer to Appendix D for a key to abbreviations and acronyms. Technologies associated with only a single record are
represented by a vertical bar.


Figure IV-8. Annual O&M costs for TN treatment technologies (2012$).
                                           IV-10

-------
                                                             IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control

UCT + Fih
UCT + Ferm + Fil-
UU 1


~rr -u ICAQ 4- nfii O-MI p -

1 h + Ab + brK
1 1- + Ab + bAh
1 h
bBK + C/nHT + Hi
SBR + CA + MLE

bBK-
RBC + AS + Dfil-
RBC-

PUD + Unrr + HI
rUU
OX + GR~
UA + UA
U A + CA
MLE~

- MemBR


i— *
o *-•"


o UHI
,5 Dfil-
-g CA-
Bpho + Fil
£ Bpno + ChPr + Fir
<5 Bpho-
[^ BNR + DFih
bNK

Ab + bbK + IrAb
Ab + bbK



AS + MLE
AS + IFAS + BAF-
AS + Fih
Ab + Dill
Ab + UA + MLb + bpnO
Ab + UA




Ab

AO + MLE"
AU + UA + Ab + UnrT
AU + JOiar + Hi

AL-

i

i
i




i



i

LZ


' — '
i
r
1
1 — 1 — 1


I

I
1
I


I


1
1



1
i
1

1
-in.
1Lr










I
i
i
I


I 	 1
I 	 1


i


i
i
I

i
I
I I





	 i


i
i i
i i
i i
i i


I






I



n — i—
I


i
i


i


i
i



I I
















































i





























































































































                           0             5             10            15
                                 Effluent Total Nitrogen Concentration (mg/L)

Refer to Appendix D for a key to abbreviations and acronyms. Technologies associated with only a single record are
represented by a vertical bar.


Figure IV-9. Effluent TN concentrations for municipal treatment technologies.
                                           IV-11

-------
                                                          IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
Cost and Performance Information - Phosphorus
Cost and performance data were collected and compiled for total phosphorus (TP). Cost and
treatment performance ranges for TP are summarized in Table IV-3. Capital costs (Figures IV-10
and IV-12) were typically less than $22/gpd for most technologies, though lagoon-based
technologies and oxidation ditches were sometimes reported as more expensive. Annual O&M costs
(Figures IV-11 and IV-13) for TP were less than $2/gpd/year and tended to decrease as effluent
concentrations increased. New construction costs were frequently higher than costs for
improvement of existing plants.

Table IV-3. Total Phosphorus Cost and Treatment Performance for Municipal
WWTPs
Effluent
Quality
(mg/L as P)
<1.0
<1.0
>1.0
Removal
Efficiency
Range (%)
75-99
81-99
22-85
Capital Cost
Range
(S/gpd)1
0.03-22.17
0.14-98.40
0.05-12.82
Annual O&M
Cost Range
(S/gpd/year)1
O.01-2.33
0.04-1.85
O.01-1.55
Technologies
Chemical precipitation or any of a variety
of BNR technologies — BNR frequently
used in combination with tertiary
filtration, ultrafiltration, and/or reverse
osmosis.
Lagoons and oxidation ditches capable of
meeting this standard but at relatively
higher unit costs.
Oxidation ditches, lagoons, and a variety
of BNR systems.
1 All costs are in 2012$
   1000-
    100-
 "O
 Q.
 CB
w
o
O

'o.
ro
O
    0.1-
   0.01-
                               o
                                 A
                                 A
                                         A
                                         A
O New Construction
A Retrofit/Expansion
        0.01
                           0.1                  1
                     Effluent Total Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L)
                                                                 10
Figure IV-10. Capital cost and phosphorus effluent concentration for municipal
WWTPs (2012$).
                                        IV-12

-------
                                                       IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
                           2                   4
                         Effluent Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
10-

ro

-------
                                                       IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
100-



Q.
s
to
8 1"
ro
'a.
ro
0
0.1-


0.01-















A






o
o
8
8









8
8AAA




A 4
A „
o OA o^l
A A iP <5JI
A A £ £ /tl
A A lP
° A A/Af^AA A


0





A

A


& /A&
A A A
A AAA^
A
A A







O New Construction
A Retrofit/Expansion






      20
                     40             60             80
                        Total Phosphorus Percent Removal
                                                               100
Figure IV-12. Capital cost and TP removal for municipal WWTPs (2012$).
                                       IV-14

-------
                                                            IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
     10
ra
a)
T3
-0)

-s
o  n 1 -
O  Ui11
^
O

c
c
•* 0.01 H
   0.001-
          8
          8
                             A  A
                                                                          O New Construction
                                                                          A Retrofit/Expansion
        20
                       40  _            60      _       80
                           Total Phosphorus Percent Removal
                                                                     100
Figure IV-13. Annual O&M cost and TP removal for municipal WWTPs (2012$).
Figures IV-14 and IV-15 display capital costs and annual O&M costs as a function of treatment
technology. As shown in Figure IV-16, most of the treatment schemes extracted from the available
literature (which involved either technologies operated singly or in combination) can achieve an
effluent quality at or below 1 mg/L, and a substantial fraction of the treatment schemes were
capable of achieving effluent quality levels at or below 0.5 mg/L (Figure IV-16).
                                          IV-15

-------
                                                              IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
























>^
f
n

-Z
o
£
p-
c
o>
E
TO
0)



















UForMemBRorRO-
UCT+Fil-
UCT+Ferm + Fil-
1 IPT-

TF wSubF^
1 h + oUDh
1 h + LMrr
TF + AS + ChPr (w.'out dairy)"

TET 4- A Q -i- fl Pi -i


obK + OnrT + Ml
SBR-
KbU + UnrT
RBC"
rUU + L-nrr + HI
rULJ-
DA + Unrr-
UA + AU + unrr-
OX + AO •
MerriBR^
FL"
Ferm + Fil + ChPr
Perm + Fil-

EA-

ChPrn
uA + L^nPr
OA + Au + ^nKr
L/A + AU



bNK + Uhll^
BNR-
AS + MLE + ChPr + MiFil + RO-
Ab + MLb + Unrr
Ab + MLb

AS + ChPr
AS + Bpho-
AS + AO + ChPr-
Ab + AU
AS'
AO + Ferm + Fil-
AO + Ferm + ChPr + Fil -
AO + Ferm-

AU
Ai , PhPr-

AL
Ab + OnHr
AB + AO + ChPr-
AB + AO -
AzU+UAU •"
A^U + (^AU "
A^U-
AZU + OAO + jtyiar + uh -
A20 + CAC + SCIar + GAAI -
A20 + CAC + 3Clar + Fi|-






r





1














1 	
1
1
1








i





— TTT—
~LU~








1


1
1
1
	 1 	 1
1
1







_rn_
~l_l_r
i
, '
n 	 1
LJ 	 1

1
i
1
I

L
i

	 \ 	











1 — 1 — 1


i


i
l







1
1

i





i i i
i


i i i
! 1 i





i 	 1 —
l 	 l 	



	 i 	 i




i
i
i
m_



i

^

— 1 1 i —
i
i
i
i







l
[-1—1
~LI_r
m
l l l
_i — i
~l_l
-TTI
~LLJ
-m
_m 	




















— i
	 1












1
,'
1















.
*










































































































                             0.01          0.1          1           10         100
                               Capital Costs to Control Total Phosphorus ($/gpd)

Refer to Appendix D for a key to abbreviations and acronyms. Technologies associated with only a single record are
represented by a vertical bar.


Figure IV-14. Capital costs for TP treatment technologies (2012$).
                                           IV-16

-------
                                                            IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control

UCT + Fil-
UCT + Ferm + Fil-
UCT"

1 r + oUDl-
TF + ChPr
TF + AS + ChPr (w/out dairv}-
TF + AS + ChPr-

TF + AS + AO + ChPr (w/out dairy)
Tr -i- A Q -i- A Pi -

SBR + ChPr + Fil-
RBC + ChPr-
RBC-
rUU + unrT + HI
POD"

UA + AU + UnHr
UA + AU

FL-
Ferm + Fil + ChPr
Perm + Fil-
Ferrrr
D) ^^

PA 4. PhDr-

5 CA + AO + ChPr
|— C A + AO •

nrT-
AS + AO •


AU + herrn + uhrr + HI


AO~
AL + (jHrr'
AL-
AB + ChPr-
AB+AO + ChPr-

A20+CAC
AzU + (jA(^ •
A2O~
f\£\j "*" v_*r\o "*~ oOiar » ui~
A20 + CAC + SCIar





















1




1





























1



	 n
i
i


i
i
i
i


i
r-






i 	 n
i












r
_n —
~L\ 	
-LLh



1

m
ir
	 1 1 I
1







1
1
i — n
i
1
1
1 1 —


i — n
1

L_LJ




1 — i

1 1 1


rn
I_U





i
i
rn_
1
I
1
I
1
1

I
1 — 1 — 1
	 1 — 1_
1

1 	 1 	 1
1
1
,'

J— I 	 1
i 1 r
1 	 1 	 1

I
1
_rr
~I_L
_r~n
"UJ
_n
-a
HI


















































-|
J
m +
D»
•
•














































































































                            0.001         0.01          0.1           1           10
                             Annual O&M Costs to Control TP Pollution ($/gpd/year)

Refer to Appendix D for a key to abbreviations and acronyms. Technologies associated with only a single record are
represented by a vertical bar.


Figure IV-15. Annual O&M costs for TP treatment technologies (2012$).
                                          IV-17

-------
                                                              IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
                     UCT + Fil
               UCT +Ferm + Fil
                         UCT
                    TF w SubF
                    TF + SubF
                    TF + ChPr
       TF + AS + ChPr (w/out dairy)
                TF + AS + ChPr
   TF + AS + AO + ChPr (w/out dairy)
                  TF + AS + AO
                         TF
               SBR + ChPr + Fi!
                        SBR
                   RBC + ChPr
                        RBC
               POD + ChPr +FiI
                        POD
                    OX + ChPr
                OX + AO + ChPr
                     OX + AO
                      MemBR
                         FL
               Ferm + Fil + ChPr
                    Ferm + Fil
                        Ferm
  §5                      EA
 .2                 ChPr + Fil
                        ChPr
  "             CA + AO + ChPr
 H                  CA + AO
 •"                  Bpho + Fil
  oj            Bpho + ChPr + Fil
  E                     Bpho
 •fo                 BNR + DFil-
  2   AS + MLE + ChPr + MiFil + RO-
 I-            AS + MLE + ChPr
                    AS + MLE
                      AS + Fil
                     AS + Dfil
                    AS + ChPr
                    AS + Bpho
                AS+AO + ChPr
                     AS+AO
                         AS
                AO + Ferm + Fil
           AO + Ferm + ChPr + Fii
                    AO + Ferm
                AO + 3Clar + Fil
                         AO
                    AL + ChPr
                         AL
                    AB + ChPr
                AB + AO + ChPr
                     AB + AO
                   A20+CAC
                        A2O
             I + CAC + 3Clar + UF
        A20 + CAC + 3Clar + GAAI
               CAC + 3Clar + Fil
              A20 + CAC + 3Clar




























1
























1






	 1







1
1
1
1








	 	




1
1


n_
Lr

I


,



1
_r





i
i













i









i










i 	 n

-TTL









TT_



























































                             0.01              0.1               1                10
                                 Effluent Total Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L)
Refer to Appendix D for a key to abbreviations and acronyms. Technologies associated with only a single record are
represented by a vertical bar.


Figure IV-16. Effluent TP concentrations for municipal treatment technologies.
                                            IV-18

-------
                                                           IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
Anecdotal Nutrient Cost Data for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) maintains estimates of the cost for BNR and
enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) at WWTPs in the state. These cost estimates are for completed
and planned upgrades using biological and enhanced nutrient removal to ensure compliance with
applicable nutrient water quality standards for the Chesapeake Bay. The costs for the completed and
planned upgrades have been shared by the state.
In 2004, MDE required all significant municipal WWTPs in the state to upgrade to ENR. In
addition, the December 29, 2010 final nutrient TMDL established by EPA for the Chesapeake Bay
allocated waste load allocations for TN and TP for WWTPs in Maryland. The state has revised the
cost estimates to reflect the required use of ENR. Because the initial and final TN and TP effluent
concentrations (i.e., performance) are not included for each plant, nor are details regarding what the
costs represent, these cost estimates were not considered and described earlier in this section.
However this cost data is included in Appendix C as it provides potentially useful information
related to the relative cost for upgrades across a wide range of wastewater treatment plant sizes.

IV.A.2.   Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems
Decentralized wastewater treatment systems provide wastewater treatment for small communities,
rural residential areas, and single residences. For purposes of this project, decentralized systems
include technologies designated as satellite systems or septic systems, include technologies typically
used in municipal wastewater treatment, and that possess treatment capacities of less than 0.1 mgd.
In the course of the literature review, nutrient control cost and treatment performance information
were collected. The collected records represent empirical and modeled results for a variety of
locations, pollutants, and technologies (Table IV-4).

Table IV-4. Cost and Performance  Data for Decentralized Treatment Systems
Category
Total Number of Records
Number of Records
15
Records which Include Data for Nitrogen and/or Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
12
3
Records for New Plants or Retrofit/Expansion of Existing Plants
New Construction
Retrofit/Expansion
0
15
Records for Modeled Estimates or for Empirical Data
Empirical
Modeled
5
10
Regions Where Records are Located
EPA Region 1
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 3
EPA Region 4
EPA Region 5
EPA Region 6
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 8
EPA Region 9
EPA Region 10
Outside United States
10
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
                                          IV-19

-------
                                                              IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
Category
Location Not Reported :
Number of Records
0
Decentralized System Treatment Capacity
Minimum
Median
Maximum
0.000175 mgd (175 gpd)
0.0044 mgd (4,400 gpd)
0.3 mgd (300,000 gpd)
 A location was registered as "Not Reported" for modeled estimates where the authors did not indicate an assumed
location in their methodology. Location information was included for all records associated with empirical results.
Information regarding decentralized treatment systems was extracted from three sources. As part of
a program to reduce nutrient loading to surface waters in the Cape Cod region of Massachusetts,
Barnstable County Wastewater Cost Task Force (Barnstable, 2010) contained estimates of costs and
TN removal performance for a variety of small systems which scaled from systems designed for
single residences up to satellite treatment systems which are appropriate for neighborhoods  or
clusters of residences.
U.S. EPA (2003) assessed the costs associated with achieving nutrient and sediment reductions in
the Chesapeake Bay. In it, the authors reported cost and performance associated with upgrades to
two small treatment systems (an integrated fixed-film activated sludge system and a sequencing
batch reactor). The small flows treated by these systems made their inclusion with the decentralized
systems more appropriate than inclusion with larger municipal WWTPs.
Keplinger (2003) contains an assessment of assesses the economic and environmental implications
of meeting nutrient standards at treatment plants located along the North Bosque River in Texas. In
this report, the authors report on results observed  at a number of communities, including some that
meet criteria for decentralized treatment.
In general, the available information suggests that,  on a unit cost basis, greater cost effectiveness can
be achieved with larger treatment units (Figures IV-17 and IV-18). Costs for systems with treatment
capacities less than or equal to 330 gpd ranged from approximately $13/gpd to $168/gpd for capital
costs, and $0.66/gpd/year to $19/gpd/year for annual O&M costs. Cost for units with capacities
between 4,000 gpd and 300,000 gpd ranged from approximately $0.16/gpd to $21/gpd for capital
costs, and approximately $0.01/gpd/year to $0.67/gpd/year for annual O&M costs. No studies or
data were found for capacities between 330 gpd and 4,000 gpd.
                                           IV-20

-------
                                                    IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
    150-
  T3
  Q.
  D)
  -—
  w
  o
  O
  "ro
  -i— «


  8
     o-
                                                               10°
                               Treatment Capacity (gpd)
Figure IV-17. Capital costs and treatment capacities for decentralized treatment

systems (2012$).
    201
  ro
  0

  -^1
  T3
  Q.
  D)
  810-
  o
  08
  o
  "ro  5
     o-
                        10J              104

                               Treatment Capacity (gpd)
10°
10°
Figure IV-18. Annual O&M costs and treatment capacities for decentralized
treatment systems (2012$).
                                     IV-21

-------
                                                          IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
Cost and Performance Information - Nitrogen
The available data suggests that, while larger systems should be able to achieve relatively low TN
effluent concentrations, performance of smaller onsite systems may not (Figure IV-19). Capital costs
and annual O&M costs as a function of TN effluent quality are shown in Figures IV-20 and IV-21.
Costs as a function of TN performance appear to be technologically idiosyncratic, with the lowest
costs and best effluent quality delivered by satellite treatment systems and package plants for small
communities.
   ^25-
  w
  ro
  en
  ,§20 •
  
-------
                                                      IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
    150-
  T3
  D)

  E
  -—
  w
  o
  O

  "CD
  -i— «
  'Q_
  TO  50-
  O
     0-
                    10               15               20
                             Effluent Total Nitrogen (mg/L as N)
25
Figure IV-20. Capital costs and TN effluent quality for decentralized systems
(2012$).
    201
  CD
  CD
  T3
  D)
  E
  O
  o8
  O
  "CD  5-
     o-
                   10                15                20
                            Effluent Total Nitrogen (mg/L as N)
25
Figure IV-21. Annual O&M costs and TN effluent quality for decentralized systems
(2012$).
                                      IV-23

-------
                                                            IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
Cost and Performance Information - Phosphorus
A limited amount of data regarding phosphorus control for decentralized systems was extracted
during the literature review. The available information is limited to three data points, all of which are
for chemical phosphorus removal systems (0.03 mgd, 0.08 mgd, and 0.09 mgd). These systems were
able  to achieve TP effluent concentrations between 2.9 mg/L as P and 3.5 mg/L as P. Capital costs
ranged from $7.25/gpd (largest system) to $20.85/gpd (smallest system). Annual O&M costs ranged
from $0.14/gpd/year (largest system) to $0.36/gpd/year (smallest system).

IV.A.3.     Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Industrial wastewater treatment systems provide water pollution control capabilities to industrial
point source dischargers. The types of wastewater treated by industrial treatment systems vary
according to the type of manufacturing or industrial activity conducted at a given site. Certain types
of industrial waste tend to possess greater quantities of nutrients. These may include but are not
limited to processors of foodstuffs, beverages, livestock, and agricultural products.
Data extracted during the literature search in accordance with the screening criteria and quality
assurance requirements were limited to  two available sources  (U.S. EPA, 2004; U.S. EPA, 1999)
containing cost and treatment information from meat and poultry product processors. This
limitation is due to a lack of availability  of paired nutrient performance and cost  information from
other industries. In addition, the available data on meat and poultry processing facilities did not
include system treatment capacities or factors which would allow  for the calculation of capital and
annual O&M unit costs. Therefore, all costs for this section are presented in terms of total dollars
per facility and have not been normalized on a unit cost basis (i.e., as
Cost and Performance Information - Nitrogen & Phosphorus
The available information on the treatment of nutrients in meat and poultry product processing
wastewater includes cost and performance data associated with upgrades at existing facilities. These
upgrades cover the installation of one of the following treatment options: (1) enhanced aeration, (2)
a modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process, or (3) a MLE process paired with chemical
phosphorus removal. Table IV-5 summarizes the results of EPA (2004).

Table IV-5. Effluent Quality, Capital Costs, and Annual Operation and
Maintenance Costs for  Meat and Poultry Processors1
Parameter
Number of Records
Treatment Technology
Enhanced Aeration
5
Modified MLE Process
5
MLE Process
+
Chemical Phosphorus
Removal
10
Total Nitrogen Effluent Quality (mg/L as N)
Minimum
Median
Maximum
3.6
3.6
4.97
34
34
34
1.9
23.75
34
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Effluent Quality (mg/L as N)
Minimum
Median
Maximum
3.6
4.285
4.97
3.6
3.6
4.97
1.34
3.4
4.97
Total Inorganic Nitrogen Effluent Quality (mg/L as N)
Minimum
Not Available
29.2
0.52
                                          IV-24

-------
                                                             IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
Parameter
Median
Maximum
Treatment Technology
Enhanced Aeration

Modified MLE Process
30.6
30.6
MLE Process
+
Chemical Phosphorus
Removal
19.75
30.6
Total Phosphorus Effluent Quality (mg/L as P)
Minimum
Median
Maximum
Not Available
8.3
8.3
8.3
2.3
5.1
8.3
Capital Cost (S/faciliiy)
Minimum
Median
Maximum
105,445
388,039
1,317,364
395,069
2,160,927
3,693,400
427,405
1,081,870
5,902,128
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost ($/facility)
Minimum
Median
Maximum
52,020
102,633
390,851
127,940
230,574
894,177
139,188
719,137
2,785,164
1 Source: U.S. EPA (2004)
Effluent TN quality for the three treatment strategies varied from 1.4 mg/L as N to 34 mg/L as N.
Low TN concentrations were most frequently observed in the effluent of the enhanced aeration
units. Effluent TP concentrations ranged from 2.3 mg/L as P to 8.3 mg/L as P with the best
performance provided by the MLE process paired with chemical phosphorus removal.
The lowest costs were associated with the enhanced aeration systems. Lacking treatment capacity
information with which to normalize the data, it is difficult to directly compare the cost of the
different systems or determine whether the costs exhibit economies of scale. While the modified
Ludzack-Ettinger systems were more expensive than the other two options, it is not clear whether
this is a result of treating a larger flow (therefore, necessitating larger systems) or due to relative
treatment inefficiencies inherent in these process configurations.
Information for a single facility was extracted from U.S. EPA (1999) for the upgrade of a 1.1 mgd
treatment system at an agricultural products processing facility. Post-upgrade  the facility possessed
an anaerobic lagoon, a modified Ludzack-Ettinger process, a denitrification filter, and a cycled
aeration system. It was capable of achieving TN effluent concentrations of 12 mg/L at a unit capital
costof$15.6/gpd.

IV.B. Nonpoint Source Control Costs
Nonpoint sources can be significant contributors to nutrient impairment in surface waters.
Nonpoint source pollution originates from rainfall and snowmelt running over and through the
ground and entraining pollutants such as nutrients. Eventually the contaminated water migrates to
surface waters where the entrained nutrient loadings may contribute to impairment of surface
waters. The size and composition of the nutrient loading is, in part, a function of the land use types
through which rainfall and snowmelt are deposited, or through which surface water runoff migrates.
Managing nonpoint source pollution plays a vital role in maintaining public health and protecting
natural waters. Agricultural and urban residential land uses are critical components of the built
environment and are widespread throughout the United States. Adequate land to both produce the
food supply and to provide housing are central to the proper functioning of economy. Agricultural
                                           IV-25

-------
                                                            IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
and urban land uses are also potential sources of nonpoint source nutrient pollution, which has the
potential to degrade and impair the beneficial uses of surface and ground waters.
This section examines the costs of controlling anthropogenic sources of nonpoint-source nutrient
pollution associated with a variety of land use categories. These categories include agricultural fields,
livestock areas, and urban areas. The literature search also included silviculture and forestry land use
types. However, literature meeting the project screening criteria and quality requirements was
unavailable for these two land use categories.

IV.B.1.    Crops and Agricultural Fields
Land uses for crop production are an important part of the agricultural sector of the economy and
are important to the security of the food supply. Nonpoint source pollution from crop and
agricultural fields are generated when nutrients migrate from soils to surface runoff or when soil is
directly entrained in the runoff. Nonpoint source nutrient pollution from these sources may be
controlled through a variety of BMPs. These include changes to the crop production process and
the manner in which fields are managed in order to reduce nutrient contaminated runoff, and
include physical infrastructure constructed to capture and treat agricultural runoff.

Table IV-6. BMP Cost and Performance for TN and TP Control for Crops and
Agricultural Fields
BMP Description
Performance
Unit Cost
Reference
Total Nitrogen
Chemical Precipitation1
Constructed Wetlands
Contour Farming
Conventional Tillage2
Detention Basin
Detention Pond
Irrigation Management
No-Till
Sediment Retention
Structures
Strip Cropping
Terracing
Vegetated Basin
Vegetated Filter or
Buffer Strips
50% reduction
2-10% reduction
~
~
0-25% reduction
3 -30% reduction
2-65% reduction
8-40% reduction
5-10%
—
2-5% reduction
—
32 Ibs/year
—
5%
78 Ibs/year
17.8-53 Ibs/ac
$120-$610/acre
$12-$l,700/acre
$l,500/acre
$0.10/lb removed
$1.4 I/acre
$0-$12/acre
$l,400-$8,800/acre
$24-$480/acre
$0-$12/acre
$0.38/lb removed
$12-$60/acre
$0.22/lb removed
$12,000/acre
$0.15-$1.08/lb removed
$48/acre
$595/acre
$150/acre
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
KVHA (2003)
Wortmann, etal. (2011)
Devlin, et al. (2003
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
Wortmann, etal. (2011)
SWET (2008)
Wortmann, et al. (2011)
KHVA (2003)
Ribaudo, etal. (2011)
SWET (2008)
KHVA (2003)
Ribaudo, etal. (2011)
Total Phosphorus
Baffle Boxes
Bioswales
Chemical Precipitation1
Conservation Tillage
Constructed Wetlands
Conventional Tillage
Contour Farming
15% reduction
15% reduction
36-70% reduction
50% reduction
2-10% reduction
—
20-60% reduction3
3-15% reduction2
20-30%
~
$484/acre
$480-$3,500/acre
$120-$610/acre
$10/acre
$12-$l,700/acre
$l,500/acre
$5-$15/acre
$0-$12/acre
$9.56/acre
$0.26/lb removed
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
Devlin, et al. (2003)
SWET (2008)
KVHA (2003)
Devlin, et al. (2003)
SWET (2008)
Devlin, et al. (2003)
Wortmann, et al. (2011)
                                          IV-26

-------
                                                            IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
BMP Description
Detention Basin
Detention Pond
Irrigation Management
No-Till
Rotating Cover Crops
Sediment Retention
Structures
Strip Cropping
Subsurface Injection4
Terracing
Vegetated Filter or
Buffer Strips
Performance
2-65% reduction
8-40% reduction
5-10%
—
4% reduction
2-5% reduction
—
20-50% reduction
34 Ib s/year
5%
55 Ibs/year
Unit Cost
$l,400-$8,800/acre
$24-$480/acre
$0-$12/acre
$1.00/lb removed
$60/acre
$12-$60/acre
$0.56/lb removed
$35/acre
$12,000/acre
$48/acre
$595/acre
Reference
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
Wortmann, et al. (2011)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
Wortmann, et al. (2011)
Devlin, et al. (2003)
KHVA (2003)
SWET (2008)
KHVA (2003)
 Chemical precipitation systems designed to capture and treat field runoff.
2 Includes soil testing and sound fertilization practices.
3 Includes alternative cultivation strategies and changes in herbicide application practices.
4 Subsurface injection of runoff from crop and agricultural fields.
IV.B.2.    Livestock Management
Land uses for livestock production are an important part of the agricultural sector and are a
contributory source to nonpoint source pollution. Nonpoint source pollution from pasture and
livestock holding areas is generated when nutrients migrate from soils to surface runoff or when soil
is directly entrained in the runoff. It can also be generated by direct deposition of livestock waste
into surface waters. Nonpoint source nutrient pollution from these sources may be controlled
through a variety of BMPs. These BMPs include changes to the manner in which waste produced by
livestock is managed, separating livestock from surface waters, capture and treatment of runoff, and
improved pasture management programs and  practices.

Table IV-7. BMP Cost and Performance for TN and TP Control for Livestock
Management
BMP Description
Performance
Unit Cost
Reference
Total Nitrogen
Alternate Shading
Barn Waste
Management1
Chemical Precipitation
Chemical Treatment2
Constructed Wetlands
Fertilizer Application3
Gravel Crossing
High Intensity Area
Pasture Management
Forage Management
Programs
1% reduction (for cattle)
2% reduction (for horses)
1% reduction
25-50% reduction
78% reduction
4-10% reduction
1-30% reduction
26 Ibs/year
50% reduction (Added
Housing)
40% reduction (Expanded
Sprayfield)
15% reduction (Edge-of-
Field Chemical Treatment
5% reduction
$180/acre
$18/acre
$2.42-$6.06/acre
$120-$600/acre
$53/metric ton of litter
$12/acre
$2.42-$6.06/acre
$l,800/acre
$4.29/acre
$480/acre
$600/acre
<$ I/acre
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
Szogi (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
KHVA (2003)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
                                          IV-27

-------
                                                              IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
BMP Description
Improved Pasture
Management
Improved Watering
Systems
Retention Basins
Stormwater Retention
Basin
Vegetated Buffers
Performance
20% reduction
(Management Programs)
3% reduction (Rotating
Pastures)
1-5% reduction
3 -5% reduction
7-30% reduction
5% reduction
Unit Cost
$18/acre
$6/acre
$6-$12/acre
$3.63/acre
$24-$l,200/acre
$48/acre
Reference
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
Total Phosphorus
Barn Waste Management
Chemical Precipitation2
Fertilizer Application3
Fencing/Restricted
Grazing
Gravel Crossing
High Intensity Area
Pasture Management
Forage Management
Programs
Improved Pasture
Management
Improved Watering
Systems
Retention Basins
Stormwater Retention
Basin
Vegetated Buffers
3 -8% reduction
40-70% reduction
1-10% reduction
2-5% reduction
172 Ibs/year
185 Ibs/year
50% reduction (Added
Housing)
40% reduction (Expanded
Sprayfield)
70% reduction (Edge-of-
Field Chemical Treatment
5% reduction
20% reduction
(Management Programs)
3% reduction (Rotating
Pastures)
1-5% reduction
3 -5% reduction
7-30% reduction
5% reduction
$2.42-$6.06/acre
$120-$600/acre
$1.32-$6.06/acre
$12-$180/acre
$4,050/acre
$l,800/acre
$4.29/acre
$480/acre
$600/acre
<$ I/acre
$18/acre
$6/acre
$6-$12/acre
$3.63/acre
$24-$l,200/acre
$48/acre
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
KHVA (2003)
KHVA (2003)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
 Includes feed rotation management and waste solids separation for off-site disposal.
 Costs for a quick wash system to treat chicken waste slurry.
3 Related to improved pasture management for cattle and horse farms

IV.B.3.    Urban and  Residential Runoff
Rainwater and snowmelt falling in urban and other residential areas can be a major nonpoint source
contributor to nutrient impairments of surface waters. Rainwater and snowmelt falling on streets,
roofs, lawns, and parking lots can capture nutrients, resulting in transport to waterways when the
water runs off into storm sewers and water bodies. Nonpoint source nutrient pollution from urban
sources may be controlled through a variety of BMPs. These  BMPs include the construction of
structures designed to capture and treat the runoff (i.e.,  structural BMPs), and they include programs
and activities (i.e., non-structural BMPs) which communities can implement to decrease the quantity
of runoff and/or nutrients deposited in surface waters.
                                           IV-28

-------
                                                  IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
Table IV-8. BMP Cost and Performance for TN and TP Control for Urban and
Residential Runoff
Description
Performance
Unit Cost
Reference
Total Nitrogen
Structural BMPs
Non-Structural
BMPs
Baffle Boxes
Bioretention Units
Bioswales
Detention Basins
Impervious Surfaces
Infiltration Basin
Media Filtration
Porous Pavement
Illicit Discharge Control
Program
Lawn Fertilization
Programs
Pet Waste Programs
Street Sweeping
15% reduction
~
15-25% reduction
~
15-20% reduction
~
~
~
~
~
~
15 -30% reduction
~
~
2% reduction
$480/acre
$338-$2,000/lb removed
$3,500-$7,000/acre
$308/lb removed
$4,400-$8,800/acre
$l,100-$4,600/lb removed
$2,428/lb removed
$486-$494/lb removed
$975-$l,060/lb removed
$l,900-$14,000/lb
removed
$8.82-$17.62/lb removed
<$l-$17/acre
$0.43/lb removed
$3,500-$14,600/lb
removed
$22/acre
SWET (2008)
CWP (2013)
SWET (2008)
CWP (2013)
SWET (2008)
CWP (2013)
CWP (2013)
CWP (2013)
CWP (2013)
CWP (2013)
CWP (2013)
SWET (2008)
CWP (2013)
CWP (2013)
SWET (2008)
Total Phosphorus
Structural BMPs
Baffle Boxes
Bioretention Units
Bioswales
Chemical Precipitation and
Media Filtration
Detention Basins
Impervious Surfaces
Infiltration Basins
Infiltration Trenches
Media Filtration
Porous Pavement
Wetlands
20% reduction
—
72% reduction
25-50% reduction
—
70% reduction
65-80% reduction
~
25% reduction
~
~
65% reduction
~
42% reduction
~
46% reduction
(Constructed
Wetlands)
52% reduction
(Wetland Basin)
$480/acre
$338-$2,000/lb removed
$4 15/m3 (large units)
$93 9/m3 (small units)
$3,500-$7,000/acre
$2,642/lb removed
$3,500/acre
$4,400-$8,800/acre
$10,500-$21,000/lb
removed
$23-$318/m3
$7,322/lb removed
$3,237-$3,383/lb removed
$819-$l,768/m3
$4,500-$4,900/lb removed
$235-$5,000/m3
$12,000-$70,000/lb
removed
$9-$191/m3
$13-$295/m3
SWET (2008)
CWP (2013)
Weiss, etal.
(2007)
SWET (2008)
CWP (2013)
SWET (2008)
SWET (2008)
CWP (2013)
Weiss, etal.
(2007)
CWP (2013)
CWP (2013)
Weiss, etal.
(2007)
CWP (2013)
Weiss, etal.
(2007)
CWP (2013)
Weiss, etal.
(2007)
                                   IV-29

-------
                                                           IV. Cost of Nutrient Pollution Control
Description
Non-Structural
BMPs
Illicit Discharge Control
Program
Lawn Fertilization
Programs
Pet Waste Programs
Street Sweeping
Performance
~
5% reduction
~
—
15% reduction
Unit Cost
$35-$71/lb removed
<$l-$17/acre
$3. 35/lb removed
$l,400-$2,200/lb removed
$22/acre
Reference
CWP (2013)
SWET (2008)
CWP (2013)
CWP (2013)
SWET (2008)
IV. C. Data Limitations
As described in the previous sections, there are a number of studies documenting costs and
performance information for nutrient control technologies and BMPs across the United States. They
demonstrate that strategies exist for controlling nutrient pollution which are applicable to a variety
of circumstances and which may vary in terms of their respective cost efficiencies. However,
additional data sets and information exist which did not meet the screening acceptability criteria of
this literature review effort for various reasons (e.g., lack of availability of both cost and nutrient
control performance information was one of the principle barriers to inclusion). As shown in Table
IV-6, processes for treatment of industrial waste  sources lacked a robust set of information sources
meeting screening acceptability criteria. Further, some topics, such as process optimization where
performance at existing WWTPs is improved via optimizing operational control of the treatment
systems  rather than construction of new unit processes, were not fully represented in the literature
but provide promising avenues for cost-effective control of nutrient pollution.

Table IV-9. Summary of Nutrient Control Cost Documentation
Control
Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants
Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems
Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Crops and Agricultural Fields
Livestock Management
Urban and Residential Runoff
Number of
Studies

11
3
2
5
3
3
Locations
CT, DC, FL, IL, MD, MN, MT, NC, NV, NY, PA,
VA, WA, national, and Spain
DC, MA, MD, PA, TX, and VA
Not Available
FL, IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI, and national
FL, KS, and national
FL, IA, IL, IN, ME, MI, MN, NJ, OH, PA, VA, W
national

TX,





I, and
                                          IV-30

-------
                                                                              V. References
V.   REFERENCES

Adams, C.M., S.L. Larkin, D. Mulkey, A. Hodges, and Ballyram. 2002. Measuring the Economic
   Consequences and Public Awareness of Red Tide Events in Florida. Report submitted to the
   Harmful Algal Task Force, Florida Marine Research Institute.
Anderson, E. 1989. Economic Benefits of Habitat Restoration: Seagrass and the Virginia Hardshell
   Blue Crab Fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9: 140-149.
Anderson, D.M., P. Hoagland, Y. Kaoru, and A.W. White. 2000. Estimated Annual Economic
   Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the United States. Woods Hole Oceanographic
   Institute, document no. WHOI-2000-11.
Anderson, G.D. and S.F. Edwards. 1986. Protecting Rhode Island's Coastal Salt Ponds: "An
   Economic Assessment of Downzoning."  Coastal  Zone Management 14( Vz): 67-91.
Ara, S., E. Irwin, and T. Haab. 2006. Measuring the Effects of Lake Erie Water Quality in Spatial
   Hedonic Price Models. Environmental and Resource Economists, Third World Conference,
   Kyoto, Japan.
Associated Press. 2013. Algae blooms found in more  Kentucky lakes. Courier Press. Accessible
   electronically at: http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/aug/01/algae-blooms-found-in-
   more-kentucky-lakes /
Athearn, Kevin. 2008. Economic Losses from Closure of Shellfish Harvesting Areas in Maine.
   University of Maine at Machias.
Azevedo, C., J. Herriges, and C. Kling. 2001. Valuing  Preservation and Improvements  of Water
   Quality in Clear Lake. Staff Report 01-  SR- 94. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development,
   Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Barnstable County Wastewater Cost Task Force. (2010). Comparison of Costs for Wastewater
   Management Systems Applicable to Cape Cod: Guidance to Cape Cod Towns Undertaking
   Comprehensive Wastewater Management Planning. Retrieved on 2013/03/07.
   
Barr. 2005. Internal Phosphorus Load Study: Kohlman and Keller Lakes.
Barr. 2012. Spring Lake Sediment Core Analysis, Alum Dose Determination and Application Plan.
Bauer, M., P. Hoagland, T.M. Leschine, B.G. Blount,  C.M. Pomeroy, L.L. Lampl, C.W. Scherer,
   D.L. Ayres, P.A. Tester, M.R. Sengco, KG. Sellner, and J. Schumacker. 2010. The  importance of
   human dimensions research in managing harmful  algal blooms. Frontiers in Ecology and the
   Environment 8(2): 75-83.
Berkshire Regional Planning Commission. 2004. Onota Lake Long-Range Management Plan.
   Prepared for the City of Pittsfield.
Bernhardt, E.S., Palmer, M.A., Allen, J.D., and others. (2005). Synthesizing  U.S. River Restoration
   Efforts. Science, 308/5722, pp 636-637.
Bernhardt, E.S., Sudduth, E.B., Palmer, M.A., Allen, J.D., Meyer, J.L., and others. (2007). Restoring
   rivers one reach at a time: results from a survey of U.S river restoration practitioners. Society of
   Ecological Restoration International, 15, 3, pp 482-493.
                                           V-1

-------
                                                                               V. References
Birch, M.B.L., B.M. Gramig, W.R. Moomaw, O.C. Doering, and C.J. Reeling. 2011. Environmental
    Science & Technology 45(1): 168-174.
The Blade, August 2, 2014. Toledo-area water advisory expected to continue through Sunday as
    leaders await tests; water stations to remain open.
    http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2014/08/02/City-of-Toledo-issues-do-no-drink-water-
    advisery.html.
Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell, and I.E. Strand. 1989. Measuring the Benefits of Improvements
    in Water Quality: The Chesapeake Bay. Marine Resource Economics 6: 1-18.
Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell, and I.E. Strand. 1989. Measuring the Benefits of Improvements
    in Water Quality: The Chesapeake Bay. Marine Resource Economics 6: 1-18.
Boyle, K. J., S. R. Lawson, H. J. Michael, and R. Bouchard. (1998). "Lakefront Property Owners'
    Economic Demand for Water Clarity in Maine Lakes." Misc. Report No. 410, Maine
    Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono.
Breetz, H. L., Fisher-Vanden, K., Garzon, L., Jacobs, H., Kroetz, K., & Terry, R. (2004). Water
    Quality Trading and Offset Initiatives in the U.S.: A Comprehensive Survey. Dartmouth College,
    Hanover, N. H.
Burghdoff,  M. and G. Williams. 2012. Lake Ketchum Algae Control Plan.
Carey, R.T. and R.W. Leftwich. 2007. Water Quality and Housing Value on Lake Greenwood: A
    Hedonic Study on Chlorophyll-a Levels and the 1999 Algal Bloom. The Strom Thurmond
    Institute, Clemson University.
Caron, D.A., M.E. Garneau, E. Seubert, M.D.A. Howard, L. Darjany, A. Schnetzer, I. Cetinic, G.
    Filteau, P. Lauri, B. Jones, and S. Trussell. 2010. Harmful Algae and Their Potential Impacts on
    Desalination Operations Off Southern California. Water Research 44: 385-416.
Carson, R.T. and R.C. Mitchell. 1993. "The value  of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for
    boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water." Water Resources Research 29(7): 2445-2454.
Cedar Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District. 2013. Cedar Lake: Lake Management Plan. Draft.
Center for Watershed Protection (2013). Cost-Effectiveness Study of Urban Stormwater BMPs in
    the James River Basin. Retrieved 2013/8/11. 
Cesar, H., P. Beukering, S. Pintz, and J. Dierking.  2002. Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of
    Hawaii: Final Report.
Chandler, K.L. 2013. Feasibility Report for Water Quality Improvements in Twin Lake CIP Project
    TW-2. Engineer's Report to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.
Chesapeake Bay Program. (2002). Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Estimations for Point
    Sources in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Retrieved 2013/02/28.
    
City of Lake Stevens. 2013. Phosphorus Management Plan.
City News Service. 2011. Algae Bloom in Tap Water Affecting Some in Southland.  October 1, 2011.
    http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Algae-Bloom-in-Tap-Water-Affecting-Some-in-
    Southland-130910958.html
                                           V-2

-------
                                                                              V. References
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2011. Cost/Benefit Study of
   the Impacts of Potential Nutrient Controls for Colorado Point Source Discharges. CDM.
Compton, Jana E., J.A. Harrison, R.L. Dennis, T.L. Greaver, B.H Hill, S.J. Jordan, H. Walker, and
   H.V. Campbell. 2011. Ecosystem services altered by human changed in the nitrogen cycle: a new
   perspective for US decision making. Ecology Letters 14: 804-815.
Cooke, G.D., Welch, E.B., Peterson, S.A., & Nichols, S.A. (2005). Restoration and Management of
   Lakes and Reservoirs, 3rd edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL; 616 pages.
Cropper, M.L. and W. Isaac. 2011. The Benefits of Achieving the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs (Total
   Maximum Daily Loads), A Scoping Study. Resources for the Future, document no. RFF DP 11-
   31
Czajkowski, J. and O. Bin. 2010. Do Homebuyers Differentiate Between Technical and Non-
   Technical Measures of Water Quality? Evidence from a Hedonic Analysis in South Florida.
Davenport, T. and W. Drake. 2011. EPA Commentary: Grand Lake St. Marys, Ohio —The Case for
   Source Water Protection: Nutrients and Algae Blooms.
Davenport, T., R. Gibson, and T. Mount. 2010. Implementing Grand Lake St. Marys Nutrient
   TMDL.
de Zoysa, A. Damitha. 1995. "A Benefit Evaluation of Programs to Enhance Groundwater Quality,
   Surface Water Quality and Wetland Habitats in Northwest Ohio." Ph.D.  dissertation.
   Department of Agricultural and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio.
Des Moines Register. 2013. News Article: Nitrates in Des Moines Rivers Hit Record Levels.
   Sourcewater Collaborative, http://www.sourcewatercollaborative.org/highlights/news-article-
   nitrates-in-des-moines-rivers-hit-record-levels/
Desvousges, W.H., V.K. Smith and A. Fisher. 1987. "Option Price Estimates for Water Quality
   Improvements: A Contingent Valuation Study for the Monongahela River." Journal of
   Environmental Economics and Management. 14: 248-267.
Devlin, D., Dhuyvetter, K., McVay, K., Kastens, T., Rice, C., Janssen, K., & Pierzynski, G. (2003).
   Water Quality Best Management Practices, Effectiveness, and Cost for Reducing Contaminant
   Losses from Cropland. Retrieved on 2013/03/12. 
Diaz, Robert J. and R. Rosenberg. 2011. Introduction to Environmental and Economic
   Consequences of Hypoxia.
Dodds, W. K., W.W. Bouska, J. L. Eitzmann, T.J. Pilger, K.L. Pitts, A.J. Riley, J.T. Schloesser, and
   D.J. Thornbrugh. 2009. Eutrophication of U.S. Freshwaters: Analysis of Potential Economic
   Damages. American Chemical Society: Environmental Science and Technology, Policy Analysis,
   Vol. 43, No. 1.
Dyson, K., and D.D. Huppert. 2010. Regional economic impacts of razor clam beach closures due
   to harmful algal blooms (HABs) on the Pacific coast of Washington. Harmful Algae (9): 264 -
   271.
                                           V-3

-------
                                                                              V. References
Egan, K.J., J.A. Herriges, C.L. Kling, and J.A. Downing. 2008. Valuing Water Quality as a Function
   of Water Quality Measures.
ENSR Corporation. 2008. Lovers Lake and Stillwater Pond Eutrophication Mitigation Plan Report:
   Final Report. 12249-001-500.
ENSR International. 2002. Lake Pocotopaug Lake and Watershed Restoration Evaluation. East
   Hampton, Connecticut.
Evans, G. and L. Jones. 2001. Economic Impact of the 2000 Red Tide on Galveston County, Texas:
   A Case Study. Texas Parks and Wildlife.
Everglades Foundation. (2012). Enterprise Assessment for the Reduction of Nutrient Pollution in
   South Florida Waters-Final Report. Retrieved 2013/03/06.
   
Falk, M.W., Neethling, J.B., Reardon, D.J. (2011). Striking the Balance Between Nutrient Removal in
   Wastewater Treatment and Sustainability. London, IWA Publishing.
Florida Department of Health. No date. Harmful Algal Blooms-Economic Impacts.
   http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Environment/medicine/aquatic/EconomicImpactsRevised.pdf
Gibbs, J.P., J.M. Halstead, K.J. Boyle, and J.  Huang.2002. An Hedomc Analysis of the  Effects of
   Lake Water Clarity on New Hampshire Lakefront Properties. Agricultural and Resource
   Economics Review 31:39^-6.
Glass, J. 2003. Historical Review of Golden Alga (Prymnesium parvum) Problems in Texas. Golden
   Alga Workshop Oct. 24-25, 2003. Texas  Parks and Wildlife Department.
Gorte, Ross W. 1994. The Florida bay economy and changing environmental conditions. 94-435
   ENR, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress.
Grossmann, M. (2012). Economic Value of the Nutrient Retention Function of Restored Floodplain
   Wetlands in the Elbe River Basin. Ecological Economics, 83, pp 108-117.
Haab, T.C., J.C. Whitehead, G.R. Parsons, J. Kirkley, and D. Lipton. 2002. The Economic Effects of
   a Pfiesteria in the Mid-Atlantic Region
HARRNESS. 2005. Harmful Algal Research & Response: A National Environmental Science
   Strategy, 2005-2015.
Hayes, K.M., T.J. Tyrrell, and G. Anderson.  1992. Estimating the Benefits of Water Quality
   Improvements in the Upper Narragansett Bay. Marine Resource Economics 7: 75-85.
Heisler, J., P.M. Gilbert, J.M. Burkholder, D.M. Anderson, W. Cochlan, W.C. Denmson, Q. Dortch,
   C.J. Cobler, C.A. Heil, E. Humphries, A. Lewitus, R. Magmen, H.G. marshall, K. Sellner, D.A.
   Stockwell, D.K. Stoecker, and M. Suddleson. 2008. Eutrophication and Harmful Algal Blooms:
   A Scientific Consensus. Harmful Algae.
Helm, E.G., G.R. Parsons, and T. Bondelid. 2004. "Measuring the Economic Benefits  of Water
   quality Improvements to Recreational Users in Six Northeastern States: Sn Application of the
   Random Utility Maximization Model." http://works.bepress.com/george_parsons/25
Henry, T. 2013. Toxins Overwhelm Carroll Township Water Plant: Ottawa Co. Treatment Facility
   Offline While Remedy Made. The Blade.
                                           V-4

-------
                                                                               V. References
Hernandez-Sancho, F., Molinos-Senante, M., & Sala-Garrido, R. (2011). Cost Modelling for
    Wastewater Treatment Processes. Desalination, 268, pp 1-5.
Herrera Environmental Consultants. 2003. Technical Report: Green Lake Alum Treatment Study.
    Prepared for Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation.
Herriges, J., C. Kling, C.C. Liu, and J. Tobias. 2010. What are the Consequences of
    Consequentiality? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59: 67-81.
Hicks, R. and I. Strand. 2000. The Extent of Information: Its Relevance for Random Utility Models.
    Land Economics 76: 374-385.
Hite, D., D. Hudson, and W. Intarapapong. 2002. Willingness to Pay for Water Quality
    Improvements: The Case of Precision Application Technology. Department of Agricultural
    Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL; 8 August 2002.
Hochmuth, G., T. Nell, J. Sartain, J.B. Unruh, C.  Martinez, L. Trenholm, and J. Cisar. 2011. Urban
    Water Quality and Fertilizer Ordinances: Avoiding Unintended Consequences: A Review of
    Scientific Literature. University of Florida IFAS Extension.
Hoagland, P. D.M. Anderson, Y.  Kaoru, and A.W. White. 2002. The Economic Effects of Harmful
    Algal Blooms in the United States: Estimates, Assessment Issues, and  Information Needs.
    Estuaries 25(4b): 819-837.
Hoagland, P., D.Jin, L.Y. Polansky, B. Kirkpatrick, G. Kirkpatrick, L.E. Fleming, A. Reich, S.M.
    Watkins, S.G. Ullmann, and L.C. Backer. 2009. The Costs of Respiratory Illnesses Arising from
    Florida Gulf Coast Karenia brevis Blooms. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(8): 1239-
    1243.
Hoyman, T. 2011. East Alaska Lake Alum Treatment Plan. Tri-Lakes Association.
Huang, L., L.A.B. Nichols, Craig, J.K. and M.D. Smith. 2012. Measuring Welfare Loss from
    Hypoxia: The Case of North Carolina Brown Shrimp. Marine Resource Economics 27: 3-23.
Huang, L., M.D. Smith, and K. Craig. 2010. Quantifying the Economic Effects  of Hypoxia on a
    Fishery for Brown Shrimp Farfantepenaeus aztecus. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics,
    Management, and Ecosystem Science 2:232—248.
Hunt, S. 2013. Algae bloom limits swimming in Buckeye Lake. The Columbus Dispatch. Accessible
    electronically at: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2013/08/05/buckeye-lake-
    algae.html
Jenkins, W.A., B.C. Murray, R.A.  Kramer, and S.P. Faulkner. 2010. Valuing Ecosystem Services
    from Wetlands Restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley.
Jensen, V.B., Darby, J.L.,  Seidel, C. & Gorman, C. 2012. Drinking Water Treatment for Nitrate.
    Technical Report 6 in: Addressing Nitrate in California's Drinking Water with a  Focus on Tulare
    Lake Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater. Report for the State Water Resources Control
    Board Report to the Legislature. Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis.
Jiang, F., Beck, M.B., Cummings,  R.G., Rowles, K., & Russell, D. (2004). Estimation of Costs of
    Phosphorus Removal in Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Construction De Novo (Water Policy
    Working Paper #2004-010). Retrieved on 2013/02/27.
    http://h2opolicycenter.org/researchpapers/DeNovo.pdf
                                           V-5

-------
                                                                               V. References
Jin, D., E. Thurnberg, and P. Hoagland. 2008. Economic impact of the 2005 red tide event on
    commercial shellfish fisheries in New England. Ocean & Coastal Management 51: 420-429.
Johnston, R.J., E.Y. Besedm, R. lovanna, C.J. Miller, R.F. Wardwell, and M.H. Ranson. 2006.
    Systematic Variation in Willingness to Pay for Aquatic Resource Improvements and Implications
    for Benefits Transfer: A Meta-Analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 53: 221-
    248.
Kahn, J.R., and W.M. Kemp. 1985. Economic Losses Associated with the Degradation of an
    Ecosystem: The Case of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of
    Environmental Economics and Management 12: 246—263.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). 2011. Water Quality Standards White
    Paper: Chlorophyll-a Criteria for Public Water Supply Lakes or Reservoirs.
Kashian, R. and J. Kasper. 2010. Tainter Lake and Lake Menomin- The Impact of Diminishing
    Water Quality on Value. Department of Economics- University of Wisconsin.
Kaw Valley Heritage Alliance. (2003). Upper Wakarusa River Watershed Restoration and Protection
    Strategy 9 Element Plan. Retreived on 2013/03/08.
    
Keplinger, K, A. Tanter, and J. Houser. 2003. Economic and Environmental Implications of
    Phosphorus Control at North Bosque River Wastewater Treatment Plants. Texas Institute for
    Applied Environmental Research.
King County. 2005. Lake Hicks (Lake  Garrett) Integrated Phosphorus Management Plan.
Krupnick, A.  1988.Reducing Bay Nutrients: An Economic Perspective. Maryland Law Review
    47:453^80.
Krysel, C., E.M. Boyer,  C. Parson, and P. Welle. 2003. Lakeshore Property Values and Water
    Quality: Evidence from Property Sales in the Mississippi Headwaters  Region. Mississippi
    Headwaters Board and Bemidji State University.
Lake Erie Improvement Assocation. 2012. Strategic Plan for Lake Erie Partners: Sustaining Healthy
    Waters for Lake Erie's Economy. December.
Larkin, S.L. and C.M. Adams. 2007. Harmful Algal Blooms and Coastal Business: Economic
    Consequences in  Florida. Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida.
Larson, D., D. Lew, and Y. Onozaka. 2001. The Public's Willingness to Pay for Improving
    California's Water Quality. Western Regional Research Publication of the W- 133, 14th Interim
    Report. Compiled by J. Fletcher. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, West
    Virginia University.  Morgantown, WV.
Lipton, D. 2004. The Value of Improved Water Quality to Chesapeake Bay Boaters. Marine
    Resource  Economics 19:265—270.
Lipton, D.W., and R.W. Hicks. 1999. Linking Water Quality Improvements  to Recreational Fishing
    Values: The Case of Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass. In Evaluating the Benefits of Recreational
    Fisheries,  edited by  T.J. Pitcher. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, vol.7(2). Vancouver, BC:
    University of British Columbia, 105—110.
Lipton, D.W., and R.W. Hicks. 2003. The Cost of Stress: Low Dissolved  Oxygen and the Economic
    Benefits of Recreational Striped Bass Fishing in the Patuxent River. Estuaries 26: 310—315.
                                           V-6

-------
                                                                               V. References
Lollar, K. 2008. Algae Bloom Closes Water Treatment Facility. News-Press.com.
Loomis, J., P. Kent, L. Strange, K. Fausch and A. Covich. 2000. "Measuring the total economic
   value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent
   valuation survey." Ecological Economics 33: 103-117.
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2012. Cost Estimates for Phase II WIP.
Massey, D.M., S.C. Newbold, and B. Center. 2006. Valuing Water Quality Changes Using a
   Bioeconomic Model of a Coastal Recreational Fishery. Journal of Environmental Economics
   and Management 52:482—500.
Matthews, L.G., F.R. Romans, and K.W. Easter. 1999. Reducing Phosphorus Pollution in the
   Minnesota River: How Much is it Worth? University of Minnesota Staff Paper.
Michael, H.J., K.J. Boyle, and R. Bouchard. 2000. Does the Measurement of Environmental Quality
   Affect Implicit Prices Estimated from Hedonic Models? Land Economics 76: 283-298.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Health Synthesis.
   World Health Organization.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA). No date. Drinking Water Protection Series: Nitrate
   Contamination—What is the Cost?
Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board. (2004). Wastewater Phosphorus
   Control and Reduction Initiative. Retrieved 2013/02/28. .
Mistiaen, J. A., I. E. Strand, and D. Lipton. 2003. Effects of environmental stress on blue crab (
   Callinectes sapidus ) harvests in Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Estuaries and Coasts (impact factor:
   2.11). 01/2003; 26(2):316-322. DOL10.1007/BF02695970
Morgan,K.L., and S.L. Larkin. 2006. Economic Impacts of Red Tide Events on Restaurant  Sales.
Morgan, C., and N. Owens. 2001. Benefits of Water Quality Policies: The Chesapeake Bay.
   Ecological Economics 39:271-284.
Morgan, K.L., S.L. Larkin, and C.M. Adams. 2009. Firm-level economic effects of HABs: A tool for
   business loss assessment. Harmful Algae 8 (2009) 212-218.
New York Times, August 8, 2014. Cyanobacteria are far from just Toledo's problem.
   http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/science/cyanobacteria-are-far-from-just-toledos-
   problem.html?_r=0
Oh, C.O., and R.B. Ditton. 2005. Estimating the Economic Impacts of Golden Alga (Prymnesium
   parvum) on Recreational Fishing at Possum Kingdom Lake, Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife.
Oneby, M. and L. J. Bollyky. 2006. High-pressure Pipeline Pre-ozonation at Witchita, Kansas for
   Taste and Odor Control. Presented at International Conference Ozone and UV, April 3rd 2006.
O'Neil, J.M., Davis, T.W., Burford, M.A. and Gobler, C.J. (2012)  The rise of harmful cyanobactena
   blooms: The  potential roles of eutrophication and climate change. Harmful Algae, 14: 313-334.
Osgood, D. 2002. Lake Mitchell Alum Treatment System: Final Report and Recommendations.
   Ecosystem Strategies.
Paerl, H.W., and  Huisman, J. (2009) Climate change: a catalyst for global expansion of harmful
   cyanobacterial blooms. Environ. Microb. Rep., 1(1): 27-37.


                                           V-7

-------
                                                                               V. References
Paerl, H.W. and Paul, V.J. (2012)  Climate change: Links to global expansion of harmful
    cyanobactena. Wat. Res., 46: 1349-1363.
Parsons, G. R., A. Morgan,]. C. Whitehead, and T. C. Haab. 2006. The Welfare Effects of
    Pfiesteria-Related Fish Kills: A Contingent Behavior Analysis of Seafood Consumers.
    Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35/2 (October 2006) 348—356
Parsons, G. R., A. Morgan,]. C. Whitehead, and T. C. Haab. 2006. The Welfare Effects of
    Pfiesteria-Related Fish Kills: A Contingent Behavior Analysis of Seafood Consumers.
    Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35/2 (October 2006) 348—356
Pendleton, Linwood H. 2008. The Economic and Market Value of Coasts and Estuaries: What's at
    Stake? Restore America's Estuaries.
Pennsylvania General Assembly: Legislative Budget and Finance Committee. 2013. A Cost Effective
    Alternative Approach to Meeting Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Targets.
    (Conducted Pursuant to Act 2012-87). Retrieved on 2013/11/11.
    http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/reports/2013/77.PDF
Phaneuf, D.J. 2002. "A Randon Utility Model  for Total Maximum Daily Loads: Estimating the
    Benefits  of Watershed- Based Ambient Water Quality Improvements." Water Resources
    Research, 38(11). Doi:10.1029/2001WR000959
Poor, P.J., K.J. Boyle, L.O. Taylor, and R. Bouchard. 2001. Objective versus Subjective Measures of
    Water Clarity in Hedonic Property Value Models. Land Economics 77: 482-492.
Poor, P.J., K.L. Pessagno, and R.W. Paul. 2007. Exploring the Hedonic Value of Ambient Water
    Quality: A Local Watershed-Based Study. Ecological Economics 60: 797-806
Ralonde, R. 2001. Harmful algal blooms: the economic consequences for Alaska. Mimeo.Fairbanks:
    University of Alaska Marine Advisory Program. In: R.  RaLonde (ed.). 2001. Harmful Algal
    Blooms on the North American West Coast. University of Alaska Sea Grant, AK-SG-01-05,
    Fairbanks.
Ribaudo, Marc, J. Delgado, L. Hansen, Ml. Livingston, R. Mosheim, and J. Williamson. 2011.
    Nitrogen in Agricultural Systems: Implications for Conservation Policy. United States
    Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Sanders, L. B., R.G. Walsh, and J.B. Loomis. 1990. "Toward Empirical Estimation of the Total
    Value of Protecting Rivers." Water Resources Research. 26(7): 1345-1357.
Shilling, F., S. Sommarstrom, R. Kattelmann, B. Washburn, J. Florsheim, and R. Henly. (2005).
    California Watershed Assessment Manual: Volume I. Prepared for  the California Resources
    Agency and the California Bay-Delta Authority (http://cwam.ucdavis.edu).
Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. 2008. Final Report for Tasks 1, 2, and 3 for Project
    Entitled Nutrient Loading Rates, Reduction Factors and Implementation Costs Associated with
    BMPs and Technologies. Prepared for South Florida Water Management District.
Steinnes, D.  N.  1992. "Measuring the Economics Value of Water Quality." Annals of Regional
    Science. 26:171-76.
Strumberg, B.E., K.A. Baerenklau, and R.C. Bishop. 2001. Nonpoint Source Pollution and Present
    Values: A Contingent Valuation Study of Lake Mendota. Review of Agricultural Economics 23:
    120-132.
                                           V-8

-------
                                                                             V. References
Szogi, A.A., Vanotti, M.B., & Hunt, P.G. 2008. Phosphorus Recovery from Poultry Litter. American
   Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 51, 5, pp 1727-1734.
Tetra Tech. 2004. Lake Lawrence Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). Alum
   and Sediment Dredging Feasibility Assessment.
The Cadmus Group Inc. 2014. The Economic Impact of Nutrients and Algae on a Central Texas
   Drinking Water Supply. May.
The LA Group. 2001. An Action Plan for the Long Term Management of Nuisance Aquatic
   Vegetation in Cossayuna Lake. Report prepared for the Town of Argyle.
Times Standard. 2013. Blue-green algae a health hazard in Klamath River: Caution urged in water
   contact and fish consumption. Accessible electronically at: http://www.nmes-
   standard.com/breakingnews/ci_24116523/blue-green-algae-health-hazard-klamath-river-caution
Upper Ocklawaha Basin Working Group (UOBWG). 2007. Basin Management Action Plan: For the
   Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads Adopted by the Florida Department of
   Environmental Protection in the Upper Ocklawaha River Basin.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1999. Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Plants for BNR
   Retrofits Using Advances in Technology. (EPA-R-99-020).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2001. The National Costs  of the Total Maximum Daily
   Load Program (Draft Report). (EPA 841-D-01-003).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2001. The National Costs  of the Total Maximum Daily
   Load Program, Support Document #1.  (EPA 841-D-01-003).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2003. Economic Analyses of Nutrient and Sediment
   Reduciton Actions to Restore Chesapeake Bay Water Quality. Retrieved on 2013/03/06.
   
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2003. A Summary of General Assessment Factors for
   Evaluating the Quality of Scientific and  Technical Information. (EPA 100/B-03/001).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2004. Technical Development Document for the Final
   Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source
   Cateogory (40 CFR Part 432): Volumes  1 - 4. (EPA-821-R-04-011).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2008. Municipal Nutrient Removal Technologies Reference
   Document: Volume 1 & 2 - Technical Report.  (EPA 832-R-08-006).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2009. An Urgent Call to Action: Report of the State-EPA
   Nutrient Innovations Task Group. Retrieved on 1/22/2014.
   
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2010. Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards
   for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2012. Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition.
   (EPA-823-B-12-002).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2013. Fiscal Year 2014 National Water Program Guidance
                                          V-9

-------
                                                                               V. References
Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). 2010. Final Report: Statewide Nutrient Removal Cost
    Impact Study. CH2MHill.
Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). 2013. Economic Benefits of Nutrient Reductions in
    Utah's Waters. CH2MHill.
van Beukering, P.J.H. and H.S.J. Cesar. 2004. Ecological Economic Modeling of Coral Reefs:
    Evaluating Tourist Overuse at Hanauma Bay and Algae Blooms at the Kihei Coast, Hawaii.
    Pacific Science 58(2): 243-260.
Viscusi, K., J. Huber, and J. Bell. 2008. "The Economic Value of Water Quality." Environmental
    and Resource  Economics. 41(2): 169- 187.
Von Haefen, R.H. 2003. "Incorporating Observed choice into the Construction of Welfare
    Measures  from Random Utility Models." Journal of Environmental Economics and
    Management 45:145; pp.165.
Walsh, P., J.W. Milon, and D. Scrogin. 2011. The Property-Price Effects  of Abating Nutrient
    Pollutants in Urban Housing Markets. Economic Incentives for Stormwater Control, Chapter 6.
    Ed. Hale W. Thurston
Washington State Department of Ecology (WASDE). 2011. Technical and Economic Evaluation of
    Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal at Municicipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Retrieved
    2013/02/28. .
Water Environment Research Foundation. 2005. Nutrient Farming and Traditional Removal: An
    Economic Comparison. (03-WSM-6CO). Alexandria, VA: IWA Publishing.
Water Research Foundation (WRF). 2009.  Strategy for Controlling and Mitigating Algal Growth
    within Water Treatment Plants. ISBN 978-1-60573-058-5
Weaver, K. 2010.  "Estuary and Coastal Waters Numeric Nutrient  Criteria: Workshop Introduction."
    Estuary Numeric Nutrient Criteria Public Meeting for Portions of the Florida Coast from Dixie
    County to Pasco County.
Weiss, P.T., Gulliver, J.S., & Erickson, A.J. 2007. Cost and Pollution Removal of Storm-Water
    Treatment Practices. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 133, 3, pp 218-219.
Wheeler, T.B. 2013.  Fish kills, toxic algae plague Northwest Creek in Stevensville. The Baltimore
    Sun. Accessible electronically at: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-08-26/features/bs-gr-
    toxic-algae-shore-20130825_l_blue-green-algae-microcystis-fish-kills
Whitehead, J.C. and  P.A. Groothius. 1992. Economic Benefits of Improved Water Quality: A Case
    Study of North Carolina's Tar-Pamlico River. Rivers 29: 170-178.
Whitehead, J.C., T. Hoban and W. Clifford. 2002. Landowners' Willingness to Pay for Water Quality
    Improvements: Jointly Estimating Contingent Valuation and Behavior with Limited
    Information. White paper developed in part by U.S. EPA, NCDENR and the College of
    Agriculture and Life Sciences at NSCU.
Whittington,D.,G. Cassidy,D. Amaral, E.McClelland, H.Wang and C. Poulos. 1994. The economic
    value of improving the environmental quality of Galveston Bay. Department of Environmental
    Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, GBNEP-38, 6/94.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.  2012. Phosphorus Reduction in Wisconsin Water
    Bodies: an Economic Impact Analysis.
                                           V-10

-------
                                                                                V. References
Wortmann, C., Morton, L.W., Helmers, M., Ingels, C., Devlin, D., Roe, J., McCann, L., Liew, M.V.
    2011. Cost-effective Water Quality Protection in the Midwest. (RP197). Heartland Regional
    Water Coordination Initiative.

Young, C.E. 1984. Perceived Water Quality and the Value of Seasonal Homes. Water Resources
    Bulletin 20.
                                           V-11

-------
                                                                     Appendix A
APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF THE COSTS OF

NUTRIENT POLLUTION

Table A-l and Table A-2 provide anecdotal evidence and summarize additional studies of the local
economic impacts and increased costs associated with nutrient pollution. Table A-3 provides a
summary of anecdotal mitigation costs (in the form of restoration and water quality improvement
projects designed to meet phosphorus load reductions under Florida's Upper Ocklawaha River
Basin TMDL (UOBWG, 2007)). Note that this is not a comprehensive listing, and new information
is continually emerging. The dollar values are in the original reported year dollars.

Table A-1. Summary of Anecdotal Evidence of the Costs of Nutrient Pollution
Source
Source Type
Water
Quality
Issue
Location
Waterbody or
Resource
Description
Reported Loss (Original
Dollar Years)
Tourism and Recreation









Hunt (2013)












HARRNESS
(2005)












Newspaper
orfir-lp
dL lll/JV'











Strategy
document












Algal blooms












Algal blooms












OH












WAand
OR












Buckeye Lake









Recreational razor
clam fishery closed
due to domoic acid
(from harmful algae)
contamination
throughout WA and
OR coastal
communities
Due to the presence of a liver
toxin produced by algae near
beaches, state park officials
have posted warnings for
swimmers along the beaches of
Buckeye Lake in Fan-field,
Licking, and Perry Counties for
the last 3 summers, and
revenues have declined. The
toxic algae is attributed to
excess phosphorus loading
from manure, sewage, and
fertilizers. Since 2011, the Ohio
Environmental Protection
Agency has spent more than
$700,000 on efforts to identify
sources of phosphorus loading
and to reduce algae at Buckeye
Lake.

Estimated reductions in
recreational spending of $10
million to $12 million in small
coastal communities; loss of
subsistence fishing for Native
American coastal tribes.

                                     A-1

-------
                                    Appendix A
Source

Times
Standard
(2013)



The
Associated
Press (2013)



Wheeler
(2013)



Source Type

Newspaper
article



Newspaper
article



Newspaper
article



Water
Quality
Issue

Algal blooms



Algal blooms



Algal blooms



Location

CA



KY



MD



Waterbody or
Resource
Description
Reaches of the
Klamath River
including the Copco
and Iron Gate
Reservoirs


Four Kentucky
lakes: Rough River,
Barren River,
Taylorsville, and
Nolin.



Northwest Creek



Reported Loss (Original
Dollar Years)
Blue-green algae blooms have
necessitated warnings against
human and animal contact with
and consumption of water in
the river due to health concerns.
Economic impacts are not
quantified but could include
decreased tourism and
recreational revenues.
HABs have been detected at 4
Kentucky lakes during the
summer of 20 1 3 . Collectively,
these lakes receive
approximately 5 million visitors
per year, and a lake manager
reports that some visitors have
cancelled campground
reservations.
Harmful algal blooms have
necessitated warnings against
swimming and beach closures,
with scheduled Girl Scout
camps being closed, and
property values declining; there
have been 18 fish kills in
Northwest Creek since 1986.
Plans to restore the creek are
estimated to cost $1 million.
Commercial Fishing

Glass (2003)


Workshop
presentation


Algal blooms


TX


Freshwaters in Texas
impacted by golden
algae (Prymnesium
parvum).

Conservative estimate of the
number of fish killed is 17.5
million; estimated value offish
killed is over $7 million.
Unknown indirect losses to
local tourism, sport fishing, and
state revenues.
Property Values


Wheeler
(2013)





Newspaper
article





Algal blooms





MD





Northwest Creek



Harmful algal blooms have
necessitated warnings against
swimming and beach closures,
with scheduled Girl Scout
camps being closed, and
property values declining; there
have been 18 fish kills in
Northwest Creek since 1986.
Plans to restore the creek are
estimated to cost $1 million.
Drinking Water Treatment
Lollar (2008)
Newspaper
article
Algal blooms
FL
Caloosahatchee
River
Harmful algal blooms caused
the closure of a water treatment
facility.
A-2

-------
                                     Appendix A
Source





Des Momes
Register

^ '






Henry (2013)



Lake Erie
Improvement
Association
(2012)


City News
Service (20 11)







KDHE(2011)




Source Type






Newspaper
article







Newspaper
article



A^^OPlHtlOTI
^Voo\J^ldLl\Jll
plan
documentation


Newspaper
article







Report




Water
Quality
Issue






Nitrate
concentrations







Algal blooms




Algal blooms


Algal blooms







Algal blooms




Location






IA








OH




OH


CA







KS




Waterbody or
Resource
Description






Des Moines River
and Raccoon River







Lake Erie




Lake Erie


Drinking water in
eastern Los Angeles
County and parts of
Orange County,
western San
Bernardino County,
and southwest
Riverside County




Reservoirs
throughout Kansas
impacted by excess
ol fTf*(*
dlgdC



Reported Loss (Original
Dollar Years)
Health-threatening levels of
nitrates in surface waters used
for drinking water necessitated
the use of a nitrate removal
plant, which has not been
needed since 2007 (the plant
cost $4 million to construct in
1992). The plant costs about
$7,000 per day to run, although
it is not clear if those are
operating costs at full capacity
or at current capacity (the plant
is only using 4 of the 8
treatment cells).
Extremely high levels of toxic
algae in the lake knocked the
water treatment plant offline
(which serves 2,000 residents
of Carroll Township).
The City of Toledo spent
$3,000 to $4,000 per day on
carbon activated filtration
during algal blooms, plus
additional costs to treat water
with potassium permanganate.
Algal blooms caused taste and
odor issues for drinking water
in Los Angeles County and
parts of Orange County, San
Bernardino County, and
Riverside County. Utilities have
applied copper sulfate to
control the bloom, but the taste

and odor issues persisted,
affecting approximately 7
million people in the area.
The city of Wichita constructed
an $8.5 million ozone facility at
Cheney Reservoir to control
taste and odor problems. In
Kansas, there have been a few
incidences of drinking water
treatment plants being forced to
shut down during moderate to
severe algal blooms due to the
inability to adequately treat the
source water.
A-3

-------
                                                                                            Appendix A
Table A-2. Summary of Additional Studies of the Costs of Nutrient Pollution
  Study
   Water
   Quality
    Issue
Location
 Waterbody
 or Resource
 Description
    Reported Loss (Original Dollar Years)
                                           National Aggregate
Anderson,
etal.
(2000)
Algal blooms
 National
Coastal waters
throughout the
U.S.
    Annual economic impacts $33.9 million-$81.6
    million (2000$).
    Public health (shellfish and ciguatera poisoning)
    $18.5million-$24.9 million.
    Commercial fishery (wild harvest and
    aquaculture losses associated with shellfish
    poisoning, ciguatera, and brown tides) $13.4
    million-$25.3 million.
    Recreation/tourism (impacts documented in NC,
    OR, and WA in various years) $0-$29.3
    million.
    Monitoring/management (cost of routine
    shellfish toxin monitoring programs, plankton
    monitoring, and other activities in 12 states)
    $2.0 million-$2.1 million.
Dodd, et al.
(2009)
Eutrophication
 National
Freshwaters
throughout the
United States
    Fishing and boating trip-related expenditure
    annual losses of $189 million-$589 million and
    $182 million-$567 million, respectively
    (2001$).
    Property value annual losses (scaled over 50
    years) of $0.3 billion, $1.4 billion, and $2.8
    billion for the low (5% private), intermediate
    (25% private), and high (50% private) assumed
    land availabilities, respectively.
    Aquatic biodiversity impacts of $44 million per
    year to develop 60 plans for the species that are
    at least partially imperiled due to eutrophication.
    Drinking water impacts of $813 million per year
    for bottled water because of taste and odor
    problems potentially linked to eutrophication
    (2001 dollars).	
                                         Tourism and Recreation
Morgan
and Larkin
(2006)
Red tide
   FL
Coastal waters
Presence of red tide on a given day reduces
restaurant sales by $616 (2005 dollars) (5% to 14%
of daily sales for the 3 restaurants evaluated);
however, impacts may also be caused at least
partially by natural drivers, and authors note that the
model is likely to be mis-specified.	
Adams, et
al. (2002)
Red tide
   FL
Ft Walton
Beach and
Destin areas
In one zip code, the monthly losses associated with a
red tide event are $2.23 million for restaurants and
$2.29 million for hotels; however, impacts may also
be caused at least partially by natural drivers.	
                                                 A-4

-------
                                     Appendix A
Study
Water
Quality
Issue
Location
Waterbody
or Resource
Description
Reported Loss (Original Dollar Years)
Commercial Fishing
Athearn
(2008)
Gorte
(1994)
Huang, et
al. (2012)
Red tide
Algal blooms
Hypoxia
ME
FL
NC
Coastal
fisheries
Florida Bay in
Monroe
County
Coastal waters
$6 million in losses for harvesters of soft-shell
clams, mahogany quahogs, and mussels, including
indirect and induced impacts $14.8 million lost in
sales and $7.9 million in lost income (2005$);
however, some damages were attributable to sources
besides or in addition to anthropogenic nutrient
pollution, such as flooding.
Losses of 500 jobs and $32 million in annual
personal income due to decline in pink shrimp
harvest between 1986 and 1994. Unable to attribute
commercial fishing revenue changes to nutrient
enrichment since revenues went down statewide
during the same period due to a weak economy.
Between 1999 and 2005, the average number of
hypoxic days (61) led to a $261,372 welfare loss
(2005$).
Property Values
Carey and
Leftwich
(2000)
Steinnes
(1992)
Young
(1984)
van
Beukering
and Cesar
(2004)
Cesar, et
al. (2002)
Algal blooms
Reduced
clarity
Algal blooms
Algal blooms
Algal blooms
sc
MN
VT
HI
HI
Greenwood
County shore
of Lake
Greenwood
53 lakes
Lake
Champaign
Coral reefs off
the coast of
Maui (Kihei
area)
Coastal waters
Chl-a concentrations and the presence of algal
blooms (as indicated by a dummy variable for year
of bloom and immediately after) are both
insignificantly related to the house price. Primary
model only uses a dummy variable for whether the
sale occurred between July 1999 and July 2001 (the
period of the bloom and immediately after);
however, it is unclear whether there were nutrient or
algal bloom problems in any other years besides
1999 through 2001.
An additional foot of clarity raises the value of a
lakefront lot by between $206 and $240; however,
clarity problems are not explicitly tied to nutrient
pollution.
The value of properties is depressed by 20% ($4,500
on average) when the properties are located on an
area of the lake that has degraded water quality (St.
Albans Bay). Water quality variable was a one-time
ranking of water quality by 30 individuals at 10
locations throughout the study area, while property
data covered 6 years of sales.
Reducing nutrients results in a $30 million
(approximate) increase in property values of houses,
hotels, and condominiums that are associated with
coral reefs.
Units in algae zones were about 43% as valuable as
units in algae-free areas. Extrapolating to all 754
"algae zone" units yields depreciation value of $9.4
million per year in lost value. Conclusions rely
heavily on public perception and not statistical or
data-driven analysis.
A-5

-------
                                                                    Appendix A
Study
Water
Quality
Issue
Location
Waterbody
or Resource
Description
Reported Loss (Original Dollar Years)
Drinking Water Treatment
Ribaudo, et
al. (2011)
Caron et al.
(2010)
Oneby and
Bollyky
(2006)
Nutrient
concentrations
Red tide
Algal blooms
(turbidity)
National
CA
KS
U.S. drinking
water supplies
Pacific Ocean
Cheney
Reservoir
outside of
Wichita,
Kansas
Nitrate removal from U.S. drinking water supplies
costs over $4.8 billion per year; however, the cost
estimates are based on 1996 technologies and as
such may not be applicable.
Harmful algal blooms (red tide in this case) can
cause operational issues at desalination plants,
including increased chemical consumption,
increased membrane fouling rates, and in some
cases plant shut-downs; however, these events are
not necessarily attributable to anthropogenic nutrient
pollution.
Cost to install ozonation system prior to drinking
water treatment plant was $8.5 million (completed
in 2005). Study does not provide description of what
project costs entailed or source/citation of costs.
Table A-3. Summary of Anecdotal Mitigation Costs in Florida

Project
Number -
Project
Name



ABC01 -
Nutrient
Reduction
Facility


BCL02 -
Qiir-flOTl
O \A\S L1\J 11
dredging of
western
Lake

Beauclair



BCL03 -
Gizzard
shad
harvest




General Location /
Description

Apopka-Beauclair Canal/CC
Ranch / Water in Apopka-
Beauclair Canal treated offline
with alum. Removes TP from
Lake Apopka discharge.
Reduces loading from Lake
Apopka to Lake Beauclair and
Apopka-Beauclair Canal.
Western end of Lake Beauclair

/ Suction dredging to remove 1
million cubic yards of sediment
in western end of Lake
Beauclair.

Lake Beauclair in-lake removal
offish / Harvest of gizzard shad
by commercial fishermen.
Removal offish removes
nutrients from lake. Reduces
recycling of nutrients from
sediments and reduces sediment
resuspension — total suspended
solids (TSS). Stabilizes bottom
to reduce TSS.
Estimated
TP
Load
Reduction
(Ibs /yr)


5,000




Unknown






Unknown





WBID
No.



2835A;
2834C




2834C






2834C





Lead Entity /
Funding Source /
Project Partners



LCWA/LCWA;
Legislature /
SJRWMD/DEP




FWC/LCWA/SJRW
MD / cost share/ ~





SJRWMD/
SJRWMDAd
valorem; Legislative
appropriation / -




Project Cost
(Original
Dollar Year)



$5,200,000




$12,000,000






$150,000/year
in 2005 and
2006




                                    A-6

-------
                                    Appendix A
Project
Number -
Project
Name


DORA13 -
Gizzard
shad
harvest






EUS25 -
Pine
Meadows
Restoration
Area





GRIF01 -
Lake
Griffin
Emeralda
Marsh
Restoration


General Location /
Description
Lake Dora in-lake removal of
fish / Harvest of gizzard shad
by commercial fishermen. Part
of experimental assessment
withUF and FWC. Removal of
fish removes nutrient from lake.
Reduces recycling of nutrients
from sediments and reduces
sediment resuspension (TSS).
Stabilizes bottom to reduce
TSS.
Pine Meadows Restoration
Area. Muck farm is east of
Trout Lake and discharges to
Hicks Ditch. / Reduce TP
loadings from former muck
farm. Restore aquatic, wetland,
and riverine habitat. Chemical
treatment of soil (alum) to bind
phosphates. Reduce nutrient
outflow to feasible level of 1.1
kg/ha/yr of TP, or about 1 Ib.
per acre. Trout Lake is tributary
to Lake Eustis. Reduction in
nutrient loading benefits both
Lake Eustis and Trout Lake.
Emeralda Marsh Conservation
Area (northeast marshes) north
of Haines Creek /Lake Griffin
Emeralda Marsh restoration: To
be managed for wetland
restoration, planting; alum
treatment to bind phosphates in
sediments; manage excess
nutrient outflow. Remove
phosphates and TSS, wetland
habitat restoration. Manage
nutrient outflow to Lake Griffin
to feasible loading of 1. 1
kg/ha/yr, or about 1 Ib. per acre.
Estimated
TP
Load
Reduction
(Ibs /yr)


Unknown






1,487 -Lake
Eustis;
726-
Trout Lake





41,450


WBID
No.


283 IB






2817B





2814A


Lead Entity /
Funding Source /
Project Partners


SJRWMD/
SJRMWDAd
valorem; Legislative
appropriation / -






SJRWMD/
SJRWMD / -





SJRWMD/
SJRWMD Ad
valorem; Legislative
appropriation / -


Project Cost
(Original
Dollar Year)


$150,000/year
in 2005 and
2006






$1,300,000
combined cost
for both lakes





$15,000,000
for land
acquisition


A-7

-------
                                     Appendix A

Project
Number -
Project
Name






GRIF02 -
Gizzard
Shad
Harvest








HAR02-
Lake
Harris
Conservatio
n
Area


HAR03 -

Harris

Bayou
Conveyanc


Project

LAP05-
Lake
Apopka
Constructed
Marsh
flow-way
Phase 1


LAP06-
North
Shore
Restoration



General Location /
Description

Lake Griffin in-lake removal of
fish / Gizzard shad removal
from Lake Griffin by
commercial fishermen.
Expanded to Lake Dora and
Lake Beauclair, with possible
future expansion to other lakes
in Harris Chain. Remove and
export nutrients via fish.

Reduces recycling of nutrients
from sediments and reduces
sediment resuspension (TSS).
Stabilizes bottom to reduce
TSS.
North shore of Lake Harris /
Restoration of former muck
farm. Chemical treatment of
soil (alum) to bind phosphates
for nutrient control. Aquatic
and wetland habitat restoration.
Reduce and manage nutrient
outflow to Lake Harris to
feasible loading of 1. 1 kg/ha/yr,
or about 1 Ib. per acre.
Harris Conservation Area to
Lake Griffin/ Establish water

flow connection to Lake

Griffin. Modification of
hydrodynamics to
accommodate higher flows of
water.

Northwest shore of Lake
Apopka / Constructed marsh on
northwest shore of lake. Lake
water pumped through marsh to
remove particulates and
nutrients from lake water.
Marsh designed to treat about
150 cubic feet per second (cfs).


North shore of Lake Apopka /
Wetland habitat restoration.
Remediate pesticide "hot spots"
in soil.


Estimated
TP
Load
Reduction
(Ibs /yr)






Unknown










6,665








Unknown




External
reduction:
4,864
and flow-
way:
17,640 to
22,050


99,960



WBID
No.







2814A










2838A








2838A




2835D


2835D



Lead Entity /
Funding Source /
Project Partners





SJRWMD /
SJRWMD Ad
valorem; Legislative
appropriation;
LCWA / ~








SJRWMD / Ad
valorem; Legislative
appropriation / -






SJRWMD / Ad

valorem; Legislative
appropriation / -


SJRWMD/
SJRWMD - SWIM
Legislative
Appropriation/ Ad
Valorem/Beltway
Mitigation Lake
County/LCWA -
$ 1,000,000 EPA -
$1, 000,000 /
LCWA/ Lake
County/EPA
SJRWMD/
SJRWMD/Legislati
ve
appropriation -
P2000:SOR: CARL;
USDA WRP /
USDA

Project Cost
(Original
Dollar Year)






$1,000,000
spent
since 2002
harvest









$550,000








$5,000,000




Total $-15
million in
land
acquisition /
$4.32 million
Phase 1
flow-way
construction


$-100 million
in land
acquisition


A-8

-------
                                                                                  Appendix A

Project
Number -
Project
Name

LAP07 -
With-in
Lake
Habitat
Restoration

Area




LAP08 -
Removal of
Gizzard
Shad
OlldU.







TROUT01
-Pine
Meadows
Restoration
Area






General Location /
Description

Lake Apopka / Planting of
wetland vegetation in littoral
zone, largely north shore. Helps
improve fishery, improves
water quality and may reduce
nutrient levels, stabilize bottom,

and reduce TSS.
Lake Apopka / Harvest of
gizzard shad by commercial
fishermen. Removal of fish

removes nutrient from lake.
Reduces recycling of nutrients
from sediments and reduces
sediment resuspension (TSS).
Stabilizes bottom to reduce
TSS.
Pine Meadows Restoration
Area. Muck farm is east of
Trout Lake and discharges to
Hicks Ditch. / Reduce TP
loadings from former muck
farm. Restore aquatic, wetland,
and riverine habitat. Chemical
treatment of soil (alum) to bind
phosphates. Reduce nutrient
outflow to feasible level of 1.1
kg/ha/yr of TP, or about 1 Ib.
per acre. Trout Lake is a
tributary to Lake Eustis.
Reduction in nutrient loading
benefits both Lake Eustis and
Trout Lake.
Estimated
TP
Load
Reduction
(Ibs /yr)

Unknown







Unknown








1,487 -Lake
Eustis;
726-
Trout Lake






WBID
No.


2835D







2835D








2817B;
2819A






Lead Entity /
Funding Source /
Project Partners


SJRWMD/
SJRWMDad
valorem /




SJRWMD/
SJRWMDad

valorem; Lake
County; LCWA;
Legislature
appropriation / Lake
County/LCWA






SJRWMD/
SJRWMD / -






Project Cost
(Original
Dollar Year)


-$10,000
annually







-$500,000
annually








$1,300,000
combined cost
for both lakes





Source: UOBWG (2007)
                                            A-9

-------
                                                                                       Appendix B
APPENDIX B:  COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES OF  NUTRIENT
RULEMAKINGS
The literature review summarized in Section III does not include studies with estimates of the
benefits of reduced nutrient loadings, nor does it include the anticipated impacts associated with
particular rulemaking proposals. Table B-l summarizes some benefit-cost studies of planned
nutrient pollution rulemaking at the state level.

Table B-1. Summary of State Level Cost-Benefit and Economic Analyses of
Proposed Nutrient Reduction  Regulations
 Study
Location
  Description of Rulemaking
                                             Description of Study
CDPHE
(2011)
   CO
Establishment of technology-based
controls on facilities that discharge
nutrients to Colorado waters,
specifically domestic and
nondomestic wastewater treatment
facilities.
                                Assessment of the expected costs, environmental
                                benefits, and drinking water treatment cost reductions.
                                Benefits that were assessed only qualitatively include
                                potable water supplies (substantial), property values
                                (potentially substantial), recreational activities
                                (moderate), intrinsic values (unknown), and
                                agriculture (minimal).	
UDWQ
(2013)
   UT
Potential nutrient removal
requirements for publicly owned
treatment works statewide.
                                Contingent valuation survey to estimate statewide
                                willingness-to-pay to either maintain current water
                                quality or to improve water quality (improving means
                                reclassifying 78% of "poor" water bodies to "fair,"
                                and 20% of "fair" to "good." Costs are quantified, in a
                                separate report—UDWQ (2010)—by analyzing four
                                potential discharge levels or tiers for model publicly
                                owned treatment works.
U.S.
EPA
(2010)
   FL
Numeric nutrient criteria for
Florida lakes and flowing waters.
                                Potential costs for point and nonpoint source controls
                                that may be needed to attain the criteria. Benefits
                                include transfer of water treatment plant function for
                                incremental water quality improvements at the
                                waterbody level expected to result from compliance
                                with proposed numeric nutrient criteria, aggregated
                                across all waters expected to improve as a result of
                                numeric nutrient criteria.
U.S.
EPA
(2013)
   FL
Numeric nutrient criteria for
Florida estuaries, coastal waters,
and South Florida inland flowing
waters.
                                Potential costs for point and nonpoint source controls
                                that may be needed to attain the criteria. Benefits
                                include transfer of water treatment plant function for
                                incremental water quality improvements at the
                                waterbody level expected to result from compliance
                                with proposed numeric nutrient criteria, aggregated
                                across all waters expected to improve as a result of
                                numeric nutrient criteria.
WDNR
(2012)
   WI
Regulations to decrease
phosphorus discharges from
industrial and municipal
dischargers, adopted June 2010.
                                Benefits transfer for property values (based on Dodds
                                et al. 2009) and recreational benefits (from Kaval and
                                Loomis 2003); avoided cost methods to estimate
                                reductions in need for managing algal blooms.	
                                               B-1

-------
                                                                      Appendix C
APPENDIX C: ANECDOTAL POINT SOURCE CONTROL COSTS
Table C-l shows costs for biological nutrient removal (BNR) and enhanced nutrient removal (ENR)
at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in Maryland (MDE 2012). Listed costs are for state grant
funds for BNR and ENR upgrades, total upgrade funds originating from all other sources, and the
total upgrade cost for BNR and ENR (i.e., the sum of state funding and other funding). For projects
that have a listed completion date for both BNR and ENR, the reported costs are actual; for all
others, reported costs are a combination of actual BNR costs and projected ENR costs.

Table C-1. Costs for BNR and ENR at WWTPs in Maryland
Major WWTP
ABERDEEN
ANNAPOLIS
APG-ABERDEEN*
BACK RIVER (BNR
REFINEMENT)
BALLENGER
CREEK
BLUE PLAINS
(Grants MD
PORTION)
BOONSBORO
(MINOR; STATE $
FOR BNR ONLY)
BOWIE
BROADNECK
BROADWATER
BRUNSWICK
CAMBRIDGE
CELANESE
CENTRE VILLE***
CHESAPEAKE
BEACH
CHESTERTOWN
CONOCOCHEAGU
E
COX CREEK
CRISFIELD
CUMBERLAND
DAMASCUS
DELMAR
Capacity (mgd)
Before
Expan
sion
4
13
2.8
180
6
169.6
0.53
3.3
6
2
1.4
8.1
1.66
0.5
1.18
0.9
4.1
15
1
15
1.5
0.65
After
Expan
sion
-
-
-
-
15
-
-
-
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
Completion
Year
BNR
1998
2000
2006
1998
1995
-
2010
1991
1994
2000
2008
2003
2006
2005
1992
2008
2001
2002
2010
2001
1998
-
ENR
-
-
2006
-
-
-
2010
2011
-
-
2008

2006
-
-
2008
-
-
2010
2011
-
-
Upgrade Cost (Original Dollar Years)
BNR (State
Share)
$1,317,417
$2,994,313
$0
$73,135,745
$1,000,000
$38,831,231

$2,601,676
$96,960
$206,897
$2,589,960
$2,333,661
$4,728,221
$3,606,579
$3,279,858
$0
$2,858,405
$2,612,390
$4,265,000
$1,986,639
$5,091,863
$830,600
$515,000
ENR (State
Share)
$14,982,000
$13,700,000
$0
$267,000,000
$31,000,000
$203,298,000
$0
$8,870,000
$7,851,000
$6,000,000
$8,263,000
$8,944,000
$2,333,382
$1,000,000
$9,157,000
$1,490,854
$27,537,000
$140,485,000
$4,231,000
$26,780,000
$5,235,000
$2,540,000
Total
Other
$13,079,817
$23,495,778
Unknown
$218,592,442
$111,033,621
$837,870,769
$9,954,718
$1,986,799
$21,161,593
$9,694,382
$4,029,488
$11,039,167
$10,154,290
$6,382,042
$20,688,400
$5,452,355
$12,606,897
$27,371,580
$4,052,884
$15,264,198
$26,186,280
$4,755,793
Total
Upgrade Cost
$29,379,234
$40,190,091
Unknown
$558,728,187
$143,033,621

$1,080,000,000
$12,556,394
$10,953,759
$29,219,490
$18,284,342
$14,626,149
$24,711,388
$16,094,251
$10,661,900
$29,845,400
$9,801,614
$42,756,287
$172,121,580
$10,270,523
$47,136,060
$32,251,880
$7,810,793
                                      C-1

-------
                                    Appendix C
Major WWTP
DENTON
DORSET RUN***
EASTON
ELKTON
EMMITSBURG
FEDERALSBURG
FREDERICK (BNR
REFINEMENT)
FREEDOM
DISTRICT (BNR
REFINEMENT)
FRUITLAND
GEORGES CREEK
HAGERSTOWN
HAMPSTEAD
HAVRE DE GRACE
(BNR
REFINEMENT)
HURLOCK
INDIAN HEAD
JOPPATOWNE
KENT ISLAND
LA PLATA
LEONARDTOWN
LITTLE
PATUXENT
MARLAY TAYLOR
(PINE HILL RUN)
MARYLAND CITY
MARYLAND
CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTE***
MATTAWOMAN**
*
MAYO LARGE
COMMUNAL
MOUNT AIRY
NORTHEAST
RIVER
PARKWAY
PATAPSCO
PATUXENT
PERRYVILLE
Capacity (mgd)
Before
Expan
sion
0.8
2
2.35
2.7
0.75
0.75
8
3.5
0.8
0.6
8
0.9
1.89
1.65
0.5
0.95
3
1.5
0.68
25
6
2.5
1.6
15
0.615
1.2
2
7.5
73
7.5
1.65
After
Expan
sion
-
-
-
3.2
-
-
10.49
-
1.06
-
10.5
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
-
1.2
29
-
-
-
-
1.14
-
-
-
81
-
-
Completion
Year
BNR
2000
1992
2007
2009

2010
2002
1994
2003
2010
2000
-
2002
2006
2008
1996
2007
2003
2003
1994
1998
1990
1995
2007
-
1999
2005
1992
-
1999
2010
ENR
-
-
2007
2009

2010
-
-
-
2010
2010
-
-
2006
2008
-
2007
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2010
-
-
-
-
2010
Upgrade Cost (Original Dollar Years)
BNR (State
Share)
$1,879,935
$0
$8,930,000
$8,842,410
$5,346,000
$2,360,000
$8,450,281
$4,834,000
$3,192,975
$5,984,613
$4,359,643
$10,000,000
$8,722,976
$2,507,171
$2,560,860
$464,299
$7,838,606
$2,046,387
$1,189,501
$2,000,000
$1,865,859
$0
$0
$10,000,000
$5,456,000
$2,005,000
$1,675,927
$5,000,000
$75,150,000
$500,000
$3,243,974
ENR (State
Share)
$4,609,000
$3,900,000
$8,660,000
$7,960,000
$8,153,000
$3,360,000
$27,411,000
$7,891,000
$3,100,000
$10,588,000
$10,860,000
$2,000,000
$11,289,000
$941,148
$6,484,000
$2,999,732
$6,380,645
$9,378,000
$6,951,000
$35,494,000
$11,000,000
$3,400,000
$3,000,000
$0
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$9,000,000
$16,052,000
$218,500,000
$13,800,000
$4,000,000
Total
Other
$4,748,326
$0
$21,563,791
$23,908,502
$10,361,000
$3,767,713
$37,739,915
$20,444,118
$9,009,000
$12,092,306
$11,851,425
$10,000,000
$33,885,998
$4,137,043
$5,896,777
$4,317,815
$19,773,557
$9,081,613
$13,003,146
$94,218,500
$28,059,978
$5,000,000
$0
$19,491,191
$31,304,000
$3,638,869
$24,709,795
$12,998,114
$97,546,400
$7,384,690
$6,516,104
Total
Upgrade Cost
$11,237,261
$3,900,000
$39,153,791
$40,710,912
$23,860,000
$9,487,713
$73,601,196
$33,169,118
$15,301,975
$28,664,919
$27,071,068
$22,000,000
$53,897,974
$7,585,362
$14,941,637
$7,781,846
$33,992,808
$20,506,000
$21,143,647
$131,712,500
$40,925,837
$8,400,000
$3,000,000
$29,491,191
$39,760,000
$9,143,869
$35,385,722
$34,050,114
$391,196,400
$21,684,690
$13,760,078
C-2

-------
                                                                                          Appendix C
Major WWTP
PI SCAT AWAY
POCOMOKE CITY
POOLESVILLE
PRINCESS ANNE
SALISBURY
SALISBURY
CORRECTIVE
ACTION
SENECA
SNOW HILL
SOD RUN
SWAN POINT**
TALBOT COUNTY
REGION II (St.
Michael's)
TANEYTOWN
THURMONT
WESTERN
BRANCH
WESTMINSTER
WINEBRENNER
Capacity (mgd)
Before
Expan
sion
30
1.47
0.75
1.26
8.5
-
20
0.5
20
0.6
0.66
1.1
1
30
5
1
After
Expan
sion
-
-
-
-
-
-
26
0.667
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Completion
Year
BNR
2000
2004
1995
2004
2010
-
2003

2000
2007
2008
2000
1996
1995
2001
-
ENR
-
-
2010

2010
-
-
-
-
2007
2008
-
-
-
-
-
Upgrade Cost (Original Dollar Years)
BNR (State
Share)
$9,642,175
$1,578,539
$692,381
$1,701,116
$22,817,000
$11,000,000
$12,011,129
$3,765,000
$8,249,178
$0
$2,729,349
$1,497,408
$926,660
$15,739,370
$2,036,263
$2,100,000
ENR (State
Share)
$6,324,000
$3,224,000
$235,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$12,000,000
$6,900,000
$3,527,000
$42,633,450
$0
$2,000,000
$2,870,000
$6,889,000
$29,000,000
$16,940,000
$7,000,000
Total
Other
$11,035,767
$3,426,249
$2,320,519
$2,479,064
$52,203,887
$31,270,000
$93,188,812
$7,072,870
$46,843,650
Unknown
$8,306,928
$6,886,587
$5,426,115
$66,394,690
$13,239,584
$8,565,200
Total
Upgrade Cost
$27,001,942
$8,228,788
$3,247,900
$8,180,180
$78,020,887
$54,270,000
$112,099,941
$14,364,870
$97,726,278
Unknown
$13,036,277
$11,253,995
$13,241,775
$111,134,060
$32,215,847
$17,665,200
Source: MDE (2012)
BNR = biological nutrient removal
ENR = enhanced nutrient removal
mgd = million gallons per day
* Funded by the U.S. Army.
** Funded by private developer
*** Based on current performance, ENR upgrade may not be required. Further evaluation is necessary.
                                                C-3

-------
                                                                         Appendix D
APPENDIX D: MUNICIPAL WWTP TECHNOLOGY
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

3Clar         tertiary clarification
A2O         three-stage phoredox
AB          aeration basin
AL          aerobic lagoons
AO          phoredox
AS          activated sludge
BAF         biological activated filter
BNR         unspecified biological nutrient removal process
Bpho         bardenpho
BPR         unspecified biological phosphorus removal process
CA          cycled aeration
CAC         chemically assisted clarification
ChPr         chemical phosphorus removal
DFil         denitrification filter
EA          extended aeration
Perm         fermenter
Fil           media filtration (does not include granular activated carbon)
PL          facultative lagoon
GAA1        granular activated aluminum
GR          grit removal
IFAS         integrated fixed-film activated sludge
MemBR      membrane bioreactor
MiFil         microfiltration
MLE         modified Ludzack-Ettinger
POD         phased oxidation or isolation ditch
OX          oxidation ditch
RBC         rotating biological contactor
RO          reverse osmosis
SBR         sequential batch reactor
                                       D-1

-------
                                                                                   Appendix D
SF
SubF
TF
UCT
UF
              sand filter
              submerged biological filter
              trickling filter
              university of Capetown process
              ultrafiltration
Note:  Sequenced processes should be denoted by "_
filtration would be "AS + Fil").
                                                          _". (i.e., Activated sludge followed by
                                             D-2

-------
                                                                             Appendix E




APPENDIX E: USERS' GUIDE FOR THE EPA's COMPILATION OF

COST DATA ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMPACTS AND CONTROL

OF NUTRIENT POLLUTION

A.  Introduction

This appendix provides instructions for the navigation and use of a database containing references,
data tables and diagrams that the EPA assembled for its compilation of cost data associated with the
impacts and control of nutrient pollution. The data and information contained in the database serve
as the basis for this report. The database provides baseline information for developing and/or
evaluating cost estimates, which can be used in various contexts, including policy-making and
nutrient criteria adoption. Information on both the impacts and control of nutrient pollution will
allow users to gather information on the costs of nutrient controls as well as the impacts of
uncontrolled nutrient pollution in an effort to develop a range of management approaches that can
address the problem with limited resources.

The database provides information on the  costs associated with point source controls, nonpoint
source controls, direct mitigation of nutrient pollution in waterbodies, and restoration efforts. It also
includes diagrams showing the pathways for impacts of nutrients on lakes, streams, estuaries, and
coasts, and a summary of the literature on economic impacts and control costs. Relevant studies are
described in tabs organized according to economic sector (including commercial fisheries,
tourism/recreation, property values, health effects, and drinking water treatment) and type of
control activity. Sources that are relevant to economic impacts of nutrient pollution but do not meet
all the evaluation criteria are included as anecdotal impacts or additional studies (as described below).
Finally, cost-benefit and economic analyses supporting state-level nutrient rulemakings are briefly
summarized.

The EPA is sharing the database so that users can find the source material from the report. A user
who is interested in learning more about a particular study or is interested in gathering information
from a specific geographic location can use this database to find those data. We have provided two
examples of to use this database at the end of this User's Guide.

B.  Database Navigation and Use

The database was developed using Microsoft Excel™. Use of the database assumes users have a
working knowledge of Microsoft Excel™ functions. The database is organized as a series of
worksheets that are listed at the bottom of the database page. The "Instructions" worksheet
provides some general instructions on how to use the database to access the data and information
about the economic impacts (i.e., costs) of nutrient pollution and the costs of nutrient pollution
control.
                                         E-1

-------
                                                                                     Appendix E
    1.  Navigating Within the Database

The database provides several ways to access the data within. The opening page ("File Info"
worksheet) of the database acts as the table of contents for the database, where a description of the
database and its contents are provided. This worksheet also briefly describes the primary worksheets
in the database and provides  links to the other worksheets contained in the workbook. While in the
"File Info" worksheet, the user can click on the name of a worksheet to go directly to that
worksheet or scroll through the list of worksheets along the bottom. The user can navigate the list
of worksheets using the left-right arrow on the bottom right corner (Figure E-l).
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
(
14
>
r


File Name
Created By
Date Modified

Nutrient Conceptual Model
Abt Associates
1/24/2013

Description of File
This workbook provides a compendium of information about the economic impacts of nutrient pollution, and the
costs of nutrient pollution control, including costs associated with in-waterbody mitigation, planning, point source
controls, and nonpoint source controls. It includes diagrams showing the pathways for impacts of nutrients on lakes,
streams, estuaries, and coasts, and a summary of the literature on economic impacts and control costs. Relevant
studies are described in tabs organized according to economic economic sector (including tourism/recreation,
commercial fisheries, property values, health effects, and drinking water treatment) and type of control activity.
Sources that are relevant to economic impacts of nutrient pollution but do not meet all the evaluation criteria are
included as Anecdotal Impacts or Additional Studies (as described below). CBA briefly summarizes cost-benefit and
economic analyses of state-level nutrient rulemaking. All boxes and cells that are shaded purple are links to other
sheets •,' v - : ~~ cry ':':':•

Worksheet
Lakes and Flowing Waters

Estuaries and Coasts

Point Sources


ndustrial
Decentralized
•••»*
~S
Description
Presents a conceptual diagram specificto lakes and flowing waters of external nutrient sources, ecological
responses to nutrient loadings, designated uses that may be impacted by nutrient pollution, and economic sectors
affected by nutrient loading; includes links to detailed descriptions of sources, controls, designated uses, and
economic impacts.
Presents a conceptual diagram specificto estuaries and coastal waters of external nutrient sources, ecological
responses to nutrient loadings, designated uses that may be impacted by nutrient pollution, and economic sectors
affected by nutrient loading; includes links to detailed descriptions of sources, controls, designated uses, and
economic impacts.
Provides an overview of the data on point source control costs and definitions for the terms and abbreviations used
in the Municipal, Industrial, Decentralized, and Point Source Anecdotal sheets.
Provides information about studies reporting costs associated with municipal water treatment for nutrients
lararneter, target concentration, treatment technology, influent and effluent
1 Individual Worksheets ;j; a|| results updated to 2012$ using the construction cost index.
	 _ 	 	 	 	 r-jrting costs associated with industrial wastewatertreatment for nutrients
(including, for each study, the nutrient parameter, treatment technology, influent and effluent concentrations,
plant capacity, and costs); all results updated to 2012$ using the construction cost index.
Provides information about studies reporting costs associated with decentralized wastewater treatment for
nutrients (including, for each study, the nutrient parameter, treatment technology, influent and effluent
concentrations, plant capacity, and costs); all results updated to 2012$ using the construction cost index.
Prnvidps information ahnut m Municipal Industrial Decent ... (+)
               To navigate across worksheets
Individual worksheets
Figure E-l. Opening page of the database — "File Info" worksheet. [Note: Worksheets can be accessed from either the
tides in the worksheet table or from the list along the bottom. Navigate the list of worksheets using the left-right arrows
on the bottom left.]


The second worksheet in the database titled "Navigation" also acts as a table of contents for the
database by providing a diagram of the organization of the database (Figure E-2). The listing of
                                              E-2

-------
                                                                                   Appendix E

worksheets generally follows this organization. All of the text boxes in the navigation diagram that
are shaded purple are hyperlinks to the relevant worksheet in the database. The user can click on the
name of a worksheet in the diagram to go directly to that worksheet in the database or scroll
through the list of worksheets along the bottom.

Further, throughout all of the worksheets in the database, purple cells and purple text boxes are
hyperlinks to other parts of the database. Along the top left part of each worksheet, there are purple
text boxes that provide quick links to other related worksheets. Each text box labeled "GO TO"
links back to the Navigation page, where the user can quickly access any other worksheet.

    2.  Navigating Within Worksheets

Two helpful tools exist to aid users in extracting data from the database: filter tools and Excel's
search functionality.
Filtering can be accomplished by clicking on the grey boxes in the lower right-hand corner of each
column heading (as indicated in Figure E-3). Once clicked, a drop-down menu will appear which
will allow you to filter out elements within the column or to sort the elements within the column. By
utilizing the filtering and sorting tools, the user may organize  the data within a given page according
to options like pollutant type, cost, and geographic location. For example, if the user wished to only
look at municipal point source data relating to total nitrogen,  the filter function could be used to
hide all data specific to total ammonia and total inorganic nitrogen, leaving only data relating to total
nitrogen displayed in the worksheet.
In some cases the user may wish to search the database for a value or text string. A search can be
accomplished using Excel's "Find" function which can be accessed from the  "Editing" menu (see
Figure E-4). It can also be accessed using the hotkey sequence "CtrP'+F—just press the "Ctrl" key
and the "F" key on  the keyboard simultaneously.
                                             E-3

-------
                                                                                                         Appendix E
General


File Info
                                                        Lakes and Flowing
                                                            Waters
N on point Source
Control Costs













                                                            Livestock
                                                           Mitigation
Estuaries and Coasts
Point Source Control
Costs


Municipal


Industrial
Decentralized


Point Source
Anecdotal
                                                                                Urban Runoff
                                                                              Mitigation Anecdotal




















Tourism and
Recreation



                                                                              Commercial Fishing
                                                                                   CBAs
                        Property Values
                                                                                                      Benefits Studies
Reference


References
                                                            Regions
                                                                              Dollar Adjustments
Figure E-2. Organization of the database — "Navigate" worksheet. [Note: Worksheets can be accessed from either the
boxes in the diagram in the worksheet or from the list along the bottom. Navigate the list of worksheets using the left-
right arrows on the bottom left.]
                                                        E-4

-------
                                                                                                Appendix E
Home     Insert    Page Layout     Formulas     Data
                                                           Review    View    Developer    Acrobat
                                                                                                     Numbe
A3 •»• ( ff \ Technology
1
2
3
4
14
*i
^

14
15
A
GOTO

Technology
E
B
C
D
E
File Info Point Sources References
1 II 1

tjS'
1 XType of Cost
l~
Sort A to Z
Sort Z to A
Sort by Color >
CJear Filter From "(Column Aj"
Fjlter by Color ^
Text Fitters >
H (Select All) >.
•-H A20 + CAC + 3Clar |~=]
-0 A20 + CAC + 3Clar + Fil
S A20 + CAC + SCIar + GAAI
H A20 + CAC + 3Clar + UF
•-H A20
H A2O + CAC
H A2O+CAC "


OK Cance


BNR
AS

lion
lion
;ion
iion
;ion
lion
lion
iion
iion
Retrofit/Expansion
de Novo
F

Nitrogen
Parameter
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
Influent Mean
Concentration
[ug/LJ |~
9600
7000
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
37800
Effluent Mean
Concentration
(ug/L) H
5100
5000
5000
5000
5000
3000
3000
3000
5000
3000
16400
Percer
Remov
47%
29%
Not
Reports
Not
Reportf
Not
Report<
Not
Reportf
Not
Reports
Not
Report!
Not
Reports
Not
Reports
57%
Figure E-3. Filter data using the drop-down menus located in each column heading.
                                                    E-5

-------
                                                                                  Appendix E
1
I
Ps
dipt

V\ y *} • c* - ^ 5
y






Nutrient Impacts and Control Costs 7-7-2014 IRead-Onlvl - Microsoft Excel = d=J im*'"'m
| Home Insert Page Layout

Calibri
- 10

te n y II 1 1 :"D 1 1 ft,
t a J, IJ T rn * ^
oard ^ Font
A3 "• C'
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

GOTO

Technology
CA
Dfil
BNR
BNR
BNR
BNR
BNR
BNR

B
File Info


Formulas Data Review View Developer Acrobat '10 - r

& *

-


A-
15


f m m\\m »
Alignment
[5]

G

General
* - % ' II Too i°§ Condit
Number ^
a* Delete - 3 -
onal Format as Cell ,.«, Sort 8
ting - Table • Styles - ijj FcrmE ^ " Filter
Styles Cells Editir
ji Technology




C
Point Sources

D
E
References

Type of Cost
Retrofit/Expansion
Retrofit/Expansion
Retrofit/ Expansion
Retrofit/Expansion
Retrofit/Expansion
Retrofit/Expansion
Retrofit/Expansion
Retrofit/Expansion

H < > M Instructions , File Info
Ready 23 '
Figure E-4. Search within

F
G
H
H
Find &
Select -
E
I

Nitrogen
Parameter
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN

Influent Mean
Concentration
(ug/L) i -
9600
7000
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported

Effluent Mean
Concentration
(ug/L) -
5100
5000
5000
5000
5000
3000
3000
3000

Percent
Remova1
47%
29%
Not
Reported
Not
Reported
Not
Reoorted
Not
Reported
Not
Reported
Not
Reported
Not


Phosphorus
Parameter
Not
Reported
Not
Reported
Not
Reported
Not
Reported
Not
Reported
Not
Reported
Not
Reported
Not
Reported
Not
Lakes and Flowing Waters , Estuaries and Coasts Port Sources -> Municipal In
the worksheets for specific
numbers or strings using the "Find" funct
Influent Mean
Concentration
(ug/L) -
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
dusm 4 | ~|
Effluent Mean
Concentration
(ug/L) -
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
•

Per
Ren
K
Rep
N
Rep
N
Rep
N
Rep
K
Rep
N
Rep
Rep
N
Rep
N
>
•a id Hi 100% Q^^^^j^^^^
ion located in the
"Editing" menu.
C.  Worksheet Descriptions

This section provides descriptions of each of the worksheets contained in the database. The
worksheet descriptions are provided in the same order as they are contained in the database.

    1.  The worksheet entitled "Lakes and Flowing Waters" presents a conceptual diagram
       specific to lakes and flowing waters of external nutrient sources, ecological responses to
       nutrient loadings, uses that may be impacted by nutrient pollution, and economic sectors
       affected by nutrient loading. The worksheet includes links to detailed descriptions of
       sources, controls, uses, and economic impacts. Similarly, the next worksheet entitled
       "Estuaries and Coasts" presents a conceptual diagram specific to estuaries and coastal
       waters of external nutrient sources, ecological responses to nutrient loadings, uses that may
       be impacted by nutrient pollution, and economic sectors affected by nutrient loading. The
       worksheet includes links to detailed descriptions of sources, controls, uses, and economic
       impacts.

    2.  The worksheet entitled "Point Sources" provides an overview of the data on point source
       control costs and definitions for the terms and abbreviations used in the "Municipal",
                                            E-6

-------
                                                                           Appendix E

"Industrial", "Decentralized", and "Point Source Anecdotal" worksheets that follow. All
results in these worksheets are presented in 2012$ (updated using the construction cost
index, unless otherwise indicated).

•   "Municipal" - provides data and information from studies reporting costs associated
    with municipal wastewater treatment for nutrients (including, for each study, the nutrient
    parameter, target concentration, treatment technology, influent and effluent
    concentrations, plant capacity, and costs).

•   "Industrial" - provides data and information from studies reporting costs associated
    with industrial wastewater treatment for nutrients (including, for each study, the nutrient
    parameter, treatment technology, influent and effluent concentrations, plant capacity,
    and costs).

•   "Decentralized" - provides data and information from studies reporting costs
    associated with decentralized wastewater treatment for nutrients  (including, for each
    study, the nutrient parameter, treatment technology, influent and effluent concentrations,
    plant capacity, and costs).

•   "Point Source Anecdotal"- provides information about costs reported for Maryland
    wastewater treatment plants to upgrade to  biological nutrient removal  (BNR) and
    enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) treatment processes (including, for each plant,
    NPDES permit number, Maryland County, current and expansion treatment capacity,
    completion year,  costs for state grant funds for BNR and ENR upgrades, total upgrade
    funds originating from all  other sources, and the total upgrade cost for BNR and ENR).

The next portion of the database covers "Nonpoint Sources". The  "Nonpoint Sources"
worksheet provides an overview of the data on nonpoint source control costs and
definitions for the terms and abbreviations used in the "Crops", "Livestock", and "Urban
Runoff worksheets  that follow. All results in  these worksheets are presented in  2012$
(updated using the Consumer Price Index, unless otherwise indicated).

•   "Crops" - provides data and information from studies reporting costs associated with
    crop management practices for reducing nutrient pollution (including, for each study, the
    nutrient parameter, treatment technology, removal performance, size, location, and
    costs).

•   "Livestock" - provides data and information from studies reporting costs associated
    with livestock management practices  for reducing nutrient pollution (including, for each
    study, the nutrient parameter, treatment technology, removal performance, size, location,
    and costs).
                                     E-7

-------
                                                                               Appendix E

    •   "Urban Runoff - provides data and information from studies reporting costs
       associated with reducing nutrient pollution from urban runoff (including, for each study,
       the nutrient parameter, treatment technology, removal performance, size, location, and
       costs).

4.   The "Restoration and Mitigation" worksheet provides an overview of the data on
    restoration and direct mitigation costs and provides definitions for the terms and
    abbreviations used in "Restoration", "Mitigation", and "Mitigation Anecdotal"
    worksheets. All results in these worksheets are presented in 2012$ (updated using the
    Consumer Price Index, unless otherwise indicated).

    •   "Restoration" - provides data and information from studies quantifying the costs
       associated with nutrient reduction (including, for each study, the water body type,
       restoration activity and description, location, year, resource description, water quality
       impact, data sources, and costs).

    •   "Mitigation" - provides data and information from studies quantifying the costs
       associated with in-lake nutrient mitigation technologies and methods (including, for each
       study, the water body type, the activity and description, location, year, resource
       description, water quality impact, data sources, and costs).

    •   "Mitigation Anecdotal" - provides information about water quality improvement
       projects planned to meet phosphorus load reductions for Florida's Upper Ocklawaha
       River Basin TMDL (including, for each project, the estimated load reduction, project
       cost, and completion date). Presented in original dollar years.

5.   The worksheet for "Economic Impacts" provides an overview of the data on economic
    impacts presented in the "Tourism", "Fisheries", "Property Value", "Health Effects",
    and "Drinking Water Treatment" worksheets. All  results in these worksheets are
    presented in 2012$ (updated using the Consumer Price Index, unless otherwise indicated).

    •   "Impact Index" - provides a summary of all documented nutrient impacts in the model.
       The impacts can be filtered by state, region, year, source categorization, economic sector,
       or waterbody type.

    •   "Tourism" - provides information about studies valuing  nutrient impacts to tourism and
       recreation (including, for each study, the waterbody type,  location, year, resource
       description, water quality impacts, data, methodology, and results).

    •   "Fisheries" - provides information about studies valuing nutrient impacts to fisheries
       (including, for each study, the waterbody type, location, year, resource description, water
       quality impacts, data, methodology, and results).
                                         E-8

-------
                                                                                 Appendix E

       •   "Property Values" - provides information about studies valuing nutrient impacts to
           property values (including, for each study, the waterbody type, location, year, resource
           description, water quality impacts, data, methodology, and results).

       •   "Health Effects" - provides information about studies valuing nutrient impacts to
           human health (including, for each study, the waterbody type, location, year, the health
           effect/measure being evaluated, water quality impacts, data, methodology, and results).

       •   "Drinking Water Treatment" - provides information about studies valuing nutrient
           impacts to drinking water treatment costs (including, for each study, the waterbody type,
           location, year, resource description, water quality impacts, data, methodology, and
           results).

    6.  The remaining worksheets provide information about studies that did not meet all screening
       criteria, but have relevant information and results documenting impacts from nutrient
       pollution.

       •   "Anecdotal Impacts" - provides information about anecdotal evidence of the
           economic impacts of nutrient pollution.

       •   "CBAs" - Cost Benefit Analysis provides a summary of cost-benefit and economic
           analyses of state-level nutrient rulemaking.

       •   "Benefit Studies" - provides a list of studies that assess the benefits of nutrient
           reductions.

       •   "References" - provides full references for all sources used in conceptual model.

       •   "Regions" - provides a reference for the region categorizations in the Impact Index.

       •   "Dollar Adjustments"  - provides the Consumer Price Index factors used to normalize
           cost and impact estimates to 2012$ and the construction cost index factors used to
           normalize drinking water and wastewater treatment cost estimates to 2012$.

D.  Examples for Navigating the Database to Extract Data and Information

The following examples illustrate how a user can use the database to gather control cost
information.
                                            E-9

-------
                                                                               Appendix E

1.  Using Point Source Control Cost Data

   •   Situation: State is assessing the potential costs that would be incurred by point sources to
       achieve effluent limitations based on numeric water quality criteria for nitrogen

   •   Assume: Only one major municipal wastewater treatment facility to be affected; 4 million
       gallon per day (mgd) WWTP (service population of approximately 40,000 persons) that
       must meet 5 nig/L TN end-of-pipe limits

   •   Approach: Use the project database to assess possible project costs

       Step 1: Navigate to "Municipal" point source control costs worksheet

       Step 2: Filter data
       o   By nitrogen parameter (i.e., "TN")
       o   By effluent concentration (i.e., show all data <5 mg/L)
       o   By flow (i.e., all systems between 1 mgd and 10 mgd)

       Step 3: Assess resulting data
       o   Potential technologies include: oxidation ditches, trickling filters, denitrification
           filters, and activated sludge systems designed for biological nutrient removal
       o   Estimated unit capital costs range from $l/gpd - $5/gpd
       o   There are fewer data points for annual O&M costs but these range from $0.024/gpd
           — $0.11/gpd annually

       Step 4: Estimate project costs
       o   Total capital costs are between $4 million - $20 million
       o   On an annualized basis these capital costs are $0.3 million/year — $1.3 million/year
           over 20 years and assuming an 3% interest rate
       o   Assuming annual O&M costs of $0.06/gpd, total annual project costs are anticipated
           to be between $0.4 million/year — $1.8 million/year
       o   If desired, user-fee increases could be estimated
           •   In this example,  fee increases could range between $9/year — $45/year

       Step 5  (Optional): Review of anecdotal data to support estimates
       o   Navigate to "Point Source Anecdotal" worksheet
       o   Filter data by Current Capacity for desired flows; results for those around 4 mgd are
           shown in Table E-l.
                                         E-10

-------
                                                                                   Appendix E
Table E-l. Upgrade Costs for Wastewater Treatment Plants around 4 mgd (million gallons per day) based on Point
Source Anecdotal Data.
Plant Name
HAVRE DE GRACE
(BNR REFINEMENT)
ELKTON
KENT ISLAND
BOWIE
FREEDOM DISTRICT
(BNR REFINEMENT)
ABERDEEN
CONOCOCHEAGUE
WESTMINSTER
Current
Capacity
(MGD)
1.89
2.7
3
3.3
3.5
4
4.1
5
Expansion
Capacity
(MGD)
3.3
3.2




4.5

COST SUMMARY
Total
Upgrade
Cost
$53,897,974
$40,710,912
$33,992,808
$10,953,759
$33,169,118
$29,379,234
$42,756,287
$32,215,847
Total BNR
State
Share
$8,722,976
$8,842,410
$7,838,606
$96,960
$4,834,000
$1,317,417
$2,612,390
$2,036,263
Total BNR
$17,445,953
$17,684,820
$15,677,212
$193,920
$9,668,000
$2,634,834
$5,224,780
$4,072,526
Total ENR
State Share
$11,289,000
$7,960,000
$6,380,645
$8,870,000
$7,891,000
$14,982,000
$27,537,000
$16,940,000
Total Other
$33,885,998
$23,908,502
$19,773,557
$1 ,986,799
$20,444,118
$13,079,817
$12,606,897
$13,239,584
    2.  Using Nonpoint Source Control Cost Data

       •   Situation:
           o  State desires to assess the potential costs that would be incurred by nonpoint sources
              to achieve effluent limitations based on numeric water quality criteria for phosphorus
       •   Assume:
           o  A municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit would require 5% TP
              reduction in runoff from 200 acre industrial park
           o  Existing TP load is 1.5 Ibs/acre/year, or 300 Ibs/year
           o  A 5% reduction is 15 Ibs/year

       •   Approach: Use the project database to assess possible project costs

           Step  1: Navigate to "Urban Runoff nonpoint source control costs worksheet

           Step  2: Filter data
           o  By parameter (i.e., "TP")
           o  By appropriate technology options (e.g., dry detention basin or "DB")

           Step  3: Assess resulting data
           o  A number of data points exist; the  State elects to use the most up-to-date empirical
              cost information (released in 2013) rather than older data based on modeled
              estimates

           Step  4: Estimate project costs
           o  Data from two projects indicate observed total project costs of $21,100/lb TP
              removed and $10,500/lb TP removed over 20 years
                                             E-11

-------
                                                                         Appendix E

o  Based on this unit cost and a desired reduction of 15 Ibs TP per year, total project
   cost could range from approximately $160,000 - $320,000
o  Annualized over a 20 year project life and assuming a 3% interest rate, the total
   project cost is between $10,800/year - $21,500/year
o  If desired, cost to users could be estimated
   •   Assuming all 40,000 residential users are affected, this translates into an
       estimated user-fee increase of between $3/year - $1 I/year.
                                 E-12

-------