Nutrient Impacts Control Costs

GO TO File Info
Use of this workbook assumes users have a working knowledge of Microsoft Excel© functions. However, the following provide
instructions on how to use the workbook to access the data and information about the economic impacts (i.e., costs) of nutrie
the costs of nutrient pollution control.
In the top left-hand corner of each page is a set of one or more navigational buttons. These buttons can be used to instantly m
page to another within the file. This page (i.e., Instructions) has a “GO TO” button which, when clicked with the cursor, leads t
Navigation page. The "File Info" button leads back to the general information page.
The Navigation page serves as a Table of Contents for the Nutrient Conceptual Model file. One can immediately switch to any
by clicking on the button corresponding to that topic. As an example, go to the Navigation page by pressing the “GO TO” butto
the “TMDLs” button in the “Restoration and Mitigation” row. After arriving at the TMDLs page, click on the “File Info” button t
file information sheet. Remember, the “GO TO” button will always return one to the Navigation page, and the “Instructions” b
always return here. On any given page, additional buttons may be present which will lead one to related topics or resources th
interest (e.g., source references). The worksheet descriptions table (in the "File Info" sheet) can also be used to navigate by cli
worksheet name.
Certain sheets within the file contain tools for sorting and filtering information. Columns with a grey button located in the low
corner of header cells (Figure 1) can be used for filtering and sorting the contents of a sheet. By utilizing the filtering and sortin
may organize the data within a given page according to options like pollutant type, cost, and geographic location. A user may a
within a sheet or within the entire file for specific keywords using the Search function. Search options may be accessed by pre
Figure 1. Buttons located in header cells allow the user to filter and sort the
contents of the sheet.
GO TO Instructions
Nutrient Impacts and Control Costs
This workbook provides a compendium of information about the economic impacts of nutrient pollution, and the costs of nutr
costs associated with in-waterbody mitigation, restoration, point source controls, and nonpoint source controls. It includes dia
for impacts of nutrients on lakes, streams, estuaries, and coasts, and a summary of the literature on economic impacts and co
described in tabs organized according to economic economic sector (including tourism/recreation, commercial fisheries, prope
drinking water treatment) and type of control activity. Sources that are relevant to economic impacts of nutrient pollution but
criteria are included as Anecdotal Impacts or Additional Studies (as described below). CBA briefly summarizes cost-benefit and
level nutrient rulemaking. All boxes and cells that are shaded purple are links to other sheets within the workbook.
Worksheet Description
Provides general instructions on how to use the workbook to access the data and information a
Instructions costs) of nutrient pollution and the costs of nutrient pollution control.
Presents a conceptual diagram specific to lakes and flowing waters of external nutrient sources
Lakes and Flowing Waters nutrient loadings, designated uses that may be impacted by nutrient pollution, and economic s
loading; includes links to detailed descriptions of sources, controls, designated uses, and econo
Presents a conceptual diagram specific to estuaries and coastal waters of external nutrient sou
Estuaries and Coasts nutrient loadings, designated uses that may be impacted by nutrient pollution, and economic s
loading; includes links to detailed descriptions of sources, controls, designated uses, and econo
Provides an overview of the data on point source control costs and definitions for the terms an
Point Sources Municipal, Industrial, Decentralized, and Point Source Anecdotal sheets.
Provides information about studies reporting costs associated with municipal water treatment
Municipal study, the nutrient parameter, target concentration, treatment technology, influent and effluen
capacity, and costs); all results updated to 2012$ using the consumer price index.
Provides information about studies reporting costs associated with industrial wastewater treat
Industrial each study, the nutrient parameter, treatment technology, influent and effluent concentrations
results updated to 2012$ using the consumer price index.
Provides information about studies reporting costs associated with decentralized wastewater t
Decentralized (including, for each study, the nutrient parameter, treatment technology, influent and effluent
and costs); all results updated to 2012$ using the consumer price index.
Provides information about costs reported for Maryland wastewater treatment plants to upgra
Point Source Anecdotal processes (including, for each plant, NPDES ID, treatment capacity, BNR/ENR upgrade year, BNR
upgrade cost).
Provides an overview of the data on nonpoint source control costs and definitions for the term
Nonpoint Sources Urban Runoff sheet.
Provides information about studies reporting costs associated with reducing nutrient pollution
Urban Runoff each study, the nutrient parameter, treatment technology, removal performance, size, location
to 2012$ using the consumer price index.
Provides an overview of the data on restoration and mitigation costs and definitions for the ter
Restoration and Mitigation the Restoration, Mitigation, and Mitigation Anecdotal sheets.
Provides information about studies quantifying the costs associated with nutrient reduction pla
Restoration the water body type, planning activity and description, location, year, resource description, wat
Provides information about studies quantifying the costs associated with in-lake nutrient mitiga
Mitigation (including, for each study, the water body type, planning activity and description, location, year
quality impact, data sources, and costs); all results updated to 2012$ using the consumer price
Provides information about restoration and water quality improvement projects planned to me
Mitigation Anecdotal for Florida's Upper Ocklawaha River Basin TMDL (including, for each project, the estimated load
completion date). Presented in original dollar years.
Provides an overview of the data on economic impacts presented in the Tourism, Fisheries, Pro
Economic Impacts Drinking Water Treatment sheets.
Provides a summary of all documented nutrient impacts in the model; can be filtered by state,
Impact Index categorization, economic sector, or waterbody type.
Provides information about studies valuing nutrient impacts to tourism and recreation (includin
Tourism waterbody type, location, year, resource description, water quality impacts, data, methodology
updated to 2012$ using the consumer price index.
Provides information about studies valuing nutrient impacts to fisheries (including, for each stu
Fisheries location, year, resource description, water quality impacts, data, methodology, and results); all
the consumer price index.
Provides information about studies valuing nutrient impacts to property values (including, for e
Property Value location, year, resource description, water quality impacts, data, methodology, and results); all
the consumer price index.
Provides information about studies valuing nutrient impacts to human health (including, for ea
Health Effects location, year, the health effect/measure being evaluated, water quality impacts, data, method
Provides information about studies valuing nutrient impacts to drinking water treatment costs
Drinking Water Treatment waterbody type, location, year, resource description, water quality impacts, data, methodology
updated to 2012$ using the construction cost index.
Anecdotal Impacts Provides information about anecdotal evidence of the economic impacts of nutrient pollution.
Provides information about studies that did not meet all screening criteria, but have relevant in
Additional Studies documenting impacts from nutrient pollution.
CBAs Provides a summary of cost-benefit and economic analyses of state-level nutrient rulemaking.
Benefits 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.
Provides the consumer price index (CPI) factors used to normalize cost and impact estimates to
Dollar Adjustments cost index (CCI) factors used to normalize drinking water and wastewater treatment cost estim
File Name Nutrient Impacts and Control Costs

Created By Abt Associates
Date Modified 5/6/2014
Nutrient Impacts and Control Costs
the economic impacts of nutrient pollution, and the costs of nutrient pollution control, including
oint source controls, and nonpoint source controls. It includes diagrams showing the pathways
sts, and a summary of the literature on economic impacts and control costs. Relevant studies are
sector (including tourism/recreation, commercial fisheries, property values, health effects, and
es that are relevant to economic impacts of nutrient pollution but do not meet all the evaluation
es (as described below). CBA briefly summarizes cost-benefit and economic analyses of state-
purple are links to other sheets within the workbook.
Description
on how to use the workbook to access the data and information about the economic impacts (i.e.,
d the costs of nutrient pollution control.
m specific to lakes and flowing waters of external nutrient sources, ecological responses to
uses that may be impacted by nutrient pollution, and economic sectors affected by nutrient
led descriptions of sources, controls, designated uses, and economic impacts.
m specific to estuaries and coastal waters of external nutrient sources, ecological responses to
uses that may be impacted by nutrient pollution, and economic sectors affected by nutrient
led descriptions of sources, controls, designated uses, and economic impacts.
ata on point source control costs and definitions for the terms and abbreviations used in the
alized, and Point Source Anecdotal sheets.
udies reporting costs associated with municipal water treatment for nutrients (including, for each
, target concentration, treatment technology, influent and effluent concentrations, plant
udies reporting costs associated with industrial wastewater treatment for nutrients (including, for
meter, treatment technology, influent and effluent concentrations, plant capacity, and costs); all
g the consumer price index.
udies reporting costs associated with decentralized wastewater treatment for nutrients
nutrient parameter, treatment technology, influent and effluent concentrations, plant capacity,
sts reported for Maryland wastewater treatment plants to upgrade to BNR and ENR treatment
plant, NPDES ID, treatment capacity, BNR/ENR upgrade year, BNR upgrade cost, and ENR
ata on nonpoint source control costs and definitions for the terms and abbreviations used in the
udies reporting costs associated with reducing nutrient pollution from urban runoff (including, for
meter, treatment technology, removal performance, size, location, and costs); all results updated
price index.
ata on restoration and mitigation costs and definitions for the terms and abbreviations used in
nd Mitigation Anecdotal sheets.
udies quantifying the costs associated with nutrient reduction planning (including, for each study,
activity and description, location, year, resource description, water quality impact, data sources,
udies quantifying the costs associated with in-lake nutrient mitigation technologies and methods
water body type, planning activity and description, location, year, resource description, water
storation and water quality improvement projects planned to meet phosphorus load reductions
River Basin TMDL (including, for each project, the estimated load reduction, project cost, and
n original dollar years.
ata on economic impacts presented in the Tourism, Fisheries, Property Value, Health Effects, and
ets.
umented nutrient impacts in the model; can be filtered by state, region, year, source
or, or waterbody type.
udies valuing nutrient impacts to tourism and recreation (including, for each study, the
r, resource description, water quality impacts, data, methodology, and results); all results
onsumer price index.
udies valuing nutrient impacts to fisheries (including, for each study, the waterbody type,
ption, water quality impacts, data, methodology, and results); all results updated to 2012$ using
udies valuing nutrient impacts to property values (including, for each study, the waterbody type,
ption, water quality impacts, data, methodology, and results); all results updated to 2012$ using
udies valuing nutrient impacts to human health (including, for each study, the waterbody type,
ct/measure being evaluated, water quality impacts, data, methodology, and results); all results
onsumer price index.
udies valuing nutrient impacts to drinking water treatment costs (including, for each study, the
r, resource description, water quality impacts, data, methodology, and results); all results
onstruction cost index.
necdotal evidence of the economic impacts of nutrient pollution.
udies that did not meet all screening criteria, but have relevant information and results
trient pollution.
enefit and economic analyses of state-level nutrient rulemaking.
assess the benefits of nutrient reductions.
sources used in conceptual model.
egion categorizations in the Impact Index.
ndex (CPI) factors used to normalize cost and impact estimates to 2012$, and the construction
o normalize drinking water and wastewater treatment cost estimates to 2012$.
GO TO File Info
Relationship of Dischargers of Nutrients
External Nutrient Nutrient

Mitigating Natural Factors
Sources Loading [1]
Agriculture Color
Industrial Sources Residence
Municipal Sources Depth
Septics Turbidity
Urban Runoff Grazing
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nonpoint
Point Source Source Long-Term Short-term Mitigation
Controls Restoration
Controls
Municipal Aeration
Urban Runoff TMDLs Chemical treatment
Treatment
Artificial circulation
Vegetation harvesting
Industrial Cropland Pollutant Biomanipulation
Treatment Management Trading Water level manipulation
Others
Livestock Watershed
Decentralized
Management Planning
Forestry
Source: Based on Weaver (2010) and Dodds et al. (2009)

1. Loads to surface waters. Infiltration throughout the watershed may also contaminate groundwater used for drinking wat
chargers of Nutrients to Economic Impacts Related to Water Quality Standards
Primary Responses Impacts to Designated Economic Se

Secondary Responses
Uses Im
Algal Dominance Primary contact · Tourism-related

Changes Harmful Algae recreation restaurants, etc.)
- shift to blue-green - nuisance blooms · Commercial fish
algae - toxic blooms · Households (ho
- benthic dominance to Secondary contact adverse health e
pelagic dominance recreation drinking water tr
· Private industri
operating costs)
Drinking water (surface · Municipalities (
Decreased Light water) treatment)
Availability Loss of SAV
- extreme Chl-a - reduced SAV spatial
concentrations coverage
- reduced SAV species Wildlife habitat
- reduced periphyton
growth diversity
Aquatic life (spawning,

rearing, etc.)
Increased Organic Low Dissolved Oxygen

Decomposition Industrial water supply
- anoxia/hypoxia
- extreme Chl-a - altered redox
concentrations chemistry
- bacterial respiration - biological stress Agricultural water
supply
dwater used for drinking water source water.

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)
GO TO File Info
Relationship of Dischargers of Nutrients
External Nutrient Mitigating Natural

Sources Nutrient Loading [1] Factors
Agriculture Color
Industrial Sources Flushing
Municipal Sources Residence
Septics Depth
Urban Runoff Turbidity
Grazing
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nonpoint
Point Source Long-Term
Source
Controls Controls Restoration
Municipal
Treatment Urban Runoff TMDLs
Industrial Cropland Pollutant

Treatment Management Trading
Decentralized Livestock Watershed

Management Planning
Forestry
Source: Based on Weaver (2010)

1. Loads to surface waters. Infiltration throughout the watershed may also contaminate groundwater used for drinking wate
chargers of Nutrients to Economic Impacts Related to Water Quality Standards
Impacts to Designated Economic Se

Primary Responses Secondary Responses Uses Im
Algal Dominance
Changes Harmful Algae Primary contact
- diatoms to flagellates - nuisance blooms recreation · Tourism-related
- benthic dominance to - toxic blooms restaurants, etc.)
pelagic dominance · Commercial fish
Secondary contact · Households (ho
recreation adverse health e
· Private industri
Decreased Light Wildlife habitat operating costs)
Availability
- extreme Chl-a Loss of SAV
concentrations - reduced SAV spatial
- excess epiphytic coverage Shellfish harvesting
growth - negative SAV spatial
- excess macroalgal coverage trends
growth
Aquatic life (spawning,
rearing, etc.)
Increased Organic Industrial water supply

Low Dissolved Oxygen
Decomposition - anoxia
- extreme Chl-a - hypoxia
concentrations - biological stress
- bacterial respiration
water used for drinking water source water.

Economic Sectors Negatively
Impacted
· Tourism-related industries (lodging,

restaurants, etc.)
· Commercial fisheries
· Households (housing values,
adverse health effects, etc.)
· Private industries (increased
operating costs)
GO TO File Info
Point Source Control Cost Overview

This section provides a compilation of costs for the treatment of nutrients from point sources, which are
grouped into three categories: Municipal, Industrial, and Decentralized.
Provides information about studies reporting costs associated with municipal water
treatment for nutrients (including, for each study, the nutrient parameter, target
Municipal concentration, 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 industrial

wastewater treatment for nutrients (including, for each study, the nutrient
Industrial parameter, treatment technology, influent and effluent concentrations, plant
Provides information about studies reporting costs associated with decentralized

wastewater treatment for nutrients (including, for each study, the nutrient
Decentralized parameter, treatment technology, influent and effluent concentrations, plant
Provides information about costs reported for Maryland wastewater treatment

plants to upgrade to BNR and ENR treatment processes (including, for each plant,
Point Source Anecdotal
NPDES ID, treatment capacity, BNR/ENR upgrade year, BNR upgrade cost, and ENR
upgrade cost).
Evaluation Criteria
a. Include quantitative estimates of the costs
b. Studies specific to nutrients
c. Studies on streams, lakes, estuaries, or coastal systems; excludes wetlands (impacts of nutrient on
wetlands is beyond the scope of this project although wetland restoration and preservation are including
in control costs).
d. Original research or method (e.g., exclude studies that used original study results; identify and use
original study references)
e. Not older than 2000 (unless more recent information on the category is not available)
f. 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)
g. Peer-reviewed, government-funded, academic or other quality data source*
h. Exclude red tide-related studies
*Evaluated data source quality also based on the following: 1. Whether the study relied on state-of-art methods
accepted in economic literature; 2. Whether the results correspond to economic theory; 3. Evaluate the quality of
data sources (e.g., relies on well-known data sources or that the best practices were used for primary data
collection); 4. Whether the results are supported by economic literature.
Paramater Codes
TA = Total Ammonia as N
TIN = Total Inorganic Nitrogen
TN = Total Nitrogen as N
TP = Total Phosphorus
Technology Codes
Point Source Control Technologies
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
CA = Cycled Aeration
CAC = Chemically Assisted Clarification
ChPr = Chemical Phosphorus Removal
DFil = Denitrification Filter
EA = Extended Aeration
Ferm = Fermenter
Fil = Media Filtration (non-GAC)
FL = Facultative Lagoon
GAAl = 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
SF = Sand Filter
SubF = Submerged Biological Filter
TF = Trickling Filter
UCT = University of Capetown Process
UF = Ultrafiltration
Sequenced processes should be denoted by "___ + ___" (i.e., Activated sludge
Note:
followed by filtration would be "AS + Fil").
Cost Estimate Basis Codes
Cost estimate and effluent results were modeled (i.e., costs were developed using
Modeled = technology-specific cost curves, or by direct estimation using RS Means construction
cost data).
Empirical = Cost estimate and effluent results were the product of direct observation.
GO TO File Info Point Sources References
Nitrogen Phosphorus
To tal Capit al C ost Annual O&M Original Cos t C ost Estimat e
Technology Type of Cost Influ ent Mean Effl uent M ean Per cent Infl uent Mean Efflu ent M ean P ercent Cos t Size Reference Pointer Location - State Location - EPA Comments
Parameter Con cent ration C oncentration Parameter C oncentration C oncentration ($2012/gp d) ($2012/gp d) Year B asis R egion
(u g/L) (ug/L) Removal (ug/L) (ug/L) Remo val
CA Retrofit/Expansion TN 9600 5100 47% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.26 0.05 1 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Connecticut 1 Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units.
Dfil Retrofit/Expansion TN 7000 5000 29% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 2.13 0.07 3.5 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Connecticut 1 Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units.
BNR Retrofit/Expansion TN Not Reported 5000 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.62 0.015 30 MGD 2000 Modeled CBP (2002) DC/MD/VA/PA 3
BNR Retrofit/Expansion TN Not Reported 5000 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1.68 0.044 1.0 MGD 2000 Modeled CBP (2002) DC/MD/VA/PA 3
AS de Novo TN 37800 16400 57% TP 5900 1500 75% 3.59 0.11 145 MGD 2010 Modeled EG Found (2012) Florida 4
AS + Bpho Retrofit/Expansion TN 30500 9800 68% TP 3400 1330 61% 1.38 0.06 250 MGD 2002 Empirical WERF(2005) Illinois 5
AS + Bpho Retrofit/Expansion TN 46700 15400 67% TP 7000 3140 55% 2.49 0.15 23.8 MGD 2002 Empirical WERF(2005) Illinois 5
AS Retrofit/Expansion TN 29400 8000 73% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 2.58 Not Reported 0.32 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Maryland 3 Indian Head WWTP - Conversion to anoxic and aerobic zones
AS + MLE Retrofit/Expansion TN 28100 7800 72% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 2.62 Not Reported 7.55 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Maryland 3 Mattawoman WWTP
AS + AL + SF Retrofit/Expansion TN Not Reported 5500 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3.23 Not Reported 0.65 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Maryland 3 Chestertown WWTP
AS + CA Retrofit/Expansion TN 33900 8000 76% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3.92 Not Reported 0.325 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Maryland 3 Brunswick WWTP
OX + GR Retrofit/Expansion TN 29100 8000 73% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 4.13 Not Reported 0.626 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Maryland 3 Georges Creek WWTP
Dfil + OX Retrofit/Expansion TN 27800 3000 89% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 4.31 Not Reported 1.37 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Maryland 3 Elkton WWTP
AS + Dfil Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 3000 93% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 6.58 Not Reported 0.36 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Maryland 3 Federalsburg WWTP
AS Retrofit/Expansion TN 25100 9600 62% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 11.18 Not Reported 0.7 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Maryland 3 Crisfield WWTP
RBC + AS + Dfil Retrofit/Expansion TN 25000 8000 68% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 14.50 Not Reported 0.30 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Maryland 3 Winebrenner WWTP
CA + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5200 750 86% 0.03 0.06 10.8 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
AB + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9400 750 92% 0.03 0.16 13.2 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
CA + AO Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5200 1250 76% 0.05 0.0029 10.8 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
CA + AO + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5200 750 86% 0.05 0.01 10.8 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
AB + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 6300 750 88% 0.06 0.02 3.9 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
TF + AS + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 7600 750 90% 0.06 0.15 4.1 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
RBC + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5600 750 87% 0.08 0.09 2.61 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
AS + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 6600 750 89% 0.08 0.09 2.6 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
AS + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 8900 750 92% 0.10 0.35 2.5 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
AS + AO Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 8900 1500 83% 0.11 0.02 2.5 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
TF + AS + AO Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 3500 750 79% 0.13 0.08 1.5 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
AL + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 11100 750 93% 0.14 0.10 1.4 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
AL + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 4000 750 81% 0.16 0.08 0.76 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
TF + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5500 750 86% 0.17 0.25 1.06 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
AS + AO + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 8900 750 92% 0.21 0.07 2.5 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
TF + AS + Ch Pr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 15100 750 95% 0.21 0.15 0.8 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
(w/ out d ai ry)
OX + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 10400 750 93% 0.26 0.14 0.66 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
AB + AO Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9400 1500 84% 0.38 0.02 13.2 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
AB + AO Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 6300 750 88% 0.40 0.01 3.9 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
AB + AO + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9400 750 92% 0.41 0.07 13.2 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
OX + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 6900 750 89% 0.43 0.17 0.32 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
AS + AO Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 6600 1000 85% 0.49 0.01 2.6 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
OX + AO Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 10400 1600 85% 0.52 0.01 0.66 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
OX + AO + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 10400 750 93% 0.78 0.03 0.66 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
TF + AS + AO +
ChPr (w /out Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 15100 750 95% 0.81 0.06 0.8 MGD 2004 Modeled MNESERB(2004) Minnesota 5
d ai ry)
UCT + Fil Retrofit/Expansion TA 24000 1400 94% TP 4000 1000 75% 3.58 0.05 3 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Montana 8 Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units.
AO + 3Clar + Fil Retrofit/Expansion TA 27000 600 98% TP 5800 200 97% 2.38 0.09 100 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Nevada 9 Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units.
AS + IFAS + BAF Retrofit/Expansion TN 14500 8000 45% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1.91 Not Reported 24.9 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) New York 2 Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant
TF + AS + BAF Retrofit/Expansion TN 19300 8000 59% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 6.86 Not Reported 7.39 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) New York 2 Endicott WWTP
AS + Dfil Retrofit/Expansion TN 31200 3700 88% TP 5800 1000 83% 0.69 0.11 7 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) North Carolina 4 Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units.
Bpho Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 3000 93% TP 5000 100 98% 1.55 0.09 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units.
POD Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 3000 93% TP 5000 100 98% 1.06 0.07 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units.
BNR + DFil Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 3000 93% TP 5000 100 98% 0.89 0.16 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
Cot to convert filter to denitirification filter.
ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5000 500 90% 0.04 0.03 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported Cos t to convert process or add-o n treatment u nits. Ch emi cal addi tion at a s ingle
poi nt wi th n o fil tration.
Ferm Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5000 500 90% 0.21 0.003 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units.
Ferm + Fil Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5000 500 90% 0.53 0.01 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units.
Ferm + Fil + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5000 100 98% 0.56 0.04 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units. Chemical addition at a single point.
ChPr + Fil Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5000 100 98% 0.35 0.08 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units. Chemical addition at two points.
POD Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 3000 93% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.56 0.02 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units.
MLE Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 3000 93% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.85 0.03 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported Retrofit of existing basins to an MLE process.
DFil Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 3000 93% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.85 0.06 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units.
POD Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 5000 88% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.75 0.04 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
Cost to install a parallel treatment process with no increase in total plant design flow.
MLE Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 5000 88% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1.92 0.11 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
Bpho Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 5000 88% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 2.59 0.17 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
DFil Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 5000 88% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.85 0.06 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
AO Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5000 1000 80% 1.44 0.10 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5000 500 90% 0.04 0.03 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
AO + Ferm Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5000 500 90% 1.50 0.11 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
AO + Ferm + Fil Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5000 500 90% 1.81 0.11 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
ChPr + Fil Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5000 100 98% 0.35 0.08 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
AO + Ferm + ChPr + Fil Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 5000 100 98% 1.85 0.14 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
SBR Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 5000 88% TP 5000 1000 80% 2.31 0.11 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
UCT Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 5000 88% TP 5000 1000 80% 2.45 0.16 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
Bpho Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 5000 88% TP 5000 500 90% 2.61 0.16 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
UCT + Ferm + Fil Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 5000 88% TP 5000 500 90% 2.78 0.17 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
Bpho + Fil Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 5000 88% TP 5000 500 90% 2.92 0.17 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
POD + ChPr + Fil Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 5000 88% TP 5000 100 98% 0.99 0.09 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
SBR + ChPr + Fil Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 5000 88% TP 5000 100 98% 2.23 0.14 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
BNR + DFil Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 3000 93% TP 5000 100 98% 0.89 0.16 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
Bpho + ChPr + Fil Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 3000 93% TP 5000 100 98% 2.96 0.17 10 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Not Reported Not Reported
AS Retrofit/Expansion TN Not Reported 8000 Not Reported TP Not Reported 1000 Not Reported 13.65 0.13 10 MGD 2010 Modeled Falk (2011) Not Reported Not Reported
AS + MLE Retrofit/Expansion TN Not Reported 6000 Not Reported TP Not Reported 300 Not Reported 14.78 0.24 10 MGD 2010 Modeled Falk (2011) Not Reported Not Reported
AS + MLE + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion TN Not Reported 3000 Not Reported TP Not Reported 100 Not Reported 16.83 0.33 10 MGD 2010 Modeled Falk (2011) Not Reported Not Reported
AS + M LE + ChPr
+ Mi Fi l + RO Retrofit/Expansion TN Not Reported 2000 Not Reported TP Not Reported 20 Not Reported 22.17 0.51 10 MGD 2010 Modeled Falk (2011) Not Reported Not Reported
AS de Novo Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 7500 5860 22% 2.81 0.31 100 MGD 2004 Modeled Jiang (2004) Not Reported Not Reported
AO de Novo Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 7500 4120 45% 3.28 0.36 100 MGD 2004 Modeled Jiang (2004) Not Reported Not Reported
A2O de Novo Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 7500 2950 61% 4.06 0.42 100 MGD 2004 Modeled Jiang (2004) Not Reported Not Reported
A2O+CAC de Novo Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 7500 1000 87% 4.06 0.64 100 MGD 2004 Modeled Jiang (2004) Not Reported Not Reported
A20 + CAC + 3Clar de Novo Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 7500 325 96% 4.22 0.69 100 MGD 2004 Modeled Jiang (2004) Not Reported Not Reported
A20 + CAC + de Novo Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 7500 145 98% 4.56 0.73 100 MGD 2004 Modeled Jiang (2004) Not Reported Not Reported
3C lar + Fil
A2O + CAC de Novo Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 7500 1000 87% 4.83 0.70 50 MGD 2004 Modeled Jiang (2004) Not Reported Not Reported
3Cl ar + GAAl
A20 + CAC +
de Novo Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 7500 145 98% 5.46 0.80 50 MGD 2004 Modeled Jiang (2004) Not Reported Not Reported
3C lar + Fil
A20 + CAC +
3Cl ar + GAAl
3Clar + UF
A20 + CAC +
3C lar + Fil
A20 + CAC +
3Clar + UF de Novo Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 7500 50 99% 7.34 0.97 50 MGD 2004 Modeled Jiang (2004) Not Reported Not Reported
A20 + CAC +
3Cl ar + GAAl
3Clar + UF
A20 + CAC +
3C lar + Fil
A20 + CAC +
3Cl ar + GAAl
3Clar + UF
A20 + CAC +
3C lar + Fil
3Cl ar + GAAl
A20 + CAC +
3Clar + UF de Novo Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 7500 50 99% 16.23 2.33 1 MGD 2004 Modeled Jiang (2004) Not Reported Not Reported
SBR + CA + MLE Retrofit/Expansion TN 26600 7000 74% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.06 Not Reported 22.3 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority WWTP
AS Retrofit/Expansion TN 18300 6800 63% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.21 Not Reported 9.14 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Altoona City Authority Westerly Plant - Anoxic zone added to first cell of each train.
AL + Dfil + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion TN 19500 4100 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.26 Not Reported 23.4 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Lancaster City WWTP
SBR Retrofit/Expansion TN 29000 6900 76% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.27 Not Reported 9.45 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Susquehanna Water Pollution Control Plant, Lancaster Area Sewer Authority
OX + CA Retrofit/Expansion TN 32100 6000 81% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.27 Not Reported 3.46 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Hanover Area Regional WWTP
AO + MLE Retrofit/Expansion TN 41100 5500 87% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.27 Not Reported 4.5 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 University Area Joint Authority
AS Retrofit/Expansion TN 15400 5100 67% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.29 Not Reported 6.67 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Altoona City Authority Easterly Plant - Anoxic zone added to first cell of each flow train
AS + MLE Retrofit/Expansion TN 20000 6000 70% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.32 Not Reported 13.8 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Scranton Sewer Authority WWTP
AO + C A + AS + Retrofit/Expansion TN 11600 6300 46% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.43 Not Reported 13.1 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 York City Sewer Authority STP
ChPr
AS Retrofit/Expansion TN 29000 5300 82% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1.10 Not Reported 8.98 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Williamsport Sanitary Authority Central Plant - Installation of 3 anoxic cells in each train
AS + MLE Retrofit/Expansion TN 28800 6800 76% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1.53 Not Reported 4.5 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Throop WWTP Lackawanna River Basin Sewer Authority
AS + SBR + IFAS Retrofit/Expansion TN 37000 8500 77% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 2.33 Not Reported 3.5 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Williamsport Sanitary Authority West
AS + SBR+ TF + Dfil Retrofit/Expansion TN 27000 3500 87% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3.23 Not Reported 5.7 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Lebanon WWTP
AS + MLE + BAF Retrofit/Expansion TN 19500 4000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3.44 Not Reported 24 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Harrisburg WWTP
TF + AS + BAF Retrofit/Expansion TN 25000 6800 73% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3.94 Not Reported 6.2 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Greater Hazelton Joint Sewer Authority WWTP
TF + IFAS + Dfil Retrofit/Expansion TN 25000 4000 84% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 4.97 Not Reported 4.5 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Pennsylvania 3 Chambersburg WWTP
+MLE Capi tal and O&M costs were not r eported. Instead an average annuali zed total
project cos t was reported for 16 WW TPs. Capi tal cost units are $ /gpd-year . C osts
UF or MemBR o r de Novo TN Not Reported Not Reported 49% TP Not Reported Not Reported 56% 0.17 Not Reported 122 MGD 2011 Empirical Hernand ez- Spain Not Applicable were con verted to d oll ars from euros usi ng 2007 average exch ange rates (0.760
RO San cho (201 1) Capi
eurostalper
anddoll
O&M costs were
ar; http://w not r eported.
ww.irs.gov/In Instead
dividu an average
al s/ Internati annuali zed/Yearly-
onal-Taxpayers total
Hernand ez- project cos t was reported for 58 WW TPs. Capi tal cost units are $ /gpd-year . C osts
Average-Currency-Exchange-Rates).
BNR de Novo TN Not Reported Not Reported 65% TP Not Reported Not Reported 64% 0.50 Not Reported 52 MGD 2011 Empirical San cho (201 1) Spain Not Applicable were con verted to d oll ars from euros usi ng 2007 average exch ange rates (0.760
euros per doll ar; http://w ww.irs.gov/In dividu al s/ Internati onal-Taxpayers /Yearly-
Average-Currency-Exchange-Rates).
ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP Not Reported 2730 73% 0.45 0.07 1.37 MGD 2003 Empirical Keplinger(2003) Texas 6
ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP Not Applicable 2510 73% 2.34 0.06 0.33 MGD 2003 Empirical Keplinger(2003) Texas 6
ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP Not Applicable 3360 77% 5.03 0.12 0.36 MGD 2003 Empirical Keplinger(2003) Texas 6
AS + SBR Retrofit/Expansion TN 27200 8000 71% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.03 Not Reported 32.4 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Arlington WWTP
AS + MLE Retrofit/Expansion TN 35100 8000 77% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.06 Not Reported 12.8 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 H.L. Mooney WWTP
OX + CA Retrofit/Expansion TN 22000 4000 82% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.06 Not Reported 3.65 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Middle River/Verona WWTP
OX + CA Retrofit/Expansion TN 20400 6000 71% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.14 Not Reported 0.77 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Woodstock WWTP
OX + CA Retrofit/Expansion TN 37000 6000 84% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.17 Not Reported 0.28 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Dahlgren WWTP
AS + CA Retrofit/Expansion TN 13400 8000 40% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.22 Not Reported 0.64 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Colonial Beach WWTP
OX + CA Retrofit/Expansion TN 25000 8000 68% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.31 Not Reported 0.6 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Strasburg WWTP
AS + BPR Retrofit/Expansion TN 25800 6000 77% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.44 Not Reported 5.14 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 City of Winchester Opequon WRF
Lo wer Po tomac, Fairfax County - Step feed an oxi c aer obic op eration; expansi on;
AS Retrofit/Expansion TN 33000 5000 85% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.48 Not Reported 67 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3
new secondary clarifi ers, 6-pass AS basin s, blo wers.
AS Retrofit/Expansion TN 40000 4000 90% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.84 Not Reported 3.0 / 2.13 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Dal e Services W WTP - Contact stabi li zation ; ad jus tmen t of p H, sep aration of anoxic
MGD zon e in aerobi c digester (2 WW TPs).
AS Retrofit/Expansion TN 34000 8000 76% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.91 Not Reported 8 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Harrisonburg WWTP - Anoxic zones
OX + CA Retrofit/Expansion TN 38000 4000 89% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1.11 Not Reported 1.09 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Parkins Mill WWTP
AS + CA Retrofit/Expansion TN 21300 8000 62% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1.41 Not Reported 2.27 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Front Royal WWTP
OX + CA Retrofit/Expansion TN 31000 4500 85% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1.97 Not Reported 0.98 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Stuarts Draft
AS + MLE Retrofit/Expansion TN 36000 6000 83% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 2.02 Not Reported 1.0 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Purcellville
AS Retrofit/Expansion TN 17000 8000 53% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 2.12 Not Reported 1.3 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Fish ervi lle WW TP - Cr eate an anaerob ic/ anoxic sw itch zo ne fol lowed by an an oxi c
and an anoxic/aerobi c swi tch zone at the influ ent end by turni ng off the air.
TF + RBC + Dfil Retrofit/Expansion TN 20000 4000 80% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3.00 Not Reported 3.63 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Waynesboro WWTP
TF + AS + BPR Retrofit/Expansion TN 23000 7000 70% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3.28 Not Reported 2.86 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Leesburg Water Pollution Control Facility
AS + CA + MLE + Retrofit/Expansion TN 63000 4000 94% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 5.95 Not Reported 0.491 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Dupont Waynesboro WWTP
Bph o
AS + Fil Retrofit/Expansion TA 18900 1000 95% TP 6400 180 97% 1.27 0.05 67 MGD 2006 Modeled USEPA (2008) Virginia 3 Cost to convert process or add-on treatment units.
MemBR Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 3000 92% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.002 0.02 100 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
SBR Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.19 0.0042 10 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
SBR Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 0.21 0.01 10 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
SBR Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% TP 9100 1000 89% 0.24 0.00 10 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
MemBR Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% TP 9100 1000 89% 0.24 0.06 100 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
MemBR Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 0.24 0.06 100 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
EA Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 0.24 0.15 10 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10 Extended aeration with mechanical aerators.
RBC Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 0.26 0.14 10 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
TF Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 0.26 0.14 10 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
TF w SubF Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 0.26 0.14 10 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
AS Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 0.26 0.15 10 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
EA Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 0.30 0.09 100 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10 Extended aeration with diffused aeration system.
EA Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.33 -0.05 100 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10 Extended aeration with diffused aeration system.
EA Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% TP 9100 1000 89% 0.46 0.05 100 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10 Extended aeration with diffused aeration system.
SBR Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0.47 0.01 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
SBR Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 0.49 0.02 1 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
EA Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 89% TP 9100 1000 99% 1.05 0.15 1 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10 Extended aeration with diffused aeration system.
EA Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 99% TP 9100 100 99% 1.06 0.20 100 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
EA Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1.12 0.02 1 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10 Extended aeration with diffused aeration system.
EA Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 100 99% 1.12 0.16 100 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
SBR Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 1.51 0.11 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
SBR Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% TP 9100 1000 89% 1.57 0.11 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
EA Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% TP 9100 1000 89% 1.64 0.21 1 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10 Extended aeration with mechanical aerators.
SBR Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 3000 92% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 2.08 0.74 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
EA Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 2.31 -0.02 100 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10 Extended aeration with mechanical aerators.
AL Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 2.33 0.08 5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
FL Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 2.33 0.08 5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
EA Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 2.38 0.01 10 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10 Extended aeration with mechanical aerators.
AS Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3.19 0.15 220 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10 High-purity oxygen activated sludge plant.
AS Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3.49 0.08 150 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
TF w SubF Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% TP 9100 1000 89% 3.54 0.16 150 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
AS Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% TP 9100 1000 89% 3.63 0.18 150 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
TF w SubF Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3.68 0.07 150 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
TF + SubF Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 3000 92% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3.81 0.09 150 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
AS Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 3000 92% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3.86 0.18 220 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10 High-purity oxygen activated sludge plant
TF Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% TP 9100 1000 89% 3.88 0.19 150 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
RBC Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% TP 9100 1000 89% 3.93 0.20 150 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
TF Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 4.02 0.08 150 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
RBC Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 4.07 0.09 150 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
AL Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 5.00 0.36 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
FL Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 1000 89% 5.00 0.36 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
SBR Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 3000 92% TP 9100 100 99% 5.10 0.90 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
FL Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 6.87 0.15 50 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
AL Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 6.92 0.12 50 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
AL Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 100 99% 7.20 0.41 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
FL Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TP 9100 100 99% 7.20 0.41 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
TF + SubF Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 3000 92% TP 9100 100 99% 7.42 0.33 10 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
FL Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% TP 9100 1000 89% 7.59 0.29 50 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
AL Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% TP 9100 1000 89% 7.64 0.25 50 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
FL Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 23.33 1.24 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
AL Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 23.48 0.96 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
FL Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 3000 92% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 24.52 1.42 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
AL Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 3000 92% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 24.67 1.16 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
FL Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% TP 9100 1000 89% 25.82 1.57 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
AL Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 8000 79% TP 9100 1000 89% 25.97 1.27 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
FL Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 3000 92% TP 9100 100 99% 29.03 1.85 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
AL Retrofit/Expansion TIN 38500 3000 92% TP 9100 100 99% 29.18 1.57 0.5 MGD 2010 Modeled WASDE(2011) Washington 10
Total Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost Original Cost Location - EPA
Technology Type of Cost Effluent Mean Percent Effluent Mean Percent Effluent Mean Percent Effluent Mean Percent ($2012/gpd) Unit ($2012/Unit) Unit Size Year Cost Estimate Basis Reference Pointer Location - State Region Comments
Concentration (ug/L) Removal Concentration (ug/L) Removal Concentration (ug/L) Removal Concentration (ug/L) Removal
Not Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Achieves complete denitrification. Applicable to
MLE + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion 13500 Not Reported 3200 Not Reported 10300 Not Reported 5100 Not Reported 5902128 $/Facility 2785164 $/Facility 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported slaughterhous and meat packinghouses (regulatory subcategories A - I of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source
Reported Categories - 40 CFR 432).
MLE + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion 1900 Not Reported 1340 Not Reported 520 Not Reported 2300 Not Reported 5360842 $/Facility 1764452 $/Facility Reported 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported poultry processors (regulatory subcategory K of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Achieves partial denitrification. Applicable to
MLE + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion 34000 Not Reported 3600 Not Reported 30600 Not Reported 8300 Not Reported 4735200 $/Facility 2298709 $/Facility Not 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported slaughterhous and meat packinghouses (regulatory subcategories A - I of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source
Reported Categories - 40 CFR 432).
MLE Retrofit/Expansion 34000 Not Reported 4970 Not Reported 29200 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3693400 $/Facility 153247 $/Facility Not 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Achieves partial denitrification. Applicable to poultry
Reported post-processors (regulatory subcategory L of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
Not Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Achieves partial denitrification. Applicable to
MLE Retrofit/Expansion 34000 Not Reported 3600 Not Reported 30600 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 3638568 $/Facility 894177 $/Facility Reported 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported slaughterhous and meat packinghouses (regulatory subcategories A - I of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source
Categories - 40 CFR 432).
MLE + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion 34000 Not Reported 4970 Not Reported 29200 Not Reported 4200 Not Reported 2598174 $/Facility 1024929 $/Facility Not 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Achieves partial denitrification. Applicable to poultry
Reported processors (regulatory subcategory K of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
Not Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Achieves partial denitrification. Applicable to poultry
MLE Retrofit/Expansion 34000 Not Reported 4970 Not Reported 29200 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 2160927 $/Facility 514573 $/Facility Reported 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported processors (regulatory subcategory K of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
EA Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported 3600 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1317364 $/Facility 390851 $/Facility Not 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Applicable to slaughterhous and meat packinghouses
Reported (regulatory subcategories A - I of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
MLE + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion 1900 Not Reported 1340 Not Reported 520 Not Reported 2300 Not Reported 1214731 $/Facility 507544 $/Facility Not 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Achieves complete denitrification. Applicable to
Reported poultry post-processors (regulatory subcategory L of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
EA Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported Not Reported 4970 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1034771 $/Facility 286811 $/Facility Not 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Applicable to poultry processors (regulatory
Reported subcategory K of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
MLE + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion 13500 Not Reported 3200 Not Reported 10300 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 949008 $/Facility 830909 $/Facility Reported 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported renders (regulatory subcategory J of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
Not Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Achieves complete denitrification. Applicable to non-
MLE + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion 13500 Not Reported 3200 Not Reported 10300 Not Reported 5100 Not Reported 826692 $/Facility 309306 $/Facility Reported 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported poultry meat processors (regulatory subcategories A - I of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR
432).
MLE + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion 34000 Not Reported 3600 Not Reported 30600 Not Reported 5100 Not Reported 738118 $/Facility 607365 $/Facility Not 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Achieves partial denitrification. Applicable to renders
Reported (regulatory subcategory J of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
Not Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Achieves partial denitrification. Applicable to poultry
MLE + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion 34000 Not Reported 4970 Not Reported 29200 Not Reported 4200 Not Reported 591900 $/Facility 229168 $/Facility Reported 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported post-processors (regulatory subcategory L of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
MLE Retrofit/Expansion 34000 Not Reported 3600 Not Reported 30600 Not Reported 8300 Not Reported 573623 $/Facility 230574 $/Facility Not 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Achieves partial denitrification. Applicable to renders
Reported (regulatory subcategory J of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
Not Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Achieves partial denitrification. Applicable to non-
MLE + ChPr Retrofit/Expansion 34000 Not Reported 3600 Not Reported 30600 Not Reported 8300 Not Reported 427405 $/Facility 139188 $/Facility 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported poultry meat processors (regulatory subcategories A - I of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR
Reported 432).
Not Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Achieves partial denitrification. Applicable to non-
MLE Retrofit/Expansion 34000 Not Reported 3600 Not Reported 30600 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 395069 $/Facility 127940 $/Facility Reported 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported poultry meat processors (regulatory subcategories A - I of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR
432).
EA Retrofit/Expansion 3600 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 388039 $/Facility 102633 $/Facility Not 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Applicable to non-poultry meat processors (regulatory
Reported subcategories A - I of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
EA Retrofit/Expansion 4970 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 209485 $/Facility 87168 $/Facility Not 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Applicable to poultry post-processors (regulatory
Reported subcategory L of Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
Not Average cost from upgrading existing partial nitrification process. Applicable to renders (regulatory subcategory J of
EA Retrofit/Expansion 3600 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 105445 $/Facility 52020 $/Facility Reported 2003 Empirical USEPA (2004) Not Reported Not Reported Meat and Poultry Poducts Point Source Categories - 40 CFR 432).
AAL + AS + MLE + Not
Dfil + CA Retrofit/Expansion 12000 91% Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 15.60 $/gpd Not Reported Applicable 1.1 MGD 1999 Modeled USEPA (1999) Virginia 3 Rocco Farm Foods WWTP
Influent Mean Effluent Mean Total Capital Annual O&M Cost
Parameter Technology Type of Cost Concentration Concentration Percent Cost Cost Size Original Cost Estimate Reference Pointer Location - State Location - EPA Region Comments
(ug/L) (ug/L) Removal ($2012/gpd) ($2012/gpd) Year Basis
Muliple-Residence Septic System with
TN Nitrification/Denitrification Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported 8000 Not Reported 12.43 0.67 0.0044 MGD 2010 Modeled Barnstable(2010) Massachusetts 1
TN Satellite Treatment Systems/Package Plants Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported 7000 Not Reported 1.16 0.04 0.05 MGD 2010 Modeled Barnstable(2010) Massachusetts 1
TN Single-Residence Septic System Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported 26000 Not Reported 78.10 0.66 0.000175 MGD 2010 Modeled Barnstable(2010) Massachusetts 1
TN Single-Residence Septic System with Denitrification Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported 19000 Not Reported 144.19 7.51 0.000175 MGD 2010 Modeled Barnstable(2010) Massachusetts 1
TN Muliple-Residence Septic System with Denitrification Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported 15000 Not Reported 11.54 0.25 0.0044 MGD 2010 Modeled Barnstable(2010) Massachusetts 1
TN SBR + MemBr Retrofit/Expansion 36000 10000 72% 31.95 1.30 0.00033 MGD 2003 Empirical USEPA(2003) DC/MD/VA/PA 3
TN IFAS Retrofit/Expansion 36000 10000 72% 13.63 2.03 0.00033 MGD 2003 Empirical USEPA(2003) DC/MD/VA/PA 3
TP ChPr Retrofit/Expansion Not Reported 2960 74% 20.85 0.36 0.03 MGD 2003 Empirical Keplinger(2003) Texas 6
General Facility/Permit Information Completion Year COST SUMMARY
Major WWTP Current Expansion Total Upgrade Total BNR State Total ENR State
NPDES Maryland County Capacity (MGD) Capacity (MGD) BNR ENR Cost Share Total BNR Share Total Other
ABERDEEN MD0021563 HARFORD 4 1998 $29,379,234 $1,317,417 $2,634,834 $14,982,000 $13,079,817
ANNAPOLIS MD0021814 ANNE ARUNDEL 13 2000 $40,190,091 $2,994,313 $5,988,626 $13,700,000 $23,495,778
APG-ABERDEEN* MD0021237 HARFORD 2.8 2006 2006 Unknown $0 $0 $0 Unknown
BACK RIVER (BNR MD0021555 BALTIMORE 180 1998 $558,728,187 $73,135,745 $146,271,490 $267,000,000 $218,592,442
REFINEMENT)
BALLENGER CREEK MD0021822 FREDERICK 6 15 1995 $143,033,621 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $31,000,000 $111,033,621
BLUE PLAINS (Grants MD DC0021199 DISTRICT OF 169.6 $1,080,000,000 $38,831,231 $77,662,462 $203,298,000 $837,870,769
PORTION) COLUMBIA
BOONSBORO (MINOR; STATE
$ FOR BNR ONLY) MD0020231 WASHINGTON 0.53 2010 2010 $12,556,394 $2,601,676 $5,203,352 $0 $9,954,718
BOWIE MD0021628 PRINCE GEORGE'S 3.3 1991 2011 $10,953,759 $96,960 $193,920 $8,870,000 $1,986,799
BROADNECK MD0021644 ANNE ARUNDEL 6 8 1994 $29,219,490 $206,897 $413,794 $7,851,000 $21,161,593
BROADWATER MD0024350 ANNE ARUNDEL 2 2000 $18,284,342 $2,589,960 $5,179,920 $6,000,000 $9,694,382
BRUNSWICK MD0020958 FREDERICK 1.4 2008 2008 $14,626,149 $2,333,661 $4,667,322 $8,263,000 $4,029,488
CAMBRIDGE MD0021636 DORCHESTER 8.1 2003 $24,711,388 $4,728,221 $9,456,442 $8,944,000 $11,039,167
CELANESE MD0063878 ALLEGANY 1.66 2006 2006 $16,094,251 $3,606,579 $7,213,158 $2,333,382 $10,154,290
CENTREVILLE*** MD0020834 QUEEN ANNE'S 0.5 2005 $10,661,900 $3,279,858 $6,559,716 $1,000,000 $6,382,042
CHESAPEAKE BEACH MD0020281 CALVERT 1.18 1992 $29,845,400 $0 $0 $9,157,000 $20,688,400
CHESTERTOWN MD0020010 KENT 0.9 2008 2008 $9,801,614 $2,858,405 $5,716,810 $1,490,854 $5,452,355
CONOCOCHEAGUE MD0063509 WASHINGTON 4.1 4.5 2001 $42,756,287 $2,612,390 $5,224,780 $27,537,000 $12,606,897
COX CREEK MD0021661 ANNE ARUNDEL 15 2002 $172,121,580 $4,265,000 $8,530,000 $140,485,000 $27,371,580
CRISFIELD MD0020001 SOMERSET 1 2010 2010 $10,270,523 $1,986,639 $3,973,278 $4,231,000 $4,052,884
CUMBERLAND MD0021598 ALLEGANY 15 2001 2011 $47,136,060 $5,091,863 $10,183,725 $26,780,000 $15,264,198
DAMASCUS MD0020982 MONTGOMERY 1.5 1998 $32,251,880 $830,600 $1,661,200 $5,235,000 $26,186,280
DELMAR MD0020532 WICOMICO 0.65 $7,810,793 $515,000 $1,030,000 $2,540,000 $4,755,793
DENTON MD0020494 CAROLINE 0.8 2000 $11,237,261 $1,879,935 $3,759,870 $4,609,000 $4,748,326
DORSEY RUN*** MD0063207 ANNE ARUNDEL 2 1992 $3,900,000 $0 $0 $3,900,000 $0
EASTON MD0020273 TALBOT 2.35 2007 2007 $39,153,791 $8,930,000 $17,860,000 $8,660,000 $21,563,791
ELKTON MD0020681 CECIL 2.7 3.2 2009 2009 $40,710,912 $8,842,410 $17,684,820 $7,960,000 $23,908,502
EMMITSBURG MD0020257 FREDERICK 0.75 $23,860,000 $5,346,000 $10,692,000 $8,153,000 $10,361,000
FEDERALSBURG MD0020249 CAROLINE 0.75 2010 2010 $9,487,713 $2,360,000 $4,720,000 $3,360,000 $3,767,713
FREDERICK (BNR MD0021610 FREDERICK 8 10.49 2002 $73,601,196 $8,450,281 $16,900,562 $27,411,000 $37,739,915
REFINEMENT)
FREEDOM DISTRICT (BNR
REFINEMENT) MD0021512 CARROLL 3.5 1994 $33,169,118 $4,834,000 $9,668,000 $7,891,000 $20,444,118
FRUITLAND MD0052990 WICOMICO 0.8 1.06 2003 $15,301,975 $3,192,975 $6,385,950 $3,100,000 $9,009,000
GEORGES CREEK MD0060071 ALLEGANY 0.6 2010 2010 $28,664,919 $5,984,613 $11,969,226 $10,588,000 $12,092,306
HAGERSTOWN MD0021776 WASHINGTON 8 10.5 2000 2010 $27,071,068 $4,359,643 $8,719,286 $10,860,000 $11,851,425
HAMPSTEAD 0.9 $22,000,000 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000
HAVRE DE GRACE (BNR MD0021750 HARFORD 1.89 3.3 2002 $53,897,974 $8,722,976 $17,445,953 $11,289,000 $33,885,998
REFINEMENT)
Major WWTP Current Expansion Total Upgrade Total BNR State Total ENR State
NPDES Maryland County BNR ENR Total BNR Total Other
Capacity (MGD) Capacity (MGD) Cost Share Share
HURLOCK MD0022730 DORCHESTER 1.65 2006 2006 $7,585,362 $2,507,171 $5,014,342 $941,148 $4,137,043
INDIAN HEAD MD0020052 CHARLES 0.5 2008 2008 $14,941,637 $2,560,860 $5,121,720 $6,484,000 $5,896,777
JOPPATOWNE MD0022535 HARFORD 0.95 1996 $7,781,846 $464,299 $928,598 $2,999,732 $4,317,815
KENT ISLAND MD0023485 QUEEN ANNE'S 3 2007 2007 $33,992,808 $7,838,606 $15,677,212 $6,380,645 $19,773,557
LA PLATA MD0020524 CHARLES 1.5 2003 $20,506,000 $2,046,387 $4,092,774 $9,378,000 $9,081,613
LEONARDTOWN MD0024767 ST MARY'S 0.68 1.2 2003 $21,143,647 $1,189,501 $2,379,002 $6,951,000 $13,003,146
LITTLE PATUXENT MD0055174 HOWARD 25 29 1994 $131,712,500 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $35,494,000 $94,218,500
MARLAY TAYLOR (PINE HILL
RUN) MD0021679 ST MARY'S 6 1998 $40,925,837 $1,865,859 $3,731,718 $11,000,000 $28,059,978
MARYLAND CITY MD0062596 ANNE ARUNDEL 2.5 1990 $8,400,000 $0 $0 $3,400,000 $5,000,000
MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL MD0023957 WASHINGTON 1.6 1995 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0
INSTITUTE***
MATTAWOMAN*** MD0021865 CHARLES 15 2007 $29,491,191 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 $19,491,191
MAYO LARGE COMMUNAL MD0061794 ANNE ARUNDEL 0.615 1.14 $39,760,000 $5,456,000 $10,912,000 $3,000,000 $31,304,000
MOUNT AIRY MD0022527 CARROLL 1.2 1999 2010 $9,143,869 $2,005,000 $4,010,000 $3,500,000 $3,638,869
NORTHEAST RIVER MD0052027 CECIL 2 2005 $35,385,722 $1,675,927 $3,351,854 $9,000,000 $24,709,795
PARKWAY MD0021725 PRINCE GEORGE'S 7.5 1992 $34,050,114 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $16,052,000 $12,998,114
PATAPSCO MD0021601 BALTIMORE CITY 73 81 $391,196,400 $75,150,000 $150,300,000 $218,500,000 $97,546,400
PATUXENT MD0021652 ANNE ARUNDEL 7.5 1999 $21,684,690 $500,000 $1,000,000 $13,800,000 $7,384,690
PERRYVILLE MD0020613 CECIL 1.65 2010 2010 $13,760,078 $3,243,974 $6,487,948 $4,000,000 $6,516,104
PISCATAWAY MD0021539 PRINCE GEORGE'S 30 2000 $27,001,942 $9,642,175 $19,284,350 $6,324,000 $11,035,767
POCOMOKE CITY MD0022551 WORCESTER 1.47 2004 $8,228,788 $1,578,539 $3,157,078 $3,224,000 $3,426,249
POOLESVILLE MD0023001 MONTGOMERY 0.75 1995 2010 $3,247,900 $692,381 $1,384,762 $235,000 $2,320,519
PRINCESS ANNE MD0020656 SOMERSET 1.26 2004 $8,180,180 $1,701,116 $3,402,233 $4,000,000 $2,479,064
SALISBURY MD0021571 WICOMICO 8.5 2010 2010 $78,020,887 $22,817,000 $45,634,000 $3,000,000 $52,203,887
SALISBURY CORRECTIVE $54,270,000 $11,000,000 $22,000,000 $12,000,000 $31,270,000
ACTION
SENECA MD0021491 MONTGOMERY 20 26 2003 $112,099,941 $12,011,129 $24,022,258 $6,900,000 $93,188,812
SNOW HILL MD0022764 WORCESTER 0.5 0.667 $14,364,870 $3,765,000 $7,530,000 $3,527,000 $7,072,870
SOD RUN MD0056545 HARFORD 20 2000 $97,726,278 $8,249,178 $16,498,356 $42,633,450 $46,843,650
SWAN POINT** MD0057525 CHARLES 0.6 2007 2007 Unknown $0 $0 $0 Unknown
TALBOT COUNTY REGION II
(St. Michael's) MD0023604 TALBOT 0.66 2008 2008 $13,036,277 $2,729,349 $5,458,698 $2,000,000 $8,306,928
TANEYTOWN MD0020672 CARROLL 1.1 2000 $11,253,995 $1,497,408 $2,994,816 $2,870,000 $6,886,587
THURMONT MD0021121 FREDERICK 1 1996 $13,241,775 $926,660 $1,853,320 $6,889,000 $5,426,115
WESTERN BRANCH MD0021741 PRINCE GEORGE'S 30 1995 $111,134,060 $15,739,370 $31,478,740 $29,000,000 $66,394,690
WESTMINSTER MD0021831 CARROLL 5 2001 $32,215,847 $2,036,263 $4,072,526 $16,940,000 $13,239,584
WINEBRENNER MD0003221 WASHINGTON 1 $17,665,200 $2,100,000 $4,200,000 $7,000,000 $8,565,200
* Funded by the U.S. Army.
** Funded by private developer
*** Based on current performance, ENR upgrade may not be required. Further evaluation is necessary.
GO TO File Info
Nonpoint Source Control Cost Overview

This section provides a compilation of costs for the treatment of nutrient pollution from nonpoint sources
focusing on Urban Runoff.
Provides information about studies reporting costs associated with reducing nutrient
pollution from urban runoff (including, for each study, the nutrient parameter,
Urban Runoff treatment technology, removal performance, size, location, and costs); all results
PARAMETER
NO3 = Nitrate an N
TN = Total Nitrogen
TP = Total Phosphorus
TECHNOLOGY
Urban Runoff (UR)
BB = Baffle Boxes
BR = Bioretention
BS = Bioswale
ChPrcp = Chemically Assisted Precipitation
DB = Detention Basin
FA = Fertilizer Application
Fil = Media Filtration
HS = Hydrodynamic Structures
IB = Infiltration Basin
ID = Correction/Removal of Illicit Discharges
Imp = Reduce Impervious Surface Area
IT = Infiltration Trench
Pet = Pet Waste Program
PP = Porous Pavement
SF = Sand Filter
SS = Street Sweeping
SWF = Storm Water Filtration
WB = Wetland Basin
COST ESTIMATE BASIS

Cost estimate and effluent results were modeled (i.e., costs were developed using
Modeled = technology-specific cost curves, or by direct estimation using RS Means construction
cost data).
Empirical = Cost estimate and effluent results were the product of direct observation.
Total Capital Cost Cost Estimate Cost per Mass
Parameter Technology Removal Performance (2012 dollars) Capital Cost Unit Capital Cost Year Size Basis Pollutant Treated Reference Pointer Location - State Location - EPA Region Comments
Low Density Residential (assumed av

TN BB 15% 484.43 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4
Concentration: 1.24 mg/l
Medium Density Residential

TN BB 15% 484.43 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4
N Concentration: 1.53 mg/l
High Density Residential (assumed

TN BB 15% 484.43 $/acre 2008 av size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4
Other Urban, Mixed Commercial

TN BB 15% 484.43 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TN BS 15% 7046.20 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TN BS 15% 3523.10 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TN BS 25% 7046.20 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4


TN BS 25% 7046.20 $/acre 2008 av size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TN BS 15% 3523.10 $/acre 2008 av size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4



TN DB 20% 8807.75 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TN DB 15% 4403.88 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TN DB 20% 8807.75 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4


TN DB 20% 8807.75 $/acre 2008 av size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TN DB 15% 4403.88 $/acre 2008 av size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4



TN FA 15% 12.11 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4 Reduced P fertilization

TN FA 25% 16.51 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4 Reduced P fertilization
TN FA 30% 16.51 $/acre 2008 av size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4 Reduced P fertilization

TN FA 25% 16.51 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4 Reduced P fertilization

TN SS 2% 22.02 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TN SS 2% 22.02 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TN SS 2% 22.02 $/acre 2008 av size of 200 ac); Existing N Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TN SS 2% 22.02 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TP BB 20% 484.43 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing P Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TP BB 20% 484.43 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4
P Concentration: 0.3 mg/l

TP BB 20% 484.43 $/acre 2008 av size of 200 ac); Existing P Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4
Concentration: 0.55mg/l
Medium Density with Mixed

Commercial (assumed av size of 200
TP BB 20% 484.43 $/acre 2008 ac); Existing P Concentration: 0.30 Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4
mg/l

TP BS 50% 7046.20 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing P Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TP BS 25% 3523.10 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing P Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TP BS 50% 7046.20 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TP BS 25% 3523.10 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TP BS 50% 7046.20 $/acre 2008 av size of 200 ac); Existing P Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TP BS 25% 3523.10 $/acre 2008 av size of 200 ac); Existing P Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TP BS 50% 7046.20 $/acre 2008 ac); Existing P Concentration: 0.30 Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4
mg/l

TP BS 25% 3523.10 $/acre 2008 ac); Existing P Concentration: 0.30 Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4
mg/l

TP DB 80% 8807.75 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing P Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TP DB 65% 4403.88 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing P Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TP DB 80% 8807.75 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TP DB 65% 4403.88 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4
TP DB 80% 8807.75 $/acre 2008 av size of 200 ac); Existing P Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TP DB 65% 4403.88 $/acre 2008 av size of 200 ac); Existing P Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4

TP DB 80% 8807.75 $/acre 2008 ac); Existing P Concentration: 0.30 Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4
mg/l

TP DB 65% 4403.88 $/acre 2008 Commercial (assumed av size of 200 Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4
ac); Existing P Concentration: 0.30
mg/l

TP FA 5% 0.00 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing P Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4 Reduced P fertilization

TP FA 5% 0.00 $/acre 2008 (assumed av size of 200 ac); Existing Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4 Reduced P fertilization

TP FA 5% 0.00 $/acre 2008 av size of 200 ac); Existing P Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4 Reduced P fertilization

TP FA 5% 0.00 $/acre 2008 Commercial (assumed av size of 200 Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4 Reduced P fertilization
ac); Existing P Concentration: 0.30
mg/l

TP SS 15% 22.02 $/acre 2008 size of 200 ac); Existing P Modeled Not Reported SWET (2008) Florida 4
GO TO File Info
Restoration and Mitigation Cost Overview
This section provides a compilation of costs for nutrient reduction restoration activities and in-lake nutrient
mitigation technologies and methods. The Restoration sheet includes studies which detail the costs of
preparing TMDLs, watershed planning assessments, or pollutant trading programs for nutrients. The
Mitigation sheet includes studies which detail the costs of strategies used to treat nutrients within a lake,
such as alum treatment, dredging, and artificial circulation.
Provides information about studies quantifying the costs associated with nutrient
reduction restoration (including, for each study, the water body type, restoration
Restoration activity and description, location, year, resource description, water quality impact,
data sources, and costs); all results updated to 2012$ using the consumer price index.
Provides information about studies quantifying the costs associated with in-lake
nutrient mitigation technologies and methods (including, for each study, the water
Mitigation body type, planning activity and description, location, year, resource description, water
quality impact, data sources, and costs); all results updated to 2012$ using the
consumer price index.
Provides information about restoration and water quality improvement projects

planned to meet phosphorus load reductions for Florida's Upper Ocklawaha River
Mitigation Anecdotal Basin TMDL (including, for each project, the estimated load reduction, project cost,
and completion date). Presented in original dollar years.
Evaluation Criteria
a. Include quantitative estimates of the costs.
b. Studies specific to nutrients.
c. Studies on streams, lakes, estuaries, or coastal systems; excludes wetlands (impacts of nutrient on
wetlands is beyond the scope of this project although wetland restoration and preservation are including in
control costs).
d. Original research or method (e.g., exclude studies that used original study results; identify and use
original study references).
e. Not older than 2000 (unless more recent information on the category is not available).
f. 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).
g. Peer-reviewed, government-funded, academic or other quality data source.*
*Evaluated data source quality also based on the following: 1. Whether the study relied on state-of-art methods
accepted in economic literature; 2. Whether the results correspond to economic theory; 3. Evaluate the quality of data
sources (e.g., relies on well-known data sources or that the best practices were used for primary data collection); 4.
Whether the results are supported by economic literature.
GO TO File Info Restoration and Mitigation References
Study Water Body Type(s) Activity Category Activity Description Name/Location Year (event or Resource Description Water Quality Data sources Method Results (2012 Dollars) [1] Notes
study period)
The cost of developing TMDLs Presented cost are not specific to nutrients.
(excluding monitoring costs). Cost per All resources for which USEPA (2001b) (Study $37,000 on average nationally per cause; typically These costs could be higher or lower by 10%,
USEPA (2001a) All TMDL single cause of impairment (single Nationwide 2000-2015 there are TMDLs Not assessed separately supporting document) Government analyses range from $7,000 to $205,000 depending on the pace that states adopt the
TMDL). most efficient approaches to develop TMDLs.
Presented cost are not specific to nutrients.

The cost of developing TMDLs These costs could be higher or lower by 10%,
(excluding monitoring costs). Cost per All resources for which USEPA (2001b) (Study $69,000 on average nationally per cause; typically depending on the pace that states adopt the
USEPA (2001a) All TMDL single water body of impairment (one Nationwide 2000-2015 there are TMDLs Not assessed separately supporting document) Government analyses range from $35,000 to over $666,000 (depending on most efficient approaches to develop TMDLs.
the complexity and number of TMDLs)
or more TMDL). Clustering TMDLs on a watershed scale
significantly reduces costs.
$200,000 on average nationally (which typically may

USEPA (2001a) All TMDL The cost of preparing TMDL Nationwide 2000-2015 All resources for which Not assessed separately USEPA (2001b) (Study Government analyses cover 5-6 TMDLs); typically range from $26,000 (single Presented cost are not specific to nutrients.
submission. there are TMDLs supporting document) TMDL) to over $1,333,000 (depending on the number
of water bodies and TMDLs included in the submission)
The California Bay-Delta Authority’s (CALFED)

Watershed Program has awarded grants in 2001 &
2002 ranging from $114,000 to $906,000 for projects
Costs associated with completing a Watershed Assessment Compilation of costs from described as watershed assessments. In the central Costs are related to watershed assessments are
Shilling, et al. (2005) Not Applicable Watershed Planning watershed assessment. California 2005 Manual Not assessed separately See Chapter 2; Page 28 completed watershed
assessments in California. coast, combined watershed assessment and watershed not associated with any particular pollutant..
enhancement plans that include field-work performed
by consultants generally average about $235,000-
294,000 for a 40 square-mile (26,000-acre) watershed.
In Oregon, assessments based on the state manual

Costs associated with completing a Watershed Assessment Compilation of costs from have ranged from about $700 to almost $470,000 for Costs are related to watershed assessments are
Shilling, et al. (2005) Not Applicable Watershed Planning watershed assessment. Oregon 2005 Manual Not assessed separately See Chapter 2; Page 28 completed watershed fifth-field watershed-level assessments (at 60,000-acre not associated with any particular pollutant..
assessments in Oregon. scale), with 90% costing less than $118,000 and
consultant-prepared assessments at the higher end.
The Phase I demonstration project cost $152,000, and

is estimated to value $518,000, including donated time,
labor, and materials. Phase II funding was also
See Page 29 for the $152,000. Phase III was funded for $91,000, and Phase
Details regarding water quality trading program background and Compilation of IV is estimated at $273,000. The total cost was
Breetz, et al. (2004) River/Stream Pollutant Offset for Boulder Creek. Case study includes Colorado 2004 Nitrogen offset program. Not assessed separately estimated at $1.58-1.70 million. Costs included the
costs regarding Nitrogen. Page 34 for a administrative costs. costs of gathering data for planning and evaluation,
administrative cost details.
construction, materials, labor, and time. The overall
cost was brought down by the donation of volunteer
labor, time, materials, and land easements from
landowners.
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
Details regarding water quality trading See Page 37 for the are sold at a price that reflects the cost of nonpoint
Phosphorus trading program background and Compilation of
Breetz, et al. (2004) Lake/Reservoir Pollutant Trading for Chatfield Reservoir. Case study Colorado 2004 program. Not assessed separately Page 41 for a administrative costs. source reduction projects, costs associated with the
includes costs regarding Phosphorus. pooling program, and costs incurred by the Authority
administrative cost details. to administer the trading program . Exact costs were
unknown, but the monitoring program had been
estimated to cost $71,000/year.
Coming from a combination of property taxes and user

fees, the Authority’s budget for 2003 was $1.7 million,
See Page 44 for the of which at least 60% had to be spent on the
Details regarding water quality trading Phosphorus trading program background and Compilation of construction and maintenance of PRFs. The remaining
Breetz, et al. (2004) River/Stream Pollutant Trading for Cherry Creek. Case study includes Colorado 2004 Not assessed separately 40% is used in research, planning documents, technical
costs regarding Phosphorus. program. Page 52 for a administrative costs. reports, and administrative costs. State grants finance a
administrative cost details.
smaller portion of the Authority’s work, particularly
that involving educational campaigns about nonpoint
source pollution and construction of PRFs.
The trading program at Long Island Sound has carried

out two years of credit exchange with relatively limited
financial resources, besides the state and federal funds
Details regarding water quality trading See Page 80 for the used to implement nitrogen removal projects. The
Breetz, et al. (2004) Estuary Pollutant Trading for Long Island Sound. Case study Connecticut 2004 Nitrogen trading program . Not assessed separately program background and Compilation of CTDEP currently employs between four and five
includes costs regarding Nitrogen. Page 86 for a administrative costs. individuals to work on the Nitrogen Credit Exchange,
administrative cost details. the equivalent of two full-time employees. All
members of the Nitrogen Credit Advisory Board
complete their work for the program without monetary
compensation.
Transaction costs were estimated between the

permitting and implementation phases. During the The transaction costs (which include
two-year permitting phase Rahr spent about $20,000 administrative costs) associated with this trading
($14,600 for consultants and $5,500 for staff time), program were high because there was no water
while the MPCA spent about $63,000 on staff time. quality trading precedent in Minnesota. Rahr
Details regarding pollutant offsets for Phosphorus, Nitrogen, See Page 176 for the During the implementation phase, Rahr spent about and the MPCA had to design a permit and
the Rahr Malting Co. Case study program background and Compilation of
Breetz, et al. (2004) Not Applicable Pollutant Trading includes costs regarding Phosphorus, Minnesota 2004 CBOD-5, and sediment Not assessed separately Page 179 for a administrative costs. $2,700 on staff time, the MPCA spent about $40,000 on trading framework, determine the effectiveness
Nitrogen, CBOD-5, and sediment. offset program. administrative cost details. staff time, a local citizen’s group spent about $900, and of BMPs, negotiate with landowners, write
nonpoint sources spent about $600 on legal assistance. detailed contracts, and monitor the
The grand total for transaction costs during these two implementation of nonpoint source controls.
phases was about $128,000, 81% of which were borne The participation of CCMR in identifying trades
by the MPCA as it designed the overall trading significantly helped to reduce transaction costs.
structure.
Details regarding water quality offset See Page 207 for the For development of the comprehensive strategies in
for the New York City Watershed. Case Phosphorus trading program background and Compilation of the Croton System, the NYC DEP allocated up to $1.2
Breetz, et al. (2004) Watershed Pollutant Trading study includes costs regarding New York 2004 program. Not assessed separately Page 214 for a administrative costs. million to each county required to develop a water
Phosphorus. administrative cost details. quality protection plan.
Details regarding water quality trading See Page 226 for the The Tar-Pamlico Basin Association gave $182,000 to the
Breetz, et al. (2004) River/Stream Pollutant Trading for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Case North Carolina 2004 Nitrogen and Phosphorus Not assessed separately program background and Compilation of DEM during Phase I to fund a staff position, and the
study includes costs regarding Nitrogen trading program. Page 230 for a administrative costs.
and Phosphorus. administrative cost details. trading ratio includes 10% for administrative costs.
Details regarding water quality trading The Conservation Innovation Grant anticipates a three-
for the Great Miami River Watershed See Page 238 for the year project cost of $2,430,810 including $607,000 to
Breetz, et al. (2004) Watershed Pollutant Trading Trading Pilot Program. Case study Ohio 2004 Nitrogen and Phosphorus Not assessed separately program background and Compilation of fund BMPs. For the grant, the Program receives in-kind
trading program. Page 243 for administrative administrative costs. support primarily in the form of water quality
includes costs regarding Nitrogen and cost details. monitoring and the training of soil and water
Phosphorus.
conservation professionals by other organizations.
Assessemnt of a request for proposal Nitrogen and Phosphorus As of November 30, 2012, 38 trades occurred; nitrogen Does not include the administrative costs
trading program to meet Compilation of trading
PA-LBFC (2013) River/Stream Pollutant Trading program for long-term verified nutrient Pennsylvania 2012 Chesapeake Bay TMDL Not assessed separately PENNVEST costs. and phosphorus credits traded at costs ranging from incurred by PENNVEST serving as credit
credits requirements $1.25 to $4 per pound. clearinghouse.
1. Costs escalated to 2012 dollars from original year dollars based on the Consumer Price Index.
Mitigation Waterbody Treatment Area Water Quality Parameter of State Method Starting Concentration Target or Ending Year $ Capital Costs Capital Costs (2012$) Useful Life O&M Costs O&M Costs Capital Unit Cost O&M Unit Cost Study Notes
Measure (acres) Concern Concentration (Original Year $) (Original Year $) (2012$) (2012$/acre) (2012$)
excessive Treatment for the whole lake. Based on aerial Preliminary treatment recommendation to address internal
Alum treatment Kohlman Lake 74 phosphorus P MN doses needed, lake area, and a cost of $1.30 per not reported not reported 2005 $141,000 $165,759 not reported - $2,240 - Barr (2005) phosphorus loading. Authors reference Welch and Cooke (1999)
concentrations gallon of alum needed. which gives a longevity of 10-15 years for alum treatment.
excessive Dredging for the whole lake. Based on costs

Dredging Kohlman Lake 74 P MN between $4 and $11 per cubic yard, plus disposal not reported not reported 2005 $824,000- $968,692 - $2,143,112 not reported - $13,090 - $28,961 - Barr (2005) Preliminary treatment recommendation to address internal
phosphorus costs of $10 to $20 per cubic yard. A sediment $1,823,000 phosphorus loading
concentrations depth of 0.49ft would be dredged.
excessive Treatment for the whole lake. Based on aerial Preliminary treatment recommendation to address internal
Alum treatment Keller Lake 72 phosphorus P MN doses needed, lake area, and a cost of $1.30 per not reported not reported 2005 $50,000 $58,780 not reported - $816 - Barr (2005) phosphorus loading. Authors reference Welch and Cooke (1999)
concentrations gallon of alum needed. which gives a longevity of 10-15 years for alum treatment.
excessive Dredging for the whole lake. Based on costs

Dredging Keller Lake 72 phosphorus P MN between $4 and $11 per cubic yard, plus disposal not reported not reported 2005 $535,000- $628,944 - $1,390,731 not reported - $8,735 - $19,316 - Barr (2005) Preliminary treatment recommendation to address internal
costs of $10 to $20 per cubic yard. A sediment $1,183,000 phosphorus loading
concentrations depth of 0.33ft would be dredged.
Low end represents one-time full application; high end represents

excessive Treatment for the whole lake. Based on aerial $986,000 - recommended 3 separate applications. There is uncertainty
Alum treatment Spring Lake 409 phosphorus P MN doses needed, lake area, and a cost of $1.60 per not reported 85 μg/l 2012 $1,086,000 $986,000 - $1,086,000 10 - 32 years - $2,411 - $2,655 - Barr (2012) regarding how long the alum treatments will last before they need
concentrations gallon of alum needed to be repeated (if necessary at all).
eutrophication Application of the herbicide SONAR over the Berkshire Regional

Herbicide Onota Lake 617 and excessive P MA whole lake with follow-up spot treatment. Actual not reported not reported 1999 $125,000 $172,264 not reported - $279 - Planning Commission
treatment macrophyte cost. (2004)
growth
Capital costs include in-lake components (three columns, air lines,

eutrophication Berkshire Regional and ballast), land-based elements (compressor house, compressor,
Aeration system Onota Lake 617 and excessive P MA Not clear. not reported not reported 2003 $285,000 - $355,621 - $411,772 not reported $40,000 $49,912 $576 - $667 $80.89 Planning Commission ventilation system, electric circuitry and air valving system), and
macrophyte $330,000 (2004) three-phase power, trenching of airlines at the shoreline, and the
growth connection of all the equipment. O&M costs include maintenance
and an annual service contract fee.
Whole lake treatment based on costs of aluminum Whole-lake sediment inactivation alum treatment; needs to be
sulfate and sodium aluminate of $2.50 and $4 per Burghdoff and Williams treated again in year 6. Ending concentration represents the
Alum treatment Lake Ketchum 26 algal blooms P WA gallon and costs for treatment design, pre- 277 μg/l (summer) 71 μg/l (summer) 2011 $194,000 $198,015 4 years - $7,765 - average concentration of years 2-4 after alum treatment. Authors
treatment testing, trucking, application from a (2012) reference Welch and Cooke (1999) which gives a longevity of 10-15
boat or barge, and permitting. years for alum treatment.
Based on costs of aluminum sulfate and sodium Annual water column alum treatments; assumes higher chemical
Alum treatment - aluminate of $3.50 and $4.80 per gallon and costs Burghdoff and Williams costs due to smaller volumes needed. Ending concentration is given
Water Column Lake Ketchum 26 algal blooms P WA for treatment design, pre-treatment testing, 277 μg/l (summer) not reported 2011 $36,000 $36,745 1 year - $1,441 - for whole-lake sediment inactivation and annual water colum
(2012)
only trucking, application from a boat or barge, and treatments, but not annual water column treatments by
permitting. themselves.
Partial lake treatment: application rate of 130g

Al/m2 at depths greater than 25 feet and 100g for 2 applications Cedar Lake Protection
Alum treatment Cedar Lake not reported algal blooms P WI Al/m2 at depths between 20 and 25 feet. Alum 0.052 to 0.068 mg/L 0.030 – 0.039 mg/L 2013 $2,200,000 $2,175,881 - - - and Rehabilitation
over 10 years
doses are calculated based on District (2013)
the need to treat the upper 6-8 cm of sediment.
Starting phosphorus concentration represents the average

Costs estimate includes 20% engineering and phosphorus concentration in the year 2009. Ending concentration is
Alum treatment Twin Lake 19 algal blooms P MN design, a 25% contingency, and permitting; does 70 μg/L 20 μg/L 2013 $148,000 $146,377 10 - 20 years $0 $0 $7,704 $0.00 Chandler (2013) an approximation of where the phosphorus level will settle. Total
not include monitoring. Alum is to be dosed to 19 capital cost represents the addition of capital ($100,000),
of the 20 acres of the lake twice in three years. engineering & design ($20,000), contigency ($25,000), and
permitting ($3,000) costs.
Involves the direct removal of lake bottom waters and return of

Construction costs estimated at $400,000; O&M treated water to the lake; NPDES permit would also be required.
Hypolimnetic Twin Lake 20 algal blooms P MN estimated at $40,000 annually; engineering and 70 μg/L not reported 2013 $590,000 $583,532 20 years $40,000 $39,561 $29,177 $1,978.07 Chandler (2013) Starting phosphorus concentration represents the average
withdrawal design were assumed to be 20% of capital and a phosphorus concentration in the year 2009. Total capital cost
contingency of 25% of capital costs was applied. represents the addition of capital ($400,000), engineering & design
($80,000), contigency ($100,000), and permitting ($10,000) costs.
Involves the removal of rough fish (carp) and introduction of

$8,000 to remove carp through seining and piscivores to reduce planktivores that reduce zooplankton that feed
electrofishing; $6,000 for pike stocking and on algae; fish removal costs are uncertain because fish population is
Biomanipulation Twin Lake 20 algal blooms P MN $39,000 for bass stocking; $1,000 per year for 70 μg/L not reported 2013 $282,500 $279,403 10 years $0 $0 $13,970 $0.00 Chandler (2013) not well understood. Starting phosphorus concentration represents
monitoring. Assumes a total of four stockings the average phosphorus concentration in the year 2009. Total
conducted in years 1, 2, 4, and 6. capital cost represents the addition of capital ($216,000),
contigency ($54,000), and permitting ($3,000) costs.
300 pounds of barley straw per acre of lake Barley straw is added along the shoreline to limit algae growth.
Barley straw Twin Lake 20 algal blooms P MN surface at a cost of $12 per 45-pound bag; 70 μg/L not reported 2013 $11,180 $11,057 1 year $0 $0 $553 $0.00 Chandler (2013) Starting phosphorus concentration represents the average
additional costs are $1,000 for delivery, $500 for phosphorus concentration in the year 2009. Capital cost represents
materials, and $8,000 for application labor. the total annual cost of a barley straw application.
Based on 1,350 feet of soaker hoser installation Starting phosphorus concentration represents the average
Bubbler aeration Twin Lake 20 algal blooms P MN ($160,000), $35,000 in yearly maintenance 70 μg/L not reported 2013 $235,000 $232,424 20 years $35,000 $34,616 $11,621 $1,730.81 Chandler (2013) phosphorus concentration in the year 2009. Total capital cost
system including 20% in engineering and design and a represents the addition of capital ($160,000), engineering & design
25% contingency ($32,000), contigency ($40,000), and permitting ($3,000) costs.
Starting phosphorus concentration represents the average

phosphorus concentration in the year 2009. Total capital cost
Solar-powered Annual labor costs of $5,000, purchase for two represents the addition of capital ($102,000), contigency ($35,700),
mixing aeration Twin Lake 20 algal blooms P MN solar-powered units is $102,000; total cost 70 μg/L not reported 2013 $140,700 $139,157 20 years $5,000 $4,945 $6,958 $247.26 Chandler (2013)
and permitting ($3,000) costs. The report states that contigency
system includes 25% contingency and permitting costs represents 25% of construction cost, but the cost reported
($35,700) is 35%.
Involves on-site dewatering and off-site disposal due to space

Based on costs of $100/CY removed for 6 inches limitations. Starting phosphorus concentration represents the
Dredging Twin Lake 20 algal blooms P MN of sediment (17,500 CY); capital costs are $1.7 70 μg/L not reported 2013 $2,570,000 $2,541,824 not reported $0 $0 $127,091 $0.00 Chandler (2013) average phosphorus concentration in the year 2009. Total capital
million, and total costs include 20% for cost represents the addition of capital ($1,700,000), engineering &
engineering and design and a 25% contingency design ($425,000), contigency ($425,000), and permitting ($20,000)
costs.
Aeration system Lake Stevens 1,013 algal blooms P WA Actual average cost over the past six years - not reported not reported 2012 Not reported - not reported $35,000 - $110000 $35,000 - $110000 - $34.55 - $108.59 City of Lake Stevens Annual operation cost is $35,000; however due to repairs, the
includes power consumption, staffing, and repairs. (2013) average annual cost has been $110,000 a year for the past 6 years.
Removal of 32,850 CY from Lovers Lake and "This number could be further refined during preliminary design
28,500 CY from Stillwater Pond at a cost of $22 and permitting, but provides an informed order-of-magnitude
Dredging Lovers Lake and 19 eutrophication P MA per CY, plus $100,000 for engineering and Lovers Lake: 38.2 μg/L Lovers Lake: 27.9 μg/L 2008 $1,450,000 $1,546,246 10 years or less $0 $0 $81,339 $0 ENSR Corporation (2008) estimate" (p. 7-20). Phosphorus concentrations represent surface-
Stillwater Pond environmental permits. Based on a sediment Stillwater Pond: 40 μg/L Stillwater Pond: 29.2 μg/L level averages. Backcalculated dredging area based on total volume
removal depth of 2 feet in areas of water over 20 dredged and depth of dredging (2 feet). End concentration based
feet deep. on 26% - 28% reduction in P loads.
$154,000 for Lovers Lake; $78,000 for Stillwater Pond; additionally
consulted a highly qualified vendor who estimated costs of
$180,000 for Lovers Lake. Ending phosphorus concentrations are
Artificial Lovers Lake and 56 eutrophication P MA $1,800/acre for capital costs, $135/acre for O&M, Lovers Lake: 38.2 μg/L Lovers Lake: 21.5 μg/L 2008 $109,900 $117,195 15 years $7,493 $7,990 $2,112 $144 ENSR Corporation (2008) the result of ENSR's Treatment Option #2, which would perform
circulation Stillwater Pond and permitting costs of $10,000 per lake Stillwater Pond: 40 μg/L Stillwater Pond: 33.1 μg/L artificial circulation only on Lover's Lake. Total capital cost
represents the addition of capital ($1800/acre x 56 acres) and
permitting ($10,000).
Based on qualified vendor quote for 150 day Cost estimate does not include a permanent structure for necessary
Hypolimnetic Lovers Lake and period of treatment; capital cost of $71,000, site Lovers Lake: 38.2 μg/L shore-based equipment nor a cost for extending power (p. 7-30).
aeration Stillwater Pond 56 eutrophication P MA prep and installation of $8,000; operational costs Stillwater Pond: 40 μg/L not reported 2008 $89,000 $94,907 15 years $4,933 $5,260 $1,710 $95 ENSR Corporation (2008) O&M estimated by dividing total O&M costs reported ($74,000) by
of $1,500.. 15 years.
Application area of 19 acres for Lovers Lake, 9.25

Alum treatment Lovers Lake and 28 eutrophication P MA for Stillwater Pond; contingency of 15% to account Lovers Lake: 38.2 μg/L Lovers Lake: 19.1 μg/L 2008 $198,500 - $211,676 - $243,667 15 years $0 $0 $7,493 - $8,625 $0 ENSR Corporation (2008) $122,500 to $141,000 (median $132,000) for Lovers Lake and
Stillwater Pond for uncertainty in access and ease of mobilization. Stillwater Pond: 40 μg/L Stillwater Pond: 15.7 μg/L $228,500 $76,000 to $87,500 (median $82,000) for Stillwater Pond.
Starting concentration range from 13 - 25 μg/L from 1995 to 2000.

Alum treatment Green Lake 259 eutrophication P WA Based on a dose of 23 mg Al/L 13 μg/L 2 μg/L 2003 $1,509,156 $1,883,115 10 years $0 $0 $7,261 $0 Herrera Environmental Ending concentration represents results from Green Lake samples,
Consultants (2003) with an average starting TP of 13 μg/L, which were given a 23 mg/L
alum dosage.
Based on 132 g per m^2 in areas with depth greater than 10 feet
Based on unit costs of $1.65 per gallon of alum (33 acres) and 40 g per m^2 in areas with depth 5 to 10 feet (7.6
Alum treatment East Alaska Lake 41 eutrophication P WI applied, plus fees, monitoring, and volunteer 43 μg/L 29 μg/L 2011 $164,810 $168,221 not reported $0 $0 $4,143 $0 Hoyman (2011) acres). Starting and ending TP concentrations are estimated for the
hours. lake surface under current and 90% reduced internal P loading
scenarios.
Capital costs include staff time ($28,233), Study references Welch and Cooke (1999), which states that
treatment ($16,180), and public outreach ($446); benefits of alum treatment could last for more than 10 years. O&M
O&M costs include 7 trips for post-treatment average of 51 to 77 (between cost estimate includes 7 monitoring trips per month from April to
Alum treatment Lake Hicks 4 algal blooms P WA monitoring ($1,723.23); each category includes a 1996 and 2004) not reported 2005 $46,582 $54,762 not reported $0 $0 $13,690 $0 King County (2005) October 2005. Study reports target concentration of less than 20
contingency (7.5% for all except the treatment ug/L but does not indicate whether alum treatment can achieve the
which is 20%). target level.
Costs will range from $159,879 - $186,679 per year over the first
Based on 150,000 gallons the first year, $120,000 three years; thereafter costs will be approximately $100,000
Alum treatment Lake Mitchell none provided algal blooms P SD for two years, at a cost of $1 per gallon plus 241 ug/L 90 ug/L 2002 $100,000 to $127,623 - $238,246 1 year 0 - not applicable - Osgood (2002) annually; budget used high estimate of alum costs to be
monitoring, staff time, and consulting, then $186,679 conservative. Capital costs represent the addition of alum
$100,000 per year thereafter. treatment, monitoring, and consulting.
Estimated TP
Project Number - Load WBID Lead Entity / Funding Source / Project Status /Completion Date or Anticipated
Project Name General Location / Description Reduction Number Project Partners Project Cost ($) Completion Date
(lbs /yr)
Apopka-Beauclair Canal/CC Ranch / Water in Apopka-Beauclair

ABC01 - Nutrient Canal treated off-line with alum. Removes TP from Lake Apopka 5,000 2835A; LCWA / LCWA;Legislature / $5,200,000 Ongoing / Projected
Reduction Facility discharge. Reduce loading from Lake Apopka to Lake Beauclair 2834C SJRWMD/DEP completion 2007
and Apopka-Beauclair Canal.
BCL02 - Suction
dredging of western Western end of Lake Beauclair / Suction dredging to remove 1 Unknown 2834C FWC/LCWA/SJRWMD / cost share $12,000,000 Pending / Projected
Lake Beauclair million cubic yards of sediment in western end of Lake Beauclair. / -- completion 2008
Lake Beauclair in-lake removal of fish / Harvest of gizzard shad by

BCL03 - Gizzard commercial fishermen. Removal of fish removes nutrients from SJRWMD / SJRWMD Ad valorem;
shad harvest lake. Reduces recycling of nutrients from sediments and reduces Unknown 2834C Legislative appropriation / -- $150,000/year in 2005 and 2006 Ongoing / Ongoing
sediment resuspension (TSS). Stabilizes bottom to reduce TSS.
Lake Dora in-lake removal of fish / Harvest of gizzard shad by

commercial fishermen. Part of experimental assessment with UF
DORA13 - Gizzard and FWC. Removal of fish removes nutrient from lake. Reduces Unknown 2831B SJRWMD / SJRMWD Ad valorem; $150,000/year in 2005 and 2006 Ongoing / Ongoing
shad harvest recycling of nutrients from sediments and reduces sediment Legislative appropriation / --
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
EUS25 - Pine muck farm. Restore aquatic, wetland, and riverine habitat. 1,487 - Lake $1,300,000 combined cost for both
Meadows Chemical treatment of soil (alum) to bind phosphates. Reduce Eustis; 726 - 2817B SJRWMD / SJRWMD / -- lakes Ongoing / Ongoing
Restoration Area nutrient outflow to feasible level of 1.1 kg/ha/yr of TP, or about 1 Trout Lake
lb. 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
GRIF01 - Lake managed for wetland restoration, planting; alum treatment to
Griffin Emeralda bind phosphates in sediments; manage excess nutrient outflow. 41,450 2814A SJRWMD / SJRWMD Ad valorem; $15,000,000 for land Ongoing / Ongoing
Legislative appropriation / -- acquisition
Marsh Restoration 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 lb. per acre.
Lake Griffin in-lake removal of fish / Gizzard shad removal from

Lake Griffin by commercial fishermen. Expanded to Lake Dora SJRWMD / SJRWMD Ad valorem;
GRIF02 - Gizzard and Lake Beauclair, with possible future expansion to other lakes $1,000,000 spent
Shad Harvest in Harris Chain. Remove and export nutrients via fish. Reduces Unknown 2814A Legislative appropriation; LCWA / - since 2002 harvest Ongoing / Ongoing
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.

HAR02 - Lake Chemical treatment of soil (alum) to bind phosphates for nutrient
Harris Conservation control. Aquatic and wetland habitat restoration. Reduce and 6,665 2838A SJRWMD / Ad valorem; legislative $550,000 Ongoing / Ongoing
appropriation / --
Area manage nutrient outflow to Lake Harris to feasible loading of 1.1
kg/ha/yr, or about 1 lb. per acre.
HAR03 - Harris Harris Conservation Area to Lake Griffin / Establish water flow
Bayou Conveyance connection to Lake Griffin. Modification of hydrodynamics to Unknown 2838A SJRWMD / Ad valorem; legislative $5,000,000 Ongoing / Projected
Project accommodate higher flows of appropriation / -- completion 2007
water.
LAP05 - Lake External SJRWMD / SJRWMD - SWIM

Apopka Northwest shore of Lake Apopka / Constructed marsh on reduction: 4,864 Legislative Appropriation/ Ad Total $~15 million in
Constructed northwest shore of lake. Lake water pumped through marsh to and flow-way: 2835D Valorem/Beltway Mitigation Lake land acquisition / Ongoing / Ongoing
remove particulates and nutrients from lake water. Marsh County/LCWA - $1,000,000 EPA - $4.32 million Phase 1
Marsh flow-way designed to treat about 150 cubic feet per second (cfs). 17,640 to $1,000,000 / LCWA/ Lake flow-way construction
Phase 1 22,050 County/EPA
LAP06 - North North shore of Lake Apopka / Wetland habitat restoration. SJRWMD / SJRWMD/Legislative $~100 million in land
Shore Restoration Remediate pesticide "hot spots" in soil. 99,960 2835D appropriation - P2000:SOR: CARL; acquisition Ongoing / Ongoing
USDA WRP / USDA
LAP07 - With-in Lake Apopka / Planting of wetland vegetation in littoral zone, SJRWMD / SJRWMD ad valorem /
Lake Habitat largely north shore. Helps improve fishery, improve water quality Unknown 2835D ~$10,000 annually Ongoing / Ongoing
Restoration Area and may reduce nutrient levels, stabilize bottom, and reduce TSS. --
Lake Apopka / Harvest of gizzard shad by commercial fishermen. SJRWMD / SJRWMD ad valorem
LAP08 - Removal of Removal of fish removes nutrient from lake. Reduces recycling of
Gizzard Shad nutrients from sediments and reduces sediment resuspension Unknown 2835D ; Lake County; LCWA; Legislature ~$500,000 annually Ongoing / Ongoing
(TSS). Stabilizes bottom to reduce TSS. appropriation / Lake County/LCWA
Pine Meadows Restoration Area. Muck farm is east of Trout Lake

and discharges to Hicks Ditch. / Reduce TP loadings from former
TROUT01 - Pine muck farm. Restore aquatic, wetland, and riverine habitat. 1,487 - Lake
Meadows Chemical treatment of soil (alum) to bind phosphates. Reduce Eustis; 726 - 2817B; SJRWMD / SJRWMD / -- $1,300,000 combined cost for both Ongoing / Ongoing
Restoration Area nutrient outflow to feasible level of 1.1 kg/ha/yr of TP, or about 1 Trout Lake 2819A lakes
lb. per acre. Trout Lake is a tributary to Lake Eustis. Reduction in
nutrient loading benefits both Lake Eustis and Trout Lake.
Source: (UOBWG, 2007)

GO TO File Info
Nutrient Economic Impact Overview
This section provides a compilation of studies examining the economic impact of nutrient pollution,
which are grouped into six categories: tourism, fisheries, property value, health effects, and drinking
water treatment. Studies included in this section describe the damages to these economic sectors
resulting from nutrient-imparied water bodies.
Provides a summary of all documented nutrient impacts in the model; can be filtered
Index by state, region, year, source categorization, economic sector, or waterbody type.
Provides a summary of studies documenting the economic impacts of nutrients on

Tourism tourism; includes a description of the impacted resource, water quality, data and
method used, and the estimated economic damages.

Fisheries fisheries; includes a description of the impacted resource, water quality, data and
method used, and the estimated economic damages.

Property Value property values; includes a description of the impacted resource, water quality, data
and method used, and the estimated economic damages.

Health Effects human health; includes a description of the impacted resource, water quality, data
and method used, and the estimated economic damages.

drinking water treatment; includes a description of the impacted resource, water
Drinking Water Treatment
quality, data and method used, and the estimated economic damages.
Nutrient Economic Impact Overview

a. Quantitative estimates of adverse economic impacts from nutrient pollution.
b. Original research or method.
c. Specific to nutrients, dissolved oxygen, or algal blooms.
d. 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).
e. Peer-reviewed, government-funded, academic, or other quality data source.*
*Evaluated data source quality based on the following: 1. Whether the study relied on state-of-art methods accepted
in economic literature; 2. Whether the results correspond to economic theory; 3. Evaluate the quality of data sources
(e.g., relies on well-known data sources or that the best practices were used for primary data collection); 4. Whether
the results are supported by economic literature.
GO TO File Info Economic Impact References
Screening Waterbody
State Region Category [1]
Year [2]
Type
MD Mid-Atlantic meets criteria 2003 River
OH Midwest meets criteria 1996 Lake
TX South Central meets criteria 2000 Bay
TX South Central meets criteria 2000 Bay
WI Midwest meets criteria 2010 Lake
FL Southeast meets criteria 2006 Coastal
ME New England meets criteria 2005 Coastal
MN Midwest meets criteria 2001 Lake
ME New England meets criteria 1995 Lake
NH New England meets criteria 1995 Lake
MD Mid-Atlantic meets criteria Annual River
TX South Central meets criteria 2003 Lake
AK Pacific Northwest meets criteria 1998 Coastal
FL Southeast meets criteria 2004 Lake
TX South Central meets criteria 2012 Lake
IA Midwest anecdotal 2013 River
OH Midwest anecdotal 2013 Lake
KS Midwest anecdotal 2011 Lake
FL Southeast anecdotal 2008 River
MD Mid-Atlantic anecdotal 2013 River
MD Mid-Atlantic anecdotal 2013 River
FL Southeast additional 2000 Coastal
NA National additional 1992 Coastal
ME New England additional 2005 Coastal
SC Southeast additional 1999 Lake
CA Pacific Southwest additional 2010 Coastal
HI Pacific Southwest additional 2002 Coastal
NA National additional 2008 Freshwater
FL Southeast additional 1994 Bay
FL Southeast additional 2005 Coastal
MN Midwest additional 1989 Lake
VT New England additional 1981 Lake
KS Midwest additional 2005 Lake
WA Pacific Northwest meets criteria 2010 Coastal
NC Southeast meets criteria 2010 Coastal
NC Southeast additional 2012 Coastal
1. "meets criteria" means that the study met all evaluation criteria and are included in sector impact summaries; "anecdotal" m
2. If study includes multiple years, most recent year in data
Water Quality or Resource Economic Sector Study
Impact
Nutrient concentrations Property Values Poor, et al. (2007)
Reduced clarity Property Values Ara, et al. (2006)
Algal blooms Recreation/Tourism Davenport and Drake (2011)
Algal blooms Drinking Water Treatment Davenport and Drake (2011)
Algal blooms Recreation/Tourism Davenport, et al. (2010)
Red tide Fisheries Evans and Jones (2001)
Red tide Recreation/Tourism Evans and Jones (2001)
Algal blooms Property Values Kashian and Kasper (2010)
Red tide Health Hoagland, et al. (2009)
Red tide Fisheries Jin, et al. (2008)
Reduced clarity Property Values Krysel, et al. (2003)
Reduced clarity Property Values Boyle, et al. (1998)
Reduced clarity Property Values Gibbs, et al. (2002)
Low DO Fisheries Mistiaen, et al. (2003)
Algal blooms Recreation/Tourism Oh and Ditton (2005)
Reduced clarity Property Values Michael, et al. (2000)
Reduced clarity Property Values Poor, et al. (2001)
Algal blooms Fisheries RaLonde (1998)
Nutrient concentrations Property Values Walsh, et al. (2011)
Nutrient concentrations Drinking Water Treatment The Cadmus Group Inc. (2014)
Nitrate concentrations Drinking Water Treatment Des Moines Register (2013)
Algal blooms Drinking Water Treatment Henry (2013)
Algal blooms Recreation/Tourism Hunt (2013)
Algal blooms Drinking Water Treatment Lake Erie Improvement Association (2012)
Algal blooms Drinking Water Treatment KDHE (2011)
Algal blooms Drinking Water Treatment Lollar (2008)
Algal blooms Recreation/Tourism Wheeler (2013)
Algal blooms Property Values Wheeler (2013)
Red tide Recreation/Tourism Adams, et al. (2002)
Algal blooms Health Anderson et al. (2000)
Algal blooms Recreation/Tourism Anderson et al. (2000)
Algal blooms Fisheries Anderson et al. (2000)
Red tide Fisheries Athearn (2008)
Algal blooms Property Values Carey and Leftwich (2000)
Red tide Drinking Water Treatment Caron et al. (2010)
Algal blooms Property Values Cesar, et al. (2002)
Eutrophication Drinking Water Treatment Dodd et al. (2009)
Eutrophication Property Values Dodd et al. (2009)
Eutrophication Recreation/Tourism Dodd et al. (2009)
Algal blooms Fisheries Gorte (1994)
Red tide Recreation/Tourism Larkin and Adams (2007)
Red tide Recreation/Tourism Morgan and Larkin (2006)
Red tide Recreation/Tourism Morgan, et al. (2009)
Nutrient concentrations Drinking Water Treatment Ribaudo, et al. (2011)
Reduced clarity Property Values Steinnes (1992)
Algal blooms Property Values Young (1984)
Algal blooms Drinking Water Treatment Oneby and Bollyky (2006)
Algal blooms Tourism/Recreation Dyson and Huppert (2010)
Hypoxia Fisheries Huang et al. (2010)
Hypoxia Fisheries Huang et al. (2012)
ded in sector impact summaries; "anecdotal" means the source is a newspaper article or other anecdotal information documenting nutrien
ormation documenting nutrient impacts; "additional" means the source has relevant nutrient impacts but does not meet all screening crite
t meet all screening criteria.
GO TO File Info Economic Impact Impact Index References
Study Water Body Type Location Year Resource Description
Largest inland lake in OH (21 sq mi);

Davenport and Lake Grand Lake St. Through 2010 averaging 5-7 feet deep; watershed is
Drake (2011) Marys (OH) 84 square miles; City of Celina uses
lake as drinking water source.

Davenport, et al. Grand Lake St. averaging 5-7 feet deep; watershed is
(2010) Lake Marys (OH) Through 2010 84 square miles; City of Celina uses
lake as drinking water source.
Evans and Jones Estuary/ Coastal Galveston, TX 2000 Galveston Bay

(2001)
Larkin and Coastal Ft Walton Beach 1995 - 1999 Coastal areas in southwest Florida that
Adams (2007) and Destin areas, FL experienced prolonged red tide events
Morgan, et al. Coastal FL Southwest coast 2005 Coastal areas in southwest Florida that
(2009) experienced prolonged red tide events
Recreational razor clam fisheries that

Dyson and Coastal Grays Harbor and 2008 are frequently closed due to HAB
Huppert (2010) Pacific Counties, WA
events
3 County Area
Oh and Ditton Lake surrounding Possum 2001 and 2003 Possum Kingdon Lake in TX
(2005) Kingdom Lake (PKL),
TX
Summary of Literature on Tourism Impacts
Water Quality Data Method
In May 2009, Mycrocystin concentration

was 4 times the WHO’s threshold for
recreation. The 2010 algae were worse
than 2009, forming a blue-green scum with Unspecified. Unspecified.
a foul odor (fish kills and 23 cases of
human illnesses and dog deaths were
reported).
In May 2009, Mycrocystin concentration

was 4 times the WHO’s threshold for
recreation. The 2010 algae were worse
than 2009, forming a blue-green scum with Unspecified. Unspecified.
a foul odor (fish kills and 23 cases of
human illnesses and dog deaths were
reported).
Red tide event in Galveston, TX resulted in Survey of business owners. IMPLAN to extrapolate survey results
85 shellfish closure days. to all entities in county.
Monthly restaurant and lodging

revenue data from the FL Department Time series models of effects of HABs
Red tide of Revenue; red tide occurrence data on busineses along ten miles of
from the Florida Marine Research shoreline.
Institute.
Daily restaurant sales for three

establishments within 50 feet of Analysis of temperature, wind speed,
Red tide water's edge between 1998 and 2005; rainfall, red tides, and storm conditions
environmental conditions provided by in relation to daily restaurant sales.
restaurant manager observations.
Visitor questionnaires eliciting typical Economic input-output impact model

HABs expenditures (on meals, lodging, based on recreationists' spending and
transportation, and gear) and visitation stated visitation plan changes in
changes when HAB closures occur. response to HAB events.
County-level gross sales and state tax
from TCPA for 5 tourism-related SIC
codes from the 1st qtr 1986 to the 2nd
qtr 2004; # of visitors to PKL State Park AutoRegressive Integrate Moving-
2001 (Jan - July) and 2003 (Jan-April) from TX Park and Wildlife Division from Average (ARIMA) model to determine
golden alga outbreaks Sep 1996 to Jan 2005; and monthly
gross sales of recreational fishing pre- and post-event interventions.
related items from a local store
concession operating within the State
Park for 1998-2004.
Results (Original Year Dollars) Results (2012 Dollars) [1] Source Type
Three years of algal blooms and health advisories Three years of algal blooms and health advisories
caused several marinas and boat dealers to close; caused several marinas and boat dealers to close;
reduction in revenues from area businesses reduction in revenues from area businesses State/Federal
Agency
estimated at $35 million to $45 million, with park estimated at $37 million to $47 million, with park
revenues decreased by $250,000. (2010 dollars) revenues decreased by $260,000.
$150 million tourism industry decimated; Regatta $158 million tourism industry decimated; Regatta
canceled resulting in $600,000 loss; Park revenues canceled resulting in $632,000 loss; Park revenues State/Federal
down more than $250,000 annually; 5 lakeside down more than $263,000 annually; 5 lakeside Agency
businesses closed. (2010 dollars) businesses closed.
Direct economic impact of $9.9 million to $11.5 Direct economic impact of $13.2 million to $15.3
million; total impact $15.98 million to $18.45 million; total impact $21.31 million to $24.60 University
million. (2000 dollars) million.
Reduced restaurant and lodging revenues of $2.8 Reduced restaurant and lodging revenues of $4.2
million and $3.7 million (1995 dollars), respectively, million and $5.6 million, respectively, per month Peer-Reviewed
per month (representing 29% and 35% declines). (representing 29% and 35% declines).
Reduced daily restaurant sales of $868 to $3,734 Reduced daily restaurant sales of $1,020 to $4,390
(13.7% to 15.3%) during red tide events (2005 (13.7% to 15.3%) during red tide events; between
dollars); between 1996 and 2002, the Small 1996 and 2002, the Small Business Association Peer-Reviewed
Business Association provided each of 36 firms with provided each of 36 firms with $5,680 to $96,295 in
$4,832 to $81,912 in loans. loans.
A typical beach closure (2 to 5 days) at four beaches

A typical beach closure (2 to 5 days) at four beaches
in the two counties results in a lost labor income of in the two counties results in a lost labor income of Peer-Reviewed
$2.1 million and a sales impact of $5.75 million
(2008 dollars). $2.24 million and a sales impact of $6.13 million.
Following the golden alga blooms in 2001 and 2003, Following the golden alga blooms in 2001 and 2003,
there was a decrease of 5% and 1.9%, respectively, there was a decrease of 5% and 1.9%, respectively,
in total economic output from 5 tourism-related SIC in total economic output from 5 tourism-related SIC
codes compared to the average total economic codes compared to the average total economic University
output computed from the pre-intervention output computed from the pre-intervention
periods. The number of visitors to the State Park periods. The number of visitors to the State Park
declined by 57% and 19.6% in 2001 and 2003, declined by 57% and 19.6% in 2001 and 2003,
respectively. respectively.
Notes
Unclear whether the $35 million to $45

million decrease in revenues is annual or
for the three-year period (contacted
author; response pending). The study does
not provide pre-event revenues for the
park.
The study does not provide pre-event

revenues for the park or
definition/estimate for "decimated."
Study also estimates tourism impacts

based on extrapolating results from a
survey using an IMPLAN model to all
potential entities in the county; however,
there was a low response rate for the
survey. Galveston Parks departments also
reported no increase in beach clean-up
costs due to the event.
All impacts are not clearly attributable to

anthropogenic nutrient pollution (i.e., may
also be attributable at least in part to other
natural drivers such as weather patterns).
Impacts may also be caused at least

partially by natural drivers.
The questionnaire did not explicitly ask

respondents how many days they spent
clamming, so had to assume the days
spent based on the number of nights the
respondents spent near the beach.
It takes considerable time for a lake to
develop a good reputation for its fishing
quality but it can be lost quickly with a
golden alga event or anything else that
diminishes (or is perceived by anglers as
diminishing) fishing quality there. The
study indicates that because of continuing
publicity about golden alga events at PKL
including the ongoing research program,
the lake continues to be viewed in a
negative light.
Study Water Body Location Year Resource Water Quality

Type Description
Patuxent River, a
DO reduction from 5.6
Mistiaen, et al. Estuary/ Chesapeake Bay/ NA major tributary mg/L to 4.0 mg/L in the
(2003) Tributaries Patuxent River feeding the Patuxent River.
Chesapeake Bay.
ME coastline in Red tide impacted

Jin, et al. (2008) Coastal Maine Coast 2005 which shellfish shellfish harvesting from
harvesting occurs. April to August.
Evans and Jones Estuary/ Coastal Galveston Bay (TX) Galveston bay Red tide event in
2000 Galveston, TX resulted in
(2001) oyster beds in TX. 85 shellfish closure days.
HABs cause paralytic

RaLonde (1998) Coastal AK 1998 Coastal fisheries shellfish poisoning (PSP),
in AK requiring testing and
processing.
Huang, et al. Neuse River and

Coastal NC 1999 to 2005 Hypoxia
(2010) Pamlico Bay
Summary of Literature on Fishery Impacts
Data Method Results (Original Year Dollars)
MD Department of Natural Used catch and DO data

Resources monthly reports on
and statistics on gear used 49% reduction in crab harvest and lost revenues
average catch per area data; DO in fishing to develop of $228,000/yr associated with change in DO
measurements from mid- statistical models of the (2000 dollars).
channel depth of relevant
tributaries. relationships.
Estimated difference in $2.08m lost revenues for softshell clam from

landings between baseline
National Marine Fisheries (average of 2000 - 2004) April-Aug (2005 dollars)
Service monthly data on $0.39m lost revenues for mussels from April-Aug
monthly shellfish landings in ME and 2005 event; regression (2005 dollars)
from 2000 to 2005 analysis to measure Imports likely ameliorating indirect and induced
indirect effects of
reductions in fisheries. effects in these sectors.
Calculated number of
Historical oyster landings data oyster landings per day;
from Texas Park and Wildlife multiplied per day
estimates by the number of $168,000 in oyster harvesting losses for the
Division; closure data from the lost days and average real closure days from Sept. to Dec. (1997 dollars).
Texas Department of Health. prices per barrel from
1990-1999.
PSP contamination of geoduck clams requires

processing (rather than selling live) which
Harvest revenue data and Comparison of revenues to reduces the revenue; in 1998 necessary
estimated sales price per pound what revenues would have processing reduced revenues by $779,175 (1998
of live vs. processed clams and dollars). Processing of crabs due to PSP
crabs. been in the absence of PSP. contamination caused a $204,747 loss to the
Kodiak/Aleutian crab fishery in 1997 (1997
dollars).
Oxygen conditions data from Between 1999 and 2005, there was a brown
USGS monitoring; fish harvest Bioeconomic model to shrimp harvest revenue decrease of 13.1% due to
identify lagged effects of hypoxia in the Neuse River, worth $32,000. In
data from the NC Division of
Marine Fisheries trip ticket hypoxia on commercial Pamlico Sound, there was a 13.4% decrease
program. harvests of brown shrimp. worth $1.24 million over the 7 year period (1999
dollars).
Results (2012 Dollars) [1] Source Type
49% reduction in crab harvest and lost revenues Peer-Reviewed

of $304,000/yr associated with change in DO.
$2.45m lost revenues for softshell clam from

April-Aug
$0.46m lost revenues for mussels from April-Aug Peer-Reviewed
Imports likely ameliorating indirect and induced
effects in these sectors.
$240,000 in oyster harvesting losses for the University

closure days from Sept. to Dec.
PSP contamination of geoduck clams requires

processing (rather than selling live) which
reduces the revenue; in 1998 necessary
processing reduced revenues by $1,097,509. University paper
Processing of crabs due to PSP contamination
caused a $292,889 loss to the Kodiak/Aleutian
crab fishery in 1997.
Between 1999 and 2005, there was a brown

shrimp harvest revenue decrease of 13.1% due to
hypoxia in the Neuse River, worth $44,100. In Peer-Reviewed
Pamlico Sound, there was a 13.4% decrease
worth $1.71 million over the 7 year period.
Notes
Assuming no adjustments to crabbing activities and crabs trading at $1/lb.
Shellfish beds in MA, ME, NH, and 15,000 sq mi of federal waters closed for > a month at the peak
of the seafood harvesting season. MA and ME received federal emergency assistance. In addition,
authors estimated direct impacts on the commercial shellfish industry in MA to be as high as $18
million but state that due to serious data limitations, these results should be viewed with caution.
Study also estimates tourism impacts based on extrapolating results from a survey using an
IMPLAN model to all potential entities in the county; however, there was a low response rate for
the survey. Galveston Parks departments also reported no increase in beach clean-up costs due to
the event.
Estimates that PSP costs AK commercial fisheries, recreational harvests, and aquaculture over $10
million annually, but it is unclear how that total number is estimated.
Results are based on the assumption that environmental effects from a hypoxia event accumulate
over a 60-day period; harvest reductions under alternate lagging assumptions (between 30 days
to 100 days) also had significant effects, ranging between 9.23% to 14.92%
Water Body Year (event or

Study Type Location study period) Resource Description
73 square mile river

watershed (St. Mary's
Southern MD, River) forming a
Poor, et al. River Chesapeake Bay 1999 to 2003 penninsula surrounded
(2007) watershed by the Potomac and
Patuxent Rivers and the
Chesapeake Bay.
Northern Maine,
Michael, et al. Lewiston/Auburn, and
(2000) Lake ME 1990 to 1994 Augusta/Waterville areas
comprising 22 lakes.
Poor, et al. Lakes and 4 market groups of lakes

ME 1990 to 1995 in ME, each with
(2001) ponds
between 4 and 13 lakes.
69 public access lakes
with more than 10 acres
of surface area in 59
Gibbs, et al. towns, grouped into 4
(2002) Lake NH 1990 to 1995 markets:
Conway/Milton,
Winnipesaukee,
Derry/Amherst, and
Spofford/Greenfield.
Walsh, et al. 146 Orange County lakes

(2011) Lake Orange County, FL 1996 to 2004 ranging from 1 acre to
1,800 acres.
18 OH beaches on Lake
Erie, one of the largest
Ara et al. (2006) Lake Lake Erie, OH 1991 to 1996 freshwater lakes in North
America.
Missisisppi River 37 lakes in MN with
Krysel et al. varying sizes and spatial
(2003) Lakes Headwater area of 1996 to 2001 and political
MN representation.
Tainter Lake (1,752

acres) and Lake
Menomin (1,405 acres,
Kashian and Tainter Lake and downstream of Tainter
Kasper (2010) Lake Lake Menomin, WI 1999 to 2010 Lake), both
impoundments in the
lower portion of the Red
Cedar River.
Czajkowski and Estuary, St. Lucie River, St. Lucie

Bin (2010) lagoon, and Martin County, FL 2000 to 2004 Estuary, and Indian River
river Lagoon
Boyle et al. Lake ME 1990 to 1995 36 lakes in 7 markets in

(1998) ME.
References
Summary of Literature on Property Values

Water Quality Data Method
Hedonic study of residential property

sales (2% lakefront properties) in
Ranges of dissolved inorganic nitrogen Water quality data from 22 monitoring
is 0.082 mg/L to 0.956 mg/L, with an stations throughout the watershed; southern MD; independent variables
include house characteristics (such as
average of 0.626 mg/L; Data from a real estate information garage, square footage, etc.), dummy
No point sources dischargers in collection company for sale price and variable for waterfront, and parameter
watershed; pollution attributable to characteristics for approximately 1,400
nonpoint sources. sales. concentrations; models estimated
separately for dissolved inorganic
nitrogen and total suspended solids.
Historical water clarity, as measured Hedonic study of residential property

by Secchi disk depth (for the 10 years sales (full-year residential and vacation
prior to the sale), current water quality Water quality data from ME Department
of Environmental Protection; homes, all lakefront) in three areas of
(for the year of the sale or the prior lakes in ME; compares results using
year for sales very early in the year), Sales data for 531 sales from transfer tax different variables for water quality,
and/or seasonal changes in water records. including historical, current, and seasonal
clarity. variability.
Objective water clarity data from ME

Department of Environmental Protection Hedonic study of lakefront property sales
(secchi disk); subjective water clarity data in 4 distinct markets throughout ME;
Water clarity, as eutrophication from from a mail survey sent to 1,191 comparison of results using objective
nonpoint source nutrient runoff is a lakefront property purchasers (649
water clarity measures (secchi disk
problem in many lakes. responses; 348 usable); house sales price readings) to results using subjective
and corresponding property measures by property purchasers.
characteristics from town offices for
relevant jurisdictions.
Water clarity, as measured by Secchi Water clarity data derived from
disk depth; uses secchi disk depth and University of NH and NH Department of Hedonic study of lakefront property sales
lake size as an interaction variable. Environmental Sciences, which have in 4 markets in NH; independent
Average Secchi depth: variables include house characteristics
Conway/Milton = 1.53 meters different methods for data collection; (age, square footage, etc.), locational
Winnepesaukee = 1.70 meters Sales data for 447 sales and variables (miles to nearest town, housing
characteristics from town records, which
Derry/Amherst = 1.41 meters may have missing or incomplete data. density, etc.), water clarity and lake size.
Spofford/Greenfield = 1.22 meters
Hedonic study of all single family home

sales within 1,000 meters of one of the
Water quality data from EPA STORET, lakes from 1996 to 2004; independent
supplemented with data from variables include a continuous measure
TN, TP, chlorophyll, and trophic state municipalities; of quality in the nearest lake at time of
index (TSI) in lakes affected by urban Assessor data for sale prices and sale, distance to the lake, surface area of
stormwater runoff.
property details; based on 54,715 sales the lake (interacted with WQ), dummy
over 9 years. variable for waterfront; estimated
separately for TN, TP, chlorophyll, and
TSI.
Hedonic study of property sales in 4 OH

Fecal coliform data from OH Department counties on Lake Erie; includes 10,665
of Health and Erie County Health sales; independent variables include lot
Department; water clarity data from OH size, building size, number of bathrooms,
garage size, presence of a deck, air
Fecal coliform counts and water clarity Department of Natural Resources and conditioning, and fireplace,
(secchi depth). Stone Laboratory of the Ohio State
University; sales price and details from neighborhood crime rate, school district
Center for Urban and Regional analysis at rank, distance to the city, distance to the
Ohio State University (10,665 beach, fecal coliform counts, water
clarity (secchi depth), and interaction
transactions between 1991 and 1996). terms with distance to the beach and
water quality measures.
Hedonic study of property sales of
lakeshore properties on 37 lakes in MN,
grouped into 6 real estate markets;
independent variables include feet of
Water clarity data from state agency; frontage on the lake, lot size, tax rate,
size of living area, if dwelling has more
Water clarity (secchi depth). used the mean secchi disk reading for than one story, a fireplace, central heat,
the year of the sale. a bathroom, septic or sewer, a garage,
number of houses within 1000 feet of
frontage, whether property access road
is publicly maintained, secchi depth and
"site quality" rating.
Lakes suffer from severe and often 3,186 real estate transactions on Tainter Hedonic study of lake-front (and
toxic Blue Green Algae blooms driven and Menomin Lakes as well as Red Cedar nonlake-front) home sales on two lakes
by high watershed loading of Lake, Beaver Dam Lake, Chetek Lake, and with algal bloom compared with homes
sales on lakes without algal bloom
nutrients. Prairie Lake, and some non-lake homes. problems.
Monitor levels of water clarity, Hedonic study of the impact of various

temperature, pH, salinity, and DO as Weekly water quality data collected by water quality measures and an overall
well as a general water quality grade the Florida Oceanographic Society. water quality grade on waterfront home
based on all parameters (except prices in an urban coastal housing
temperature). market in South Florida.
Minimum water clarity measure of the Water quality data from ME Department Hedonic study of residential property
year of the sale, as measured by secchi of Environmental Protection;
Sales data for 862 sales from transfer tax sales (full-year residential and vacation
depth by the state agency. records. homes, all lakefront) in 7 markets in ME.
on Property Values
Results (Original Year Dollars) Results (2012 Dollars) [1] Source Type
1 mg/L change in dissolved inorganic nitrogen 1 mg/L change in dissolved inorganic nitrogen
corresponds to a $17,642 change in home value corresponds to a $22,014 change in home value Peer-Reviewed
(8.8% change relative to the average home price in (8.8% change relative to the average home price in
the sample of $200,936; 2003 dollars). the sample of $250,727).
Implicit price decreases for a 1-meter change in Implicit price decreases for a 1-meter change in
water clarity (secchi depth; 1995 dollars): water clarity (secchi depth):
Northern ME (avg sale price $35,160) - $5,246 Northern ME - (avg sale price $52,969) - $7,903
(14.9%; current and historical water clarity) to (14.9%; current and historical water clarity) to
$10,430 (29.7%; historical water clarity) $15,713 (29.7%; historical water clarity)
Lewiston/Auburn (avg sale price $96,304) - $860 Lewiston/Auburn - (avg sale price $145,084) -
(0.9%; difference in max clarity the year of the sale $1,296 (0.9%; difference in max clarity the year of Peer-Reviewed
and min clarity the prior year) to $7,837 (8.1%; the sale and min clarity the prior year) to $11,807
percent change in clarity over the season) (8.1%; percent change in clarity over the season)
Augusta/Waterville (avg sale price $80,591) - $1,479 Augusta/Waterville - (avg sale price $121,412) -
(1.8%; current and historical water clarity) to $2,641 $2,228 (1.8%; current and historical water clarity) to
(3.3%; historical water clarity). $3,979 (3.3%; historical water clarity).
Implicit price decreases for a 1-meter change in Implicit price decreases for a 1-meter change in
water clarity (for 2 markets with significant results): water clarity (for 2 markets with significant results):
Lewiston (avg sale price $103,853) - $8,985 for Lewiston (avg sale price $156,457) - $13,536 for Peer-Reviewed
subjective measure; $6,279 for objective measure subjective measure; $9,459 for objective measure
Augusta (avg sale price $86,880) - $2,756 for Augusta (avg sale price $130,887)- $4,152 for
subjective measure; $2,600 for objective measure. subjective measure; $3,917 for objective measure.
Decrease in sale price of a 1 meter change in secchi
depth at average lake size and secchi reading (1995 Decrease in sale price of a 1 meter change in secchi
dollars): depth at average lake size and secchi reading:
Conway/Milton (average home price of $138,763, Conway/Milton (average home price $209,050):
average lake size of 1,236 acres): $1,268.24 (0.91%); $1,911 (0.91%);
Winnepesaukee (average home price of $175,158, Winnepesaukee(average home price $263,879):
average lake size of 1,879 acres): $6,122.33 (3.5%); $9,223 (3.5%); Peer-Reviewed
Derry/Amherst (average home price of $132,162, Derry/Amherst (average home price $199,105):
average lake size of 213.58): $4,411.39 (3.39%); $6,646 (3.39%);
Spofford/Greenfield (average home price of Spofford/Greenfield (average home price $251,747):
$167,105, average lake size of 284 acres): $16,713 (6.64%).
$11,094.09 (6.64%).
Implicit price decrease for a 17% increase in the Implicit price decrease for a 17% increase in the
pollutant, waterfront properties, using ordinary pollutant, waterfront properties, using ordinary
least squares (average waterfront home price of least squares (average waterfront home price
$452,646, 2002 dollars): $577,681):
TSI = $9,673.93 TSI = $12,346
TN = $8,076.10, TN = $10,307, State/Federal
TP = $5,812.44 TP = $7,418 Agency
CH = $3,217.50; CH = $4,106;
Implicit price decrease for a 17% increase in the Implicit price decrease for a 17% increase in the
pollutant, non-waterfront properties, using ordinary pollutant, non-waterfront properties, using ordinary
least squares (average home price of $206,891): least squares (average home price $264,041):
TN = $378.64 TN = $483
CH = $28.12 CH = $36
At the mean distance to the beach, a one centimeter At the mean distance to the beach, a one centimeter
increase in water clarity increasing housing value by increase in water clarity increasing housing value by
$21.54; a 1 meter change causes a 1.93% change in $24.53; a 1 meter change causes a 1.93% change in University
house value (mean price $111,503). house value (mean price $126,986).
Lake-specific implicit prices (per lot) for a one-meter Lake-specific implicit prices (per lot) for a one-meter
change in water clarity range between $1,294 to change in water clarity range between $1,678 to University
$402,665. (2001 dollars) $522,018.
$121.78/shoreline ft (Tainter Lake) to $128.22/shoreline ft (Tainter Lake) to

$381.85/shoreline ft (Lake Menomin) decrease in $402.05/shoreline ft (Lake Menomin) decrease in
property value in relation to next comparable lake property value in relation to next comparable lake University
due to eutrophication. (2010 dollars) due to eutrophication.
1% increase in water visibility (i.e. clarity) increases 1% increase in water visibility (i.e. clarity) increases
average property value by $5,263, with 95th
percentile lower and upper bounds of $1,843 to average property value by $6,397, with 95th
percentile lower and upper bounds of $2,240 to
$8,719 (2004 dollars) at the average sale price $10,597 at the average sale price ($1,139,179). University
($937,294).
Changes in dissolved oxygen did not have a Changes in dissolved oxygen did not have a
significant affect on sales price.
significant affect on sales price.
Implicit price of a 1-meter improvement in water Implicit price of a 1-meter improvement in water
clarity ranged from $409 (less than 1% of purchase
price) to $13,146 (25% of purchase price). clarity ranged from $616 (less than 1% of purchase
Implicit price of a 1-meter decline in water clarity price) to $19,805 (25% of purchase price). University
Implicit price of a 1-meter decline in water clarity paper
ranged from $464 (less than 1% of purchase price) ranged from $699 (less than 1% of purchase price)
to $40,241 (over 78% of purchase price). (1995 to $60,624 (over 78% of purchase price).
dollars)
Notes
Localized study area is in a county adjacent to the Chesapeake

Bay, where public opinion polls have shown that homeowners
tend to be knowledgable about water quality issues and willing to
pay for improvements; as such, the results may not be
transferrable to other areas; also used total suspended solids as a
water quality measure.
Study is valuing water clarity not nutrient levels directly, however

water clarity is tied to nutrient pollution in the resource of
interest.
Study shows the differences in implicit prices depending on the

variable selected.

interest.
Objective measure was a better predictor of sale price.

interest.
Three separate models for each parameter: ordinary least

squares, a spatial regression with the nearest neighbor spatial
weights matrix, and a spatial regression with an inverse-distance
spatial weights matrix; spatial model results not significantly
different from ordinary least squares results.
Also evaluates impact of a voluntary program where residents pay

a tax to address nutrient control programs at specific lakes;
neighborhoods enrolled in the program realize price effects from
water quality improvements above those of non-participants.

interest
As the distance to the beach increases, the influence of water

clarity on house price decreases.
interest.
Highest implicit prices are on 2 lakes (Cass and Leech) that are in a
National Forest and an Indian Reservation with considerable
publicly-owned lakeshore property; because of this, other
variables not accounted for in the modeling may have caused the
higher price effects ($402,665 and $231,849 per lot). The next
highest estimate is on Lake Bemidji, where a water quality change
is valued at $65,355 per lot.
Study is valuing eutrophication not nutrient levels directly,

however eutrophication is tied to nutrient pollution in the
resource of interest.
Property values were lower on Tainter Lake and Menomin Lake

compared to lakes that did not have the same nutrient pollution
problems; no water quality variable included in the anlaysis (just
comparison across lakes).
Study is valuing water clarity and DO not nutrient levels directly,

however these parameters are tied to nutrient pollution in the
resource of interest.
Impact of a "location grade" measuring general water quality
indicated that the grade acts as as a warning sign in the potential
homebuyers' house purchase decision, but they could be
indifferent between higher percentage grades .

water clarity is tied to nonpoint source nutrient loading to surface
waters.
Water clarity was a significant variable in 4 out of 7 markets
evaluated; not significant in Augusta, Newport, and Northern ME.
Study Water Body Location Year (event or study Health Effect

Type period)
Hoagland, et al. Coastal Sarasota, FL 2001 - 2006 Respiratory Illness

(2009)
References
Summary of Literature on Health Effects

Water Quality Data
Emergency department visits for

Red tide (varying levels of HABs) respiratory illnesses, cell densities for
algal blooms, and measures of other
environmental factors.
Summary of Literature on Health Effects
Method Results (Original Year Dollars)
Statistical exposure-response model of relationship

between respiratory illnesses and bloom events Annual marginal cost of illness: $0.020 million for low bloom
(and other potential explanatory variables); levels - $0.13 million for high bloom levels (in 2008 dollars); 39
assumes marginal cost of $58 to $240 per hospital to 218 annual emergency department visits.
visit, plus 3 days of lost productivity ($335).
Results (2012 Dollars) [1] Notes
Annual marginal cost of illness: $0.021 million for low bloom

levels - $0.14 for high bloom levels; 39 to 218 annual emergency Marginal cost assumed to be 23%
department visits. of average costs.
Study Water Body Location Year (event or study Resource Description

Type period)
Davenport and Grand Lake St. Marys averaging 5-7 feet deep; watershed is 84
Drake (2011) Lake (OH) Through 2010 square miles; City of Celina uses lake as
drinking water source.
11 sq. mile lake that provides drinking

The Cadmus water for 165,805 people in Waco and
Group Inc. Lake Lake Waco (TX) 2002 - 2012 adjacent municipalities that purchase
(2014)
drinking water from the City of Waco.
1. Costs escalated to 2012 dollars from original year dollars based on the Construction Cost Index.
Summary of Literature on Drinking Water Treatme
Water Quality Data
In May 2009, Mycrocystin concentration was 4 times

the WHO’s threshold for recreation. The 2010 algae Personal communication with the Superintendent of
were worse than 2009, forming a blue-green scum Water and Distribution at the Celina Utilities Water
Department.
with a foul odor.
Taste and odor issues in the drinking water from Lake

Waco were first reported in the late 1960s. A decline
in water quality in the late 1980s coincided with the
growth of dairy cow production in the watershed.
Total phosphorus concentrations are generally <0.2 The City of Waco provided details on water
mg/L (the state’s screening level to protect general treatment actions and costs.
use), though daily average concentrations have been
reported as high as 1.04 mg/L. The median
chlorophyll a concentration is 13.9 µg/L with a range
of 2.2 µg/L to 40.0 µg/L.
y of Literature on Drinking Water Treatment Costs
Method Results (Original Year Dollars)
The estimated total costs = $12,388,700 ($3,381,200 total

Unspecified. O&M as of October 2010) (2010 dollars)
Lake Waco Watershed Monitoring = $2,597,118 (2012

dollars)
Used information from the City to estimate the total Influent and Treated Water Monitoring = $740,705 (2012
impacts associated with excess nutrients in source dollars)
water including watershed monitoring, influent and Chemical Usage to Treat for Algae = $1,169,151 (2012
treated water monitoring, chemical usage to treat for dollars)
algae, treatment plant upgrades, treatment plant Drinking Water Treatment Plant Upgrades = $64,877,721
energy costs, and potential lost revenue from (2012 dollars)
decreased water sales to Waco residents and Treatment Plant Energy Costs = $812,755 (2012 dollars)
neighboring communities. Total Estimated Cost = $70,197,450 (2012 dollars)
Lost Revenue from purchased water = $10.3 million over
11 years (2012 dollars)
Results (2012 Dollars) Source Type
The estimated total costs = $13,080,012 ($3,560,877 total

O&M as of October 2010) Article
Lake Waco Watershed Monitoring = $2,597,118

Influent and Treated Water Monitoring = $740,705
Chemical Usage to Treat for Algae = $1,169,151
Drinking Water Treatment Plant Upgrades = $64,877,721
Treatment Plant Energy Costs = $812,755 Technical Report
Total Estimated Cost = $70,197,450
Lost Revenue from purchased water = $10.3 million over
11 years
Notes
For treatment installation, toxic algae

testing set-up, and total O&M (excludes
alum, lime, and sludge costs).
The treatment plant upgrades include

the cost of expansion from 66 mgd to a
final capacity of 135 mgd. In addition,
after the DAF and ozone treatment,
water is sent to two treatment plants
prior to distribution. The report does
not account for the decrease in
treatment costs (e.g., chemical usage) at
these plants resulting from the
additional pretreatment. The report also
does not discuss the potential increase
in purchased water due to the higher
quality.
Summary of Anecdotal Evidence on Nutrient

Source Source Type Economic Sector(s) Water Quality Water Body Location
Impacted Issue Type
Hunt (2013) Newspaper article Tourism Algal blooms Lake OH
Wheeler (2013) Newspaper article Tourism; property values Algal blooms River MD
Lollar (2008) Newspaper article Drinking water treatment Algal blooms River FL
Des Moines Nitrate

Register (2013) Newspaper article Drinking water treatment concentrations River IA
Henry (2013) Newspaper article Drinking water treatment Algal blooms Lake OH
Lake Erie Association plan

Improvement Drinking water treatment Algal blooms Lake OH
documentation
Association (2012)
City News Service Newspaper article Drinking water treatment Algal blooms Rivers and CA
(2011) Lakes
KDHE (2011) Report Drinking water treatment Algal blooms Lakes KS
Workshop Rivers and

Glass (2003) presentation Fishing Algal blooms Lakes TX
Personal
HARRNESS (2005) communication Recreation/Tourism Algal blooms Coast WA
(cited in strategy
document)
Times Standard (201 Newspaper article Recreation/Tourism Algal blooms Rivers CA

The Associated
Press (2013) Newspaper article Recreation/Tourism Algal blooms Lakes KY
References
ary of Anecdotal Evidence on Nutrient Pollution Impact

Year(s) Waterbody/Resource Description
2011 - 2013 Buckeye Lake
2013 Northwest Creek
2008 Caloosahatchee River
2013 Des Moines River and Raccoon River
2013 Lake Erie
2010 Lake Erie
Drinking water in eastern Los

Angeles County, and parts of Orange
2011 County, western San Bernardino
County and southwest Riverside
County
Not specified Reservoirs throughout Kansas

impacted by excess algae
Freshwaters in Texas impacted by

1981-2003 golden algae (Prymnesium parvum).
Recreational razor clam fishery

1991 - 2003 closed due to domoic acid (from
harmful algae) contamination
Reaches of the Klamath River

2013 including the Copco and Iron Gate
Reservoirs
Four Kentucky Lakes: Rough River,
2013 Barren River, Taylorsville and Nolin.
pact
Reported Loss
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
Fairfield, Licking, and Perry Counties for the last three summers, and revenues
have declined. The toxic algae is attributable 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 reduce algae at Buckeye Lake.
Harmful algal blooms have necessitated warnings against swimming and closure of
beaches, 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 cost $1 million.
Harmful algal blooms caused the closure of a water treatment facility.
Health-threatening levels of nitrates in surface waters used for drinking water

intakes 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 a day to run, although it is not clear if those are operating costs as
full capacity or 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.
Conservative estimate of the number of fish killed is 17.5 million; estimate of value
of fish killed is over $7 million. Unknown indirect losses to local tourism, sport
fishing, and state revenues.
Estimated reductions in recreational spending of $10 million to $12 million in

small coastal communities; loss of subsistence fishing for Native American coastal
tribes.
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 four Kentucky lakes during the summer of 2013.
Collectively, these lakes receive approximately 5 million visitors per year, and a
lake manager reports that some visitors have cancelled campground reservations.
Summary of Additional Studies of the

Study Economic Sector(s) Water Quality Water Body Location Year (event or
Impacted Issue Type study period)
Athearn (2008) Commercial Fishing Red tide Coastal ME 2005
Ribaudo, et al. Drinking Water Nutrient

(2011) Treatment concentrations Freshwater National 1996
Morgan and Recreation/Tourism Red tide Coastal FL 1996 - 2005

Larkin (2006)
Adams, et al. Recreation/Tourism Red tide Coastal FL 1995 - 2000

(2002)
Carey and Property Values Algal blooms Lake SC 1999

Leftwich (2000)
Gorte (1994) Commercial Fishing Algal blooms Bay FL 1986 - 1994
Steinnes (1992) Property Values Reduced clarity Lake MN 1989
Young (1984) Property Values Algal blooms Lake VT 1976 - 1981
Caron et al. Drinking Water Red tide Coastal CA 2010

(2010) Treatment
van Beukering
Property Values Algal blooms Coastal HI
and Cesar (2004)
Cesar, et al.
Property Values Algal blooms Coastal HI 2002
(2002)
Anderson, et al. Human Health;

Commercial Fishing; Algal blooms Coastal National 1987-1992
(2000) Recreation/Tourism
Property Values;
Dodd, et al. Recreation/Tourism; Inland
Eutrophication National 2008
(2009) Drinking Water freshwaters
Treatment
Oneby and Drinking Water Algal blooms Lake KS 2005

Bollyky (2006) Treatment (turbidity)
Huang, et al.
(2012) Commercial Fishing Hypoxia Coastal NC 1999-2005
ferences
Summary of Additional Studies of the Economic Impacts of Nutrient Pollution

Waterbody/Resource Methods
Description
Regression analysis, market channel analysis, and regional I-

Coastal fisheries O modeling system to estimate impact of closure of
shellfish harvesting areas.
U.S. drinking water Variable cost function using 1996 survey of drinking water
supplies treatment costs; estimate of impacts from agricultural
sources.
Regression model to estimate impacts of red tide to
Coastal waters individual restaurants based on daily sales, environmental
characteristics, restaurant characteristics, time, and
location of the restaurant.
Ft Walton Beach and Multiple regression model to measure the impact of red
Destin areas tide along 10 miles of shore on economic activity.
Greenwood County
shore of Lake Hedonic price model measuring effects of 1999 algal bloom
and chl-a concentrations on property sales in 1980 to 2006.
Greenwood
Florida Bay in Monroe Documents declines in commercial fishing catch and

County revenues that occurred at the same time as algal blooms.
53 lakes Hedonic analysis of impact of secchi depth.
Hedonic analysis of the impact of perceived water quality

Lake Champaign on seasonal homes in VT; comparison between St. Albans
Bay (polluted by phosphorus) to the main body of Lake
Champaign.
Discussion of harmful algae and the present state of

Pacific Ocean knowledge about them, with particular reference to
Southern California.
Coral reefs off the coast SCREEM (Simple Coral Reef Ecological Economic Model)
model used for two scenarios: a) no reduction in nutrient
(Kihei area) levels b) reduction in nutrient levels.
Comparison of room rates, occupancy rates, and property

Coastal waters
values in algae and non-algae zones.
Compiled reported economic effects of HABs associated

with public health, commercial fisheries, recreation and
Coastal waters tourism, and monitoring and management from actual HAB
events throughout the U.S. from 1987 to 1992 to estimate
throughout the U.S. potential annual impacts; authors acknowledge that
estimates are underestimated because they do not account
for effects that were not quantified.
Compared TN and TP concentrations (summer months) for

the EPA nutrient ecoregions with estimated reference
conditions to determine potential areas impacted by
nutrient pollution. Then, used the results to calculate
Freshwaters throughout potential annual value losses in recreational water usage
(based on lake area closures and loss of trip-related
the U.S. expenses), waterfront real estate (based on percent change
in value per 1 m change in secchi depth), spending on
recovery of threatened and endangered species (based on
recovery plans), and drinking water (based on bottled water
expenditures).
Cheney Reservoir Evaluated treatment performance of ozonation to reduce

outside of Witchita, turbidity and taste and odor issues associated with
Kansas presence of algae.
Logit model of NC fisherman participation behavior and

Coastal waters estimation of consumer and producer surplus changes
attributable to hypoxia.
Results (Original Year Dollars)
$6 million in losses for harvesters of shoft-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 dollars); however, some damages were attributable to
sources besides or in addition to anthropogenic nutrient pollution, such as flooding.
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.
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.
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.
Chl-a concentrations and the presence of algal blooms (as indicated by a dummy
variable for year of bloom and immediately after) are both insigificantly 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.
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 during a weak economy.
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 are depressed by 20% ($4,500 on average) when they 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.
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.
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.
Annual economic impacts $33.9m - $81.6m (2000$): Public Health (shellfish and
ciguatera poisoning): $18.5m - $24.9 m; Commercial Fishery (wild harvest and
aquaculture losses associated with shellfish poisoning, ciguatera, and brown tides):
$13.4m - $25.3m; Recreation/Tourism (impacts documented in NC, OR, and WA in
various years): $0m - $29.3m; Monitoring/Management (cost of routine shellfish
toxin monitoring programs, plankton monitoring, and other activities in 12 states):
$2.0m - $2.1m
Fishing and boating trip-related expenditure annual losses of $189m-$589m and

$182m-$567m, respectively (2001 dollars);
Property value annual losses (scaled over 50-years) of $0.3b, $1.4b, and $2.8b 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).
Cost to install ozonation system prior to drinking water treatment plant were $8.5
million (completed in 2005). Study does not provide description of what project
costs entailed or source/citation of costs.
Between 1999 and 2005, the average number of hypoxic days (61) lead to a
$261,372 welfare loss (2005$)
Results (2012$)
$7 million in losses for harvesters of shoft-shell clams, mahogany quahogs,

and mussels; including indirect and induced impacts, $17.4 million lost in
sales and $9.3 million in lost income; however, some damages were
attributable to sources besides or in addition to anthropogenic nutrient
pollution, such as flooding.
Nitrate removal from U.S. drinking water supplies costs over 7.0 billion per
year; however, the cost estimates are based on 1996 technologies and as
such may not be applicable.
Presence of red tide on a given day reduces restaurant sales by $724 (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.
In one zip code, the monthly losses associated with a red tide event are
$2.97 million for restaurants and $3.05 million for hotels (assumed original
impacts were in 2000 dollars); however, impacts may also be caused at
least partially by natural drivers.
Losses of 500 jobs and $50 million in annual personal income due to decline
in pink shrimp harvest between 1986 and 1994 (assumed original costs
were in 1994 dollars); unable to attribute commercial fishing revenue
changes to nutrient enrichment since revenues went down statewide
during the same period during a weak economy.
An additional foot of clarity raises the value of a lakefront lot by between

$381 and $444 (assumed original costs were in 1989 dollars); however,
clarity problems are not explicitly tied to nutrient pollution.
The value of properties are depressed by 20% ($11,400 on average) when

they are located on an area of the lake that has degraded water quality (St.
Albans Bay) (assumed original impact were in 1981 dollars); 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 $38 million (approximate) increase in
property values of houses, hotels, and condominiums that are associated
with coral reefs (assumed original impacts were in 2002 dollars).
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 $12.0 million per year in lost value (assumed original impacts were in
2002 dollars); conclusions rely heavily on public perception and not
statistical or data-driven analysis.
Annual economic impacts $45.2m - $108.8m : Public Health (shellfish and

ciguatera poisoning): $24.7m - $33.2 m; Commercial Fishery (wild harvest
and aquaculture losses associated with shellfish poisoning, ciguatera, and
brown tides): $17.9m - $33.7m; Recreation/Tourism (impacts documented
in NC, OR, and WA in various years): $0m - $39.1m;
Monitoring/Management (cost of routine shellfish toxin monitoring
programs, plankton monitoring, and other activities in 12 states): $2.7m -
$2.8m
Fishing and boating trip-related expenditure annual losses of $245m-$764m

and $236m-$735m, respectively;
Property value annual losses (scaled over 50-years) of $0.4b, $1.8b, and
$3.6b for the low (5% private), intermediate (25% private), and high (50%
private) assumed land availabilities, respectively;
Aquatic biodiversity impacts of $57 million per year to develop 60 plans for
the species that are at least partially imperiled due to eutrophication;
Drinking water impacts of $1.1 billion per year for bottled water because of
taste and odor problems potentially linked to eutrophication.
Cost to install ozonation system prior to drinking water treatment plant

were $10.0 million (completed in 2005). Study does not provide description
of what project costs entailed or source/citation of costs.
Between 1999 and 2005, the average number of hypoxic days (61) lead to a
$307,268 welfare loss.
GO TO File Info Point Sources
Appendix B: Summary of State-Level Cost-Benefit and Economic Analyses of Pr

Study Location
CDPHE (2011) CO
UDWQ (2013) UT
U.S. EPA (2010) FL
WDNR (2012) WI
Point Sources Nonoint Sources Planning and Mitigation Economic Impact
Appendix B: Summary of State-Level Cost-Benefit and Economic Analyses of Proposed Nutrient Reduction Regulations
Description of Rulemaking
Establishment of technology-based controls on facilities that discharge

nutrients to Colorado waters, specifically domestic and nondomestic
wastewater treatment facilities.
Potential nutrient removal requirements for publicly owned treatment

works statewide.
Numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing waters.
Regulations to decrease phosphorus discharges from industrial and

municipal dischargers, adopted June 2010.
Economic Impact References
conomic Analyses of Proposed Nutrient Reduction Regulations

Description of Study
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).
Contingent valuation survey to estimate statewide willingness-to-pay to either maintain current water
quality or 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 POTWs.
Potential costs for point and nonpoint source controls that may be needed to attain the criteria. Benefits
transfer of WTP 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.
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.
GO TO File Info
Benefits Studies
Citation
Studies that Evaluate Benefits of Nutrien
Azevedo, et al. (2001)
Bockstael, et al. (1989)
de Zoysa (1995)
Egan, et al. (2008)
Hite, et al. (2002)
Krupnick (1988)
Larson, et al. (2001)
Lipton and Hicks (1999)
Massey, et al. (2006)
Matthews, et al. (1999)
Morgan and Owens (2001)
Parsons, et al. (2006)
Strumberg, et al. (2001)
Von Haefen (2003)
Whitehead and Groothius (1992)
Studies that Evaluate Benefits of Water Qua
Anderson (1989)
Anderson and Edwards (1986)
Carson and Mitchell (1993)
Czajkowski and Bin (2010)

Desvousges, et al. (1987)
Hayes, et al. (1992)
Helm, et al. (2004)
Herriges, et al. (2010)
Hicks and Strand (2000)
Johnston, et al. (2006)
Kahn and Kemp (1985)
Lipton (2004)
Loomis, et al. (2000)
Phaneuf (2002)
Sanders, et al. (1990)
Viscusi, et al. (2008)
Whitehead, et al. (2002)
Whittington, et al. (1994)

Point Sources Nonpoint Sources Planning and Mitigation Economic Impact References
Benefits Studies
Full Reference
Studies that Evaluate Benefits of Nutrient Reductions
Azevedo, C., J. Herriges, and C. Kling. 2001. Valuing Preservation and Improvements of Water Quality in Clear Lake. Staff Report 01‐SR‐94.
Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell, and I.E. Strand. 1989. Measuring the Benefits of Improvements in Water Quality: The Chesapeake Bay. Ma
Economics 6: 1-18.
de Zoysa, A. Damitha. 1995. “A Benefit Evaluation of Programs to Enhance Groundwater Quality, Surface Water Quality and Wetland Habi
Ohio.” Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Agricultural and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio.
Egan, K.J., J.A. Herriges, C.L. Kling, and J.A. Downing. 2008. Valuing Water Quality as a Function of Water Quality Measures.
Hite, D., D. Hudson, and W. Intarapapong. 2002. Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvements: The Case of Precision Application Tec
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL; 8 August 2002.
Krupnick, A. 1988.Reducing Bay Nutrients: An Economic Perspective. Maryland Law Review 47:453–480.
Larson, D., D. Lew, and Y. Onozaka. 2001. The Public’s Willingness to Pay for Improving California’s Water Quality. Western Regional Resea
of the W‐133, 14th Interim Report. Compiled by J. Fletcher. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, West Virginia University.
WV.
Lipton, D.W., and R.W. Hicks. 1999. Linking Water Quality Improvements to Recreational Fishing Values: The Case of Chesapeake Bay Strip
Evaluating the Benefits of Recreational Fisheries, edited by T.J. Pitcher. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, vol.7(2). Vancouver, BC: Univers
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 Fishi
Patuxent River. Estuaries 26: 310–315.
Massey, D.M., S.C. Newbold, and B. Genter. 2006. Valuing Water Quality Changes Using a Bioeconomic Model of a Coastal Recreational Fis
Environmental Economics and Management 52:482–500.
Matthews, L.G., F.R. Homans, and K.W. Easter. 1999. Reducing Phosphorus Pollution in the Minnesota River: How Much is it Worth? Unive
Minnesota Staff Paper.
Morgan, C., and N. Owens. 2001. Benefits of Water Quality Policies: The Chesapeake Bay. Ecological Economics 39:271–284.
Parsons, G. R., A. Morgan, J. C. Whitehead, and T. C. Haab. 2006. The Welfare Effects of Pfiesteria-Related Fish Kills: A Contingent Behavior
Seafood Consumers. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35/2 (October 2006) 348–356
Strumberg, B.E., K.A. Baerenklau, and R.C. Bishop. 2001. Nonpoint Source Pollution and Present Values: A Contingent Valuation Study of La
Review of Agricultural Economics 23: 120-132.
Von Haefen, R.H. 2003. “Incorporating Observed choice into the Construction of Welfare Measures from Random Utility Models.” Journal
Economics and Management 45:145‐165.
Whitehead, J.C. and P.A. Groothius. 1992. Economic Benefits of Improved Water Quality: A Case Study of North Carolina's Tar-Pamlico Rive
170-178.
Studies that Evaluate Benefits of Water Quality Improvements
Anderson, E. 1989. Economic Benefits of Habitat Restoration: Seagrass and the Virginia Hardshell Blue Crab Fishery. North American Journ
Management 9: 140-149.
Anderson, G.D. and S.F. Edwards. 1986. Protecting Rhode Island’s Coastal Salt Ponds: “An Economic Assessment of Downzoning.” Coastal
Management 14( ½): 67-91.
Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell, and I.E. Strand. 1989. Measuring the Benefits of Improvements in Water Quality: The Chesapeake Bay. Ma
Economics 6: 1-18.
Carson, R.T. and R.C. Mitchell. 1993. “The value of clean water: the public’s willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable qualit
Resources Research 29(7): 2445-2454.
Czajkowski, J. and O. Bin. 2010. Do Homebuyers Differentiate Between Technical and Non-Technical Measures of Water Quality? Evidence
Analysis in South Florida.
Desvousges,W.H., V.K. Smith and A. Fisher. 1987. “Option Price Estimates for Water Quality Improvements: A Contingent Valuation Study f
Monongahela River.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 14: 248-267.
Hayes, K.M., T.J. Tyrrell, and G. Anderson. 1992. Estimating the Benefits of Water Quality Improvements in the Upper Narragansett Bay. M
Economics 7: 75-85.
Helm, E.C., G.R. Parsons, and T. Bondelid. 2004. “Measuring the Economic Benefits of Water quality Improvements to Recreational Users in
Northeastern States: Sn Application of the Random Utility Maximization Model.” http://works.bepress.com/george_parsons/25
Herriges, J., C. Kling, C.C. Liu, and J. Tobias. 2010. What are the Consequences of Consequentiality? Journal of Environmental Economics an
59: 67-81.
Hicks, R. and I. Strand. 2000. The Extent of Information: Its Relevance for Random Utility Models. Land Economics 76: 374-385.
Johnston, R.J., E.Y. Besedin, R. Iovanna, C.J. Miller, R.F. Wardwell, and M.H. Ranson. 2006. Systematic Variation in Willingness to Pay for Aq
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 Veg
Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 12: 246–263.
Lipton, D. 2004. The Value of Improved Water Quality to Chesapeake Bay Boaters. Marine Resource Economics 19:265–270.
Loomis, J., P. Kent, L. Strange, K. Fausch and A. Covich. 2000. “Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an im
basin: results from a contingent valuation survey.” Ecological Economics 33: 103-117.
Phaneuf, D.J. 2002. “A Randon Utility Model for Total Maximum Daily Loads: Estimating the Benefits of Watershed‐Based Ambient Water Q
Improvements.” Water Resources Research, 38(11). Doi:10.1029/2001WR000959
Sanders, L. B., R.G. Walsh, and J.B. Loomis. 1990. “Toward Empirical Estimation of the Total Value of Protecting Rivers.” Water Resources R
1345-1357.
Viscusi, K., J. Huber, and J. Bell. 2008. “The Economic Value of Water Quality.” Environmental and Resource Economics. 41(2): 169‐187.
Whitehead, J.C., T. Hoban and W. Clifford. 2002. Landowners’ Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvements: Jointly Estimating Conti
and Behavior with Limited Information. White paper developed in part by U.S. EPA, NCDENR and the College of Agriculture and Life Scienc
Whittington,D.,G. Cassidy,D. Amaral, E.McClelland, H.Wang and C. Poulos. 1994. The economic value of improving the environmental qual
Bay. Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, GBNEP-38, 6/94.
Notes
WTP for improvements in water quality (including clarity,

algae, bacteria, fish presence, etc.)
average per-trip benefits (for recreational swimming and
boating, separately) for a reduction in nutrients
WTP for reduction in algal blooms (caused be sediment and
nutrients)
welfare gains from improvements in water quality
parameters, including clarity, chlorophyll, nutrients,
suspended solids, and bacteria
WTP to reduce P runoff
average per-trip benefits (for recreational swimming) for a

reduction in nutrients
WTP to improve water quality statewide (CA)
increased value of recreational fishing due to DO

improvements

improvements
improvements
WTP to reduce P

reduction in nutrients
consumer surplus loss from fish kills
WTP to improve the quality of a lake polluted by P
Welfare gains of cleaning up eutrophic sites
WTP to reduce P
increased producer and consumer surplus corresponding to

restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation
hedonic price and contingent valuation to estimate value of

"swimmable" water
WTP to make the Chesapeake Bay swimmable
hedonic study of specific water quality parameters and a

general water quality score
WTP for water quality improvements (attainment of
swimmable and shellfishable)
TCM estimating benefits of water quality (BOD, TSS, DO,
fecal coliform) on recreational activities
WTP for water quality improvements (on a scale from 1 to
5)
reduction in fecal coliform
meta-analysis of WTP studies for aquatic resource

improvements
increased producer and consumer surplus corresponding to

restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation
boaters' WTP for general water quality improvements; area

residents' WTP to restore oyster beds
Benefits associated with water quality, using an index of

watershed indicators
Demand for protection of rivers
nationwide WTP to avoid regional reduction in water

quality)
WTP for water quality improvements
WTP to improve general water quality

GO TO File Info Point Sources
Citation
Adams, et al. (2002)
Anderson (1989)
Anderson and Edwards (1986)
Anderson et al. (2000)
Ara et al. (2006)
Associated Press (2013)
Athearn (2008)
Azevedo, et al. (2001)
Barnstable (2010)
Barr (2005)
Barr (2012)
Bauer, et al. (2009)
Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (2004)
Boyle et al. (1998)
Breetz (2004)
Burghdoff and Williams (2012)
Carey and Leftwich (2000)
Caron et al. (2010)
Carson and Mitchell (1993)
CBP (2002)
CDPHE (2011)
Cedar Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District
(2013)
Cesar, et al. (2002)
Chandler (2013)
City News Service (2011)
City of Lake Stevens (2013)
Compton, et al. (2011)
Cooke (2005)
Cropper and Issac (2011)
CWP (2013)
Czajkowski and Bin (2010)
Davenport and Drake (2011)
Davenport, et al. (2010)
de Zoysa (1995)
Des Moines Register (2013)
Desvousges, et al. (1987)
Dodd, et al. (2009)
Dyson and Huppert (2010)
EG Found (2012)
Egan, et al. (2008)

ENSR Corporation (2008)
Evans and Jones (2001)
Falk (2011)
Gibbs, et al. (2002)
Glass (2003)
Gorte (1994)
HARRNESS (2005)
Hayes, et al. (1992)
Helm, et al. (2004)
Henry (2013)
Hernandez-Sancho (2011)
Herrera Environmental Consultants (2004)
Herriges, et al. (2010)
Hicks and Strand (2000)
Hite, et al. (2002)
Hoagland, et al. (2009)
Hoyman (2011)
Huang et al. (2012)
Huang et al. (2010)
Hunt (2013)
Jiang (2004)
Jin, et al. (2008)
Johnston, et al. (2006)
Kahn and Kemp (1985)
Kashian and Kasper (2010)
KDHE (2011)
Keplinger, et al. (2003)
King County (2005)

Krupnick (1988)
Krysel et al. (2003)

Lake Erie Improvement Association (2012)
Larkin and Adams (2007)
Larson, et al. (2001)
Lipton (2004)
Lollar (2008)
Loomis, et al. (2000)
Massey, et al. (2006)
Matthews, et al. (1999)
MDE (2012)
Michael, et al. (2000)
Mistiaen, et al. (2003)
MNESERB (2004)
Morgan and Larkin (2006)

Morgan and Owens (2001)
Morgan, et al. (2009)
Oh and Ditton (2005)
Oneby and Bollyky (2006)
Osgood (2002)
PA-LBFC (2013)
Parsons, et al. (2006)
Phaneuf (2002)
Poor, et al. (2001)

Poor, et al. (2007)
RaLonde (1998)
Sanders, et al. (1990)
Shilling (2005)
Steinnes (1992)
Strumberg, et al. (2001)
Tetra Tech (2004)
The Cadmus Group Inc. (2014)
The LA Group (2001)
Times Standard (2013)
U.S. EPA (1999)
U.S. EPA (2001a)
U.S. EPA (2001b)
U.S. EPA (2003)
U.S. EPA (2004)
U.S. EPA (2008)
U.S. EPA (2010)
UDWQ (2010)
UDWQ (2013)
UOBWG, 2007
van Beukering and Cesar (2004)
Viscusi, et al. (2008)
Von Haefen (2003)
Walsh, et al. (2011)
WASDE (2011)
Weaver (2010)
Weiss et al. (2007)
WERF (2005)
Wheeler (2013)
Whitehead and Groothius (1992)
Whitehead, et al. (2002)
Whittington, et al. (1994)
WI Department of Natural Resources (2012)

Young (1984)
nt Sources Nonpoint Sources Planning and Mitigation Economic Impact
Full Reference
Adams, C.M., S.L. Larkin, D. Mulkey, A. Hodges, and Ballyram. 2002. Measuring the Economic Consequences and Public Aware
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 Am
Anderson, G.D. and S.F. Edwards. 1986. Protecting Rhode Island’s Coastal Salt Ponds: “An Economic Assessment of Downzonin
14( ½): 67-91.
Anderson, D.M., P. Hoagland, Y. Kaoru, and A.W. White. 2000. Estimated Annual Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal Bloom
Hole Oceanographic Institute, document no. WHOI-2000-11.
Ara, S., E. Irwin, and T. Haab. 2006. Measuring the Effects of Lake Erie Water Quality in Spatial Hedonic Price Models. Environm
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 Repor
and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Barstable County Wastewater Cost Task Force. (2010). Comparison of Costs for Wastewater Management Systems Applicable
Towns Undertaking Comprehensive Wastewater Management Planning. Retrieved on 2013/03/07.
<http://www.ccwpc.org/images/educ_materials/wwreports/cape_cod_ww_costs--4-10.pdf>
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. Sengc
2010. The importance of human dimensions research in managing harmful algal blooms. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environm
Berkshire Regional Planning Commission. 2004. Onota Lake Long-Range Management Plan. Prepared for the City of Pittsfield.
Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell, and I.E. Strand. 1989. Measuring the Benefits of Improvements in Water Quality: The Chesape
Economics 6: 1-18.
Boyle, K. J., S. R. Lawson, H. J. Michael, and R. Bouchard. (1998). “Lakefront Property Owners’ Economic Demand for Water Cla
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 Initiative
Survey. Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H.
Burghdoff, M. and G. Williams. 2012. Lake Ketchum Algae Control Plan.
Cary, R.T. and R.W. Leftwich. 2007. Water Quality and Housing Value on Lake Greenwood: A Hedonic Study on Chlorophyll-a L
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. T
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 swim
Resources Research 29(7): 2445-2454.
Chesapeake Bay Program. (2002). Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Estimations for Point Sources in the Chesapeake Bay W
<http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_13136.pdf>
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2011. Cost/Benefit Study of the Impacts of Potential Nutrien
Discharges. CDM.
Cedar Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District. 2013. Cedar Lake: Lake Management Plan. Draft.
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 th
Management Commission.
City News Service. 2011. Algae Bloom in Tap Water Affecting Some in Southland. October 1, 2011. http://www.nbclosangeles.
Tap-Water-Affecting-Some-in-Southland-130910958.html
City of Lake Stevens. 2013. Phosphorus Management Plan.
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 s
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 edi
pages.
Cropper, M.L. and W. Isaac. 2011. The Benefits of Achieving the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads), A Scopi
document no. RFF DP 11-31
Center for Watershed Protection (2013). Cost-Effectiveness Study of Urban Stormwater BMPs in the James River Basin. Retriev
<http://www.jamesriverassociation.org/what-we-do/JRA-Cost-effective-Full-Report-June-update.pdf>
Czajkowski, J. and O. Bin. 2010. Do Homebuyers Differentiate Between Technical and Non-Technical Measures of Water Qualit
in South Florida.
Davenport, T. and W. Drake. 2011. EPA Commentary: Grand Lake St. Marys, Ohio – The Case for Source Water Protection: Nut
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 W
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 Valu
River.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 14: 248-267.
Dodd, 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. Eutrophica
Potential Economic Damages. American Chemical Society: Environmental Science and Technology, Policy Analysis, Vol. 43, No.
Dyson, K., and D.D. Huppert. 2010. Regional economic impacts of razor clam beach closures due to harmful algal blooms (HAB
Washington. Harmful Algae (9): 264 -271.
Everglades Foundation. (2012). Enterprise Assessment for the Reduction of Nutrient Pollution in South Florida Waters-Final Re
<http://www.evergladesfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Report-RTI-Study.pdf>
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.
Evans, G. and L. Jones. 2001. Economic Impact of the 2000 Red Tide on Galveston County, Texas: A Case Study. Texas Parks an
Falk, M.W., Neethling, J.B., Reardon, D.J. (2011). Striking the Balance Between Nutrient Removal in Wastewater Treatment an
Publishing.
Gibbs, J.P., J.M. Halstead, K.J. Boyle, and J. Huang.2002. An Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Lake Water Clarity on New Hamp
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 31:39–46.
Glass, J. 2003. Historical Review of Golden Alga (Prymnesium parvum) Problems in Texas. Golden Alga Workshop Oct. 24-25, 2
Department.
Gorte, Ross W. 1994. The Florida bay economy and changing environmental conditions. 94-435 ENR, CRS Report for Congress,
Library of Congress.
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 Narraga
Economics 7: 75-85.
Helm, E.C., G.R. Parsons, and T. Bondelid. 2004. “Measuring the Economic Benefits of Water quality Improvements to Recreati
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. T
Hernandez-Sancho, F., Molinos-Senante, M., & Sala-Garrido, R. (2011). Cost Modelling for Wastewater Treatment Processes. D
Herrera Environmental Consultants. 2003. Technical Report: Green Lake Alum Treatment Study. Prepared for Seattle Departm
Herriges, J., C. Kling, C.C. Liu, and J. Tobias. 2010. What are the Consequences of Consequentiality? Journal of Environmental E
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 Ap
Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL; 8 August 2002.
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. Bac
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 B
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 Farfante
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
Jiang, F., Beck, M.B., Cummings, R.G., Rowles, K., & Russell, D. (2004). Estimation of Costs of Phosphorus Removal in Wastewa
De Novo (Water Policy Working Paper #2004-010). Retrieved on 2013/02/27. http://h2opolicycenter.org/researchpapers/DeN
Jin, D., E. Thurnberg, and P. Hoagland. 2008. Economic impact of the 2005 red tide event on commercial shellfish fisheries in N
Johnston, R.J., E.Y. Besedin, R. Iovanna, C.J. Miller, R.F. Wardwell, and M.H. Ranson. 2006. Systematic Variation in Willingness
Improvements and Implications for Benefits Transfer: A Meta-Analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 53: 221-24
Kahn, J.R., and W.M. Kemp. 1985. Economic Losses Associated with the Degradation of an Ecosystem: The Case of Submerged
Bay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 12: 246–263.
Kashian, R. and J. Kasper. 2010. Tainter Lake and Lake Menomin- The Impact of Diminishing Water Quality on Value. Departme
Wisconsin.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). 2011. Water Quality Standards White Paper: Chlorophyll-a Criteria for
Reservoirs.
Keplinger, K., A. Tanter, and J. Houser. 2003. Economic and Environmental Implications of Phosphorus Control at North Bosqu
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 47:453–480.
Krysel, C., E.M. Boyer, C. Parson, and P. Welle. 2003. Lakeshore Property Values and Water Quality: Evidence from Property Sa
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 Econo
Larkin, S.L. and C.M. Adams. 2007. Harmful Algal Blooms and Coastal Business: Economic Consequences in Florida. Departmen
University of Florida.
Larson, D., D. Lew, and Y. Onozaka. 2001. The Public’s Willingness to Pay for Improving California’s Water Quality. Western Re
W‐133, 14th Interim Report. Compiled by J. Fletcher. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, West Virginia Unive
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 Chesapea
the Benefits of Recreational Fisheries, edited by T.J. Pitcher. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, vol.7(2). Vancouver, BC: Unive
Lipton, D.W., and R.W. Hicks. 2003. The Cost of Stress: Low Dissolved Oxygen and the Economic Benefits of Recreational Stripe
Estuaries 26: 310–315.
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 serv
results from a contingent valuation survey.” Ecological Economics 33: 103-117.
Massey, D.M., S.C. Newbold, and B. Genter. 2006. Valuing Water Quality Changes Using a Bioeconomic Model of a Coastal Rec
Environmental Economics and Management 52:482–500.
Matthews, L.G., F.R. Homans, and K.W. Easter. 1999. Reducing Phosphorus Pollution in the Minnesota River: How Much is it W
Paper.
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2012. Cost Estimates for Phase II WIP.
Michael, H.J., K.J. Boyle, and R. Bouchard. 2000. Does the Measurement of Environmental Quality Affect Implicit Prices Estima
Economics 76: 283-298.
Mistiaen, J. A., I. E. Strand, and D. Lipton. 2003. Effects of environmental stress on blue crab ( Callinectes sapidus ) harvests in
Estuaries and Coasts (impact factor: 2.11). 01/2003; 26(2):316-322. DOI:10.1007/BF02695970
Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board. (2004). Wastewater Phosphorus Control and Reduction Initiati
<http://www.meserb.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/mesereport22apr05.pdf>.
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. Har
Oh, C.O., and R.B. Ditton. 2005. Estimating the Economic Impacts of Golden Alga (Prymnesium parvum) on Recreational Fishin
Texas Parks and Wildlife.
Oneby, M. and L. J. Bollyky. 2006. High-pressure Pipeline Pre-ozonation at Witchita, Kansas for Taste and Odor Control. Presen
Ozone and UV, April 3rd 2006.
Osgood, D. 2002. Lake Mitchell Alum Treatment System: Final Report and Recommendations. Ecosystem Strategies.
Pennsylvania General Assembly: Legislative Budget and Finance Committee. (2013). A Cost Effective Alternative Approach to M
Bay Nutrient Reduction Targets. (Conducted Pursuant to Act 2012-87). Retrieved on 2013/11/11. http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/r
Parsons, G. R., A. Morgan, J. C. Whitehead, and T. C. Haab. 2006. The Welfare Effects of Pfiesteria-Related Fish Kills: A Continge
Consumers. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35/2 (October 2006) 348–356
Phaneuf, D.J. 2002. “A Randon Utility Model for Total Maximum Daily Loads: Estimating the Benefits of Watershed ‐Based Amb
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 Pro
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-Base
797-806
Ralonde, R. 1998. Harmful algal blooms: the economic consequences for Alaska. Mimeo.Fairbanks: University of Alaska Marine
(ed.). 2001. Harmful Algal Blooms on the North American West Coast. University of Alaska Sea Grant, AK-SG-01-05, Fairbanks.
Sanders, L. B., R.G. Walsh, and J.B. Loomis. 1990. “Toward Empirical Estimation of the Total Value of Protecting Rivers.” Water
1357.
Shilling, F., S. Sommarstrom, R. Kattelmann, B. Washburn, J. Florsheim, and R. Henly. (2005). California Watershed Assessment
California Resources Agency and the California Bay-Delta Authority (http://cwam.ucdavis.edu).
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 Valuatio
Agricultural Economics 23: 120-132.
Tetra Tech. 2004. Lake Lawrence Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). Alum and Sediment Dredging Fea
The Cadmus Group Inc. 2014. The Economic Impact of Nutrients and Algae on a Central Texas Drinking Water Supply. April.
The LA Group. 2001. An Action Plan for the Long Term Management of Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation in Cossayuna Lake. Repor
Times Standard. 2013. Blue-green algae a health hazard in Klamath River: Caution urged in water contact and fish consumptio
http://www.times-standard.com/breakingnews/ci_24116523/blue-green-algae-health-hazard-klamath-river-caution
US Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Plants for BNR Retrofits Using Advances in
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). The National Costs of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program (Draft Report). (EP
US Environmental Protection Agency (2001). The National Costs of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program, Support Documen
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Economic Analyses of Nutrient and Sediment Reduciton Actions to Restore Ches
on 2013/03/06. <http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10065XE.PDF>
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines a
Poultry Products Point Source Cateogory (40 CFR 432): Volumes 1 - 4. (EPA-821-R-04-011).
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Municipal Nutrient Removal Technologies Reference Document: Volume 1 & 2 -
006).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010. Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for L
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.
Upper Ocklawaha Basin Working Group (UOBWG). 2007. Basin Management Action Plan: For the Implementation of Total Ma
Florida Department of Environmental Protection in the Upper Ocklawaha River Basin.
van Beukering, P.J.H. and H.S.J. Cesar. 2004. Ecological Economic Modeling of Coral Reefs: Evaluating Tourist Overuse at Hana
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):
Von Haefen, R.H. 2003. “Incorporating Observed choice into the Construction of Welfare Measures from Random Utility Mode
Economics and Management 45:145‐165.
Walsh, P., J.W. Milon, and D. Scrogin. 2011. The Property-Price Effects of Abating Nutrient Pollutants in Urban Housing Market
Stormwater Control, Chapter 6. Ed. Hale W. Thurston
Washington State Department of Ecology. (2011). Technical and Economic Evaluation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal at
Facilities. Retrieved 2013/02/28. <https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1110060.pdf>.
Weaver, K. 2010. “Estuary and Coastal Waters Numeric Nutrient Criteria: Workshop Introduction.” Estuary Numeric Nutrient C
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 W
Management, 133, 3, pp 218-219.
Water Environment Research Foundation. (2005). Nutrient Farming and Traditional Removal: An Economic Comparison. (03-W
Publishing.
Wheeler, T.B. 2013. Fish kills, toxic algae plague Northwest Creek in Stevensville. The Baltimore Sun. Accessible electronically a
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-08-26/features/bs-gr-toxic-algae-shore-20130825_1_blue-green-algae-microcystis-fish
Whitehead, J.C. and P.A. Groothius. 1992. Economic Benefits of Improved Water Quality: A Case Study of North Carolina's Tar-
Whitehead, J.C., T. Hoban and W. Clifford. 2002. Landowners’ Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvements: Jointly Estim
Behavior with Limited Information. White paper developed in part by U.S. EPA, NCDENR and the College of Agriculture and Lif
Whittington,D.,G. Cassidy,D. Amaral, E.McClelland, H.Wang and C. Poulos. 1994. The economic value of improving the environ
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 An
Young, C.E. 1984. Perceived Water Quality and the Value of Seasonal Homes. Water Resources Bulletin 20.
GO TO File Info Point Sources Nonpoint Sources Planning and Mitigation
Region # Region Name State Region # Region

1 New England AL 4 Southeast
2 Mid-Atlantic AK 10 Pacific Northwest
3 Mid-Atlantic AZ 9 Pacific Southwest
4 Southeast AR 6 South Central
5 Midwest CA 9 Pacific Southwest
6 South Central CO 8 Mountains and Plains
7 Midwest CT 1 New England
8 Mountains and Plains DE 3 Mid-Atlantic
9 Pacific Southwest FL 4 Southeast
10 Pacific Northwest GA 4 Southeast
HI 9 Pacific Southwest
*Region 2 grouped in with Mid-Atlantic
ID 10 Pacific Northwest
and Region 5 grouped in with Midwest
IL 5 Midwest
IN 5 Midwest
IA 7 Midwest
KS 7 Midwest
KY 4 Southeast
LA 6 South Central
ME 1 New England
MD 3 Mid-Atlantic
MA 1 New England
MI 5 Midwest
MN 5 Midwest
MS 4 Southeast
MO 7 Midwest
MT 8 Mountains and Plains
NE 7 Midwest
NV 9 Pacific Southwest
NH 1 New England
NJ 2 Mid-Atlantic
NM 6 South Central
NY 2 Mid-Atlantic
NC 4 Southeast
ND 8 Mountains and Plains
OH 5 Midwest
OK 6 South Central
OR 10 Pacific Northwest
PA 3 Mid-Atlantic
RI 1 New England
SC 4 Southeast
SD 8 Mountains and Plains
TN 4 Southeast
TX 6 South Central
UT 8 Mountains and Plains
VT 1 New England
VA 3 Mid-Atlantic
WA 10 Pacific Northwest
WV 3 Mid-Atlantic
WI 5 Midwest
WY 8 Mountains and Plains
g and Mitigation Economic Impact
GO TO File Info Point Sources Nonpoint Sources Planning and Mitigation
Year CPI [1] CCI [2]

1980 82.4 NA
1981 90.9 NA
1982 96.5 NA
1983 99.6 NA
1984 103.9 NA
1985 107.6 NA
1986 109.6 NA
1987 113.6 NA
1988 118.3 NA
1989 124 NA
1990 130.7 4732
1991 136.2 4835
1992 140.3 4985
1993 144.5 5210
1994 148.2 5408
1995 152.4 5471
1996 156.9 5620
1997 160.5 5826
1998 163 5920
1999 166.6 6059
2000 172.2 6221
2001 177.1 6343
2002 179.9 6538
2003 184 6694
2004 188.9 7115
2005 195.3 7446
2006 201.6 7751
2007 207.342 7966
2008 215.303 8310
2009 214.537 8570
2010 218.056 8799
2011 224.939 9070
2012 229.594 9401
2013 232.139 NA [3]
1. Source: Consumer Price Index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2. Source: Construction Cost Index from the Engineering News Record.
3. Represents January to May average.
Mitigation Economic Impact

Nutrient Impacts Control Costs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nutrient Impacts Control Costs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GO TO File Info

Nutrient Impacts and Control Costs

File Name Nutrient Impacts and Control Costs

External Nutrient Nutrient

Source: Based on Weaver (2010) and Dodds et al. (2009)

Primary Responses Impacts to Designated Economic Se

Algal Dominance Primary contact · Tourism-related

Aquatic life (spawning,

Increased Organic Low Dissolved Oxygen

dwater used for drinking water source water.

· Tourism-related industries (lodging,

External Nutrient Mitigating Natural

Industrial Cropland Pollutant

Decentralized Livestock Watershed

Source: Based on Weaver (2010)

Impacts to Designated Economic Se

Increased Organic Industrial water supply

water used for drinking water source water.

· Tourism-related industries (lodging,

Point Source Control Cost Overview

Provides information about studies reporting costs associated with industrial

Provides information about studies reporting costs associated with decentralized

Provides information about costs reported for Maryland wastewater treatment

Nonpoint Source Control Cost Overview

COST ESTIMATE BASIS

Low Density Residential (assumed av

Medium Density Residential

High Density Residential (assumed

Other Urban, Mixed Commercial

Low Density Residential (assumed av

Low Density Residential (assumed av

Medium Density Residential

Medium Density Residential

High Density Residential (assumed

High Density Residential (assumed

Other Urban, Mixed Commercial

Other Urban, Mixed Commercial

Low Density Residential (assumed av

Low Density Residential (assumed av

Medium Density Residential

Medium Density Residential

High Density Residential (assumed

High Density Residential (assumed

Other Urban, Mixed Commercial

Other Urban, Mixed Commercial

Low Density Residential (assumed av

Medium Density Residential

Other Urban, Mixed Commercial

Low Density Residential (assumed av

Medium Density Residential

High Density Residential (assumed

Other Urban, Mixed Commercial

Low Density Residential (assumed av

Medium Density Residential

High Density Residential (assumed

Medium Density with Mixed

Low Density Residential (assumed av

Low Density Residential (assumed av

Medium Density Residential

Medium Density Residential

High Density Residential (assumed

High Density Residential (assumed

Medium Density with Mixed