January 2010 1

 

PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL COMPLIANCE COSTS AND BENEFITS 

ASSOCIATED WITH EPA’S PROPOSED NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR 

FLORIDA

 

 

 

January 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

 

 
January 2010 2

Preamble

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing numeric nutrient criteria for 

lakes and flowing waters throughout the state as well as waters upstream of estuaries to protect 

downstream uses. The incremental costs (cost savings) that may be associated with the proposed 

rule include compliance and government regulatory expenditures above and beyond those costs 

that would be incurred in the absence of the proposal (i.e., baseline costs).

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) currently has in place narrative 

nutrient criteria that state that nutrient levels cannot exceed levels that results in an imbalance in 

the natural population of flora and fauna. FDEP also recently published draft changes to its 

nutrient water quality standards (WQS) in July 2009 (Chapters 62-302 and 62-303) to put in 

place numeric limits for phosphorus and nitrogen with plans to submit its numeric nutrient 

criteria to the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission by 2011 (State of Florida Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria Development Plan, March 2009). Thus, the numeric nutrient WQS that FDEP is 

putting in place represent baseline requirements because they are likely to be implemented in the 

absence of the federal proposed rule; any costs or benefits associated with these changes are not 

included in EPA’s estimate of potential costs or benefits of the federal proposed rule. 

Attachment #1 to this document provides EPA’s analysis of the baseline costs for achieving the 

numeric criteria developed by FDEP. Thus, assuming no significant changes to FDEP’s draft 

numeric nutrient criteria, the preliminary assessment of potential compliance costs described in 

Attachment #1 represents potential costs that could be incurred under baseline requirements. 

Any reference to “proposed rule” or “proposed numeric nutrient criteria” in Attachment #1 to 

this document is referring to FDEP’s draft numeric WQS for lakes and flowing waters. 

Attachment #2 to this document provides a rough and preliminary analysis of the benefits of 

EPA's proposed criteria. This estimate does not include the benefits of the baseline requirements.
January 2010 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EPA conducted a preliminary estimate of the potential incremental compliance and state resource 

costs associated with EPA’s proposed nutrient criteria for lakes and streams in Florida.

Incremental costs associated with the proposed rule represent the costs above and beyond the 

costs that would be incurred for compliance with the baseline criteria. For this analysis, baseline 

costs represent the costs necessary for compliance with FDEP’s draft water quality standard 

(WQS) changes (Chapter 62-302 and 62-303; July 2009), and any costs incurred to reduce 

nutrient loads to waters on the existing state Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list or with 

an existing total maximum daily load (TMDL). The preliminary cost estimates described in 

Attachment #1 to this Report are based on criteria representative of these draft changes1, and 

thus, represent potential baseline expenditures.

The incremental costs (cost savings) associated with implementation of the proposed numeric 

nutrient criteria include incremental compliance and government resource costs. Exhibit ES-1

summarizes the preliminary estimates of compliance costs; actual costs will depend on the 

procedures for assessing waters for compliance and the site-specific source reductions needed to 

attain the criteria. 

Exhibit ES-1. Preliminary Estimates of Potential Annual Control Costs Under the Proposed Rule 

(2009 dollars)

Source Sector Potential Controls Annual Costs 

(millions per year)

Municipal WWTPs BNR to reduce TN and/or TP $0.9

Industrial and General Dischargers Process optimization/source control $0.1

Urban Storm Water Uncertain Not estimated1

Agriculture2

Nutrient management

Riparian forest buffers

Livestock fencing

$1.1

$0.2

$0.01

Septic Systems2 Upgrade to advanced nutrient treatment $2.4 – $7.8

Total $4.7 – $10.1

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

1. Not estimated because the need for incremental controls is uncertain.

2. Represents costs to incrementally impaired watersheds in South region only; does include the cost of controls in 

the 61 watersheds not in the South region that may potentially be impaired under the proposed rule.

Note that these costs may be underestimated because the nonpoint source controls only represent 

controls on watersheds in the South region; nonpoint controls for 61 watersheds (not in the South 

region) containing potential incrementally impaired waters are not included. 

State resource costs include costs to complete TMDLs for 190 potential incrementally impaired 

waters, and may be approximately $0.5 million per year, based on national average costs, 

assuming a 9-year implementation schedule. This estimate does not include the potential cost 

 

1 Note that FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria differ slightly from those used to estimate preliminary baseline 

compliance costs.
January 2010 2

saving that could be associated with waters currently listed as impaired for nutrients that may not 

exceed the numeric criteria, or incremental costs and cost savings associated with completed 

TMDLs for which the current TN and TP targets are higher or lower than the proposed criteria. 

Also, these costs may be overestimated because the analysis of incrementally impaired lakes is 

based on the most stringent TN and TP criteria; waters may not actually be impaired where less 

stringent criteria apply.

EPA calculated a rough benefit transfer estimate of mean willingness to pay (WTP) of Florida 

residents for change in fresh water quality using the meta-analysis results of Van Houtven, 

Powers, and Pattanayak (2007). EPA calculated WTP per person and total WTP for the 

incremental water quality improvements provided by moving from Florida’s numeric water 

quality criteria to the more stringent EPA numeric criteria (this only affects roughly four percent 

of waters). Results are presented in ES-2 below.

ES-2. WTP for Water Quality Improvements in Lakes and Flowing Water for Moving from Florida’s 

Numeric to EPA’s Numeric Criteria

Baseline WQI Per Person

Total

(millions per year)

5.92 $0.34 $2.3

6.5 $0.36 $2.5

7 $0.37 $2.6

WQI – water quality index

WTP = willingness to pay

The numbers in ES-2 are underestimates of the total benefits for a number of reasons. First, the 

results reflect the assumption that the impaired water bodies only attainthe water quality 

standard, though some water bodies will attain higher water quality. Many unimpaired water 

bodies could also have reduced loadings as a result of these controls. The benefits analysis also 

reflects only WTP of the population of Florida; since Florida waters are tourist destinations,

there are a large number of tourists who are willing to pay for cleaner water that are not included 

in the estimates. In addition benefits may also be provided to a number of other sectors that EPA 

did not quantify in this analysis. These include benefits to:

• The Everglades ecosystem – cleaner source water to the Everglades 

• Agricultural and livestock production

• Commercial fishing

• Reduced need for treatment of drinking water source water

• Ecosystem biodiversity and habitat protection

• Industrial users of source water.
January 2010 1

1. ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL COMPLIANCE COSTS

EPA developed a preliminary estimate of the potential incremental compliance and state resource 

costs associated with EPA’s proposed nutrient criteria for lakes and streams in Florida. 

Incremental costs associated with the proposed rule represent the costs above and beyond those 

that would be incurred for compliance with the baseline. For this analysis, baseline costs 

represent those necessary for compliance with FDEP’s draft numeric water quality standard 

(WQS) for nutrients (Chapter 62-302 and 62-303; July 2009) and any costs incurred to reduce 

nutrient loads to waters on the existing state Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list or with 

an existing total maximum daily load (TMDL). The preliminary cost estimates described in 

Attachment #1 to this report are based on criteria representative of these draft numeric criteria1, 

and thus, represent potential baseline expenditures.

1.1 EPA PROPOSED NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA

As shown in Exhibit 1, the proposed numeric criteria for total nitrogen (TN) and total 

phosphorus (TP) for lakes are based on color [determined from average annual platinum-cobalt 

(Pt-Co) units] and chlorophyll-a concentration; for streams, the criteria vary by region. 

Exhibit 1. EPA Proposed Numeric Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Criteria for Florida Lakes 

and Streams

Region/Water Body Characteristics Average Annual Geometric Mean Criteria (mg/L)

Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus

Streams

Panhandle Region 0.812 0.042

Bone Valley Region 1.737 0.775

North Central Region 1.479 0.359

Peninsula Region 1.205 0.107

South Region (canals) 1.60 0.040

Lakes1

Colored; chlorophyll-a ≤20 μg/L 1.23 – 2.25 0.050 – 0.157

Colored; chlorophyll-a >20 μg/L 1.23 0.050

Clear; >50 mg/L CaCO3; chlorophyll-a ≤20 μg/L 1.00 – 1.81 0.030 – 0.087

Clear; >50 mg/L CaCO3; chlorophyll-a >20 μg/L 1.00 0.030

Clear; ≤50 mg/L CaCO3; chlorophyll-a ≤20 μg/L 0.85 – 1.14 0.015 – 0.043

Clear; ≤50 mg/L CaCO3; chlorophyll-a >20 μg/L 0.85 0.015

Color >40 Pt-Co is a colored lake; color <40 Pt-Co is a clear lake.

Exhibits 2 and 3 show the applicability of the proposed criteria for lakes and streams, 

respectively.

 

1 Note that FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria differ slightly from those used to estimate preliminary baseline 

compliance costs in the Attachment to the report (Exhibit 1-1).
January 2010 2

Exhibit 2. Clear and Colored Lakes in Florida
January 2010 3

Exhibit 3. Nutrient Criteria Regions for Streams in Florida
January 2010 4

EPA is also proposing a numeric translator approach to derive concentration values that protect 

downstream lake and estuary designated uses. These values must be based on preset EPA 

downstream protection values, a specific EPA-provided methodology, or comparable scientific 

process. For lakes, EPA is proposing a loading model to provide protection from near-field TP 

loads from rivers and streams based on lake-specific characteristics. For protection of estuaries 

from near-field loads of TN from rivers and streams, the proposed rule establishes preset 

numeric downstream protection values (DPVs) that would apply to upstream waters and sources 

for 19 estuaries. Adjustment to these preset DPVs can be made by the state through a 

redistribution of the allowable loading within the watershed; this would provide certain areas in 

the watershed with a greater load by assigning a lesser load in other areas.

The most significant differences between the FDEP and EPA criteria are that EPA is proposing 

DPVs and criteria for the South region (FDEP excluded the region from its draft criteria), and 

EPA combined FDEP’s Northeast and Peninsula regions into a single region. 

1.2 INCREMENTAL IMPAIRMENTS

The incremental costs (cost savings) that may be associated with the proposed numeric nutrient 

criteria are associated with waters that exceed the revised criteria compared to the current 

baseline criteria. This section provides a preliminary assessment of the potential for incremental 

water quality impairment listings and TMDLs. The results are preliminary because of uncertainty 

regarding the method for listing waters as impaired.

Incrementally impaired waters are those waters exceeding EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria that 

do not exceed FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria (based on the analysis in the Attachment

#1 to the report), are not already on the state’s CWA Section 303(d) list for nutrient impairments, 

or have an adopted or proposed TMDL. FDEP will need to develop and implement TMDLs for 

any waters added to the state’s list of impaired waters as a result of EPA’s proposed numeric 

criteria.

Exhibit 4 provides a summary of the waters potentially impaired under the baseline. 

Exhibit 4. Summary of Baseline Impairments for Florida Lakes and Streams1

Water Body Type Number of WBIDs

Section 303(d) List Completed/Proposed TMDL Exceed FDEP Criteria Total

Streams 1272 453 638 810

Lakes 128 57 335 520

Total 255 102 973 1,330

FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection

TMDL = Total maximum daily load

WBID = Water body identification

1. Represents the number of WBIDs on the state’s current 303(d) list, with completed or proposed TMDLs, or 

identified in the Attachment #1 to the report as potentially exceeding FDEP’s draft WQS changes (Exhibit 3-3).

2. Includes 7 streams in South Florida region on 303(d) list.

3. Includes 10 streams in South Florida with completed TMDLs.
January 2010 5

Using the same monitoring data and procedures described in Section 3.1 (Incremental 

Impairments) in the Attachment #1 to the report, we identified potential incrementally impaired 

waters based on proposed criteria for TN and TP.2 Any result greater than the applicable numeric 

criterion indicates an exceedance. As a preliminary estimate of impairments, we assumed that a 

water body would be considered impaired if more than 10% of the total number of samples 

exceed the criterion.

3

Exhibit 5 summarizes the screening to identify potential incrementally impaired WBIDs based 

on available data.

Exhibit 5. Summary of Identification of Potential Incrementally Impaired Waters

Category Number of WBIDs Total Lake1 Stream

Nutrient Data in IWR Run 35 1,033 1,537 2,570

Sufficient Data Available2 766 1,143 1,909

Not Listed/Covered by TMDL3 251 387 638

Potentially Exceeding Criteria4 58 132 190

Impairment is Uncertain5 81 0 81

IWR = Impaired Waters Rule

m = meter

MDL = minimum detection limit

TMDL = total maximum daily load

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WBID = water body identification

1. The numeric criteria used for the lakes analysis reflect May 2009 criteria described in Appendix B.

2. Data within last 5 years meeting data quality requirements (excludes samples taken at depths >1 m; estimated 

values; and nondetects for which the reported MDL is greater than the applicable numeric criterion).

3. Excludes any water on current 303(d) list, with a completed or proposed TMDL, or identified as impaired based 

on FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria in Section 3 in the Attachment #1 to the report).

4. Based on 10% of samples exceeding applicable TN or TP criterion; for lakes, exceedances based on the most 

stringent TN and TP criteria (i.e., for clear lakes, TN = 0.5 mg/L and TP = 0.01 mg/L; for colored lakes, TN = 1.23 

mg/L and TP = 0.05 mg/L).

5. Represents lakes for which color data are not available and data fall between lowest and highest criteria values.

The exhibit shows that 190 WBIDs would be incrementally impaired for TN and/or TP based on 

a 10% exceedance rate. The existing nutrient-related TMDLs address an average of two WBIDs 

each. Based on this average, FDEP may need to develop and adopt 95 additional nutrient 

TMDLs. As described in Section 3.2 (Incremental TMDLs) in the Attachment #1 to the report,

average per TMDL costs could be $46,000. Total TMDL development and adoption costs could 

be approximately $4.4 million, or $0.5 million per year based on a 9-year development cycle.

 

2

For lakes, we determined exceedances based on the most stringent TN and TP criteria (i.e., for clear lakes, TN = 

0.5 mg/L and TP = 0.01 mg/L; for colored lakes, TN = 1.23 mg/L and TP = 0.05 mg/L).

3 We excluded samples taken at depths >1 m (includes depths of B, M or blank entries; assumed blank depth units 

are meters) as being not representative of typical stream conditions. We also excluded data with result codes 

indicating QA/QC issues (e.g., J = estimated values), and nondetects for which the reported MDL is greater than the 

applicable numeric criterion.
January 2010 6

Note that this analysis is based on the most stringent TN and TP criteria for lakes; there could be 

lakes identified as incrementally impaired for which less stringent criteria may apply. In 

addition, waters that are currently on the state’s 303(d) list for nutrient-related pollutants such as 

dissolved oxygen are not included in the baseline (only waters listed specifically for nutrients are 

included in the baseline). However, these waters may be given TN and/or TP allocations under 

future TMDLs in the absence of the proposed rule. Thus, both of these assumptions could result 

in the number of incremental impairments being potentially overestimated.

Depending on state implementation of EPA’s proposed criteria, FDEP may delist waters 

currently on the CWA Section 303(d) list if instream TN and TP data indicate compliance with 

the proposed numeric nutrient criteria and where other forms of nitrogen (e.g., nitrate) are not 

identified as causing impairment. In addition, FDEP may revise TMDLs reflecting targets less 

stringent than the proposed criteria, which may result in additional development and 

implementation costs. There may also be some savings in control costs if FDEP revises TMDL 

targets that are more stringent than would be necessary under the numeric criteria. However, 

since the existing targets are based on site-specific modeling, the existing targets may be most 

appropriate for these waters, and could ultimately be adopted as site-specific criteria.

1.3 POINT SOURCE COSTS

Municipal and industrial wastewater point source dischargers to lakes and streams (including 

South Florida canals) may incur costs to comply with revised permit conditions based on the 

proposed numeric TN and TP criteria. Exhibit 6 summarizes the number of permitted 

wastewater dischargers in Florida likely to discharge nutrients. 

Exhibit 6. Summary of Dischargers to Florida Waters Potentially Affected by the Proposed Rule1

Discharger Category Major Dischargers Minor Dischargers Total

Municipal Wastewater 47 53 100

Industrial Wastewater2 50 44 94

General Permits3 0 24 24

Total 97 121 218

Source: U.S. EPA (2009b).

SIC = Standard Industrial Classification

1. Excludes dischargers to the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, bayous, lakes, and wetlands (identified based on 

receiving water body name in EPA’s PCS database).

2. Includes discharges with SIC codes 1475, 1479, 2015, 2033, 2082, 2085, 2611, 2873, 2874, 2879, 2892, 3699, 

4011, 4911, 4941, 7996, and 9999.

3. Includes dischargers with SIC codes of 2813, 2874, and 2875.

For municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), the limit of technology (LOT) for 

biological nutrient removal is 3 mg/L for TN and 0.1 mg/L for TP (as described in Section 4.1 in 

the Attachment # 1 to the report). Most of the proposed criteria are at or below the LOT. For 

waters where the criteria are below the LOT, it may be infeasible to meet the criteria instream 

due to technology limitations, especially if the water is dominated by WWTP discharges. In 

those cases where it may be technologically infeasible to discharge at levels below LOT, the 

following alternatives would be considered: (1) the lakes criteria adjustment procedure or 

reallocation procedure of the DPV methodology for estuary protection, (2) site-specific 
January 2010 7

alternative criteria, (3) restoration standards, (4) variances, or (5) UAAs and resulting changes to 

designated uses. Site-specific modeling would be needed to identify such instances where it is 

infeasible to meet criteria instream and determine appropriate effluent limits. However, in the 

absence of such modeling, we assumed that all WWTPs would need to treat to the LOT. Thus, 

any WWTP that does not have treatment processes capable of achieving the LOT (either existing 

or necessary to meet FDEP’s draft WQS changes) may incur incremental compliance costs 

associated with the proposed rule.

Based on the analysis of municipal WWTP costs in Attachment #1 to this report and 

information on existing treatment processes in FDEP’s WAFR database and electronically

available permits, there are only six dischargers (all in the South region) that would need to 

implement BNR for TN and/or TP under EPA’s proposed rule. EPA (2008) provides unit cost 

estimates for BNR retrofits and upgrades for various TN and TP performance levels. Exhibit 7

summarizes the unit costs applicable to WWTPs discharging to lakes and streams in Florida. 

Exhibit 7. Treatment Level and Costs for Municipal WWTPs

Existing Treatment 

Level Nutrient Region/Lake Type Proposed Treatment Level

Capital Cost 

($/gpd)

O&M Cost 

($/MG)

No LOT

Bone Valley and North Central TN <3 mg/L; TP <0.5 mg/L $3.09 $273

Clear and Colored lakes, 

Panhandle, Peninsula, and South TN <3 mg/L; TP <0.1 mg/L $1.06 $325

LOT for TN only

Bone Valley and North Central TP <0.5 mg/L $0.23 $44

Clear and Colored lakes, 

Panhandle, Peninsula, and South TP <0.1 mg/L $0.41 $173

LOT for TP only All TN <3 mg/L $0.68 $101

LOT for TN and TP All None No costs No costs

gpd = gallons per day

LOT = limit of technology

MG = million gallons

mg/L = milligrams per liter

O&M = operation and maintenance

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

If the average costs shown in the exhibit are indicative of those that similar facilities would incur 

to retrofit existing treatment processes to achieve the LOT for TN and TP, total capital (onetime) costs could be approximately $3.6 million; annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs 

could be approximately $0.5 million; and annual costs would be approximately $0.9 million 

(annualized capital at 7% over 20 years plus annual O&M costs). These estimates reflect the 

average unit costs multiplied by total flows contained in EPA’s PCS and FDEP’s WARF 

database, as shown in Exhibit 8. 

Exhibit 8. Potential Incremental Costs to Municipal WWTPs for Compliance with the Proposed Rule

NPDES No. Discharger Name Flow 

(mgd)

Discharger 

Type

Existing LOT 

Treatment Total Capital 

Costs

Annual 

O&M Costs TN TP

FL0141356 Collier County South Regional 8 Minor Yes No $3,278,852 $505,482
January 2010 8

Exhibit 8. Potential Incremental Costs to Municipal WWTPs for Compliance with the Proposed Rule

NPDES No. Discharger Name Flow 

(mgd)

Discharger 

Type

Existing LOT 

Treatment Total Capital 

Costs

Annual 

O&M Costs TN TP

FL0147141 Flamingo STP 0.09 Minor No Yes* $61,640 $3,304

FL0023396

Wellington Arms Condo 

WWTP 0.015 Minor No No $15,855 $1,777

FL0027618 Everglades City STP 0.115 Minor No No $121,555 $13,627

FL0028380 Ocean Maisonettes 0.01 Minor No No $10,570 $1,185

FL0141704 Port of the Islands South 0.2 Minor Yes No $81,971 $12,637

Total $3,570,443 $538,013

LOT = limit of technology

mgd = million gallons per day

NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

O&M = operation and maintenance

STP = sewage treatment plant

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

*Facility discharges in the Everglades Protection Area which has a numeric TP criterion of 0.01 mg/L.

For industrial wastewater, in most cases, it is more cost effective for industrial dischargers to 

control the source of nutrients in the effluent through BMPs, product substitution, process 

modifications, or process optimization than to treat the entire effluent prior to discharge (as 

described in Section 4.2 of the Attachment #1 to the report). Given the range of industrial 

categories with potential to discharge nutrients in Florida, needed measures and costs, if any, will 

be highly site specific. In addition, dischargers implementing source control and process 

optimization under the baseline would not likely incur additional costs under the proposed rule. 

Thus, there are only five dischargers (all in the South region) that may incur costs under the 

proposed rule. To illustrate the potential magnitude of costs, if dischargers spend an average of 

$25,000 per year on source control and process optimization to reduce nutrient loads, total 

annual costs to the industrial and general-permitted dischargers would be $125,000.

1.4 NONPOINT SOURCE COSTS

For the South region we did not estimate nonpoint source costs for incrementally impaired lakes 

(58 WBIDs) and streams (68 WBIDs). However, based on an overlay of the watersheds needing 

nutrient reductions under the baseline (i.e., existing 303(d) list, existing TMDLs, and waters 

potentially impaired under FDEP’s draft WQS changes), there are 48 WBIDs that fall within 61 

watersheds that could need some level of incremental controls on nonpoint sources to meet the 

proposed nutrient criteria. In comparison, the nonpoint source costs in the Attachment to the 

report ($34.9 million for agriculture and $12.4 to $40.2 million for septic systems) represent 

controls for 653 WBIDs that fall within 556 watersheds; those costs do not include the controls 

needed for waters on the existing 303(d) list or with proposed or approved TMDLs (331 WBIDs 

within 236 watersheds).
January 2010 9

For incrementally impaired waters in the South region, an overlay of WBIDs with 12-digit 

hydrologic units (HUCs) indicates that the land use surrounding the waters includes agriculture, 

forest, and urban.4 Exhibit 9 summarizes the acres of each land use category for these waters.

Exhibit 9. Summary of Land Use for Potential Incrementally Impaired Waters in South Region1

Land Use Category Total Acres Percent of Total Acres

Agriculture 209,876 7.2%

Wetlands 2,046,523 70.4%

Forest 85,639 2.9%

Urban 390,158 13.4%

Other 68,486 2.4%

Water 46,300 1.6%

Industrial 15,796 0.5%

Transportation Corridors 33,936 1.2%

Communications and Utilities 8,829 0.3%

Total 2,905,544 100.0%

For urban land, the need for incremental controls will depend on the concentration of nutrients in 

runoff after implementation of existing storm water control programs and the loads allocated to 

urban sources in TMDLs for the potential incrementally impaired waters. Preliminarily, it is 

uncertain if controls beyond those required under the baseline would be needed for the 

incrementally impaired waters to meet the numeric criteria for canals in South Florida.

For agricultural land in the South region incrementally impaired watersheds, BMPs may be 

needed to reduce nutrient loads to the necessary levels. To identify the extent and most costeffective mix of agricultural practices needed to attain reductions, site-specific modeling of 

controls would be needed. However, absent such modeling, cost estimates reflecting 

implementation of nutrient management, forest buffers, and livestock fencing may represent a 

preliminary estimate of the potential costs associated with numeric nutrient criteria for canals in 

the South region (see discussion in Section 6.2 in the Attachment to the report).

Exhibit 10 summarizes the potential costs of implementing nutrient management, forest buffers, 

and livestock fencing in the incrementally impaired watersheds in the South region.

Exhibit 10. Potential Costs of Agricultural BMPs on Incrementally Impaired Canals in South Region

Practice Acres/Feet1 Unit Cost2

Total Cost 

(millions)

Annual Cost 

(millions per year)3

Nutrient Management –

General Agriculture 82,354 acres4 $10/acre $0.82 $0.31

Nutrient Management –

Specialty Crop 106,708 acres5 $20/acre $2.1 $0.81

Forest Buffers 2,351 acres6 $350/acre $0.82 $0.07

Land Rental for Forest 

Buffers 2,351 acres6 $39/acre/year NA $0.09

 

4 The total land use acres are based on HUCs containing at least 10% of an incrementally impaired WBID and 

excluding any HUC that includes more than 50% of a WBID impaired under the baseline [i.e., WBID on 303(d) list 

for nutrients or covered by a TMDL].
January 2010 10

Exhibit 10. Potential Costs of Agricultural BMPs on Incrementally Impaired Canals in South Region

Practice Acres/Feet1 Unit Cost2

Total Cost 

(millions)

Annual Cost 

(millions per year)3

Livestock Fencing 59,226 linear feet $1.13/linear foot7 $0.07 $0.01

BMPs = best management practices

GIS = geographic information system

NA = not applicable

O&M = operation and maintenance

1. Estimated from GIS overlay of land use and incrementally impaired watersheds.

2. Unit costs for nutrient management, forest buffers, and livestock fencing from FL EQIP (2009a); unit costs for 

land rental payment for forest buffers from USDS FSA (2009).

3. Nutrient management costs annualized at 7% over 3 years, forest buffer costs annualized as 7% over 30 years, 

and livestock fencing annualized at 7% over 10 years, and no O&M costs for any of the practices.

4. General agriculture acres include improved pastures, field crops, ornamental nursery, and pine plantations.

5. Specialty agriculture acres include citrus, sod/turf grass, and row crops.

6. Based on a 100-foot wide buffer along the 194 water body miles bordered by agriculture (determined using GIS; 

total miles account for land use on both sides of water body).

7. Does not include additional livestock water facilities that may be needed.

For septic systems, upgrades to the systems could be needed to reduce nutrient loadings because 

septic systems have the potential to contribute TN and TP loads to nearby waters. Based on 

studies of various advanced septic treatment systems, retrofit costs for upgrading existing septic 

systems to achieve nutrient removal could be in the range of $2,000 to $6,500. There are also 

approximately 34,440 septic systems located in watersheds draining to the potential 

incrementally impaired waters in the South region [based on location data for new and existing 

septic systems in the state (DOH, 2009)]. Thus, assuming that upgrades would be made during 

repair of leaking/failing systems (as discussed in Section 7 of the Attachment #1 to the report) 

and an average failure rate of 3.5%, annual retrofit costs could range from $2.4 million to $7.8 

million.

1.5 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL COSTS

The costs (cost savings) associated with implementation of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria 

include incremental compliance and government resource costs. Exhibit 11 summarizes the

preliminary estimates of compliance costs; actual costs will depend on the procedures for 

assessing waters for compliance and the site-specific source reductions needed to attain the 

criteria. 

Exhibit 11. Preliminary Estimates of Potential Annual Control Costs Under the Proposed Rule 

(2009 dollars)

Source Sector Potential Controls Annual Costs 

(millions per year)

Municipal WWTPs BNR to reduce TN and/or TP $0.9

Industrial and General Dischargers Process optimization/source control $0.1

Urban Storm Water Uncertain Not estimated1

Agriculture2

Nutrient management

Riparian forest buffers

Livestock fencing

$1.1

$0.2

$0.01
January 2010 11

Exhibit 11. Preliminary Estimates of Potential Annual Control Costs Under the Proposed Rule 

(2009 dollars)

Source Sector Potential Controls Annual Costs 

(millions per year)

Septic Systems2 Upgrade to advanced nutrient treatment $2.4 – $7.8

Total $4.7 – $10.1

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

1. Costs are not estimated because the need for incremental controls is uncertain.

2. Represents costs to incrementally impaired watersheds in South region only; we did not estimate the cost of 

controls in the 61 watersheds not in the South region that may potentially be impaired under the proposed rule.

Note that these costs may be underestimated because the nonpoint source controls only represent 

controls on watersheds in the South region; nonpoint controls for 61 watersheds (not in the South 

region) containing potential incrementally impaired waters are not included. 

State resource costs to complete TMDLs for the 190 potential incrementally impaired waters 

could be approximately $0.5 million per year, based on national average costs, assuming a 9-year 

implementation schedule. This estimate does not include the potential cost saving that could be 

associated with waters currently listed as impaired for nutrients that may not exceed the numeric 

criteria, or incremental costs and cost savings associated with completed TMDLs for which the 

current TN and TP targets are higher or lower than the proposed criteria. Also, these costs may

be overestimated because the analysis of incrementally impaired lakes is based on the most 

stringent TN and TP criteria; waters may not actually be impaired where less stringent criteria 

apply. 

In addition to the uncertainties discussed in Section 8.2 of the Attachment to the report, there is 

also uncertainty regarding baseline costs of existing restoration efforts in the Everglades 

Protection Area (located in the South region). For example, extensive agricultural BMPs have 

been implemented in the Everglades Agricultural Area, which has reduced the phosphorus load 

leaving the area; however, this area remains a primary source of pollutants for the Water 

Conservation Areas (USACE and SFWMD, 1999). Water moving south from Lake Okeechobee 

and the Everglades Agricultural Area is pumped into the Water Conservation Areas canals. 

These discharges, in combination with a highly altered hydroperiod, have affected water quality

conditions. Construction of storm water treatment areas upstream of the Water Conservation 

Areas is expected to continue to improve water quality conditions through time (USACE and 

SFWMD, 1999). Thus, in the absence of the proposed criteria, nutrient reductions may be 

achieved as a result of ongoing restoration efforts in the Everglades.

1.6 DOWNSTREAM USE PROTECTION

This section addresses the potential effects that downstream protection criteria values may have 

on the potential control requirements for point and nonpoint sources discharging to inland waters 

upstream of lakes and estuaries. The analysis of controls for point sources does not account for 

any available assimilative capacity of a water body or the mixing conditions of the receiving 

water. As a result, the cost estimates reflect the assumption that all dischargers would have 
January 2010 12

reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards for TN and TP, and thus would receive 

effluent limits based on criteria end-of-pipe (i.e., no dilution) under the proposed rule and 

baseline analysis. Thus, the number of dischargers receiving effluent limits for TN and TP would 

not change as a result of more stringent downstream protection requirements. In addition, the 

need for additional nutrient reduction technologies necessary to meet the applicable criteria is 

based on existing treatment capabilities for WWTPs. Any discharger lacking BNR technologies 

capable of meeting the LOT for TN and/or TP would require treatment upgrades. EPA believes 

that BNR is the most reasonable and best technology for nitrogen and phosphorus removal for 

WWTPs. As such, the analysis of incremental compliance costs for the proposed numeric criteria 

for lakes and flowing waters does not include estimates for additional controls for WWTPs even 

in cases where the applicable criterion is lower than the LOT. If the facilities would receive endof-pipe limits based on criteria below the level of treatment of BNR they would most likely

examine the following alternatives: (1) the lakes criteria adjustment procedure or re-allocation 

procedure of the downstream protection value methodology for estuary protection, (2) sitespecific alternative criteria, (3) restoration standards, (4) variances, or (5) UAAs and resulting 

changes to designated uses. Thus, because the need for any controls beyond BNR for WWTPs is 

not expected, additional point source costs associated with downstream protection requirements 

for WWTPs are likely negligible.

The potential cost of incremental controls for nonpoint sources associated with numeric nutrient 

criteria for lakes and flowing waters is based on identification of waters that would be newly 

impaired under the proposed rule from existing water quality monitoring data. The analysis does 

not reflect the more stringent criteria applicable to certain waters upstream of lakes and estuaries. 

Thus, the number of water body segments identified as incrementally impaired may increase due 

to downstream protection requirements. However, the additional number of impairments 

resulting from downstream protection requirements is likely small compared to the 

approximately 1,330 WBIDs already impaired under the baseline and the potential 190 WBIDs 

identified as incrementally impaired under the proposed rule.

For impaired waters, estimated nonpoint source control costs reflect implementation of controls 

on the largest land use category, agriculture, and upgrades to failing septic systems. The 

agricultural costs include nutrient management on all agricultural acres (regardless of existing 

practices), forest buffers on all agricultural land bordering an incrementally impaired water, and 

fencing on all livestock land bordering an incrementally impaired water. These controls represent 

an aggressive approach to nutrient reduction from agricultural runoff. Thus, these controls costs 

are likely representative of controls needed for instream compliance with downstream use 

requirements. 

For septic system costs, the costs reflect upgrades to failing systems located in incrementally 

impaired watersheds. The cost to upgrade septic systems to advance nutrient removal 

technologies will not likely vary with more stringent criteria. Thus, the difference in septic 

system costs is likely negligible for downstream use requirements.

For urban areas, MS4s are already required to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff to the 

maximum extent practicable. In addition, there are a number of controls being implemented in 

urban areas to reduce nutrients under existing regulations (e.g., Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule). 
January 2010 13

Nutrient reductions achievable through these activities may not be fully realized because 

implementation may not yet be complete. Thus, the need for incremental controls on urban 

sources discharging to incrementally impaired waters as well as waters with downstream 

protection requirements will depend on the concentration of nutrients in runoff after 

implementation of existing storm water control programs, and the loads allocated to urban 

sources in TMDLs under the proposed rule. As such, it is uncertain if controls beyond those 

required under the baseline would be needed for any incrementally impaired water.

2. POTENTIAL BENEFITS

Significant ecological benefits will result from the protection of aquatic life designated uses for 

Florida’s lakes and flowing waters as a result of numeric criteria adoption. The value of 

improved water quality may be divided into withdrawn and instream benefits. In the first case, if 

water is withdrawn from a water body for the water supply, domestic use, irrigation, industrial 

production, or other uses, generally the lower the water quality the higher treatment costs 

incurred to make the water usable. The net economic use benefit of withdrawn water is 

increased with decreased treatment costs. Instream benefits may further be divided into use and 

non-use values. Use values are the values that occur through direct interaction with water. 

These include all types of water based recreation such boating, swimming, fishing, beach going, 

wildlife viewing, etc. Nonuse values are often called existence values and often arise for 

altruistic or moral reasons. In addition, because many inland streams and lakes drain into the 

Everglades and coastal water bodies, and eventually the ocean or Gulf of Mexico, improving 

water quality in streams and lakes will also result in an increase in water quality and therefore 

benefits in the State’s other water bodies.

A rough benefit transfer estimate of mean willingness to pay (WTP) of Florida residents for 

change in fresh water quality may be calculated using the meta-analysis results of Van Houtven, 

Powers, and Pattanayak (2007). Using the Van Houtven et al. parameter estimates and best 

estimates of the values of the explanatory variables, EPA calculated WTP per person and total 

WTP for the incremental water quality improvements provided by moving from Florida’s 

numeric water quality criteria to EPA’s more stringent numeric criteria (this only affects roughly

four percent of waters). Total WTP is simply per person WTP times the population of Florida 

(assumed to be 18,328,340). Results are presented in Exhibit 12 below.

Exhibit 12. WTP for Water Quality Improvements in Lakes and Flowing Water for Moving from 

Florida’s to EPA’s More Strict Criteria

Baseline WQI Per Person

Total

(millions per year)

5.92 $0.34 $2.3 

6.5 $0.36 $2.5 

7 $0.37 $2.6 

WQI = water quality index

WTP = willingness to pay
January 2010 14

Unquantified Benefits. The numbers in Exhibit 12 are underestimates of the total benefits for a 

number of reasons. First, the analysis assumes that the impaired water bodies only attain the 

water quality standard, though some water bodies will attain higher water quality. Many 

unimpaired water bodies will also have reduced loadings as a result of these controls. The 

benefits analysis also reflects only WTP of the population of Florida;, since Florida waters are 

tourist destinations, there are a large number of tourists who are willing to pay for cleaner water 

that are not included in the estimates. In addition benefits may also be provided to a number of 

other sectors that EPA did not quantify in this analysis. These include benefits to:

• The Everglades ecosystem – cleaner source water to the Everglades 

• Agricultural and livestock production

• Commercial fishing

• Reduced need for treatment of drinking water source water

• Ecosystem biodiversity and habitat protection

• Industrial users of source water.
ATTACHMENT 1
January 2010 i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background.................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Scope of the Analysis................................................................................................... 1-1

2. The “Narrative” Baseline Analysis...................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Waters Covered by the FDEP’s Draft Criteria ............................................................ 2-1

2.2 Current Water Quality Standards................................................................................. 2-1

2.2.1 Water Quality Criteria.......................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.2 Implementation in Point Source Permits ............................................................. 2-2

2.2.3 CWA Section 303(d) Listing Procedures ............................................................ 2-2

2.3 Existing Sources of Nutrients ...................................................................................... 2-3

2.3.1 Wastewater Point Sources.................................................................................... 2-3

2.3.2 Storm Water......................................................................................................... 2-5

2.3.3 Agriculture ........................................................................................................... 2-5

2.3.4 Septic Systems..................................................................................................... 2-5

2.3.5 Atmospheric Deposition ...................................................................................... 2-5

2.3.6 Legacy Sources.................................................................................................... 2-6

2.4 Framework for Addressing Sources of Nutrients ........................................................ 2-6

2.4.1 Wastewater Point Sources.................................................................................... 2-6

2.4.2 Storm Water......................................................................................................... 2-6

2.4.3 Agriculture ........................................................................................................... 2-7

2.4.4 Septic Systems..................................................................................................... 2-8

2.4.5 Atmospheric Deposition ...................................................................................... 2-9

2.4.6 Legacy Sources.................................................................................................... 2-9

2.5 Current Water Quality.................................................................................................. 2-9

2.5.1 Nutrient-Impaired Waters.................................................................................. 2-10

2.5.2 Nutrient TMDLs ................................................................................................ 2-10

2.5.3 Nutrient TMDL Implementation.......................................................................... 2-1

3. Assessing Incremental Impairments Associated with Implementation of FDEP’s Draft 

Numeric Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Incremental Impairments............................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Incremental TMDLs..................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3 Existing CWA Section 303(d) List.............................................................................. 3-7

3.4 Existing TMDLs .......................................................................................................... 3-7

4. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater.................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Municipal Wastewater Sources.................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Reasonable Potential............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.2 Water Quality Based Effluent Limits .................................................................. 4-2

4.1.3 Potential Controls................................................................................................. 4-2

4.1.4 Potential Affected Sources................................................................................... 4-4

4.1.5 Potential Control Costs........................................................................................ 4-5

4.2 Industrial Wastewater Sources..................................................................................... 4-7

5. Urban Storm Water.............................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 5-1
January 2010 ii

5.2 Potential Controls......................................................................................................... 5-1

6. Agriculture ........................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Potential Controls......................................................................................................... 6-3

6.3 Potential Costs ............................................................................................................. 6-3

6.3.1 Nutrient Management .......................................................................................... 6-4

6.3.2 Forest Buffers....................................................................................................... 6-4

6.3.3 Fencing................................................................................................................. 6-5

7. Septic Systems..................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Potential Controls......................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Potential Costs ............................................................................................................. 7-1

8. Summary.............................................................................................................................. 8-1

8.1 Potential Costs ............................................................................................................. 8-1

8.2 Uncertainties of the Analysis....................................................................................... 8-1

9. References............................................................................................................................ 9-1

Appendix A. Municipal WWTP Cost Estimates.................................................................. A-1
January 2010 iii

List of Exhibits

Exhibit ES-1. May 2009 Draft FDEP Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Streams in 

Florida ............................................................................................................................... ES-2

Exhibit ES-2. Summary of Florida Waters............................................................................... ES-2

Exhibit ES-3. Summary of Dischargers in Florida Potentially Affected by the FDEP 

Proposal............................................................................................................................. ES-3

Exhibit ES-4. Incrementally Impaired Lakes in Florida........................................................... ES-5

Exhibit ES-5. Incrementally Impaired Streams in Florida........................................................ ES-6

Exhibit ES-6. Treatment Level and Costs for Municipal WWTPs........................................... ES-8

Exhibit ES-7. Potential Costs for Agricultural BMPs on Incrementally Impaired Waters .... ES-10

Exhibit ES-8. Preliminary Estimates of Potential Annual Control Costs Associated with Numeric

Nutrient Criteria (2009 dollars) ...................................................................................... ES-12

Exhibit 1-1. FDEP May 2009 Draft Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Streams in 

Florida .................................................................................................................................. 1-1

Exhibit 1-2. Clear and Colored Lakes in Florida......................................................................... 1-3

Exhibit 1-3. Nutrient Criteria Regions for Streams in Florida..................................................... 1-4

Exhibit 2-1. Summary of Florida Waters..................................................................................... 2-1

Exhibit 2-2. NPDES Dischargers with Numeric Effluent Limits for Nitrogen and Phosphorus. 2-4

Exhibit 2-3. Summary of Dischargers in Florida Potentially Affected by the FDEP’s Draft 

Criteria1................................................................................................................................ 2-4

Exhibit 2-4. Summary of CWA Section 303(d) Listed Impairments for Nutrients in Florida1. 2-10

Exhibit 2-5. Summary of Nutrient-Related TMDLs for Lake and Rivers in Florida ................ 2-10

Exhibit 2-6. Baseline Impairments for Lakes in Florida............................................................ 2-13

Exhibit 2-7. Baseline Impairments for Streams in Florida ........................................................ 2-14

Exhibit 2-8. Summary of Land Use for Baseline Impairments ................................................... 2-1

Exhibit 3-1. Incrementally Impaired Lakes in Florida................................................................. 3-2

Exhibit 3-2. Incrementally Impaired Streams in Florida ............................................................. 3-3

Exhibit 3-3. Summary of Identification of Potential Incrementally Impaired Waters ................ 3-4

Exhibit 3-4. Summary of Land Use for Potential Incrementally Impaired Waters..................... 3-4

Exhibit 3-5. Density Distribution of Septic Systems near Potential Incrementally Impaired 

Waters.................................................................................................................................. 3-5

Exhibit 3-6. Summary of Data Analysis for Existing CWA Section 303(d) List WBIDs........... 3-7

Exhibit 3-7. Comparison of FDEP Draft Numeric Nutrient Criteria to Existing TMDL Targets3-8

Exhibit 4-1. Comparison of Common BNR Configurations ....................................................... 4-3

Exhibit 4-2. Treatment Level for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants................................ 4-5

Exhibit 4-3. BNR Retrofit Capital and O&M Unit Costs (2009 dollars) .................................... 4-6

Exhibit 4-4. Treatment Level and Costs for Municipal WWTPs................................................ 4-7

Exhibit 5-1. Map of Urban Land Surrounding Potential Incrementally Impaired Waters .......... 5-2

Exhibit 6-1. Agriculture Land Use Area Surrounding Incrementally Impaired Waters.............. 6-1

Exhibit 6-2. Point Sources with Potential to Discharge Nutrients and Incrementally Impaired 

Waters.................................................................................................................................. 6-2

Exhibit 7-1. Average Statewide Septic Tank Failure Rate .......................................................... 7-1

Exhibit 8-1. Preliminary Estimates of Potential Annual Control Costs Associated with FDEP’s 

Draft Numeric Nutrient Criteria (2009 dollars)................................................................... 8-1

Exhibit 8-2. Uncertainties of the Analysis................................................................................... 8-2
January 2010 iv
January 2010 v

Acronyms and Abbreviations

A

2

/O Anaerobic-anoxic oxidation

BMAP Basin Management Action Plan

BMP Best management practice

BNR Biological nutrient removal

CAFO Confined animal feeding operation

cfs Cubic feet per second

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CSP Conservation Stewardship Program 

CTA Conservation Technical Assistance 

CWA Clean Water Act

DACS Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

DOH Department of Health

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentive Program

F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FDOH Florida Department of Health

F.S. Florida Statutes

GLCI Grazing Land Conservation Initiative

HUC Hydrologic units

IWR Impaired Waters Rule

LOT Limit of technology

LSJR Lower St. Johns River

MLE Modified Ludzack-Ettinger

MS4 Municipal separate storm sewer system

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

O&M Operation and maintenance

OSTDS Onsite sewage treatment and disposal system

PCS Permit compliance system

Pt-Co Platinum cobalt units

RA Reasonable assurance

RBC Rotating biological contactor

RP Reasonable potential

SBR Sequencing batch reactor

SCR Selective catalytic reduction

SJWMD St. Johns Water Management District

TMDL Total maximum daily load

TN Total nitrogen

TP Total phosphorus

TSD Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control

TSI Trophic state index

UCT University of Cape Town
January 2010 vi

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

WAFR Wastewater facility regulation

WBID Water body identification

WQBEL Water quality-based effluent limit

WQS Water quality standards

WWTP Wastewater treatment plant

 
January 2010 Executive Summary ES-1

Executive Summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing numeric nutrient criteria for 

lakes and flowing waters throughout the state as well as waters upstream of estuaries to protect 

downstream uses. The incremental costs (cost savings) that may be associated with the proposed 

rule include compliance and government regulatory expenditures above and beyond those costs 

that would be incurred in the absence of the proposal (i.e., baseline costs).

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) published draft changes to its 

water quality standards (WQS) in July 2009 (Chapters 62-302 and 62-303) with plans to submit 

its numeric nutrient criteria to the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission by 2011 (State 

of Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development Plan, March 2009). Thus, these WQS changes 

represent baseline requirements because they are likely to be implemented in the absence of the 

proposed rule; any costs associated with these changes are not included in the estimate of 

potential costs of the proposed rule herein. 

This report provides the analysis of the potential baseline costs for achieving the criteria 

developed by FDEP. In developing its proposed rule, EPA revised its numeric nutrient criteria 

after the preliminary analysis of potential costs was completed based on criteria representative of 

FDEP’s draft WQS changes (Chapters 62-302 and 62-303). Any reference to “proposed rule” or 

“proposed numeric nutrient criteria” in this report is representative of FDEP’s draft WQS 

changes and does not represent EPA’s proposal. 

Introduction

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to adopt WQS for waters of the United States within 

their applicable jurisdictions. Federal regulations specify that WQS include the designated use or 

uses to be made of the waters and the criteria necessary to protect those uses. Water quality

criteria must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use.

Under the CWA, EPA reviews state WQS, and promulgates WQS to supersede state standards 

that it has disapproved or in cases where it determines that a new or revised standard is needed to 

meet CWA requirements. Florida currently uses a narrative nutrient standard to guide the 

management and protection of its waters. This narrative is, in brief, that “in no case shall nutrient 

concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of 

flora or fauna.” In January of 2009, EPA determined that new or revised WQS for nutrients in 

the form of numeric nutrient criteria are necessary in the state of Florida to meet the 

requirements of the CWA. 

In May 2009, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) drafted a proposed 

rule to establish numeric water quality criteria for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) 

applicable to lakes and flowing waters in defined regions within Florida (Exhibit ES-1). These 

numeric criteria are intended to ensure that there are no imbalances in the natural population of 

flora and fauna in Florida’s lakes and flowing waters. State implementation of these criteria may

result in new or revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

conditions for point source dischargers, and requirements for nutrient treatment controls on other 
January 2010 Executive Summary ES-2

sources (e.g., agriculture, urban runoff, septic systems). There may also be implications for state 

fiscal resources associated with meeting CWA requirements for impaired waters.

Exhibit ES-1. May 2009 Draft FDEP Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Streams in Florida

Region/Type of Water TN Criteria mg/L TP Criteria mg/L

Clear Lakes1 0.6 0.015

Colored Lakes1 1.66 0.089

Panhandle Rivers and Streams 0.82 0.069

Northeast Rivers and Streams 1.72 0.101

North Central Rivers and Streams 1.72 0.359

Peninsula Rivers and Streams 1.72 0.119

Bone Valley Rivers and Streams 1.72 0.75

mg/L = milligrams per liter

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

Pt-Co = platinum-cobalt

1. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009a) indicates color >40 Pt-Co is a colored lake; color <40 PtCo is a clear lake.

This analysis provides estimates of the potential compliance and state resource costs that may be 

associated with the FDEP rule. The potential for incremental impairments and associated control 

costs (cost savings) described in this report is based on existing data and nutrient-related total 

maximum daily load (TMDL) efforts in Florida to date. The analysis methods also reflect a 

number of simplifying assumptions necessary under time and resource limitations. As such, the 

estimates are preliminary in nature.

Baseline for the Analysis

Exhibit ES-2 summarizes the size and number of water body types [designated by water body 

identification (WBID) numbers] in Florida. The proposed numeric nutrient criteria are applicable 

to all lakes (1,305 WBIDs) and flowing waters not in South Florida (streams and blackwater; 

3,784 WBIDs).

Exhibit ES-2. Summary of Florida Waters

Water Body Type Number of WBIDs Miles of Water Acres of Water

Beach 346 0.71 87,893

Blackwater 77 1,648 -

Coastal 154 - 4,287,380

Estuary 573 313 4,180,390

Lake 1,305 18 1,454,542

Spring 124 176 -

Stream, Excluding South Florida Streams1 3,707 19,296 167,076

South Florida Stream 108 2,588 1,944

Total2 6,397 24,039 10,179,225

Source: FGDL (2009). 

WBID = water body identification

1. Excludes mileage/acreage for one WBID for which the units are not specified.

2. Excludes three WBIDs for which the water body type and the mileage/acreage units are not specified.
January 2010 Executive Summary ES-3

Florida currently uses a narrative nutrient standard to guide the management and protection of its 

waters. Chapter 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), states that “in no case shall 

nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural 

populations of flora or fauna.” The narrative criteria also state that (for all waters of the state) 

“the discharge of nutrients shall continue to be limited as needed to prevent violations of other 

standards contained in this chapter (Chapter 62-302, F.A.C.). Man-induced nutrient enrichment 

(total nitrogen or total phosphorus) shall be considered degradation in relation to the provisions 

of Sections 62-302.300, 62-302.700, and 62-4.242, F.A.C.”

Sources of nutrient pollution to lakes and streams in Florida include current discharges from 

wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), industries, agriculture, urban areas, and septic systems, 

as well as legacy sources left behind from past land uses and loadings (e.g., phosphorus 

accumulated in soil and sediments). Exhibit ES-3 summarizes the number of NPDES-permitted 

wastewater dischargers in Florida likely to discharge nutrients to lakes and streams. Permits for 

these dischargers may contain limits on nitrogen and phosphorus.

Exhibit ES-3. Summary of Dischargers in Florida Potentially Affected by the FDEP Proposal1

Discharger Category Major Dischargers Minor Dischargers Total

Municipal Wastewater 47 47 94

Industrial Wastewater2 49 42 91

General Permits3 0 23 23

Total 96 112 208

Source: U.S. EPA (2009b).

SIC = Standard Industrial Classification

TMDL = total maximum daily load

1. Excludes dischargers to oceans, estuaries, bayous, wetlands, and South Florida streams (identified based on 

receiving water body name and information contained in TMDLs, permits, and laboratory reports).

2. Includes dischargers in SIC codes 1475, 1479, 2015, 2033, 2082, 2085, 2611, 2873, 2874, 2879, 2892, 3699, 

4011, 4911, 4941, 7996, and 9999, based on the existence of limits for nitrogen (e.g., total nitrogen, ammonia, 

nitrate, nitrite) and phosphorus for dischargers in these industries throughout the state.

3. Includes dischargers in SIC codes of 2813, 2874, and 2875. 

There are 28 large and 131 small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) in Florida. 

MS4 permits require control of nutrient discharges to the maximum extent practicable. A 

statewide regulation limiting the phosphorus and nitrogen content in fertilizers for urban turf and 

lawns also becomes fully effective in 2009. 

There are 47,463 farms and 9.2 million acres of farmland in Florida. The Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) defines best management practices (BMPs) for 

agricultural sources of nutrients. However, implementation is voluntary or in conjunction with 

areawide management plans. Similarly, efforts to reduce loadings from septic and legacy sources 

are site-specific.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) uses a trophic state index (TSI) and 

chlorophyll-a concentrations, among other information, to assess nutrient impairment of lakes 
January 2010 Executive Summary ES-4

and flowing waters. FDEP has included 145 lake and 136 stream water body identification 

(WBID) labels on the state CWA Section 303(d) list as impaired for nutrients. There are also 141 

impairments for dissolved oxygen and 1 for biochemical oxygen demand that are not also 

impaired for nutrients; TMDLs for these impairments typically limit TN and/or TP 

concentrations as means of achieving the targets. 

FDEP develops Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) to implement TMDLs. There are 

four existing BMAPs addressing nutrient impairments. BMAPs generally require low effluent 

concentrations of nutrients from point sources. As a result, some municipal wastewater sources 

already employ nutrient reduction technologies and achieve effluent concentrations in the range 

of current limits of technology. Existing BMAPs primarily rely on voluntary implementation of 

BMPs by farmers. However, Florida Statutes require that nonpoint pollutant sources (such as 

agriculture) be included in a BMAP to demonstrate compliance with pollutant reductions 

established to meet a TMDL either by implementing BMPs or by conducting water quality 

monitoring. 

Incremental Impairments and TMDL Development Costs

Incrementally impaired waters are those waters exceeding the numeric nutrient criteria that the 

state has not already determined to be impaired under the current narrative nutrient criteria (i.e., 

waters on the state’s CWA Section 303(d) list for nutrient impairments or for which FDEP or 

EPA has adopted or proposed a TMDL). FDEP will need to develop and implement TMDLs for 

any waters added to the state’s list of impaired waters as a result of the numeric criteria. Based 

on the last 5 years of available data and a 10% exceedance rate for listing, an additional 335 lake 

and 638 stream (973 total) WBIDs may exceed the proposed criteria for TN and/or TP. Exhibits 

ES-4 and ES-5 show the potential incremental impairments. 

Existing nutrient-related TMDLs in Florida address an average of two WBIDs each. Thus, FDEP

may need to develop and adopt 486 additional nutrient TMDLs. Based on national averages 

(U.S. EPA, 2001), per TMDL costs may be in the range of $34,000 total to address both nitrogen 

and phosphorus; total costs could be approximately $16 million. Currently, FDEP operates its 

TMDL schedule based on a five-phase cycle that rotates through the five basins over five years. 

Under this schedule, completion of TMDLs for high priority waters will take 9 years; it will take 

an additional 9 years to complete the process for medium priority waters. If all of these 

incremental impairments are high priority and FDEP develops the new TMDLs over a 9-year 

period schedule cycle, annual costs would be $1.8 million.

There are also 39 WBIDs for which TN and TP concentration data are available on the current 

CWA Section 303(d) list that do not exceed FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria. However, 

FDEP currently lists waters as impaired for nutrients based on a combination of TSI, 

chlorophyll-a concentrations, and information indicating nutrient enrichment. Thus, it is unclear 

whether it would delist waters currently on the CWA Section 303(d) list if instream TN and TP 

data indicate compliance with the numeric nutrient criteria. Similarly, the need to revise existing 

TMDLs that reflect more or less stringent targets than the numeric criteria is uncertain because

the existing targets are based on site-specific modeling.
January 2010 Executive Summary ES-5

Exhibit ES-4. Incrementally Impaired Lakes in Florida
January 2010 Executive Summary ES-6

Exhibit ES-5. Incrementally Impaired Streams in Florida
January 2010 Executive Summary ES-7

Wastewater Point Sources

NPDES permitting authorities determine the need for water quality-based effluent limits 

(WQBELs) for point sources based on analysis of reasonable potential (RP) to exceed the water 

quality criteria. FDEP generally follows the procedures in EPA’s (1991) Technical Support 

Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (TSD) for other pollutants with numeric 

criteria. 

Medium to high strength untreated domestic wastewater typically contains 40 mg/L to 70 mg/L 

of TN and 7 mg/L to 12 mg/L of TP (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). Effluent concentrations depend 

on treatment controls. For example, activated sludge with single stage nitrification results in 

typical TN concentrations of 20 mg/L to 30 mg/L and TP concentrations of 6 mg/L to 10 mg/L 

(Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). For biological nutrient removal (BNR), the limits of technology

(LOT) for TN and TP are 3 mg/L and 0.1 mg/L, respectively, although certain dischargers may

be able to produce effluent concentrations below these levels (Jeyanayagam, 2005). All of the 

proposed TN criteria are below the LOT. Proposed TP criteria for flowing waters are at or below 

the LOT in three of the five regions; proposed TP criteria for lakes are below the LOT. 

Site-specific data such as instream nutrient concentrations and low flow conditions would be 

needed to determine RP for each facility. However, because most WWTPs are likely to discharge 

nutrients at concentrations above applicable criteria and over 80% of WWTPs are discharging to 

impaired waters [based on geographic information systems (GIS) overlay of WWTP locations 

with waters impaired under the baseline and the proposed rule], for a preliminary estimate of 

costs we assumed that all WWTPs would have RP under the proposed numeric nutrient criteria.

Based on TSD procedures, any discharger with RP should get WQBELs which would take into 

account dilution, if available. However, due to a lack of receiving water low flow and other sitespecific data, we assumed the criteria would be applied end-of-pipe (i.e., no dilution). Applying 

criteria end-of-pipe would also prevent a discharger from causing a new impairment in a water 

body. 

There is one municipal WWTP with TN limits more stringent than the proposed criterion. Thus, 

only controls to reduce TP would be necessary. In addition, there are several WWTPs already 

operating BNR processes capable of achieving the proposed criteria (or LOT where the criterion 

is below the LOT). For example, dischargers operating treatment processes that remove both TN 

and TP to the LOT [e.g., anaerobic-anoxic oxidation (A2/O), modified Bardenpho, modified 

University of Cape Town (UCT), oxidation ditches or other BNR coupled with chemical 

precipitation) would likely be in compliance with WQBELs based on numeric nutrient criteria. 

Dischargers operating treatment processes that remove only TN to the LOT [e.g., modified 

Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) and four-stage Bardenpho processes) or TP to the LOT (e.g., chemical 

precipitation without BNR) would likely be in compliance with WQBELs based on numeric 

criteria for TN and TP, respectively. Municipal WWTPs without these configurations or those 

not operating BNR would likely need to retrofit or expand existing treatment to reduce nutrients 

to the necessary levels. 
January 2010 Executive Summary ES-8

EPA (2008) provides unit cost estimates for BNR retrofits and upgrades for various TN and TP 

performance levels. Exhibit ES-6 summarizes the average costs that may be applicable to 

dischargers in Florida.

Exhibit ES-6. Treatment Level and Costs for Municipal WWTPs

Existing Treatment 

Level Nutrient Region/Lake Type Proposed Treatment Level

Capital 

Cost O&M Cost

No LOT

Bone Valley or North Central TN <3 mg/L; TP <0.5 mg/L $3.09 $273

Clear or Colored lakes, Panhandle, 

Northeast, and Peninsula TN <3 mg/L; TP <0.1 mg/L $1.06 $325

LOT for TN only

Bone Valley or North Central TP <0.5 mg/L $0.23 $44

Clear or Colored lakes, Panhandle, 

Northeast, and Peninsula TP <0.1 mg/L $0.41 $173

LOT for TP only All TN <3 mg/L $0.68 $101

LOT for TN and TP All None No costs No costs

LOT = limit of technology

mg/L = millgrams per liter

O&M = operation and maintenance

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WWTP = wastewater treatment plants

If the average costs shown in the exhibit are indicative of those that similar facilities in Florida

would incur to retrofit existing treatment trains to achieve the LOT for TN and TP, total capital 

costs could be approximately $252 million for majors and $48 million for minors. Operation and 

maintenance (O&M) costs could be approximately $19 million for majors and $5 million for 

minors. Annual costs would be approximately $43 million for majors and $9 million for minors 

(annualized capital at 7% over 20 years plus annual O&M costs). These estimates reflect the 

average unit costs multiplied by total flows. Total flows do not include three master reuse 

systems classified as municipal WWTPs. These systems receive inflow from several WWTPs 

which are treating to the LOT; thus, any discharges to surface waters from the master reuse 

systems should meet numeric nutrient criteria.

Treatment to reduce nutrient levels from industrial sources is site-specific and varies based on 

process operations, existing treatment train, and composition of waste streams. In most cases, it 

is more cost effective for industrial dischargers to control the source of nutrients in the effluent 

through best management practices (BMPs), product substitution, process modifications, or 

process optimization than to treat the entire effluent prior to discharge. Given the range of 

industrial categories with potential to discharge nutrients in Florida, needed measures and costs, 

if any, will be highly site specific. However, to illustrate the potential magnitude of costs, if 

dischargers spend an average of $25,000 per year on source control and process optimization to 

reduce nutrient loads, total annual costs to industrial and general-permitted dischargers would be 

$2.9 million.

Urban Runoff

Urban land use (excluding categories such as industrial, which are covered under municipal and 

industrial wastewater) accounts for 10% of the land use in 12-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUCs)
January 2010 Executive Summary ES-9

surrounding the potential incrementally impaired waters. Approximately, 2% is high density 

residential, 4% is medium density, 4% is low density, and less than 1% is other urban (e.g., 

recreational facilities). 

Under existing regulations, NPDES permits for MS4s require implementation of BMPs to the 

maximum extent practicable (MEP), and do not typically contain numeric effluent limits. In fact, 

EPA’s PCS database indicates that none of the MS4s in Florida have numeric effluent limits. 

While states have the authority to include numeric limits in MS4 permits, most rely solely on 

implementation of BMPs. Thus, specific changes in the form of numeric effluent limits to MS4 

permits conditions as a result of numeric nutrient criteria are unlikely.

Nonetheless, incremental controls could be required from urban areas through the TMDL and 

BMAP processes. However, if existing concentration data (e.g., Harper and Baker, 2007) does 

not reflect complete implementation of baseline permit requirements and recent regulations (e.g., 

Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule), existing TMDLs and BMAPs may not be indicative of the 

reductions and controls needed in incrementally impaired waters. Thus, the need for incremental 

controls on urban sources will depend on the concentration of nutrients in runoff after 

implementation of existing storm water control program, and the loads allocated to urban sources 

in TMDLs for the potential incrementally impaired waters. Preliminarily, it is uncertain if 

controls beyond those required under the baseline would be needed for the incrementally 

impaired waters to meet the numeric criteria.

Agriculture

The distribution of point sources (including MS4s) in relation to the incrementally impaired 

waters suggests that controls on nonpoint sources, such as agriculture, would be needed to meet 

the FDEP numeric nutrient criteria. In a number of areas, there are no or few point source 

dischargers. In other areas, the flow from point sources may not be significant and nutrient 

sources to the water body may be dominated by nonpoint sources.

Agricultural use accounts for more than 40% of the land use in HUCs surrounding the potential 

incrementally impaired waters. Agricultural discharges in Florida do not receive discharge 

permits. However, numeric nutrient criteria may affect these dischargers through the TMDL and 

BMAP processes. Under a TMDL, site-specific modeling of controls would be needed to 

identify the extent and most cost-effective mix of agricultural practices to attain needed 

reductions from agricultural land. 

Nonetheless, nutrient management may be a cost-effective practice given the potential to reduce 

fertilizer costs. However, in areas where large reductions from agricultural sources are needed, 

nutrient management alone would not likely be sufficient to reduce nutrients to levels necessary. 

For example, SWET (2008a) indicates that nutrient management would result in typical TN and 

TP reductions ranging from 1% to 30% in the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River watersheds, 

depending on the type of farm. Thus, additional BMPs could be needed. 

Farming may occur right up to the edge of the stream. Riparian buffers along receiving waters 

provide vegetation to remove nutrients and other pollutants from surface and subsurface lateral 
January 2010 Executive Summary ES-10

flows (USDA, 1998). Environmental Defense (2003) reports that based on available studies, the 

optimal buffer width (whether grass or forest) for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment is 

15 to 30 meters (50 to 100 feet) for gently sloped areas; studies show that trapping or removal 

efficiency does not increase for wider buffers. Based on studies reviewed by Wenger (1999), in 

gently sloping areas (e.g., 0-10% slopes), 100-foot riparian buffers remove over 80% of 

phosphorus and nitrogen. Thus, buffers may provide sufficient reductions from agricultural lands 

in watersheds draining to incrementally impaired waters. However, to be effective in reducing 

nutrients from agricultural discharges, riparian buffers would likely need to be forested because 

grass buffers are often limited in nutrient uptake (Durham, 2003). 

Land use in the incrementally impaired WBIDs includes livestock and dairy operations. Existing 

federal regulations and strategies address manure handling and application on animal feedlots. 

However, animals still have access to streams (SWET, 2006). Fencing of incrementally impaired 

receiving waters would provide incremental reductions in nutrients by keeping animals out of 

streams.

The costs of practices to reduce nutrients in runoff from agricultural sources may include capital 

and O&M expenditures, and lost revenue for practices that take land out of production. Two 

statewide programs provide estimates of these costs. Florida’s Environmental Quality Incentive 

Program (EQIP) provides 100% cost share payments for the installation of BMPs (FL EQIP, 

2009a). The payment amounts reflect statewide average costs of implementing the practices on a 

scale and scope typical in Florida (personal communication with J. Bartine, USDA NRCS 

Florida State Office, July 2009). Payments for nonstructural practices reflect a one year practice 

lifespan (e.g., one year of rotating crop, maintaining records). These payments do not include 

compensation for practices that take land out of production (FL EQIP, 2009b). However, CREP 

provides rental payments, cost-share assistance, and other financial incentives to encourage 

producers to voluntarily enroll in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts. The average 

rental payment in Florida as of June 2009 is approximately $39 per acre (USDS FSA, 2009).

Exhibit ES-7 summarizes the potential costs of implementing nutrient management, forest 

buffers, and livestock fencing in the incrementally impaired watersheds.

Exhibit ES-7. Potential Costs for Agricultural BMPs on Incrementally Impaired Waters

Practice Acres/Feet1 Unit Cost2

Total Cost 

(millions)

Annual Cost 

(millions)3

Nutrient Management –

General Agriculture 3.8 million acres $10/acre $37.6 $14.3

Nutrient Management –

Specialty Crop 1.8 million acres $20/acre $35.7 $13.6

Forest Buffers 75,200 acres4 $350/acre $26.3 $2.1

Land Rental for Forest 

Buffers 75,200 acres4 $39/acre/year NA $2.9

Livestock Fencing 11.8 million linear feet $1.13/linear foot5 $13.3 $1.9
January 2010 Executive Summary ES-11

Exhibit ES-7. Potential Costs for Agricultural BMPs on Incrementally Impaired Waters

Practice Acres/Feet1 Unit Cost2

Total Cost 

(millions)

Annual Cost 

(millions)3

BMPs = best management practices

GIS = geographic information system

NA = not applicable

O&M = operation and maintenance

1. Estimated from GIS overlay of land use and incrementally impaired watersheds.

2. Unit costs for nutrient management, forest buffers, and livestock fencing from FL EQIP (2009a); unit costs for 

land rental payment for forest buffers from USDS FSA (2009).

3. Nutrient management costs annualized at 7% over 3 years, forest buffer costs annualized as 7% over 30 years, 

and livestock fencing annualized at 7% over 10 years, and no O&M costs for any of the practices.

4. Based on a 100-foot wide buffer along the 6,200 water body miles bordered by agriculture (determined using 

GIS; total miles account for land use on both sides of a stream and lake perimeter).

5. Does not include additional livestock water facilities that may be needed.

Septic Systems

Discharges from septic systems in Florida do not receive surface water discharge permits. 

However, numeric nutrient criteria may affect these systems through the TMDL and BMAP 

processes. Most of the existing nutrient-related TMDLs identify failing septic systems as sources 

of nutrients to surface waters; properly operated and maintained systems should provide 

equivalent to secondary wastewater treatment. For TMDLs in which septic systems are a 

potentially significant source, FDEP usually calculates the pollutant load based on the estimated 

septic tank failure rate. For example, in the Wekiva Lake Nutrient TMDL, the failure rate is 

calculated based on the total number of new septic installations in the county divided by the 

number of repair permits for each year. FDEP refers to the repair rate as the failure discovery

rate. FDEP uses a septic tank failure rate of five times the discovery rate because it takes an 

average of five years for homeowners to discover a septic tank failure. 

Based on FDEP’s method, the average statewide failure rate (from 2000 to 2008) is 

approximately 3.5% (DOH, 2008). Repairing a leaking septic tank would be necessary despite 

numeric nutrient criteria. However, upgrades to the system could be needed to reduce nutrient 

loadings to necessary levels for compliance with numeric TN and TP criteria. 

Based on studies of various advanced septic treatment systems, retrofit costs for upgrading 

existing septic systems to achieve nutrient removal could be in the range of $2,000 to $6,500. 

Based on location data for new and existing septic systems in the state (DOH, 2009), the number 

of systems in watersheds draining to the potential incrementally impaired waters is 

approximately 177,200. Using the average failure rate of 3.5%, annual retrofit costs could range 

from $12.4 million to $40.2 million.

Summary

The costs (cost savings) associated with implementation of FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient 

criteria for lakes and flowing rivers in Florida include incremental compliance and government 

resource costs. Exhibit ES-8 summarizes the preliminary or illustrative estimates of compliance

costs; actual costs will depend on the procedures for assessing waters for compliance, and the 
January 2010 Executive Summary ES-12

site-specific source reductions needed to attain the criteria. Some of these costs could also be 

incurred absent the rule if the existing impaired waters list is not inclusive of all waters that 

exceed the current narrative nutrient criteria.

Exhibit ES-8. Preliminary Estimates of Potential Annual Control Costs Associated with Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria (2009 dollars)

Source Sector Potential Controls Annual Costs (millions)

Major Municipal WWTPs BNR to reduce TN and/or TP $42.7

Minor Municipal WWTPs BNR to reduce TN and/or TP $9.3

Industrial Dischargers Process optimization/source control $2.3

General Dischargers Process optimization/source control $0.6

Urban Storm Water Uncertain Not estimated1

Agriculture

Nutrient management

Riparian forest buffers

Livestock fencing

$27.9

$5.1

$1.9

Septic Systems Upgrade to advanced nutrient treatment $12.4 – $40.2

Total $102.1 – $130.0

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

1. Costs are not estimated because the need for incremental controls is uncertain.

In addition, state resource costs to complete TMDLs for the 973 potential incrementally impaired 

waters could be approximately $2.5 million per year, based on national average costs, assuming 

a 9-year implementation schedule. This estimate does not include the potential cost saving that 

could be associated with the 39 waters currently listed as impaired for nutrients that may not 

exceed the numeric criteria, or incremental costs and cost savings associated with completed 

TMDLs for which the current TN and TP targets are higher or lower than the proposed criteria.

The preliminary estimates of potential incremental costs associated with FDEP’s draft numeric 

nutrient criteria for lakes and free flowing waters in Florida are based on a number of 

assumptions that may over- or underestimate actual costs. For example, the bulk of the 

preliminary estimates of total cost are BNR costs for municipal wastewater. However, there are 

currently no implementation procedures for translating the proposed numeric criteria into 

WQBELs. The costs represent implementation of treatment that achieves LOT for TN and TP at 

all municipal WWTPs, regardless of impairment status. Thus, if less stringent requirements are 

implemented, control costs could be lower.

The nonpoint source costs are driven by the identification of potential incrementally impaired 

waters which is based on the existing state CWA Section 303(d) list for nutrients and adopted 

TMDLs. However, this analysis does not account for those waters that may be impaired under 

the narrative criteria but are not yet on the state’s CWA Section 303(d) list. The identification of 

potential incrementally impaired water is also based on 10% of data exceeding the applicable 

criteria. This convention may or may not approximate the number of impairments based on any 

yet to be determined listing method.
January 2010 1. Introduction 1-1

1. Introduction

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) published draft numeric water 

quality standards (WQS) for nutrients applicable to freshwater lakes and flowing waters in the 

state of Florida. This report provides a preliminary assessment of the potential costs that may be 

associated with state implementation of the WQS.

1.1 Background

Exhibit 1-1 summarizes the draft May 2009 numeric criteria for total nitrogen (TN) and total 

phosphorus (TP) based on color for lakes and region for streams.

Exhibit 1-1. FDEP May 2009 Draft Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Streams in Florida

Region/Type of Water TN Criteria mg/L TP Criteria mg/L

Clear Lakes1 0.6 0.015

Colored Lakes1 1.66 0.089

Panhandle Rivers and Streams 0.82 0.069

Northeast Rivers and Streams 1.72 0.101

North Central Rivers and Streams 1.72 0.359

Peninsula Rivers and Streams 1.72 0.119

Bone Valley Rivers and Streams 1.72 0.75

mg/L = milligrams per liter

Pt-Co = platinum-cobalt

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

1. FDEP (2009a) indicates color >40 Pt-Co is a colored lake; color <40 Pt-Co is a clear lake.

Exhibits 1-2 and 1-3 show the applicability of the proposed criteria for lakes and streams, 

respectively.

1.2 Scope of the Analysis

This analysis provides a baseline of State costs for implementing proposed numeric criteria that 

FDEP drafted in May 2009. EPA subsequently produced an incremental estimate of costs for a 

proposed EPA rule, which is summarized in the body of the report.

The FDEP draft rule establishes water quality criteria applicable to lakes and flowing waters in 

defined regions within Florida. State implementation may result in new or revised National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions for point source 

dischargers, and requirements for nutrient treatment controls on other sources (e.g., agriculture, 

urban runoff, septic systems). The purpose of this analysis is to provide an estimate (within the 

limits of these uncertainties) of the potential costs that may ultimately be associated with FDEP’s 

numeric criteria. Actual costs will depend on the particular implementation strategy pursued by 

the state.

The potential for incremental impairments and associated control costs (cost savings) described 

in this report is based on existing data and nutrient-related total maximum daily load (TMDL) 
January 2010 1. Introduction 1-2

efforts in Florida to date. The analysis methods also reflect a number of simplifying assumptions 

necessary due to a lack of site-specific data and specific implementation procedures. As such, the 

estimates are preliminary in nature.
January 2010 1. Introduction 1-3

Exhibit 1-2. Clear and Colored Lakes in Florida
January 2010 1. Introduction 1-4

Exhibit 1-3. Nutrient Criteria Regions for Streams in Florida
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-1

2. The “Narrative” Baseline Analysis

The incremental costs (cost savings) that may be associated with FDEP’s draft numeric criteria 

include the compliance and government regulatory expenditures that would not be incurred 

under the current narrative criteria. This section describes the baseline for estimating the 

potential incremental costs that may result from FDEP establishing numeric nutrient criteria for 

lakes and flowing waters in Florida under FDEP’s draft proposed criteria from May 2009.

2.1 Waters Covered by the FDEP’s Draft Criteria

Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the size and number of water body types [designated by water body 

identification (WBID) numbers] in Florida.

Exhibit 2-1. Summary of Florida Waters

Water Body Type Number of WBIDs Miles of Water Acres of Water

Beach 346 0.71 87,893

Blackwater 77 1,648 -

Coastal 154 - 4,287,380

Estuary 573 313 4,180,390

Lake 1,305 18 1,454,542

Spring 124 176 -

Stream, Excluding South Florida Streams1 3,707 19,296 167,076

South Florida Stream 108 2,588 1,944

Total2 6,397 24,039 10,179,225

Source: FGDL (2009). 

WBID = water body identification

1. Excludes mileage/acreage for one WBID for which the units are not specified.

2. Excludes three WBIDs for which the water body type and the mileage/acreage units are not specified.

The FDEP draft numeric nutrient criteria are applicable to all lakes (1,305 WBIDs) and flowing 

waters not in South Florida (streams and blackwater; 3,784 WBIDs).

2.2 Current Water Quality Standards

WQS are designed to protect the beneficial use of a water body and include both the water 

quality criteria and applicable implementation procedures.

2.2.1 Water Quality Criteria

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) currently uses a narrative nutrient 

standard to guide the management and protection of its waters. Chapter 62-302.530, Florida 

Administrative Code (F.A.C.), states that “in no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of 

water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of flora or fauna.” The 

narrative criteria also state that (for all waters of the state) “the discharge of nutrients shall 

continue to be limited as needed to prevent violations of other standards contained in this chapter 

(Chapter 62-302, F.A.C.). Man-induced nutrient enrichment (total nitrogen or total phosphorus) 
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-2

shall be considered degradation in relation to the provisions of Sections 62-302.300, 62-302.700, 

and 62-4.242, F.A.C.”

2.2.2 Implementation in Point Source Permits

Florida’s WQS contain implementation procedures applicable to wastewater discharges and for 

determining surface water impairments. FDEP also published a guidance manual for 

implementing water quality criteria in NPDES permits. Rules 62-620.320(1) and 62-

620.620(1)(g), F.A.C., establish that a permit shall be issued only if the applicant affirmatively 

provides the FDEP with reasonable assurance (RA) that the construction, modification, or 

operation of the wastewater facility will not discharge or cause pollution in contravention of 

WQS. As part of the permit application process, the applicant must supply data characterizing 

the pollutants that may be discharged and provide RA that the discharge will not violate water 

quality criteria in the receiving water.

FDEP (2001) indicates that permit writers should, at a minimum, include limits in permits for a 

parameter if there is evidence that the discharge could cause or contribute to instream violations. 

However, the FDEP may include limits based on EPA’s reasonable potential (RP) approach, 

which requires sufficient effluent data as described in its Technical Support Document (TSD), or 

based on the judgment of the permit writer that a limit is necessary to provide RA that the facility

will operate such that it will not cause water quality violations (FDEP, 2001). For example, for 

the narrative nutrient criteria, permit writers determine whether the discharge contains 

phosphorus or nitrogen and examine the ambient water quality of the receiving water and any 

other affected waters with regard to nutrient levels and biological impacts. Based on this 

analysis, permit writers determine the level of nutrients that would “cause an imbalance in 

natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna” and translates those levels into numeric “targets” 

for the receiving water and any other affected waters. If there is RP, permit writers calculate 

permit limits to ensure that such a discharge will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the 

nutrient target levels. FDEP’s permit writer’s guidance manual (FDEP, 2001) indicates that 

WQBELs are calculated based on EPA’s TSD (U.S. EPA, 1991). 

If sufficient data are not available to determine RP, rather than only requiring additional 

monitoring, the permit can be issued with an effluent limit based on Florida’s water quality 

criteria and an administrative order attached to the permit that requires the studies necessary to 

determine RA with a schedule to return the facility to compliance with the final permit limits 

(FDEP, 2001).

2.2.3 CWA Section 303(d) Listing Procedures

The WQS also contain procedures for identifying impaired waters. First, FDEP evaluates the 

existing water quality data to determine whether waters are potentially impaired and includes 

these waters on a Planning List for further assessment. Then, FDEP assesses waters on the 

Planning List through additional data gathering and strategic monitoring to determine if a water

body is, in fact, impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. FDEP places 

these waters on the Verified List which represents the CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired 

waters needing a TMDL. 
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-3

Because the nutrient criteria are narrative, FDEP uses a trophic state index (TSI) and 

chlorophyll-a concentrations as the primary means for assessing whether a water should be 

assessed further for nutrient impairment. FDEP also considers other information indicating an 

imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment, including, but not limited to, algal 

blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, decrease in the distribution (either in density or areal 

coverage) of seagrasses or other submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, 

and excessive diel oxygen swings (Chapter 62-303, F.A.C.). 

For example, a stream shall be included on the planning list for nutrients if (Chapter 62-303.351, 

F.A.C.):

 algal mats are present in sufficient quantities to pose a nuisance or hinder reproduction 

of a threatened or endangered species, or

 the annual mean chlorophyll-a concentration is greater than 20 μg/l or if data indicate 

annual mean chlorophyll-a values have increased by more than 50% over historical 

values for at least two consecutive years.

A lake shall be included on the planning list for nutrients if (Chapter 62-303.352, F.A.C.):

 for lakes with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt (Pt-Co) units, the annual 

mean TSI for the lake exceeds 60, unless paleolimnological information indicates the 

lake was naturally greater than 60, or

 for lakes with a mean color less than or equal to 40 Pt-Co units, the annual mean TSI 

for the lake exceeds 40, unless paleolimnological information indicates the lake was 

naturally greater than 40, or

 for any lake, data indicate that annual mean TSIs have increased over the assessment 

period, as indicated by a positive slope in the means plotted versus time, or the annual 

mean TSI has increased by more than 10 units over historical values.

To be placed on the verified list, FDEP needs sufficient data from the last five years preceding 

the planning list assessment, combined with historical data (if needed to establish historical 

chlorophyll-a levels or historical TSIs). If there are insufficient data, FDEP needs to collect 

additional data to meet the requirements. Once these additional data are collected, FDEP 

determines if there is sufficient information to develop a site-specific threshold that better 

reflects conditions beyond which an imbalance in flora or fauna occurs in the water. If there is 

insufficient information, FDEP will reevaluate the data using the thresholds from the planning 

list. However, FDEP need not use these same thresholds in developing the TMDL.

2.3 Existing Sources of Nutrients

Sources of nutrient pollution to lakes and streams in Florida include both point and nonpoint 

sources from a variety of sectors, as well as legacy sources left behind from past land uses and 

loadings (e.g., phosphorus accumulated in soil and sediments).

2.3.1 Wastewater Point Sources

EPA’s permit compliance system (PCS) database indicates that there are 198 municipal 

wastewater dischargers, 245 industrial dischargers, and 34,508 dischargers covered under 
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-4

generic permits.3Some of these permittees discharge to estuarine waters, coastal waters, or South 

Florida streams (not affected by proposed numeric criteria), and only certain types of industrial 

and generic-permitted dischargers discharge nutrients. Existing numeric effluent limits for 

nitrogen and phosphorus in EPA’s PCS database provide preliminary indication of the types of 

facilities that have the potential to discharge nutrients. Exhibit 2-2 summarizes the wastewater 

dischargers with numeric effluent limits for nitrogen (including TN, ammonia, nitrate, and 

organic nitrogen) and TP throughout the state (may include dischargers to waters for which 

numeric nutrient criteria are not available).

Exhibit 2-2. NPDES Dischargers with Numeric Effluent Limits for Nitrogen and Phosphorus

SIC Code SIC Code Description

Number of Dischargers with 

Numeric Effluent Limits1

Nitrogen Phosphorus

1475 Phosphate rock 13 14

1479 Chemical and fertilizer mineral mining, NEC 2 2

2015 Poultry slaughtering and processing 1 -

2033 Canned fruit and vegetables 2 2

2082 Malt beverages 2 -

2085 Distilled and blended liquors 1 -

2611 Pulp mills 1 -

2813 Industrial gases - 2

2873 Nitrogenous fertilizers 1 -

2874 Phosphatic fertilizers 7 12

2875 Fertilizers, mixing only - 2

2879 Pesticides and agricultural chemicals, NEC - 1

2892 Explosives 1 1

3699 Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies, NEC 1 -

4011 Railroad haul line operating 2 1

4911 Electric services - 1

4941 Water supply 5 6

4952 Wastewater treatment plants 135 95

7996 Amusement parks 4 4

9999 Nonclassifiable 1 1

Source: U.S. EPA (2009b).

SIC = Standard industrial classification

1. May include dischargers to waters for which numeric nutrient criteria are not available. Does not include one 

discharger with SIC code 4581 because it is a Phase II storm water permit.

Exhibit 2-3 summarizes the number of NPDES-permitted wastewater dischargers in Florida 

likely to discharge nutrients to lakes and streams. 

Exhibit 2-3. Summary of Dischargers in Florida Potentially Affected by the FDEP’s Draft Criteria1

Discharger Category Major Dischargers Minor Dischargers Total

Municipal Wastewater 47 47 94

 

3

FDEP refers to an NPDES general permit as a “generic” permit which it uses to regulate categories of wastewater 

facilities or activities that involve the same or similar types of operations or wastes. General (or generic, in Florida) 

permits require that all facilities or activities have similar permit requirements and conditions.
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-5

Exhibit 2-3. Summary of Dischargers in Florida Potentially Affected by the FDEP’s Draft Criteria1

Discharger Category Major Dischargers Minor Dischargers Total

Industrial Wastewater2 49 42 91

General Permits3 0 23 23

Total 96 112 208

Source: U.S. EPA (2009b).

SIC = Standard Industrial Classification

TMDL = total maximum daily load

1. Excludes dischargers to oceans, estuaries, bayous, wetlands, and South Florida streams (identified based on 

receiving water body name and information contained TMDLs, permits, and laboratory reports).

2. Includes discharges with SIC codes 1475, 1479, 2015, 2033, 2082, 2085, 2611, 2873, 2874, 2879, 2892, 3699, 

4011, 4911, 4941, 7996, and 9999.

3. Includes dischargers with SIC codes of 2813, 2874, and 2875. 

Note that Exhibit 2-3 provides only a preliminary estimate of the number and types of 

dischargers that may be affected by FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria. For example, some of 

these dischargers may already have effluent limits as stringent as those that they would receive 

under FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria.

2.3.2 Storm Water

Phosphorus and nitrogen in urban storm water runoff come primarily from fertilizers applied to 

lawns and golf courses, decomposition of natural rock and soils, air deposition from vehicle 

exhaust or power plants, detergents used to wash cars on the street, and pet waste. 

2.3.3 Agriculture

Phosphorus and nitrogen in agricultural runoff come from application of fertilizer to crops and 

pastures, and animal wastes. The 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA NASS, 2009) indicates that 

there are 47,463 farms and 9.2 million acres of farmland in Florida. Three million of these acres 

are cropland, of which 1.6 million acres are irrigated. Livestock and poultry inventory includes 

1.7 million cattle; 20,000 hogs and pigs; 11.8 million layers; and 73 million broilers and other 

chickens. 

2.3.4 Septic Systems

Nutrients from poorly maintained or failing septic systems or onsite sewage treatment and 

disposal systems (OSTDSs) can threaten both surface and ground waters. In addition to runoff to 

surface water from mounded leach fields, nutrients can leach into groundwater beneath the 

system and be carried to nearby surface waters. There are 2.3 million OSTDSs serving 

approximately 31% of the population in Florida (DOH, 2004). More than half of Florida’s septic 

systems are over 30 years old and were installed under standards less stringent than current 

standards.

2.3.5 Atmospheric Deposition

Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen can be a significant source of nutrient loadings to lakes and 

flowing waters. However, the specific sources of atmospheric nitrogen are not typically well 
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-6

known and can originate from local, regional and international sources, including automobiles, 

power plants, volcanoes, and industrial air emissions. 

2.3.6 Legacy Sources

Historic discharges of nutrients also provide current loadings in Florida waters. For example, in 

Lake Apopka in Florida, the sedimentary store of available phosphorus and the moderate 

hydraulic detention time (2.5 years) resulted in a slow recovery (SJRWMD, 2003). To hasten 

reduction efforts, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) constructed a 

wetland system adjacent to the water body reportedly to remove phosphorus from lake water and 

permanently bury it in marsh sediments. Algae, resuspended sediments, and particle-bound 

nutrients are removed from lake water as it flows through 13 independent marsh cells and returns 

to the lake (SJRWMD, 2003).

The measured loads from legacy sources may not be fully representative of the potential nutrient 

load to the watershed. For example, in Lake Ockeechobee, reducing upstream sources of 

phosphorus may not produce immediate results in downstream systems that have assimilated 

phosphorus for years because these systems may begin to release native or legacy accumulated 

phosphorus to come into equilibrium. 

2.4 Framework for Addressing Sources of Nutrients

FDEP is implementing its current narrative nutrient criteria through TMDLs and Basin 

Management Action Plans (BMAPs) which rely heavily on existing programs (e.g., NPDES 

program, BMP manuals).

2.4.1 Wastewater Point Sources

The TMDLs and BMAPs generally require low effluent concentrations of nutrients from point 

sources. As a result, some municipal wastewater sources already employ nutrient reduction 

technologies and achieve effluent concentrations in the range of current limits of technology. For 

example, Florida’s Wastewater Facility Regulation (WAFR) database (FDEP, 2009b) and 

NPDES permits indicate that 20 municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are operating 

nutrient reduction technology processes capable of reducing TN and TP to low levels. There are 

also an additional seven dischargers planning to implement processes and improvements to 

reduce nutrients under the Lower St. Johns River (LSJR) BMAP.

2.4.2 Storm Water

To address nutrients from fertilizers, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services (DACS) adopted the statewide Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule, which limits the phosphorus 

and nitrogen content in fertilizers for urban turf and lawns. The rule requires that all fertilizer 

products labeled for use on urban turf, sports turf, and lawns be limited to the amount of nitrogen 

and phosphorus needed to support healthy turf maintenance. DACS estimated a 20% to 25% 

reduction in nitrogen and a 15% reduction in phosphorus in every bag of fertilizer sold to the 

public. The rule also protects water quality by restricting phosphorous and nitrogen application 
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-7

rates in fertilizers.4The rule became effective December 31, 2007; however, fertilizer licenses 

had until July 1, 2009 to change labels for compliance. Thus, the full benefit of the rule may not 

yet be reflected in urban runoff loads.

Storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) are covered under 

EPA’s Phase I and Phase II storm water rules. The Phase I rule covers large and medium-size 

MS4s [Clean Water Act Section 402(p) sources], and the Phase II rule covers small (systems 

serving less than 100,000 people) MS4s. There are 28 Phase I NPDES MS4 permits in Florida 

and 131 Phase II permits. 

Florida’s 1982 storm water rule [as authorized in Chapter 403, Florida Statues (F.S.)] requires 

treatment of storm water from new development and redevelopment prior to discharge. The rule 

is a technology-based program that relies on the implementation of best management practices 

(BMPs) designed to achieve a specific level of treatment (i.e., performance standards). The rule 

also requires that older systems be managed as needed to restore or maintain the beneficial uses 

of waters, and that water management districts establish storm water pollutant load reduction 

goals to be adopted as part of a SWIM plan, other watershed plan, or rule. 

In addition, Chapter 62-40, F.A.C., “Water Resource Implementation Rule,” establishes that 

storm water design criteria adopted by FDEP and the water management districts shall achieve at 

least 80% reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that cause or contribute to violations 

of WQS (95% reduction for outstanding natural resource waters). The rule also states that the 

pollutant loading from older storm water management systems shall be reduced as necessary to 

restore or maintain the designated uses of waters.

2.4.3 Agriculture

Livestock farms that meet the definition of a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) that 

discharge or propose to discharge wastewater must be covered by an NPDES permit. As part of 

the permit application, CAFOs must submit nutrient management plans for approval; FDEP will 

then incorporate the plan and actions into the permit requirements. FDEP also regulates some 

animal feeding operations that do not meet the definition of a CAFO. For example, in December 

2008, FDEP proposed revisions to its WQS that would require all medium sized dairies to be 

covered by a permit (non-NPDES) for discharge to groundwater and submit a nutrient 

management plan. 

Florida’s DACS also develops BMP manuals for different types of agricultural producers. 

Implementation of controls is voluntary. However, farmer implementation of the BMP manuals 

provides a presumption of compliance with WQS for those pollutants addressed by the practices. 

 

4 A maximum of 0.25 lbs phosphorus oxide (P2O5) per 1000 sq. ft. per application and not exceed 0.5 lbs P2O5 per 

1000 sq. ft. per year. Application rates above these levels would require a soil sample of the application site to 

justify an increase in P2O5. A maximum of 0.7 lbs of readily available nitrogen per 1000 sq. ft. at any one time based 

on the soluble fraction of nitrogen formulated in the fertilizer. A maximum of 1 lb TN per 1000 sq. ft. to be applied 

at any one time, not exceeding the annual nitrogen recommendations in the Fertilizer Guidelines for Established 

Turf Grass Lawns in Three Regions of Florida. Application rates above these levels would require a turf tissue test 

at the application site to justify the increase in TN.
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-8

It also releases farmers from the provisions of Section 376.307(5), F.S. which requires that funds 

be paid for damages from the discharge of pollutants.

Existing BMAPs for the LSJR, Orange Creek watershed, and Upper Ocklawaha River rely on 

voluntary implementation of BMPs by farmers. However, Subsection 403.067(7)(b), F.S., 

requires that nonpoint pollutant sources (such as agriculture) be included in a BMAP to 

demonstrate compliance with pollutant reductions established to meet a TMDL either by

implementing BMPs or by conducting water quality monitoring prescribed by FDEP or a water 

management district. 

To encourage implementation of BMPs and various conservation measures, there are several 

national programs including:

 Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) – a voluntary conservation program that 

identifies and rewards through incentives those farmers and ranchers who meet the 

highest standards of conservation and environmental management on their operations

 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) – program in which farmers

receive payment to convert cropland and marginal pastureland to native grasses, trees, 

wetlands, and related conservation buffer practices to improve water quality, soil, and 

wildlife habitat

 Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) – program through which NRCS and its 

partners provide help to land users to address opportunities, concerns, and problems 

related to the use of natural resources and to help land users make sound natural 

resource management decisions on private, tribal, and other non-federal lands

 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) – a voluntary conservation program 

for farmers and ranchers that offers financial and technical help to assist eligible 

participants install or implement structural and management practices on eligible 

agricultural land 

 Grazing Land Conservation Initiative (GLCI) – NRCS provides financial and technical 

assistance to landowners to support improved management of grazing land resources; 

successful in assisting landowners apply new technology to improve livestock 

production efficiency while maintaining or improving their natural resources.

2.4.4 Septic Systems

In Florida, the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs in the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) 

and the environmental health section of County Health Departments regulate the use of OSTDSs.

FDOH does not permit the use of an OSTDS where the estimated domestic sewage flow is over 

10,000 gpd or the commercial sewage flow is over 5,000 gpd; where there is a likelihood that the 

system will receive toxic, hazardous or industrial wastes; where a sewer system is available; or if 

any system or flow is currently regulated by FDEP, unless a variance from these prohibitions has 

been granted by FDOH.

The LSJR Executive Committee (2008) indicates that the City of Jacksonville is implementing a 

phase out of its septic systems by 2023. The phase out plan will address nutrients in addition to 

fecal coliform exceedances. However, for other areas in the watershed, additional research 

specific to the conditions in the LSJR Basin is needed to quantify the loads associated with septic 

tanks.
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-9

The Upper Ocklawaha River BMAP does not directly address septic systems during the first five 

years of implementation because these systems represent a relatively small percentage of the 

pollutant loading. The relative importance of loadings from septic tanks will increase after 

implementation of the management actions identified in the BMAP. Thus, projects listed in the 

BMAP address scheduled pumping and clean outs of septic systems (e.g., every 5 years in Green 

Swamp) and prohibit installation of new systems in specific areas (e.g., new development sites in 

Groveland).

The Orange Creek Watershed BMAP identifies controls for septic systems to reduce bacteria 

levels. Specifically, the Alachua County Health Department is investigating failing septic 

systems and plans to take appropriate corrective actions, as well as issue new, repair, and 

modification septic system permits pursuant to F.A.C. or local ordinance. These efforts should 

also reduce nutrient levels.

2.4.5 Atmospheric Deposition

TMDLs often do not require load reductions from atmospheric deposition. However, in the LSJR 

watershed, the Seminole Electric Power Plant plans to install selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

controls that would significantly reduce their emissions of nitrogen oxides, and thus, the 

deposition of nitrogen throughout the basin (LSJR TMDL Executive Committee, 2008). 

Seminole Electric modeled the projected reductions in atmospheric deposition after SCR 

installation, and quantified the reductions in nitrogen load to specific water bodies. Seminole 

Electric estimates project costs at approximately $176 million, with TN reductions throughout 

the basin in the range of 25,000 kg per year (approximately $7,000/kg-reduced/yr).

2.4.6 Legacy Sources

To the extent that legacy sources are identified and assigned load reductions in TMDLs, 

implementation plans identify control scenarios. In most cases, legacy sources will dissipate 

naturally, although this could take a long time. Thus, BMAP controls may include temporary

regional treatment systems. For example, in Lake Ockeechobee, it may be necessary to integrate 

upland phosphorus control practices with regional treatment systems on the lower tributaries to 

meet the lake TMDL (SWET, 2008b). In time the accumulated phosphorus in these systems will 

wash out to establish a new equilibrium with the inflow phosphorus levels. Thus, the regional 

treatment systems would only be needed until the lakes and streams come to equilibrium with the 

tributary loads; sloughs will likely respond within 5 to 20 years as compared to the larger lakes 

that could take much longer to establish a new equilibrium (Jeppesen et al, 2005, as cited in 

SWET 2008b).

2.5 Current Water Quality

A large number of lakes and flowing waters exceed Florida WQS for nutrients. These waters are 

identified through the state’s CWA Section 303(d) list or TMDLs.
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-10

2.5.1 Nutrient-Impaired Waters

Exhibit 2-4 shows the number of water body segments or count of water body identification 

(WBIDs) labels listed as impaired for nutrients. Note that the list may include waters for which 

TMDLs have recently been completed and approved.

Exhibit 2-4. Summary of CWA Section 303(d) Listed Impairments for Nutrients in Florida1

Impairment Listing Number of WBIDs

Lake Stream Total

Nutrients (Algae) 1 - 1

Nutrients (Algal Mats) - 18 18

Nutrients (Chlorophyll-a/Historic Chlorophyll-a) - 2 2

Nutrients (Chlorophyll-a) - 92 92

Nutrients (Historic Chlorophyll-a) - 24 24

Nutrients (Historic TSI) 16 - 16

Nutrients (Macrophytes) - 1 1

Nutrients (TSI and Historic TSI) 1 - 1

Nutrients (TSI) 128 - 128

Total 146 137 283

Source: FDEP (2009c)

TSI = trophic state index

WBID = water body identification

1. Includes Category 5 and 4b waters.

There are also 141 impairments for dissolved oxygen and 1 for biochemical oxygen demand that 

are not also impaired for nutrients; TMDLs for these impairments typically limit TN and/or TP 

concentrations as means of achieving the targets.

2.5.2 Nutrient TMDLs

Exhibit 2-5 summarizes the approved and draft TMDLs for TN and TP for lakes and rivers. 

These TMDLs cover 57 unique WBIDs.

Exhibit 2-5. Summary of Nutrient-Related TMDLs for Lake and Rivers in Florida

TMDL/Water Body WBIDs

Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus

TMDL 

(lbs/yr)

Percent

Reduction

Target 

(mg/L)

TMDL 

(lbs/yr)

Percent

Reduction

Target 

(mg/L)

Alachua Sink: dry 2720A 204,870 46% 1.48 21,804 46% 0.16

Alachua Sink: wet 2720A 256,322 45% 1.34 27,157 70% 0.15

Alligator Lake 3516A 42,595 28% 1.16 3,050 61% 0.07

Butcher Creek 2322 3,617 22% - - - -

Crane Strand Drain 3014 29,828 29% 0.69 - - -

Elevenmile Creek 489 - - 0.74 - - -

Fenholloway River 3473B 3,025,850 24% - 219,000 19%

Fishing Creek 2324 39,697 22% - - - -

Imperial River 3258E 18,865 25% 0.74 - - -

Gordon River 

Extension 3278K, 3259C 34,822 29% 0.74 - - -
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-11

Exhibit 2-5. Summary of Nutrient-Related TMDLs for Lake and Rivers in Florida

TMDL/Water Body WBIDs

Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus

TMDL 

(lbs/yr)

Percent

Reduction

Target 

(mg/L)

TMDL 

(lbs/yr)

Percent

Reduction

Target 

(mg/L)

Hendry Creek 3258B 55,283 32% 0.74 - - -

Juniper Creek 682 296,728 18.18% 0.72 - - -

Lake Hunter 1543 6,579 80% 0.871 489 80% 0.061

Lake Jesup 2981, 2981A 545,203 50% 1.27 41,888 34% 0.096

Newnans Lake 2705B 85,470 74% 0.97 10,924 59% 0.062

Lake Harris 2838A, 2338B - - - 18,302 32% 0.026

Lake Griffin 2814A - - - 26,901 66% 0.032

Lake Eustis 2817B, 2817A - - - 20,286 43% 0.025

Lake Dora 2831B - - - 13,230 67% 0.031

Lake Carlton 2837B - - - 195 59% 0.032

Lake Beauclair 2834C - - - 7,056 85% 0.032

Lake Apopka 2835D - - - 35,054 75.60% 0.055

Lake Okeechobee

3212A, 3212B, 3212C, 

3212D, 3212E, 3212F, 

3212G, 3212H, 3212I

- - - 308,647 0.04

Lake Trafford 32559W 56,617 60% 1.09 3,348 77% 0.025

Lake Wauberg 

Outlet 2741 2,062 51% 1.01 374 50% 0.056

Lake Yale 2807A - - - 2,844 10% 0.02

Little Weikiva Canal 3004 42,624 45% 1.02 - - -

Long Branch 3030 10,400 17% 0.87 1,480 30% 0.14

Lower St. Johns 

River: marine

2213G, 2213H 1,376,855 - 5.4 - - -

Lower St. Johns 

River: freshwater

2213I, 2213J, 2213K, 

2213L, 2213M 8,571,563 - - 500,325 - -

Munson Slough 807D - 8.35% 0.72 - 17.53% 0.15

Munson Lake 807C 95,074 46% 0.6 5,439 82% 0.037

New River 3506 - 13% 1.3 - 38% 0.13

New River 3506B - 38% 1.3 - - -

Orange Lake 2749A - - - 15,262 45% 0.031

Palatlakaha River 2839 16,696 5.2% - 2,207 7.2% -

Peace River above 

Bowlegs Creek 1623J 24,750 30% - - - -

Suwannee Basin 3422, 3605A, 3605B, 

3605C

Nitrate 

TMDL - - - - -

Thirty Mile Creek 1639 - - 3.0 - - -

Trout Lake 2819A 9,733 60% - 521 80% -

Upper Lake 

Lafayette 756A 34,669 - 1.0 3,946 39% 0.12

St. John's River 

above Lake Poinsett 2893L - - - 178,000 37% 0.09

Lake Hell n' Blazes 2893Q - - - 88,000 52% 0.09

St. Johns River ab.

Sawgrass Lake 2893X - - - 114,000 32% 0.09

Spring Lake 2987A 8,551 30% 0.959 1,810 65% 0.021
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-12

Exhibit 2-5. Summary of Nutrient-Related TMDLs for Lake and Rivers in Florida

TMDL/Water Body WBIDs

Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus

TMDL 

(lbs/yr)

Percent

Reduction

Target 

(mg/L)

TMDL 

(lbs/yr)

Percent

Reduction

Target 

(mg/L)

Lake Florida 2998A 8,377 34% 0.699 571 69% 0.023

Lake Orienta 2998C 6,092 42% 0.814 451 74% 0.022

Lake Adelaide 2998E 3,003 40% 0.711 228 72% 0.027

Lake Lawne 3004C 21,692 26% 1.107 2,005 49% 0.055

Silver Lake 3004D 6,241 24% 0.575 370 70% 0.015

Bay Lake 3004G 1,428 39% 1.108 109 66% 0.019

Wekiva River (u/s) 2956 - - - - 61% 0.065

Wekiva River (d/s) 2956A - - - - 57% 0.065

Little Wekiva River 2987 - - - - 78% 0.065

Black Water Creek 2929A - - - - 36% 0.065

Lake Cannon 1521H - - - 315 54% -

Lake Howard 1521F - - - 315 62.5% -

Lake Idylwild 1521J - - - 141 43% -

Lake Jessie 1521K - - - 309 50% -

Lake Lulu 1521 - - - 185 55% -

Lake May 1521E - - - 194 57.5% -

Lake Mirror 1521G - - - 121 27.5% -

Lake Shipp 1521D - - - 214 65% -

C-24 Canal 3197 579,620 28% 1.2 48,180 75% 0.1

Lake Parker 1497B 151,684 57.4% - 30,481 57.1% -

Lake Lena 1501 17,602 41% - 681 41% -

Lake HancockLower Saddle Creek 1623L, 1623K 702,167 75.2% - 224,320 75.5% -

Lake Bonny 1497E 14,523 57.7% - 1,921 57.7% -

Banana Lake Canal 1549A, 1549B 34,717 79.4% - 56,510 79.5% -

Saint Joe's Creek 1668A 43,286 60% - 12,985 0% -

Pinellas Park Ditch 

No. 5 1668B 2,541 70% - 915 0% -

West Clark Lake 1971 7,611 59.3% 1.018 1,480 10.8% -

d/s = downstream

lbs/yr = pounds per year

mg/L = milligrams per liter

TMDL = total maximum daily load

WBID = water body identification

u/s = upstream

“-“ = value not specified or determined in TMDL

Exhibits 2-6 and 2-7 provide maps of the lakes and streams (based on WBIDs), respectively, 

that are either on the state’s CWA Section 303(d) list for nutrients (Exhibit 2-4) or for which a 

nutrient-related TMDL has been proposed or approved.

 
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-13

Exhibit 2-6. Baseline Impairments for Lakes in Florida
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-14

Exhibit 2-7. Baseline Impairments for Streams in Florida
January 2010 2. Baseline for the Analysis 2-1

An overlay of WBIDs with 12-digit hydrologic units (HUCs) provides an indication of the land 

use surrounding the baseline impaired waters [i.e., waters on the state’s CWA Section 303(d) list 

for nutrients or covered by a TMDL] includes agriculture, forest, and urban.5 Exhibit 2-8

summarizes the acres of each land use category for these waters.

Exhibit 2-8. Summary of Land Use for Baseline Impairments

Land Use Category Total Acres Percent of Total Acres

Agriculture 2,419,052 31.2%

Communications and Utilities 32,109 0.4%

Forest 738,589 9.5%

Industrial 164,972 2.1%

Transportation Corridors 426,459 5.5%

Urban 96,311 1.2%

Water 1,351,007 17.4%

Wetlands 1,057,051 13.6%

Other 1,461,537 18.9%

Total 7,747,086 100.0%

2.5.3 Nutrient TMDL Implementation

To implement TMDLs, FDEP develops BMAPs in conjunction with local stakeholders. FDEP 

adopts these plans by Secretarial Order to make them enforceable. BMAPs set forth the strategy

for achieving the pollutant reductions established in the TMDL, including permit limits on 

wastewater facilities, urban and agricultural BMPs, conservation programs, financial assistance,

and revenue generating activities.

FDEP has adopted four BMAPs to date (Upper Ocklawaha, Orange Creek, Long Branch, and 

LSJR) that address broad areas. For example, implementation of the Upper Ocklawaha BMAP 

will benefit surface waters throughout Lake County and part of Orange County, including the 

Clermont Chain of Lakes connected by the Palatlakaha River, Lake Apopka, Lake Griffin, and 

the Harris Chain of Lakes. Similarly, the Orange Creek Basin is a tributary of the Ocklawaha 

River. Implementation of the Orange Creek BMAP will benefit surface waters in Alachua and 

Marion Counties, including Orange Lake, Lochloosa Lake, Newnans Lake, Tumblin Creek, 

Sweetwater Branch, Hogtown Creek, Lake Wauberg, Paynes Prairie/Alachua Sink, and the 

Ocklawaha River.

However, a June 2008 FDEP Office of Inspector General audit of the TMDL program noted: the 

Ocklawaha River is the only water body currently undergoing BMAP implementation; no water 

bodies have been removed from the impaired list; and it could take a number of years before 

demonstrable effects of the program can be measured and for water bodies to be removed from 

the impaired list (FDEP OIG, 2008). Factors that may affect the progress of implementation 

include the time it takes for local governments and residents to reach common consensus on 

difficult issues, and the time it takes to acquire the necessary land (FDEP OIG, 2008).

 

5 Based on 12-digit hydrologic units containing at least 10% of a WBID that is listed on the state’s CWA Section 

303(d) list for nutrients or covered by a TMDL].
January 2010 3. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3-1

3. Assessing Incremental Impairments Associated with 

Implementation of FDEP’s Draft Numeric Criteria

The incremental costs (cost savings) that may be associated with FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient 

criteria are associated with waters that exceed the FDEP draft numeric criteria compared to the 

current narrative criteria. This section provides a preliminary assessment of the potential for 

incremental water quality impairment listings and TMDLs. The results are only preliminary

because of uncertainty regarding the method that FDEP will employ for listing waters as 

impaired, and whether the existing CWA Section 303(d) list contains all waters that exceed the 

narrative criteria.

3.1 Incremental Impairments

Incrementally impaired waters are those waters exceeding FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria 

that the state has not already determined to be impaired under the current narrative nutrient 

criteria (i.e., waters on the state’s CWA Section 303(d) list for nutrient impairments or for which 

FDEP or EPA has adopted or proposed a TMDL). FDEP will need to develop and implement 

TMDLs for any waters added to the state’s list of impaired waters as a result of the numeric 

criteria.

FDEP maintains a database of ambient monitoring data for waters across the state and 

periodically updates these data under the impaired waters rule (IWR). Note that this database 

does not include nutrient data for all potentially affected WBIDs. However, it is the most 

complete source of nutrient data available.

We used the last 5 years of data (2004-2008) from IWR run 35 (available February 2009) to 

identify potential incrementally impaired waters based on FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria. 

The applicable criteria for streams are based on nutrient region boundaries delineated in GIS files 

provided by Ken Weaver at FDEP. For lakes, FDEP (2009a) indicates that color greater than 40 

Pt-Co represents a colored lake; color below 40 Pt-Co represents a clear lake. 

Any result value greater than the applicable numeric criterion indicates an exceedance. For some 

lakes, there are no color data on which to identify applicable criteria. However, values above the 

highest numeric criterion for each pollutant (e.g., 1.66 mg/L for TN and 0.089 mg/L for TP) are 

in exceedance, and values below the lowest numeric criterion (e.g., 0.6 mg/L for TN and 0.015 

mg/L for TP) are not in exceedance of potential criteria values. Values in between these criteria 

may or may not represent exceedances (uncertain). As a preliminary estimate of impairments, we 

assumed that a water body would be considered impaired if more than 10% of the total number 

of samples exceed the criterion.

6

Exhibits 3-1 and 3-2 show a comparison of new impairments to narrative baseline impairments 

and TMDLs for lakes and streams, respectively.

 

6 We excluded samples taken at depths >1 m (includes depths of B, M or blank entries; assumed blank depth units 

are meters) as being not representative of typical stream conditions. We also excluded data with result codes 

indicating QA/QC issues (e.g., J = estimated values), and nondetects for which the reported MDL is greater than the 

applicable numeric criterion.
January 2010 3. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3-2

Exhibit 3-1. Incrementally Impaired Lakes in Florida
January 2010 3. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3-3

Exhibit 3-2. Incrementally Impaired Streams in Florida
January 2010 3. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3-4

Exhibit 3-3 summarizes the screening to identify potential incrementally impaired WBIDs based 

on available data.

Exhibit 3-3. Summary of Identification of Potential Incrementally Impaired Waters

Category Number of WBIDs Total Lake Stream

Nutrient Data in IWR Run 35 1,033 1,430 2,463

Sufficient Data Available1 766 1,062 1,828

Not Listed/Covered by TMDL2 586 935 1,521

Potentially Exceeding Criteria3 335 638 973

Impairment is Uncertain4 81 0 81

IWR = Impaired Waters Rule

m = meter

MDL = minimum detection limit

TMDL = total maximum daily load

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WBID = water body identification

1. Data within last 5 years meeting data quality requirements (excludes samples taken at depths >1 m; estimated 

values; and nondetects for which the reported MDL is greater than the applicable numeric criterion).

2. As reported in TMDL documents and FDEP (2009c).

3. Based on 10% of samples exceeding applicable TN or TP criterion.

4. Represents lakes for which color data are not available and data fall between lowest and highest criteria values.

An overlay of WBIDs with 12-digit hydrologic units (HUCs) indicates that the land use 

surrounding the potential incrementally impaired waters includes agriculture, forest, and urban.7 

Exhibit 3-4 summarizes the acres of each land use category for these waters.

Exhibit 3-4. Summary of Land Use for Potential Incrementally Impaired Waters

Land Use Category Total Acres Percent of Total Acres

Agriculture 6,125,094 40.4%

Wetlands 77,885 0.5%

Forest 1,721,285 11.4%

Urban 162,997 1.1%

Other 941,871 6.2%

Water 118,794 0.8%

Industrial 1,509,118 10.0%

Transportation Corridors 623,238 4.1%

Communications and Utilities 3,875,414 25.6%

Total 15,155,698 100.0%

Exhibit 3-5 shows the density distribution of septic systems in the potential incrementally 

impaired watershed. In terms of acres, the square mile densities in the map represent <1 per 10 

acres for 0 to 64 per square mile; < 1 per 5 acres for >64 to 128 systems per square mile; <2 per 

acre for >128 to 1,280 per square mile; and >2 per acre for >1280 to 1,742 per square mile.

 

7 Based on HUCs containing at least 10% of an incrementally impaired WBID and excluding any HUC that 

includes more than 50% of a WBID impaired under the baseline [i.e., WBID on 303(d) list for nutrients or covered 

by a TMDL].
January 2010 3. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3-5

Exhibit 3-5. Density Distribution of Septic Systems near Potential Incrementally Impaired Waters
January 2010 3. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3-6

3.2 Incremental TMDLs

The exhibits show 973 WBIDs that would be incrementally impaired for TN and/or TP based on 

a 10% exceedance rate (using FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria). The existing nutrientrelated TMDLs address an average of two WBIDs each. Thus, based on this average, FDEP may

need to develop and adopt 486 additional nutrient TMDLs.

The process for developing TMDLs in Florida includes (FDEP, 2005):

 gathering and analysis of substantial amount of data

 meeting rigorous quality assurance specifications

 extensive computer modeling

 adoption through state’s public rulemaking process

 public hearing before adoption

 basin plan of detailed implementation strategies (1-2 year process after adoption with 

additional public meetings).

FDEP has also held public meetings after data collection prior to development of a draft TMDL. 

EPA had previously estimated the cost of developing TMDLs based on performing eight basic 

steps (U.S. EPA, 2001):

 characterizing the watershed

 modeling and analyzing the water body and its pollutants to determine the reduction in 

the pollutant load that would eliminate the impairment

 allocating load reductions to the appropriate sources

 preparing an implementation plan

 developing a TMDL support document for public review

 performing public outreach

 conducting formal public participation and responding to it

 management (including tracking, planning, legal support, etc.).

EPA (2001) indicates that the average cost per cause of impairment is approximately $28,000

nationally, but can typically range from about $6,000 to $154,000. The lower end of the range 

reflects the typical cost associated with TMDLs that are the easiest to develop and also have the 

benefit of maximum efficiencies (e.g., the TMDL for the second nutrient pollutant for a water 

body). The higher end of the range represents the typical cost associated with TMDLs that are 

most difficult to develop, and for which there is no benefit of related work done on other TMDLs 

for the water body or the watershed.

Since most of the incrementally impaired waters exceed both TN and TP criteria, average per 

TMDL costs could be $34,000 (i.e., $28,000 on average for the first nutrient, plus $6,000 for the 

second nutrient). Escalating this cost to June 2009 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Employment Cost Index (2001 Index = 83.6; 2009 Index = 112.9), average per TMDL costs 

could be approximately $46,000. Total TMDL development and adoption costs could be 

approximately $22.4 million. Currently, FDEP operates its TMDL schedule based on a fivephase cycle that rotates through the five basins over five years. Under this schedule, completion 

of TMDLs for high priority waters will take 9 years; it will take an additional 9 years to complete 
January 2010 3. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3-7

the process for medium priority waters. Thus, assuming all the incremental impairments are high 

priority and FDEP develops the new TMDLs over a 9-year period schedule cycle, annual costs 

would be $2.5 million. 

3.3 Existing CWA Section 303(d) List

There are 248 lake and stream WBIDs currently on the state’s CWA Section 303(d) list for 

nutrients (includes Category 5 and 4b waters) for which a TMDL has not been completed or 

proposed (Exhibit 2-5). Of these, there is sufficient water quality monitoring data to assess 

impairment based on the numeric nutrient criteria for 217 WBIDs (88%). Exhibit 3-6 shows the 

analysis of impairment under the proposed numeric criteria for the existing CWA Section 303(d) 

list.

Exhibit 3-6. Summary of Data Analysis for Existing CWA Section 303(d) List WBIDs

Category Number of WBIDs Total Lake Stream

On 303(d) List with Sufficient Data1 124 93 217

Potentially Exceed Criteria2 98 80 178

Impairment Uncertain3 6 0 6

CWA = Clean Water Act

TMDL = total maximum daily load

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WBID = water body identification

1. Includes those WBIDs on the state’s CWA Section 303(d) list for nutrients (and not covered by a TMDL) for which 

sufficient (i.e., meets data quality criteria) data are available to determine exceedance of numeric nutrient criteria.

2. Based on 10% of samples exceeding applicable TN or TP criterion.

3. Represents lakes in which impairment cannot be determine because color data are not available.

As shown by the exhibit, there are 39 WBIDs (217 minus 178) for which TN and TP 

concentration data are available on the current CWA Section 303(d) list that do not exceed the 

proposed numeric nutrient criteria. However, as described in Section 2.3, FDEP lists waters as 

impaired for nutrients based on a combination of TSI, chlorophyll-a concentrations and 

information indicating nutrient enrichment. Thus, it is uncertain whether it would delist waters 

currently on the CWA Section 303(d) list if instream TN and TP data indicate compliance with 

the numeric nutrient criteria.

3.4 Existing TMDLs

Because Florida’s existing nutrient criteria are narrative, FDEP calculates the water quality

targets for TN and TP in the TMDLs on a site-specific basis. The numeric nutrient criteria may

be more or less stringent than those site-specific targets. Exhibit 3-7 provides a comparison of 

the TMDL targets to the applicable FDEP draft numeric nutrient criteria.
January 2010 3. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3-8

Exhibit 3-7. Comparison of FDEP Draft Numeric Nutrient Criteria to Existing TMDL Targets

TMDL Name WBID Water Body Pollutant

TMDL 

Target 

(mg/L)

Numeric

Criterion

(mg/L)

Difference

Alachua Sink 2720A Alachua Sink: dry TN 1.48 1.66 -

Alachua Sink 2720A Alachua Sink: dry TP 0.16 0.089 +

Alachua Sink 2720A Alachua Sink: wet TN 1.34 1.66 -

Alachua Sink 2720A Alachua Sink: wet TP 0.15 0.089 +

Alligator Lake 3516A Alligator Lake TN 1.16 1.66 -

Alligator Lake 3516A Alligator Lake TP 0.07 0.089 -

Banana Lake and Canal 1549A Banana Lake Canal TN NS 1.72 ?

Banana Lake and Canal 1549A Banana Lake Canal TP NS 0.75 ?

Banana Lake and Canal 1549B Banana Lake TN NS 0.6 ?

Banana Lake and Canal 1549B Banana Lake TP NS 0.015 ?

Butcher Pen Creek 2322 Butcher Creek TN NS 1.72 ?

Crane Strand Drain 3014 Crane Strand Drain TN 0.69 1.72 -

Elevenmile Creek 489 Elevenmile Creek TN 0.74 0.82 -

Elevenmile Creek 489 Elevenmile Creek TP 0.06 0.069 -

Fenholloway & Ecofina R. 3473B Fenholloway River TN NS 1.72 ?

Fenholloway & Ecofina R. 3473B Fenholloway River TP NS 0.119 ?

Fishing Creek 2324 Fishing Creek TN NS 1.72 ?

Gordon River Extension 3278K Gordon River Extension TN 0.74 1.72 -

Hendry Creek 3258B Hendry Creek TN 0.74 1.72 -

Imperial River 3258E Imperial River TN 0.74 1.72 -

Juniper Creek 682 Juniper Creek TN 0.72 0.82 -

Lake Apopka 2835D Lake Apopka TP 0.055 0.015 +

Lake Beauclair 2834C Lake Beauclair TP 0.032 0.089 -

Lake Bonny 1497E Lake Bonny TN NS 0.6 ?

Lake Bonny 1497E Lake Bonny TP NS 0.015 ?

Lake Carlton 2837B Lake Carlton TP 0.032 0.015 +

Lake Dora 2831B Lake Dora TP 0.031 0.089 -

Lake Eustis-Haines Creek 2817A Haines Creek TP 0.025 0.119 -

Lake Eustis-Haines Creek 2817B Lake Eustis TP 0.025 0.015 +

Lake Griffin 2814A Lake Griffin TP 0.032 0.089 -

Lake Hancock-LSC 1623K Lower Saddle Creek TN NS 1.72 ?

Lake Hancock-LSC 1623K Lower Saddle Creek TP NS 0.75 ?

Lake Hancock-LSC 1623L Lake Hancock TN NS 1.66 ?

Lake Hancock-LSC 1623L Lake Hancock TP NS 0.089 ?

Lake Harris 2838A Lake Harris TP 0.026 0.015 +

Lake Harris 2838B Little Lake TP 0.026 0.015 +

Lake Hunter 1543 Lake Hunter TN 0.871 0.6 +

Lake Hunter 1543 Lake Hunter TP 0.061 0.015 +

Lake Jesup 2981 Lake Jesup TN 1.27 1.66 -

Lake Jesup 2981 Lake Jesup TP 0.096 0.089 +

Lake Jesup 2981A Lake Jesup TN 1.27 1.66 -

Lake Jesup 2981A Lake Jesup TP 0.096 0.089 +

Lake Lena 1501 Lake Lena TN NS 0.6 ?

Lake Lena 1501 Lake Lena TP NS 0.015 ?
January 2010 3. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3-9

Exhibit 3-7. Comparison of FDEP Draft Numeric Nutrient Criteria to Existing TMDL Targets

TMDL Name WBID Water Body Pollutant

TMDL 

Target 

(mg/L)

Numeric

Criterion

(mg/L)

Difference

Lake Okeechobee 3212A Lake Okeechobee TP 0.04 0.089 -

Lake Okeechobee 3212B Lake Okeechobee TP 0.04 0.089 -

Lake Okeechobee 3212C Lake Okeechobee TP 0.04 0.089 -

Lake Okeechobee 3212D Lake Okeechobee TP 0.04 0.089 -

Lake Okeechobee 3212E Lake Okeechobee TP 0.04 0.089 -

Lake Okeechobee 3212F Lake Okeechobee TP 0.04 0.089 -

Lake Okeechobee 3212G Lake Okeechobee TP 0.04 0.089 -

Lake Okeechobee 3212H Lake Okeechobee TP 0.04 0.089 -

Lake Okeechobee 3212I Lake Okeechobee TP 0.04 0.089 -

Lake Parker 1497B Lake Parker TN NS 1.66 ?

Lake Parker 1497B Lake Parker TP NS 0.089 ?

Lake Trafford 3259W Lake Trafford TN 1.09 1.66 -

Lake Trafford 3259W Lake Trafford TP 0.025 0.089 -

Lake Wauberg Outlet 2741 Lake Wauberg Outlet TN 1.01 1.72 -

Lake Wauberg Outlet 2741 Lake Wauberg Outlet TP 0.056 0.119 -

Lake Yale 2807A Lake Yale TP 0.02 0.015 +

Little Wekiva Canal 3004 Little Wekiva Canal TN 1.02 1.72 -

Long Branch 3030 Long Branch TN 0.87 1.72 -

Long Branch 3030 Long Branch TP 0.14 0.119 +

Lower St. John's River 2213G Lower St. John's River TN 5.4 1.66 +

Lower St. John's River 2213H Lower St. John's River TN 5.4 1.66 +

Lower St. John's River 2213I Lower St. John's River TN 5.4 1.66 +

Lower St. John's River 2213I Lower St. John's River TP NS ?

Lower St. John's River 2213J Lower St. John's River TN 5.4 1.66 +

Lower St. John's River 2213J Lower St. John's River TP NS ?

Lower St. John's River 2213K Lower St. John's River TN 5.4 1.66 +

Lower St. John's River 2213K Lower St. John's River TP NS ?

Lower St. John's River 2213L Lower St. John's River TN 5.4 1.66 +

Lower St. John's River 2213L Lower St. John's River TP NS ?

Lower St. John's River 2213M Lower St. John's River TN 5.4 1.72 +

Lower St. John's River 2213M Lower St. John's River TP NS 0.119 ?

Munson Slough/Lake 

Munson 807C Munson Lake TN 0.6 1.66 -

Munson Slough/Lake 

Munson 807C Munson Lake TP 0.037 0.089 -

Munson Slough/Lake 

Munson 807D Munson Slough TN 0.72 0.82 -

Munson Slough/Lake 

Munson 807D Munson Slough TP 0.15 0.069 +

N. St Lucie 3197 C-24 Canal Watershed TN 1.2 1.72 -

N. St Lucie 3197 C-24 Canal Watershed TP 0.1 0.119 -

New River 3506 New River TN 1.3 1.72 -

New River 3506 New River TP 0.13 0.359 -

New River 3506B New River TN 1.3 1.72 -

Newnans Lake 2705B Newnans Lake TN 0.97 1.66 -
January 2010 3. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3-10

Exhibit 3-7. Comparison of FDEP Draft Numeric Nutrient Criteria to Existing TMDL Targets

TMDL Name WBID Water Body Pollutant

TMDL 

Target 

(mg/L)

Numeric

Criterion

(mg/L)

Difference

Newnans Lake 2705B Newnans Lake TP 0.062 0.089 -

Orange Lake 2749A Orange Lake TP 0.031 0.089 -

Palatlakaha River 2839 Palatlakaha River TN NS 1.72 ?

Palatlakaha River 2839 Palatlakaha River TP NS 0.119 ?

Peace River above 

Bowlegs Creek 1623J Peace River above Bowlegs Creek TN NS 1.72 ?

St Joe C. and Pinellas 

Park Ditch 1668A Saint Joe's Creek TN NS 1.72 ?

St Joe C. and Pinellas 

Park Ditch 1668A Saint Joe's Creek TP NS 0.119 ?

St Joe C. and Pinellas 

Park Ditch 1668B Pinellas Park Ditch No. 5 TN NS 1.72 ?

St Joe C. and Pinellas 

Park Ditch 1668B Pinellas Park Ditch No. 5 TP NS 0.119 ?

Suwanee Basin 3422 Suwannee Basin TN NS 1.72 ?

Suwanee Basin 3605A Suwannee Basin TN NS 1.72 ?

Suwanee Basin 3605B Suwannee Basin TN NS 1.72 ?

Suwanee Basin 3605C Suwannee Basin TN NS 1.72 ?

Thirty Mile Creek 1639 Thirty Mile Creek TN 3.0 1.72 +

Trout Lake 2819A Trout Lake TN NS 1.66 ?

Trout Lake 2819A Trout Lake TP NS 0.089 ?

Upper Lake Lafayette 756A Upper Lake Lafayette TN 1.0 1.66 -

Upper Lake Lafayette 756A Upper Lake Lafayette TP 0.12 0.089 +

Upper St Johns River 2893L St. Johns R.ab. Lake 

Poinsett TP 0.09 0.119 -

Upper St Johns River 2893Q Lake Hell n' Blazes TP 0.09 0.089 +

Upper St Johns River 2893X St. Johns R. ab. Sawgrass 

Lake TP 0.09 0.119 -

Wekiva River 2956 upstream Wekiva River TP 0.065 0.119 -

Wekiva River 2987 Little Wekiva River TP 0.065 0.119 -

Wekiva River 2929A Black Water Creek TP 0.065 0.119 -

Wekiva River 2956A downstream Wekiva River TP 0.065 0.119 -

Wekiva Study Area 2987A Spring Lake TN 0.959 0.6 +

Wekiva Study Area 2987A Spring Lake TP 0.021 0.015 +

Wekiva Study Area 2998A Lake Florida TN 0.699 1.66 -

Wekiva Study Area 2998A Lake Florida TP 0.023 0.089 -

Wekiva Study Area 2998C Lake Orienta TN 0.814 0.6 +

Wekiva Study Area 2998C Lake Orienta TP 0.022 0.015 +

Wekiva Study Area 2998E Lake Adelaide TN 0.711 0.6 +

Wekiva Study Area 2998E Lake Adelaide TP 0.027 0.015 +

Wekiva Study Area 3004C Lake Lawne TN 1.107 1.66 -

Wekiva Study Area 3004C Lake Lawne TP 0.055 0.089 -

Wekiva Study Area 3004D Silver Lake TN 0.575 0.6 -

Wekiva Study Area 3004D Silver Lake TP 0.015 0.015 -

Wekiva Study Area 3004G Bay Lake TN 1.108 0.6 +
January 2010 3. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3-11

Exhibit 3-7. Comparison of FDEP Draft Numeric Nutrient Criteria to Existing TMDL Targets

TMDL Name WBID Water Body Pollutant

TMDL 

Target 

(mg/L)

Numeric

Criterion

(mg/L)

Difference

Wekiva Study Area 3004G Bay Lake TP 0.019 0.015 +

West Clark Lake 1971 West Clark Lake TN 1.018 1.66 -

West Clark Lake 1971 West Clark Lake TP 0.217 0.089 +

Winter Haven Southern

Chain of Lakes 1521 Lake Lulu TP NS 0.015 ?

Winter Haven Southern

Chain of Lakes 1521D Lake Shipp TP NS 0.015 ?

Winter Haven Southern

Chain of Lakes 1521E Lake May TP NS 0.015 ?

Winter Haven Southern

Chain of Lakes 1521F Lake Howard TP NS 0.015 ?

Winter Haven Southern

Chain of Lakes 1521G Lake Mirror TP NS 0.015 ?

Winter Haven Southern

Chain of Lakes 1521H Lake Cannon TP NS 0.015 ?

Winter Haven Southern

Chain of Lakes 1521J Lake Idylwild TP NS 0.015 ?

Winter Haven Southern

Chain of Lakes 1521K Lake Jessie TP NS 0.015 ?

mg/L = milligrams per liter

NS = Not specified

TMDL = total maximum daily load

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WBID = water body identification

“-“ = Numeric criteria are less stringent than current targets

“+” = Numeric criteria are more stringent than current targets

“?” = Potential difference between current targets and numeric criteria uncertain (no numeric concentration-based 

target specified in TMDL)

FDEP may be asked to reconsider TMDLs reflecting less stringent targets than FDEP’s draft 

numeric criteria, which may result in additional development and implementation costs. There 

may also be some savings in control costs if FDEP revises TMDL targets that are more stringent 

than would be necessary under the numeric criteria.
January 2010 4. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater 4-1

4. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater

Compared to baseline NPDES permit conditions for nutrient discharges, municipal and industrial 

wastewater dischargers may receive more stringent limitations under FDEP’s draft numeric 

nutrient criteria. This section provides preliminary estimates of the potential incremental control 

actions and costs that these dischargers may incur to comply with revised permit conditions.

4.1 Municipal Wastewater Sources

NPDES permitting authorities determine the need for WQBELs for point sources based on 

analysis of RP to exceed the water quality criteria.

4.1.1 Reasonable Potential 

FDEP generally follows the procedures in EPA’s TSD for other pollutants with numeric criteria. 

For example, for aquatic life criteria, the TSD recommends finding that a permittee has RP to 

exceed a standard if it cannot be demonstrated with a high confidence level that the upper bound 

of the lognormal distribution of effluent concentrations is below the criteria at specified low-flow 

conditions (U.S. EPA, 1991).

Medium to high strength untreated domestic wastewater typically contains 40 mg/L to 70 mg/L 

of TN and 7 mg/L to 12 mg/L of TP (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). Effluent concentrations depend 

on treatment controls. For example, activated sludge with single stage nitrification results in 

typical TN concentrations of 20 mg/L to 30 mg/L and TP concentrations of 6 mg/L to 10 mg/L 

(Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). For enhanced nutrient removal, the limits of technology (LOT) for 

TN and TP are 3 mg/L and 0.1 mg/L, respectively, although certain dischargers may be able to 

produce effluent concentrations below these levels (Jeyanayagam, 2005). All of the proposed TN 

criteria are below the LOT. Proposed TP criteria for flowing waters are at or below the LOT in 

three of the five regions; proposed TP criteria for lakes are below the LOT. 

Based on GIS overlay of WWTP locations with waters impaired under the baseline and the 

proposed rule, there are 77 WWTPs (82%) discharging to waters exceeding nutrient criteria. 

Since the waters are already impaired, there is no assimilative capacity and any increase in load 

may cause or contribute to the violation of standards. Thus, all of these WWTPs would have RP.

Dischargers to unimpaired waters may also have RP. For example, the City of Starke WWTP 

discharges to Alligator Creek (WBID 3598C), which would not be impaired under the proposed 

criteria based on instream monitoring data.8The discharger would not likely receive dilution in 

determining RP because the permitted capacity [1.93 cubic feet per second (cfs)] is much greater 

than the ambient water low flow (7Q10 flow of 0.3 cfs). Thus, the discharger would have RP 

because the projected maximum TN and TP effluent concentrations (16.5 mg/L and 3.24 mg/L, 

respectively) are greater than the applicable criteria. 

 

8 The water body is in the North Central region with TN criterion of 1.72 mg/L and TP criterion of 0.359 mg/L. 

Existing ambient monitoring data indicate that the maximum TN concentration is 0.54 mg/L and all TP 

concentrations are nondetect below 0.06 mg/L.
January 2010 4. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater 4-2

Site-specific data such as instream nutrient concentrations and low flow conditions would be 

needed to determine RP for each facility. However, because most WWTPs are likely to discharge 

nutrients at concentrations above applicable criteria and over 80% of WWTPs are discharging to 

impaired waters, for a preliminary estimate of costs we assumed that all WWTPs would have RP 

under the proposed numeric nutrient criteria.

4.1.2 Water Quality Based Effluent Limits 

Based on TSD procedures, any discharger with RP should get WQBELs which would take into 

account dilution, if available. However, due to a lack of receiving water low flow and other sitespecific data, we assumed the criteria would be applied end-of-pipe (i.e., no dilution). Applying 

criteria end-of-pipe would also prevent a discharger from causing a new impairment in a water 

body. 

In areas where the LOT of is below the criterion, it may be infeasible to meet the criterion 

instream due to technology limitations, especially if the water is dominated by WWTP 

discharges; for waters with assimilative capacity, requiring WWTPs to achieve LOT would not 

likely affect attainment of the standards assuming other sources are controlled. In those cases 

where it may be technologically infeasible to attain the standards, a use attainability analysis may

be needed; site-specific modeling would be needed to identify such instances and determine 

appropriate WQBELs. However, in the absence of such modeling, we assumed that all WWTPs 

would need to treat to criteria-end-of-pipe or the LOT, whichever is greater.

4.1.3 Potential Controls

Potential controls to reduce TN and TP to the levels necessary to achieve the revised criteria endof-pipe include biological nutrient removal (BNR), chemical precipitation, and effluent reuse.

BNR

BNR removes TN and TP from wastewater through the use of microorganisms under different 

environmental conditions in the treatment process (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). There are a number 

of BNR process configurations available. Some BNR systems are designed to remove only TN 

or TP, while others remove both. BNR configurations vary based on the sequencing of 

environmental conditions (i.e., aerobic, anaerobic, and anoxic)9and timing (Jeyanayagam, 2005). 

Common BNR system configurations include:

 Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) Process – continuous-flow suspended-growth process 

with an initial anoxic stage followed by an aerobic stage; used to remove TN

 Anaerobic-Anoxic Oxidation (A2/O) Process – MLE process preceded by an initial 

anaerobic stage; used to remove both TN and TP

 Step Feed Process – alternating anoxic and aerobic stages; however, influent flow is split 

to several feed locations and the recycle sludge stream is sent to the beginning of the 

process; used to remove TN

 

9 Anoxic is a condition in which oxygen is available only in the combined form (e.g., NO2- or NO3-). However, 

anaerobic is a condition in which neither free nor combined oxygen is available (WEF and ASCE/EWRI, 2006).
January 2010 4. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater 4-3

 Bardenpho Process (Four-Stage) – continuous-flow suspended-growth process with 

alternating anoxic/aerobic/anoxic/aerobic stages; used to remove TN

 Modified Bardenpho Process – Bardenpho process with addition of an initial anaerobic 

zone; used to remove both TN and TP 

 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Process – suspended-growth batch process sequenced 

to simulate the four-stage process; used to remove TN (TP removal is inconsistent)

 Modified University of Cape Town (UCT) Process – A

2

/O Process with a second anoxic 

stage where the internal nitrate recycle is returned; used to remove both TN and TP

 Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) Process – continuous-flow process using RBCs 

with sequential anoxic/aerobic stages; used to remove TN

 Oxidation Ditch – continuous-flow process using looped channels to create time 

sequenced anoxic, aerobic, and anaerobic zones; used to remove both TN and TP.

Exhibit 4-1 provides a comparison of the TN and TP removal capabilities of common BNR 

configurations. Since site-specific conditions dictate the performance of each process, the exhibit 

provides only a general comparison of treatment performance among the various BNR 

configurations.

Exhibit 4-1. Comparison of Common BNR Configurations

Process Nitrogen Removal Phosphorus Removal

MLE Good None

A2/O Good Good

Step Feed Moderate None

Four-Stage Bardenpho Excellent None

Modified (Five-Stage) Bardenpho Excellent Good

SBR Moderate Inconsistent

Modified UCT Good Excellent

Oxidation Ditch Excellent Good

Source: Jeyanayagam (2005).

A2/O = anaerobic-anoxic oxidation

BNR = biological nutrient removal

MLE = Modified Ludzack-Ettinger

SBR = Sequencing Batch Reactor

UCT = University of Cape Town

The limit of technology (LOT), at least for larger treatment plants, is 3 mg/L for TN and 0.1 

mg/L for TP (Jeyanayagam, 2005). However, some facilities may be able to achieve 

concentrations lower than these levels due to site-specific conditions.

For example, the city of Clearwater, Florida, operates two five-stage Bardenpho WWTPs. The 

second anoxic zone in the process provides denitrification of the nitrates created in the aeration 

zone (U.S. EPA, 2008). TP is removed biologically in the anaerobic zone, and alum is fed to the 

second anoxic zone (the fourth reaction basin) for the dual purpose of phosphorus polishing and 

meeting the state requirement of low-level trihalomethane levels in the reuse water (U.S. EPA, 

2008). In addition, a gravity sand filter is used to remove phosphorus tied to suspended solids in 

the final effluent. The annual average concentrations for TN and TP are 2.32 mg/L and 0.11 

mg/L, respectively, at the Marshall Street plant and 2.04 mg/L and 0.20 mg/L, respectively, at 
January 2010 4. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater 4-4

the Northeast plant. Both plants operated with high efficiency and low variability (U.S. EPA, 

2008).

In addition, the Lee County, Fiesta Village WWTP employs oxidation ditches with methanol 

addition prior to denitrification filters to achieve an annual average TN concentration of 1.38 

mg/L (U.S. EPA, 2008). To achieve average effluent TP concentrations of 0.1 mg/L, the facility

uses alum addition and the denitrification filters to remove particulate phosphorus (U.S. EPA, 

2008).

Chemical Precipitation

Chemical precipitation primarily uses aluminum and iron coagulants or lime to form chemical 

flocs with phosphorus. These flocs then settle out to remove phosphorus from the wastewater 

(Viessman and Hammer, 1998). However, compared to biological removal of phosphorus, 

chemical processes have higher operating costs, produce more sludge, and result in added 

chemicals in sludge (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). When TP levels close to 0.1 mg/L are needed, a 

combination of biological and chemical processes may be less costly than either process by 

itself. However, such a determination is site-specific.

Effluent Reuse

Effluent reuse does not reduce the concentration of nutrients in the effluent. However, in the case 

of partial effluent reuse (e.g., a portion of the wastewater is discharged to the receiving water and 

a portion is used for reuse applications), decreasing the volume of nutrient-containing 

wastewater that is discharged to the receiving water decreases the total nutrient load and could 

result in meeting the standards in the water body. If the water body has no assimilative capacity, 

only 100% effluent reuse (i.e., no discharge to the receiving water) would be sufficient.

Effluent reuse can be used instead of potable water for a number of nonpotable purposes 

including agricultural and landscape irrigation, industrial uses, and ground water recharge. Costs 

associated with reuse applications include conveyance systems and storage tanks for reuse water 

as well as additional treatment that may be needed to meet reuse standards (e.g., low bacteria and 

turbidity concentrations). For example, in Florida, FDEP adopted standards that ensure 

protection of human health, including the APRICOT Act of 1994, which contains provisions for 

backup water discharges and groundwater injection. However, the feasibility of effluent reuse as 

a control option for reducing nutrient loads to receiving waters depends on demand for reuse 

water. 

4.1.4 Potential Affected Sources

EPA’s PCS database indicates that there is one municipal WWTP with TN limits more stringent 

than the proposed criterion. Completed TMDLs for lakes and rivers also indicate that there are 

six WWTPs with wasteload allocations that would require treatment to at least the LOT for TN 

and/or TP. Thus, controls to reduce both TN and TP to LOT would not be necessary.

In addition, the WAFR database and electronically available permits indicate that there are 

several WWTPs in Florida already operating BNR processes capable of achieving the proposed 
January 2010 4. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater 4-5

criteria (or LOT where the criterion is below the LOT). For example, dischargers operating 

treatment processes that remove both TN and TP to the LOT (e.g., A2/O, modified Bardenpho, 

modified UCT, oxidation ditches or other BNR coupled with chemical precipitation) would 

likely be in compliance with WQBELs based on numeric nutrient criteria. Dischargers operating 

treatment processes that remove only TN to the LOT (e.g., MLE and four-stage Bardenpho 

processes) or TP to the LOT (e.g., chemical precipitation without BNR) would likely be in 

compliance with WQBELs based on numeric criteria for TN and TP, respectively. Municipal 

WWTPs without these configurations or those not operating BNR would likely need to retrofit or 

expand existing treatment to reduce nutrients to the necessary levels. 

Exhibit 4-2 summarizes the treatment capabilities of municipal WWTPs in Florida based on the 

treatment descriptions contained in the WAFR and NPDES permits and treatment that would be 

necessary to meet wasteload allocations in TMDLs/BMAPs.

Exhibit 4-2. Treatment Level for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants1

Discharge Type Number of Dischargers

TN and TP to LOT1 TN to LOT2 TP to LOT3 No LOT4

Major 11 9 4 23

Minor 9 5 0 33

Total 20 14 4 56

Source: Based on treatment train descriptions in FDEP (2009b) and NPDES permits and treatment necessary to 

meet wasteload allocations in completed TMDLs/BMAPs.

A2/O = anaerobic-anoxic oxidation

BMAP = Basin Management Area Plan

BNR = biological nutrient removal

LOT = limit of technology

mg/L = milligrams per liter

MLE = Modified Ludzack-Ettinger

NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

TMDL = total maximum daily load

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

UCT = University of Cape Town

1. Includes dischargers with A2/O, modified Bardenpho, modified UCT, oxidation ditches, or other BNR coupled with 

chemical precipitation and those with wasteload allocations under a TMDL for both TN and TP of less than 3 mg/L 

and 0.1 mg/L, respectively.

2. Includes dischargers with MLE, four-stage Bardenpho, and BNR specified to achieve less than 3 mg/L and those 

with wasteload allocations under a TMDL for TN of less than 3 mg/L.

3. Includes dischargers with chemical precipitation without BNR and those with wasteload allocations under a 

TMDL for TP of less than 0.1 mg/L.

4. Includes dischargers without LOT-capable treatment processes or treatment train description missing or unclear. 

4.1.5 Potential Control Costs

EPA (2008) provides unit cost estimates for BNR retrofits and upgrades for various TN and TP 

performance levels. Exhibit 4-3 shows retrofit costs for systems in Florida that achieve TN 

concentrations less than 3 mg/L and TP concentrations less than 0.5 mg/L, as well as estimates 

EPA derived from wastewater treatment cost estimating software (CAPDETWorks). Note that 
January 2010 4. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater 4-6

site-specific estimated project costs are not included in the average unit cost calculations because 

they do not represent the actual costs incurred to install the applicable technologies.

Exhibit 4-3. BNR Retrofit Capital and O&M Unit Costs (2009 dollars)1

Source of Costs Flow 

(mgd) Description Capital Unit Cost ($/gpd)

O&M Unit 

Cost ($/MG)

TN Less than 3 mg/L

CAPDETWorks 10 Phased oxidation ditch $0.51 $47

CAPDETWorks 10 MLE retrofit $0.77 $88

CAPDETWorks 10 Step-feed retrofit $0.70 $98

CAPDETWorks 10 Denitrification filter $0.77 $168

Average $0.68 $101

TP Less Than 0.5 mg/L

CAPDETWorks 10 Fermenter retrofit, no filter $0.19 $8

CAPDETWorks 10 1-point chemical addition, no filter $0.03 $98

CAPDETWorks 10 Fermenter and sand filtration retrofit $0.47 $27

Average $0.23 $44

TP Less Than 0.1 mg/L

CAPDETWorks 10 Fermenter, sand filtration, and 1-pt chemical 

addition $0.51 $114

CAPDETWorks 10 2-pt chemical addition and filter $0.31 $232

Average $0.41 $173

TN Less Than 3 mg/L and TP Less Than 0.5 mg/L2

Clearwater, FL 10 5-stage Bardenpho with sand filter and 

chemical addition $3.17 $260

Lee County, FL 5 Denitrification filter and chemical addition $3.00 $285

Average $3.09 $273

TN Less Than 3 mg/L and TP Less Than 0.1 mg/L

CAPDETWorks 10 PID retrofit with 1-pt chemical addition, 

clarifier, and filter $0.96 $215

CAPDETWorks 10 5-stage Bardenpho and chemical addition $1.40 $276

CAPDETWorks 10 Nitrification, chemical addition, and 

denitrification filter retrofit $0.81 $483

Average $1.06 $325

Source: U.S. EPA (2008)

gpd = gallons per day

MG = million gallons

mgd = million gallons per day

mg/L = milligrams per liter

O&M = operation and maintenance

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

1. Capital and O&M costs updated from original reported year dollars (May 2007 and July 2007) to July 2009 dollars 

using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (index values of 7942, 7959, and 8566 for May 2007, 

July 2007, and July 2009, respectively).

2. Includes cost for Clearwater, Florida plants because the effluent data summary in EPA (2008) indicates that 

WWTPs are achieving below 0.5 mg/L TP on average.
January 2010 4. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater 4-7

The treatment level needed is based on the existing level of treatment at the plant (Exhibit 4-2) 

and the applicable TN and TP criteria (Exhibit 1-1). For example, the municipal WWTPs without 

LOT-type treatment in the North Central and Bone Valley regions would need to treat to the 

LOT for TN (3 mg/L) and to below 0.5 mg/L TP (average capital cost of $3.09/gpd and O&M of 

$273/million gallon). Exhibit 4-4 summarizes the average costs applicable to each type of 

discharger.

Exhibit 4-4. Treatment Level and Costs for Municipal WWTPs

Existing Treatment

Level Nutrient Region/Lake Type Proposed Treatment Level

Capital Cost 

($/gpd)

O&M Cost 

($/MG)

No LOT

Bone Valley or North Central TN <3 mg/L; TP <0.5 mg/L $3.09 $273

Clear and Colored lakes, 

Panhandle, Northeast, and 

Peninsula

TN <3 mg/L; TP <0.1 mg/L $1.06 $325

LOT for TN only

Bone Valley and North Central TP <0.5 mg/L $0.23 $44

Clear and Colored lakes, 

Panhandle, Northeast, and 

Peninsula

TP <0.1 mg/L $0.41 $173

LOT for TP only All TN <3 mg/L $0.68 $101

LOT for TN and TP All None No costs No costs

gpd = gallons per day

LOT = limit of technology

MG = million gallons

mg/L = milligrams per liter

O&M = operation and maintenance

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

If the average costs shown in the exhibit are indicative of those that similar facilities in Florida

would incur to retrofit existing treatment trains to achieve the LOT for TN and TP, total capital 

costs could be approximately $252 million for majors and $48 million for minors. Operation and 

maintenance (O&M) costs could be approximately $19 million for majors and $5 million for 

minors. Annual costs would be approximately $43 million for majors and $9 million for minors 

(annualized capital at 7% over 20 years plus annual O&M costs). These estimates reflect the 

average unit costs multiplied by total flows contained in EPA’s PCS database, as shown in 

Appendix A. Note that the total does not include costs for three master reuse systems classified 

as municipal WWTPs in PCS. These systems receive inflow from several WWTPs which are 

treating to the LOT; thus, any discharges to surface waters from the master reuse systems should 

meet numeric nutrient criteria.

4.2 Industrial Wastewater Sources

EPA’s PCS database indicates that there is only one industrial discharger with TP limits as 

stringent as or more stringent than the applicable criterion. This discharger, Florida Natural 

Growers, has not discharged to surface water since January 2001 (U.S. EPA, 2009b). 
January 2010 4. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater 4-8

Treatment to reduce nutrient levels from industrial sources is site-specific and varies based on 

process operations, existing treatment train, and composition of waste streams. For example, to 

meet its wasteload allocation under the LSJR TMDL, Anheuser Busch improved pond nutrient 

removal with hyacinth management, a baffle system to improve detention time, and the use of 

aeration in some zones at its Lem Turner location. At its Main Street location, the discharger 

reduced the nutrient load by improving/modifying the site nutrient management plan and 

increasing the crop area to which they land applied a portion of the wastewater to reduce the 

nutrient load per acre (personal communication with T. Busby, Wildwood Consulting, August 

2009). In addition, Georgia Pacific reduced the amount of nutrient added to the treatment ponds, 

and Smurfit Stone Container achieved reductions through a reduction of productivity to meet 

their allocations under the LSJR TMDL (personal communication with T. Busby, Wildwood 

Consulting, August 2009).

In most cases, it is more cost effective for industrial dischargers to control the source of nutrients 

in the effluent through BMPs, product substitution, process modifications, or process 

optimization than to treat the entire effluent prior to discharge. For example, in the Chesapeake 

Bay most industrial dischargers have reduced nutrient loads through pollution prevention (CBP, 

2004). Given the range of industrial categories with potential to discharge nutrients in Florida, 

needed measures and costs, if any, will be highly site specific. However, to illustrate the 

potential magnitude of costs, if dischargers spend an average of $25,000 per year on source 

control and process optimization to reduce nutrient loads, total annual costs to the industrial and 

general-permitted dischargers (Exhibit 2-2) would be $2.9 million.
January 2010 5. Urban Storm Water 5-1

5. Urban Storm Water

Numeric nutrient criteria may affect urban storm water dischargers through changes to permit 

requirements or the TMDL and BMAP processes. This section provides discussion of how such 

changes may affect control actions; actual control actions will depend on site-specific conditions 

and compliance strategies.

5.1 Land Use

As shown in Exhibit 3-4, urban land use (excluding categories such as industrial, which are 

covered under municipal and industrial wastewater) accounts for 10% of the land use in HUCs 

surrounding the potential incrementally impaired waters. Approximately, 2% is high density 

residential, 4% is medium density, 4% is low density, and less than 1% is other urban (e.g., 

recreational facilities). A GIS overlay of low, medium, and high density residential land 

surrounding the potential incrementally impaired waters (Exhibit 5-1) shows the distribution of 

urban land. 

5.2 Potential Controls

Under existing regulations, NPDES permits for MS4s require implementation of BMPs to the 

maximum extent practicable (MEP). For example, the Seminole County MS4 permit indicates 

that each permittee must implement a comprehensive storm water management plan (SWMP) 

that includes pollution prevention measures, treatment or removal techniques, storm water 

monitoring, and use of legal authority and other appropriate means to control the quality of storm 

water discharged from the MS4; any storm water structural control shall be operated in a manner 

to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MEP. The permit does not contain numeric effluent 

limits. In fact, EPA’s PCS database indicates that none of the MS4s in Florida have numeric 

effluent limits. While states have the authority to include numeric limits in MS4 permits, most 

rely solely on implementation of BMPs. Thus, specific changes in the form of numeric effluent 

limits to MS4 permits conditions as a result of numeric nutrient criteria are unlikely.

Nonetheless, incremental controls could be required from urban areas through the TMDL and 

BMAP processes. However, if existing concentration data (e.g., Harper and Baker, 2007) does 

not reflect complete implementation of baseline permit requirements and recent regulations (e.g., 

Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule), existing TMDLs and BMAPs may not be indicative of the 

reductions and controls needed in incrementally impaired waters. For example, the LSJR BMAP 

lists a number of storm water control projects such as baffle boxes, retention/detention, street 

sweeping, and education with completion dates prior to completion of the BMAP and thus may

reflect baseline controls.
January 2010 5. Urban Storm Water 5-2

Exhibit 5-1. Map of Urban Land Surrounding Potential Incrementally Impaired Waters
January 2010 5. Urban Storm Water 5-3

There are a number of controls being implemented in urban areas to reduce nutrients under 

existing regulations. For example, the Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule requires a reduction in the 

amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that can be applied to lawns and recreational areas through 

fertilizer concentrations and application rates. In addition, existing storm water regulations and 

TMDLs for other pollutants (e.g., bacteria, metals) require a baseline level of BMP 

implementation to protect water quality. 

Thus, the need for incremental controls on urban sources will depend on the concentration of 

nutrients in runoff after implementation of existing storm water control program, and the loads 

allocated to urban sources in TMDLs for the potential incrementally impaired waters. 

Preliminarily, it is uncertain if controls beyond those required under the baseline would be 

needed for the incrementally impaired waters to meet the FDEP’s draft numeric criteria. 
January 2010 6. Agriculture 6-1

6. Agriculture

Agricultural discharges in Florida do not receive discharge permits. However, FDEP’s draft 

numeric nutrient criteria may affect these dischargers through the TMDL and BMAP processes. 

This section illustrates the types of controls and costs that could be incurred; actual costs will 

depend on site-specific conditions and control strategies. 

6.1 Land Use

As shown in Exhibit 3-4, agricultural use accounts for more than 40% of the land use in HUCs 

surrounding the potential incrementally impaired waters. Exhibit 6-1 shows the acreage of 

various agriculture land use categories within HUCs surrounding the potential incrementally 

impaired waters. 

Exhibit 6-1. Agriculture Land Use Area Surrounding Incrementally 

Impaired Waters

Agricultural Land Use Area (acres)

Animal Feeding 7,738

Citrus Crop 502,345

Cow Calf Production, Improved Pastures 1,043,322

Cow Calf Production, Rangeland and Wooded Pasture 258,664

Cow Calf Production, Unimproved Pastures 295,626

Dairies 6,175

Field Crop (Hayland) Production 318,650

Horse Farms 11,687

Ornamental Nursery 42,394

Pine Plantation 2,357,558

Row Crop 1,266,901

Sod/Turf Grass 14,034

Total 6,125,094

The distribution of point sources (including MS4s) in relation to the incrementally impaired 

waters (Exhibit 6-2) suggests that controls on nonpoint sources, such as agriculture, would be 

needed to meet the numeric nutrient criteria. In a number of areas, there are no or few point 

source dischargers. In other areas, the flow from point sources may not be significant and 

nutrient sources to the water body may be dominated by nonpoint sources.
January 2010 6. Agriculture 6-2

Exhibit 6-2. Point Sources with Potential to Discharge Nutrients and Incrementally Impaired Waters
January 2010 6. Agriculture 6-3

6.2 Potential Controls

FDEP will identify the magnitude of loading reductions needed from nonpoint sources in 

TMDLs for individual waters. Once identified, site-specific modeling of controls would be 

needed to identify the extent and most cost-effective mix of agricultural practices to attain 

needed reductions from agricultural land. For example, EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

developed detailed watershed modeling of sources of nutrients and sediment affecting water 

quality in the Chesapeake Bay that it used to identify control scenarios for attaining water quality 

standards (U.S. EPA, 2003). The reductions obtained from any one practice will vary with onsite 

conditions including soils and proximity to waters, BMP implementation, and nutrients used or 

produced. 

Nonetheless, nutrient management may be a cost-effective practice given the potential to reduce 

fertilizer costs. Nutrient management reduces unnecessary nutrient applications by determining 

realistic yield expectations and nutrient requirements, and adjusting application methods and 

timing to minimize pollution (USDA, 1998; U.S. EPA, 1993). Fertilization requirements vary by

crop across the state (UF/IFAS, 2009).

However, in areas where large reductions from agricultural sources are needed, nutrient 

management alone would not likely be sufficient to reduce nutrients to levels necessary. For 

example, SWET (2008a) indicates that nutrient management would result in typical TN and TP 

reductions ranging from 1% to 30% in the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River watersheds, 

depending on the type of farm. Thus, additional BMPs could be needed. 

Farming may occur right up to the edge of the stream. Riparian buffers along receiving waters 

provide vegetation to remove nutrients and other pollutants from surface and subsurface lateral 

flows (USDA, 1998). Environmental Defense (2003) reports that based on available studies, the 

optimal buffer width (whether grass or forest) for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment is 

15 to 30 meters (50 to 100 feet) for gently sloped areas; studies show that trapping or removal 

efficiency does not increase for wider buffers. Based on studies reviewed by Wenger (1999), in 

gently sloping areas (e.g., 0-10% slopes), 100-foot riparian buffers remove over 80% of 

phosphorus and nitrogen. Thus, buffers may provide sufficient reductions from agricultural lands 

in watersheds draining to incrementally impaired waters. However, to be effective in reducing 

nutrients from agricultural discharges, riparian buffers would likely need to be forested because 

grass buffers are often limited in nutrient uptake (Durham, 2003). 

Land use in the incrementally impaired WBIDs includes livestock and dairy operations. Existing 

federal regulations and strategies target manure handling and application on CAFOs and animal 

feeding operations. However, animals still have access to streams (SWET, 2006). Fencing of 

incrementally impaired receiving waters would provide incremental reductions in nutrients by

keeping animals out of streams.

6.3 Potential Costs

The costs of practices to reduce nutrients in runoff from agricultural sources may include capital 

and O&M expenditures, and lost revenue for practices that take land out of production. Two 
January 2010 6. Agriculture 6-4

statewide programs provide estimates of these costs. Florida’s Environmental Quality Incentive 

Program (EQIP) provides 100% cost share payments for the installation of BMPs (FL EQIP, 

2009a). The payment amounts reflect statewide average costs of implementing the practices on a 

scale and scope typical in Florida (personal communication with J. Bartine, USDA NRCS 

Florida State Office, July 2009). Payments for nonstructural practices reflect a one year practice 

lifespan (e.g., one year of rotating crop, maintaining records). These payments do not include 

compensation for practices that take land out of production (FL EQIP, 2009b). However, CREP 

provides rental payments, cost-share assistance, and other financial incentives to encourage 

producers to voluntarily enroll in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts. The average 

rental payment in Florida as of June 2009 is approximately $39 per acre (USDS FSA, 2009).

6.3.1 Nutrient Management

For nutrient management, EQIP provides a payment of $10 per acre for general agriculture and 

$20 per acre for specialty crop (FL EQIP, 2009a).10 EQIP (2009b) notes that this amount is an 

incentive payment which includes the cost of soil sampling, testing and monitoring; the rate is 

established to encourage the participant to adopt the management practice. Note that these costs 

do not include any cost savings associated with decreased fertilizer use or cost of potential crop 

loss due to under fertilization.

Exhibit 6-2 indicates that there are approximately 3.8 million acres of general agriculture (e.g., 

improved pastures, field crops, ornamental nursery, and pine plantations) and 1.8 million acres of 

specialty crops (e.g., citrus, sod/turf grass, and row crops) in incrementally impaired watersheds. 

Nutrient management for all of these acres could be approximately $73.3 million. Annualized 

costs would be approximately $27.9 million based on a useful life of 3 years (based on 

requirements to update plans every 3 years in Chesapeake Bay area states) and a discount rate of 

7%.

6.3.2 Forest Buffers

The cost of installing a forest buffer includes up-front implementation costs to convert 

agricultural land to the buffer and annual opportunity costs of foregone agricultural production 

on the buffer area. EQIP provides payment of $350 per acre for riparian forest buffers (FL EQIP,

2009a). This payment is to cover average total implementation costs including the cost of all 

materials, equipment use, and labor required to install site preparation; plant containerized 

shrubs, trees and perennial grass; and apply fertilizer and lime for establishment (FL EQIP, 

2009b). Based on a 100-ft wide buffer along the 6,200 water body miles bordered by agriculture 

(determined using GIS; total miles account for land use on both sides of a stream and lake 

 

10 For comparison, best professional judgment estimates of nutrient management costs in the Lake Okeechobee 

watershed range from $0 per acre for citrus and pine plantations to $11 per acre for ornamental nurseries to reduce 

phosphorus fertilization (SWET, 2006). SWET (2006) reports these values for both initial and annual costs. To 

reduce nitrogen in the Caloosahatchee River and St. Lucie River watersheds (SWET, 2008a), nutrient management 

costs range from $0 for citrus crop for better nitrogen and micros fertilization to $20 for citrus crops to reduce 

nitrogen fertilization. The initial and annual costs are the same for most of the estimates; however, for reducing

fertilization for citrus crops the initial cost of $20 per acre is annualized at 10% over 20 year plus 20% of initial for 

O&M to calculate the annual cost. 
January 2010 6. Agriculture 6-5

perimeter), the total buffer area needed could be approximately 75,200 acres.11 Thus, initial 

buffer costs would be approximately $26.3 million. Annualized costs would be $2.1 million 

based on a useful life of 30 years and a discount rate of 7%, and no O&M costs.

Using the average land rental payment of $39 per acre, total land rental payments for the 75,200

acres of forest buffers would be approximately $2.9 million per year. Adding this value to the 

annualized installation costs results in total annual costs of approximately $5.1 million.

6.3.3 Fencing

EQIP provides a payment of $1.13 per linear foot for fencing organic, muck soils (FL EQIP, 

2009a). The payment includes all materials, equipment use, and labor required to install barbed 

wire, line posts, corner posts, gate posts, single H braces, double H braces, staples, stays, and 

gates (FL EQIP, 2009b). There are approximately 11.8 million linear feet (2,237 miles) of lakes 

(perimeter) and streams in the incrementally impaired watersheds that are bordered by livestock 

farmland (based on GIS overlay of land use categories). This distance implies a fencing cost of 

approximately $13.3 million. Annualized installation costs could be $1.9 million, assuming a 10 

year useful life and a rate of 7%, and no O&M costs. Note that costs for additional livestock

watering facilities, if necessary, are not included.

 

11 The number of water body miles needed in forest buffers is based on GIS overlay of land use categories for 

agriculture and streams and lakes. The GIS analysis accounts for land use on either side of a stream, thus, 

accounting for instances in which the stream runs through the farmland.
January 2010 7. Septic Systems 7-1

7. Septic Systems

Discharges from septic systems in Florida do not receive surface water discharge permits. 

However, FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria may affect these systems through the TMDL 

and BMAP processes. This section illustrates the types of controls and costs that could be 

incurred; actual costs will depend on site-specific conditions and control strategies.

7.1 Potential Controls

Most of the existing nutrient-related TMDLs identify failing septic systems as sources of 

nutrients to surface waters; properly operated and maintained systems should provide equivalent 

to secondary wastewater treatment. For TMDLs in which septic systems are a potentially

significant source, FDEP usually calculates the pollutant load based on the estimated septic tank 

failure rate. For example, in the Wekiva Lake Nutrient TMDL, the failure rate is calculated based 

on the total number of new septic installations in the county divided by the number of repair 

permits for each year. FDEP refers to the repair rate as the failure discovery rate. FDEP uses a 

septic tank failure rate of five times the discovery rate because it takes an average of five years 

for homeowners to discover a septic tank failure. 

Based on FDEP’s method, the average statewide failure rate (from 2000 to 2008) is 

approximately 3.5%. Exhibit 7-1 shows the calculation.

Exhibit 7-1. Average Statewide Septic Tank Failure Rate

Year New installation

Cumulative 

Installation Repair Permits

Failure 

Discovery Rate1 Failure Rate2

2000-01 32,211 2,384,106 18,774 0.79% 3.94%

2001-02 33,672 2,417,778 18,955 0.78% 3.92%

2002-03 34,612 2,452,390 19,748 0.81% 4.03%

2003-04 41,549 2,493,939 18,708 0.75% 3.75%

2004-05 45,874 2,539,813 16,834 0.66% 3.31%

2005-06 49,695 2,589,508 16,032 0.62% 3.10%

2006-07 50,528 2,640,036 16,057 0.61% 3.04%

2007-08 21,036 2,661,072 15,029 0.56% 2.82%

Average 38,647 2,522,330 17,517 0.70% 3.49%

Source: DOH (2009)

1. Calculated by dividing number of cumulative septic systems by the annual number of repair permits.

2. Calculated by multiplying failure discovery rate by five.

Repairing a leaking septic tank would be necessary despite numeric nutrient criteria. However, 

upgrades to the system could be needed to reduce nutrient loadings to necessary levels for 

compliance with FDEP’s draft numeric TN and TP criteria. 

7.2 Potential Costs

Under section 369.318, F.S., the Department of Health (DOH) studied onsite disposal system 

standards needed to achieve nitrogen reductions protective of groundwater quality within the 

Wekiva Study Area. DOH (2004) reports that a conventional septic tank and drainfield costs 
January 2010 7. Septic Systems 7-2

from $5,500 to $7,000 for a three-bedroom home, and a comparable nitrogen-reducing system 

with a drip irrigation drainfield costs from $7,500 to $9,000 (based on estimates from licensed 

contractors and engineers that design and install nutrient-reducing systems in the area). Thus, 

incremental costs of upgrading to nitrogen removal would be $2,000. Note that these systems are 

not specifically designed to reduce phosphorus loads.

Aquapoint manufactures the Bioclere onsite wastewater treatment system, which uses a fixed 

film biological trickling filter and clarifier to remove organics and nutrients from domestic 

wastewater. EPA (2003b) indicates that TN concentrations from a Bioclere system averaged 16 

mg/L over a 13 month study period of residential wastewater in Massachusetts. During warmer 

months effluent concentrations were consistently below 10 mg/L. Installation of the system for a 

single family home to a new or existing conventional septic system is approximately $6,500 (this 

cost does not include the cost of the conventional septic tank and drainfield) (McNeer, 2009).

SeptiTech also manufactures an onsite wastewater treatment system utilizing fixed film 

biological filters. The system costs approximately $3,000 to $4,000 to install (Everhart, 2009) 

and can consistently achieve effluent TN concentrations less than 10 mg/L in warmer weather 

(14 mg/L average over 12 month study period in Massachusetts) (U.S. EPA, 2003c).

Biomicrobics manufactures the RetroFAST system as a retrofit of existing septic systems to 

improve nutrient removal. The system is a fixed-film activated sludge process and ranges from 

$1,605 for 250 gallons/day to $1,875 for 375 gallons/day (Biomicrobics, 2009). Anderson et al 

(1998) indicate that the system can achieve average TN concentrations less than 11 mg/L and TP 

concentrations of 5.4 mg/L.

Thus, retrofit costs for upgrading existing septic systems to achieve nutrient removal could be in 

the range of $2,000 to $6,500. Based on location data for new and existing septic systems in the 

state (DOH, 2009), the number of systems in watersheds draining to the potential incrementally 

impaired waters is approximately 177,200. Using the average failure rate of 3.5%, annual retrofit 

costs could range from $12.4 million to $40.2 million.
January 2010 8. Summary 8-1

8. Summary

The costs (cost savings) associated with implementation of the FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient 

criteria for lakes and flowing rivers in Florida include incremental compliance and government 

resource costs. This section provides a summary of preliminary or illustrative estimates of these 

costs; actual costs will depend on the procedures for assessing waters for compliance, and the 

site-specific source reductions needed to attain the criteria. Some of these costs could also be 

incurred absent the rule if the existing impaired waters list is not inclusive of all waters that 

exceed the current narrative nutrient criteria.

8.1 Potential Costs

Both point and nonpoint sources are likely to incur costs associated with the implementation of 

FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria in Florida. Exhibit 8-1 summarizes the preliminary

estimates of potential annual incremental control costs for each source.

Exhibit 8-1. Preliminary Estimates of Potential Annual Control Costs Associated with FDEP’s Draft 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria (2009 dollars)

Source Sector Potential Controls Annual Costs (millions)

Major Municipal WWTPs BNR to reduce TN and/or TP $42.7

Minor Municipal WWTPs BNR to reduce TN and/or TP $9.3

Industrial Dischargers Process optimization/source control $2.3

General Dischargers Process optimization/source control $0.6

Urban Storm Water Uncertain Not estimated1

Agriculture

Nutrient management

Riparian forest buffers

Livestock fencing

$27.9

$5.1

$1.9

Septic Systems Upgrade to advanced nutrient treatment $12.4 – $40.2

Total $102.1 – $130.0

BNR = biological nutrient removal

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

1. Costs are not estimated because the need for incremental controls is uncertain.

In addition, state resource costs to complete TMDLs for the 973 potential incrementally impaired 

waters could be approximately $2.5 million per year, based on national average costs, assuming 

a 9-year implementation schedule. This estimate does not include the potential cost saving that 

could be associated with the 39 waters currently listed as impaired for nutrients that may not 

exceed the numeric criteria, or incremental costs and cost savings associated with completed 

TMDLs for which the current TN and TP targets are higher or lower than FDEP’s draft criteria.

8.2 Uncertainties of the Analysis

The preliminary estimates of potential incremental costs associated with implementation of 

FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and free flowing waters in Florida are based on a 
January 2010 8. Summary 8-2

number of assumptions that may over- or underestimate actual costs. Exhibit 8-2 provides a 

summary of the key uncertainties.

Exhibit 8-2. Uncertainties of the Analysis

Uncertainty/Assumption Potential Impact Comment

WBIDs not already on the CWA Section 

303(d) list for nutrients are not impaired under 

the existing narrative nutrient criteria.

+

FDEP may list additional WBIDs during 

subsequent assessment cycles resulting in 

implementation of controls similar to those 

needed for the proposed numeric criteria.

Nutrient management, riparian forest buffers, 

fencing of livestock on dairies and land used 

in livestock production would be needed on all 

farms in incrementally impaired watersheds.

+

In some watersheds, point source controls 

may be sufficient to achieve the necessary 

reductions. Also, farms may already be 

implementing the proposed BMPs.

Municipal WWTPs do not have BNR capable 

of achieving LOT if treatment train information 

in database is vague or missing.

+

Additional data may indicate that a facility is 

already achieving LOT for TN and/or TP.

Costs for urban runoff and MS4 BMPs not 

included due to uncertainty. –

Additional BMPs beyond those required 

under the baseline may be needed for 

compliance in certain areas.

Nutrient management, riparian forest buffers, 

and fencing of livestock on animal production 

acres would result in the reductions needed 

for compliance.

–

Additional BMPs such as edge-of-field 

retention/detention or regional treatment 

systems may be needed for compliance in 

certain areas.

Waters for which 10% of suitable data in last 5 

years exceed criteria would be considered 

impaired for nutrients.

?

The listing method is uncertain and could 

result in greater or fewer WBIDs identified as 

being incrementally impaired.

A number of municipal WWTPs discharge only 

a portion of their effluent to surface waters. ?

There is some evidence that new or 

additional treatment would be sized based 

on design flow despite a portion of the 

effluent applied to reuse applications.

Failing septic systems would be upgraded to 

advanced nutrient treatment. ?

Repairs to the existing treatment system 

may be sufficient depending on location from 

the water body. Municipality may also decide 

to connect home to a sewer system rather 

than repair the septic system. 

BMPs = best management practices

BNR = biological nutrient removal

FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection

LOT = limit of technology

MS4 = municipal separate storm sewer system

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WBID = water body identification

WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

Key:

“+” = impacts likely overstated

“–“ = impacts like understated

“?” = affect on impacts uncertain
January 2010 8. Summary 8-3

The bulk of the preliminary estimates of total cost are BNR costs for municipal wastewater. 

However, there are currently no implementation procedures for translating the proposed numeric 

criteria into WQBELs. The costs represent implementation of treatment that achieves LOT for 

TN and TP at all municipal WWTPs, regardless of incremental impairment status. Thus, if less 

stringent requirements are implemented, control costs could be lower.

The nonpoint source costs are driven by the identification of potential incrementally impaired 

waters which is based on the existing state CWA Section 303(d) list for nutrients and adopted 

TMDLs. However, this analysis does not account for those waters that may be impaired under 

the narrative criteria but are not yet on the state’s CWA Section 303(d) list. The identification of 

potential incrementally impaired water is also based on 10% of data exceeding the applicable 

criteria. This convention may or may not approximate the number of impairments based on any 

yet to be determined listing method.
January 2010 9. References 9-1

9. References

Anderson, D.L., M.B. Tyl, R.J. Otis, T.G. Mayer, K.M. Sherman. 1998. Onsite Wastewater 

Nutrient Reduction Systems (OWNRS) for Nutrient Sensitive Environments. In On-Site 

Wastewater Treatment: Proceedings of the Eighth National Symposium on Individual and Small 

Community Sewage Systems, ed. D.M. Sievers. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. 

Joseph, MI.

Biomicrobics. 2009. Personal communication. May.

Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). 2004. What’s the Status of Point Source Nitrogen Reduction in 

the Chesapeake Bay Watershed? http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/waterqualitycriteria/docpointsource_for_tribtools.pdf.

Durham, Sharon. 2003. Designing the Best Possible Conservation Buffers. Agricultural 

Research. December. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/dec03/buffer1203.htm.

Environmental Defense. 2003. Riparian Buffers: Common Sense Protection of North Carolina’s 

Water. Los Angeles, CA. David McNaught, Joseph Rudek, and Elizabeth Spalt. 

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/2758_NCbuffers.pdf.

Everhart, Scott. 2009. SeptiTech Sales Representative. Personal communication. May.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009a. Status Review and Key Issues 

for the Nutrient Criteria to Protect Florida’s Lakes. Presented by Ken Weaver, Standards and 

Assessment Section. June 3.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009b. Wastewater Facility

Information: Wastewater Facility Regulation (WAFR) database. 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wastewater/facinfo.htm. Accessed June 2009.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009c. Final Verified Lists for Group 

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/assessment/303drule.htm.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2005. Florida’s Total Maximum Daily

Load Program: the First 5 Years, A Report to the Legislature and Governor. Division of Water 

Resource Management. February. 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/2005TMDL_Report_final_2-25-05.pdf

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Office of Inspector General (OIG). 

2008. Total Maximum Daily Load Program Review, Division of Environmental Assessment and 

Restoration. Report # IA-03-14-2008-52. June.

Florida Department of Health (DOH). 2009. Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems 

Installed in Florida. http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/OSTDS/statistics/ostdsstatistics.htm.
January 2010 9. References 9-2

Florida Department of Health (DOH). 2004. Wekiva Basin Onsite Sewage Treatment and 

Disposal System Study.

Florida Environmental Quality Incentive Program (FL EQIP). 2009a. FY 2009 Statewide 

Payment Schedules. ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/FL/eqip/EQIP_FY2009PaySched_STATEWIDE_FINAL.pdf.

Florida Environmental Quality Incentive Program (FL EQIP). 2009b. State of Florida Payment 

Schedule Cost Descriptions, FY 2009.

Florida Geological Data Library (FGDL). 2009. GIS Data: WBIDs. 

http://www.fgdl.org/download/index.html

Harper, H. and D. Baker. 2007. Evaluation of Current Stormwater Design Criteria within the 

State of Florida. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. FDEP 

Contract No. SO108.

Jeyanayagam, Sam. 2005. True Confessions of the Biological Nutrient Removal Process. Florida 

Water Resources Journal: January 2005.

Lower St. Johns River (LSJR) TMDL Executive Committee. 2008. Exhibit 1 Basin Management 

Action Plan for the Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Nutrients Adopted by

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/docs/bmap/adopted-lsjr-bmap.pdf

McNeer, Andy. 2009. Aquapoint Sales Representative. Personal communication. May.

Metcalf and Eddy. 2003. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. Fourth Edition. 

McGraw Hill: Boston.

Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. (SWET). 2008a. Nutrient Loading Rates, 

Reduction Factors and Implementation Costs Associated with BMPs and Technologies: Task 1, 

2, and 3. Final Report.

Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. (SWET). 2008b. Technical Assistance in

Review and Analysis of Existing Data for Evaluation of Legacy Phosphorus in the Lake 

Okeechobee Watershed: Task 3 Report, Legacy P Abatement Plan.

Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. (SWET). 2006. Letter Report Entitled: Phosphorus 

Reduction Performance and Implementation Costs under BMPs and Technologies in the Lake 

Okeechobee Protection Plan Area. To Ms. Joyce Zhang, South Florida Water Management 

District.

St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 2003. Lake Apopka SWIM Plan. July.
January 2010 9. References 9-3

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency (FSA). 2009. 

Conservation Reserve Program Monthly Summary – June 2009. 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/june2009summary.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS). 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture, Florida, State and County Data. Volume 1, 

Geographic Area Series, Part 9. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_L

evel/Florida/flv1.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998. Conservation Reserve Program, Washington 

State Enhancement Program Fact Sheet. USDA, Farm Service Agency. 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publications/facts/wacrep.pdf.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009a. Letter from Benjamin 

Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water to Michael Sole, Secretary, Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection. January 14. 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/rules/fl-determination20090114.pdf.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009b. Permit Compliance System 

Database. Accessed May 2009. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/adhoc.html.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008. Municipal Nutrient Removal 

Technologies Reference Document. Volume 1 – Technical Report. EPA 832-R-08-006.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003a. Technical Support 

Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability. EPA 903-R03-004.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003b. ETV Joint Verification 

Statement: BioclereTM Model 16/12.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003c. ETV Joint Verification 

Statement: SeptiTech® Model 400 System.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2001. The National Costs of the 

Total Maximum Daily Load Program (Draft Report). EPA 841-D-01-003.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1993. Guidance Specifying 

Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840-B-92-

002.

University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS). 2009. Review of 

Nutrient Management Systems for Florida Vegetable Producers: A White Paper from the 

UF/IFAS Vegetable Fertilizer Task Force. Publication #HS1156. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HS1156.
January 2010 9. References 9-4

Viessman, W. and M. Hammer. 1998. Water Supply and Pollution Control. Sixth Edition. 

Addison-Wesley: Menlo Park, California.

Water Environment Federation (WEF) and American Society of Civil Engineers 

(ASCE)/Environmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI). 2006. Biological Nutrient 

Removal (BNR) Operation in Wastewater Treatment Plants. McGraw Hill: New York.

Wenger, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and 

Vegetation. Athens, GA: Office of Public Service & Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University 

of Georgia. March 5.
January 2010 A-1

Appendix A. Municipal WWTP Cost Estimates

Exhibit A-1 shows the cost estimates for municipal WWTP discharging to lakes or streams in 

Florida.

Exhibit A-1. Potential Costs to Municipal WWTPs for Compliance with FDEP’s Draft Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria

NPDES No. Discharger Name Flow 

(mgd)

Nutrient

Region/Lake 

Type

Existing LOT 

Treatment Total Capital 

Costs

Annual 

O&M Costs TN TP

Majors

FL0037966 Orlando-Iron Bridge 40 Peninsula Yes Yes $0 $0

FL0040436 Pinellas Co - S. Cross Bayou 33 Peninsula No No $34,880,942 $3,910,403

FL0039772 W. Carl Dicks WWTP 13.7 Bone Valley No No $42,317,697 $1,364,303

FL0128937 Clearwater City of Northeast 13.5 Peninsula Yes Yes $0 $0

FL0033251 Altamonte Springs/Swofford 12.5 Peninsula No No* $8,561,146 $458,881

FL0038849 Orange Cty-East Svc Area 

WWTP 11.2 Peninsula Yes Yes $0 $0

FL0034649 Loxahatchee RV Reg WWTP 11 Peninsula No No $11,626,981 $1,303,468

FL0026271 Naples-Municipal Plant 10 Peninsula No No $10,569,982 $1,184,971

FL0027821 River Oaks AWWTP 10 Peninsula No No $10,569,982 $1,184,971

FL0031801 Escambia Cty - Bayou Marcus 8.2 Panhandle No No $8,667,386 $971,676

FL0026557 Plant City STP 8 Bone Valley No Yes $5,479,134 $293,684

FL0023493 JEA - Mandarin WWTF 7.5 Northeast Yes No $3,073,923 $473,890

FL0027251 Gainesville-Main St WTP 1&2 7.5 Peninsula No* No $3,073,923 $473,890

FL0020303 Deland/Wiley M. Nash Water 7.37 Peninsula Yes No $3,020,642 $465,676

FL0020141 Sanford-Municipal WTP 7.3 Colored No No $7,716,087 $865,028

FL0021369 Bradenton WTP 6 Bone Valley No No $18,533,298 $597,505

FL0040983 Hillsborough Cty Valrico 

WWTP 6 Bone Valley No No $18,533,298 $597,505

FL0036820 Hillsborough Cty - Dale Mabry 6 Peninsula No No $6,341,989 $710,982

FL0102679 BCUD/South Central Reg 5.5 Colored Yes Yes $0 $0

FL0025151 Clay Cty Miller St WWTP 5 Northeast No* No $2,049,282 $315,927

FL0036048 Winter Haven #3 Wahneta 5 Peninsula No No $5,284,991 $592,485

FL0043834 Fleming Island Reg. WWTF 4 Northeast No* No $1,639,426 $252,741

FL0103349 Titusville South - Blue Heron 4 Peninsula Yes Yes $0 $0

FL0028061 Hillsborough Co-Southwest 

WTP 3.95 Bone Valley No No $12,201,088 $393,358

FL0041441 Venice - Eastside WWTP 3 Bone Valley No No $9,266,649 $298,753

FL0040061 Palatka WWTF 3 Peninsula No* No* $0 $0

FL0036251 Wekiva Hunt Club STP 2.9 Peninsula No No* $1,986,186 $106,460

FL0023922 Orange Park-Ash St STP 2.5 Northeast No* No* $1,024,641 $157,963

FL0021903 Milton City of (STP) 2.5 Panhandle Yes No $1,024,641 $157,963

FL0042625 Seminole Cty Dept of Evio Srv 2.5 Peninsula Yes Yes $0 $0

FL0027511 William Tyson WWTP 2 Bone Valley No No $6,177,766 $199,168

FL0020109 Winter Garden STP 2 Colored Yes Yes $0 $0

FL0043214 Martin Co Consolidated Reuse 1.97 Peninsula No** No** $0 $0

FL0039721 Clay Cty Ridaught Landing 1.875 Northeast No No $1,981,872 $222,182
January 2010 A-2

Exhibit A-1. Potential Costs to Municipal WWTPs for Compliance with FDEP’s Draft Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria

NPDES No. Discharger Name Flow 

(mgd)

Nutrient

Region/Lake 

Type

Existing LOT 

Treatment Total Capital 

Costs

Annual 

O&M Costs TN TP

WWTP

FL0028126 Starke-Municipal STP 1.65 North Central No No $5,096,657 $164,314

FL0026867 Blountstown-STP 1.5 Panhandle No Yes $1,027,338 $55,066

FL0029033 City of Quincy WWTP 1.5 Panhandle Yes No $614,785 $94,778

FL0027731 Bonifay STP 1.4 Panhandle No No $1,479,798 $165,896

FL0040495 MacClenny WTP 1.3 Northeast No No $1,374,098 $154,046

FL0031402 FL State Hospital 1.3 Panhandle No No $1,374,098 $154,046

FL0026387 Perry STP 1.25 Peninsula No No $1,321,248 $148,121

FL0027880 Jasper-WWTP 1.2 North Central Yes Yes $0 $0

FL0027570 Chipley City of (STP) 1.2 Panhandle No No $1,268,398 $142,196

FL0038555 Fac1 of Graceville WWTP 1.1 Panhandle No No $1,162,698 $130,347

FL0027839 Monticello-STP 1 Panhandle No No $1,056,998 $118,497

FL0038857 Apalachicola City of 1 Panhandle Yes No $409,856 $63,185

FL0034789 Mid-County Services Inc 0.9 Peninsula Yes Yes $0 $0

Majors Total $251,788,925 $18,944,325

Minors

FL0186261 City of Clearwater - Master 

Urban Reuse System 40 Peninsula No** No** $0 $0

FL0127272 Pasco County Master Reuse 

System

26.75 Peninsula No** No** $0 $0

FL0141399 Collier County North Regional 13.5 Peninsula No No $14,269,476 $1,599,710

FL0038768 Seacoast Util-PGA WWTP 12 Peninsula No No $12,683,979 $1,421,965

FL0112895 G.R.U. STP #5-Kanapaha 10 Peninsula Yes No $4,098,565 $631,853

FL0039446 Buenaventura Lakes 1.8 Peninsula Yes Yes $0 $0

FL0134589 Dolomite Utilities Fruitville 1.5 Bone Valley No No $4,633,325 $149,376

FL0428523 North Bay WWTP 1.5 Panhandle Yes Yes $0 $0

FL0043591 JEA - Julington Creek WWTF 1 Northeast No* No $409,856 $63,185

FL0022853 USA Nat Guard Camp 

Blanding 0.9 Peninsula No No $951,298 $106,647

FL0102920 CCAFTS/Regional 0.8 Peninsula No No $845,599 $94,798

FL0020338 Mulberry STP 0.75 Bone Valley No No $2,316,662 $74,688

FL0020915 Green Cove Springs WTP 0.75 Northeast No* No* $0 $0

FL0021466 Auburndale Allred WWTP 0.65 Clear No No $687,049 $77,023

FL0030210 Green Cove Spgs-Reynolds 0.5 Northeast No* No* $0 $0

FL0117951 JEA - Ponte Vedra WWTF 0.5 Northeast No No $528,499 $59,249

FL0027669 Chattahoochee City of (STP) 0.5 Panhandle No No $528,499 $59,249

FL0040029 Avon Park Correctional Inst 0.5 Peninsula No No $528,499 $59,249

FL0032875 Clay Co. - Fleming Oaks 

WWTP 0.49 Northeast No* No $200,830 $30,961

FL0102202 Pace Water System Inc. 

WWTP #1 0.45 Panhandle Yes Yes $0 $0

FL0027812 Baldwin WWTF 0.4 Northeast No No $422,799 $47,399

FL0027791 Cross City-STP #1 0.4 Peninsula No No $422,799 $47,399

FL0039896 Pebble Creek Village WWTF 0.4 Peninsula Yes Yes $0 $0
January 2010 A-3

Exhibit A-1. Potential Costs to Municipal WWTPs for Compliance with FDEP’s Draft Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria

NPDES No. Discharger Name Flow 

(mgd)

Nutrient

Region/Lake 

Type

Existing LOT 

Treatment Total Capital 

Costs

Annual 

O&M Costs TN TP

FL0040291 Charlotte Co Util - East Port 0.385 Bone Valley No No $1,189,220 $38,340

FL0021610 Crescent City STP 0.35 Colored No No $369,949 $41,474

FL0043079 Hilliard 0.32 Northeast No No $338,239 $37,919

FL0038407 Callahan Town of 0.3 Northeast No No $317,099 $35,549

FL0020907 Bunnell WTP 0.3 Peninsula No No $317,099 $35,549

FL0117471 SJCUD - State Road 207 

WWTF 0.25 Peninsula No No $264,250 $29,624

FL0122076 Rice Creek Utility Company 0.225 Bone Valley No No $694,999 $22,406

FL0020125 Wewahitchka City of (STP) 0.2 Panhandle No No $211,400 $23,699

FL0042315 Hastings STP 0.12 Peninsula Yes No $49,183 $7,582

FL0119644 Lake Suzy Utility WWTP 0.087 Bone Valley No No $268,733 $8,664

FL0040592 Atlantic Dry Dock Corp STP 0.06 Northeast No No $63,420 $7,110

FL0040215 Brittany Estates MHP WWTP 0.06 Peninsula No* No* $0 $0

FL0170224 Seminole Improvement District 0.06 Peninsula No No $63,420 $7,110

FL0043389 Hiawatha Condominiums 0.036 Peninsula Yes No $14,755 $2,275

FL0040207 Noma STP 0.025 Panhandle No No $26,425 $2,962

FL0043419 Study Estates 0.017 Northeast No No $17,969 $2,014

FL0043150 Napoli's Trailer Park 0.015 Northeast No No $15,855 $1,777

FL0042617 Point Buena Vista MHP 0.015 Peninsula No No $15,855 $1,777

FL0023426 Ideal Mobile Home Park 

WWTF 0.011 Northeast No No $11,627 $1,303

FL0113743 Middleburg Bluffs 0.009 Northeast No No $9,513 $1,066

FL0043842 Cypress Landing WWTP 0.007 Northeast No No $7,399 $829

FL0032662 Goodbread MHP 0.005 Northeast No No $5,285 $592

FL0043176 Paradise Point STP 0.005 Peninsula No No $5,285 $592

FL0115231 Bailey's MHP 0.003 Northeast No No $3,171 $355

Minors Total $47,807,884 $4,833,323

BMAP = Basin Area Management Plan

BNR = biological nutrient removal

LOT = limit of technology

mgd = million gallons per day

MHP = mobile home park

NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

O&M = operation and maintenance

STP = sewage treatment plant

TMDL = total maximum daily load

TN = total nitrogen

TP = total phosphorus

WTP = water treatment plant

WWTF = wastewater treatment facility

WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

*Indicates that discharger has proposed BNR upgrades that can achieve LOT as part of completed BMAP, must 

achieve LOT to meet wasteload allocations under a TMDL, or has effluent limits more stringent than the proposed 

criteria.
January 2010 A-4

Exhibit A-1. Potential Costs to Municipal WWTPs for Compliance with FDEP’s Draft Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria

NPDES No. Discharger Name Flow 

(mgd)

Nutrient

Region/Lake 

Type

Existing LOT 

Treatment Total Capital 

Costs

Annual 

O&M Costs TN TP

**Master reuse systems that receive inflow from several WWTPs.
ATTACHMENT 2

POTENTIAL BENEFITS RESULTING FROM THE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF 

FLORIDA’S LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS 

 

 

January 2010
January 2010 1

Nutrients exist naturally in low levels in most lakes and rivers. However, when their 

levels are sufficiently elevated, the process of eutrophication occurs. Eutrophication is 

harmful to many types of organisms and can significantly limit the ability of the water 

body to achieve its designated use. When the additional nutrients are introduced, 

harmful aquatic plant life and algal bloom productivity substantially increases, which can 

decrease the amount of light and subsequent photosynthesis taking place in the deeper 

areas of lakes and rivers. When this excessive aquatic plant life dies, bacteria that 

decompose this organic matter appear in abundance. These bacteria tend to produce a 

bad odor, significantly decreasing visibility, and depleting the oxygen supply for other 

organisms. Eutrophication can lead to a range of other negative effects, including fish 

kills, overabundance or decline of macrophytes, and loss of top predators from the food 

chain. (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/lakes/lakes.pdf).

Significant ecological benefits will result from the protection of aquatic life designated 

uses for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters as a result of numeric criteria adoption –

whether as a result of Florida’s proposed July 2009 values or for EPA’s proposed rule. 

In the case of Florida’s July 2009 proposed numeric criteria, EPA’s analysis shows that 

close to 1,000 additional waterbodies could be considered impaired subsequent to the 

implementation of the criteria. EPA’s proposed rule requirements would add another 

approximately 100 incrementally impaired waterbodies to the list. In either case, the 

overall picture remains similar with approximately 700 river segments and nearly 400 

lakes in need of special considerations and development of TMDLs for nutrient 

impairments. 

The value of improved water quality may be divided into withdrawn and instream 

benefits. In the first case, if water is withdrawn from a water body for the water supply, 

domestic use, irrigation, industrial production, or other uses, generally the lower the 

water quality the higher treatment costs incurred to make the water usable. The net 

economic use benefit of withdrawn water is increased with decreased treatment costs. 

Instream benefits may further be divided into use and non-use values. Use values are 

the values that occur through direct interaction with water. These include all types of 

water based recreation such boating, swimming, fishing, beach going, wildlife viewing, 

etc. Nonuse values are often called existence values and often arise for altruistic or 

moral reasons. In addition, because many inland streams and lakes drain into the 

Everglades and coastal water bodies, and eventually the ocean or Gulf of Mexico, 

improving water quality in streams and lakes will also result in an increase in water 

quality and therefore benefits in the State’s other water bodies. Carson and Mitchell 

(1993) succinctly summarize these potential benefit categories in the table reproduced 

below.
January 2010 2

Benefit in most of these categories will arise in response to increased levels of water 

quality in Florida’s lakes and flowing waters. Benefits will accrue to both impaired 

waters that are improved to minimum standards and non-impaired waters that are 

downstream.

A Very Rough Benefit Estimate:

A rough benefit transfer estimate of mean willingness to pay (WTP) of Florida residents 

for change in fresh water quality may be calculated using the meta-analysis results of

Van Houtven, Powers, and Pattanayak (2007). From a set of over 300 water quality 

valuation publications, Van Houtven et al. select 131 value estimates from 21 

publications (18 studies) published between 1977 and 2003 for use in their regression. 

All studies use stated preference methods, focus on fresh or salt surface water, and 

describe water quality changes in a 10 point scale or in a way that is easily convertible 

to a 10 point scale. The use of stated preference studies has the advantage of

providing a total WTP value by capturing both use and non-use values. The water 

quality scale is based on Vaughan’s (1986) water quality ladder where water quality 
January 2010 3

improvements are described by steps up the ladder (boatable = 2.5, fishable =5.1, and 

swimmable = 7.0).

Figure 1:

Van Houtven et al. assume that WTP for changes in water quality may be described by

(0.1)

0 1 WTP V Q(,, Q R, , P S; ) B ,

where Q0and Q1are baseline and changed water quality, R is a vector of location 

specific dummy variables, P is a vector of population characteristics including income, S 

is a vector of study characteristics, and B is the vector of parameters to be estimated. 

The specific functional form used to calculate fresh water improvement benefits for 

Florida relies on the following subset of explanatory variables from the full model:
January 2010 4

Table 2: Variable descriptions

VARIABLE DESCRIPTION

LN_WQI_CHANGE Log of the water quality change (10 point scale)

WQ_REC_USE =1 if the water quality change described in the study includes a 

reference to recreational use support (e.g. suitable for fishing)

WQI_BASE Baseline level of water quality from which water quality 

improves

LOCAL_FWATER =1 if the water quality change is restricted to freshwater in local 

areas (rather than national or regional areas)

SOUTH = 1 if the affected water bodies are in southern region of the 

U.S.

LN_INCOME20001Log of the average household income (in thousands of 2000 

dollars)

INCOME_APPROX =1 if average household income was not reported in study 

(approximated based on local census data)

PERCENT_USER2 Percent of the sample population that are users of the affected 

water resources

CONSTANT Regression constant term

1

2000 median household income in Florida from the census bureau 

(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/4person.html)

2No estimate of Florida freshwater recreation was available so we use 50% as a conservative estimate 

since the 2000 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment reported that 50.8% of Florida 

residents had gone swimming in a lake or stream in the last 12 months (Cordell et al. 2004).

In order to estimate the baseline level of water quality and the change in the water 

quality index we were forced to rely on the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation 

rule’s 2002 data on river reaches since it was the only complete water quality data set 

available. No comprehensive water quality modeling was done explicitly to support the 

setting of these standards. We are forced to assume that river and lake water quality is 

equal due to a lack of lake data. The average 6-component Water Quality Index (WQI) 

for the state of Florida was 59.18798. This is calculated by taking a weighted average 

of the WQI6 values all RF3lite reaches in Florida, where the weights are obtained by 

dividing the reach length by the total reach length for the state. The WQI6 value is 

calculated as a geometric mean of 6 water quality indicators:

(1.2)

where SIiis the subindex value of the indicator and Wiis the weight. The weights are 

obtained from the CAFO rule (seen in the third column below):
January 2010 5

Figure 2:

The subindex values are needed to translate the six different water quality indicators, 

which appear in different units, into values that can be compared.

To be able to use equation (1.2), a forecasted change in water quality is needed. The 

change in nutrients in the affected rivers and lakes that results from the numeric nutrient 

criteria was assumed to be incremental from the baseline water quality to applicable 

numeric criteria, in the form of improved total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP). 

In cases where FDEP proposed draft numeric criteria, the baseline water quality was 

assumed to be that of the draft FDEP criteria. Assuming that the other indicators 

remain constant, the change in the WQI, from equation (1.2), will be:

(1.3) 

0.15 0.24 0.23 0.1 0.14 0.14

0.15 0.24 0.23 0.1 0.14 0.14

2 2

((75.80 *91 *23.03 *74.46 *97.80 *95.04 )

((75.80 *91 *23.03 *74.46 * * )

WQI

TP TN

 



where TP2 and TN2 are the new TP and TN subindex values. Note that all of the 

subindex values in the above equation are between 0 and 100.

In the CAFO documentation, graphs are provided to translate from the TP value to the 

subindex value, which have been used in Mitchell and Carson (1993), as well as past 

EPA rulings (CAFO and C&D rules).

12

 .

 

12 For more detail on the subindexes see http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo_natl_ecobenefit_p3.pdf, 

the source of Figure 2 and 3.
January 2010 6

Figure 3:

While the equations that translate between the nutrient values and the subindex values 

are not provided, both nutrient concentrations and subindex values are given for each 

reach in the CAFO data for Florida. In order to estimate the relationship between TN 

and TP and their subindex values, regressions were performed on the data in the 

relevant ranges of the graph (for TP<1 and TN<10), which yielded the following 

relationships:13

(1.4) 

2

2

97.6062 75.0379* (R 0.988)

99.1686 5.8076* (R 0.993)

TPSI TP

TNSI TN





   

   

The change in water quality calculated is intended to capture the change caused in the 

water quality index from moving from the standards Florida is expected to impose to the 

standards EPA is proposing to impose. To get the average change in TN and TP using 

the data provided by OW, the projected change in each river/stream is multiplied by its 

length divided by the total length of river/stream miles in Florida (from the 2008 305b 

report: 51,858 miles). The (reach-weighted) average change in the nutrient contents 

were calculated through the above two equations (1.4). The TP subindex is projected to 

increase by 0.108460 and the TN subindex is projected to change by 0.082989. 

Therefore TP2 = 97.90846 and TN2 = 95.12299. Plugging these into the WQI equation, 

we have ∆WQI = 0.0072. This is the value used for the Meta-analysis equation. Again, 

we are forced to assume the change applies to both rivers and lakes.

 

13 It should be noted that the results were robust to heteroskedasticity. Regressions without constants 

were also tried, but yielded worse fit.
January 2010 7

Van Houtven et al provide parameter estimates for both unrestricted and restricted 

versions of a number of model specifications. We rely on the log-linear model because 

it has the advantage of implying that WTP approaches zero as the WQ change 

approaches zero and that the marginal effect of a change in water quality depends on 

income. The coefficients of the variables of interest used in the benefit transfer are 

provided below.

Table 3: Van Houtven et al. Water Quality Meta-analysis Coefficient Estimates

LOG-LINEAR LN(WTP)

LN_WQI_CHANGE 0.343

LN_WQI_CHANGE*WQ_REC_USE 0.414

WQI_BASE 0.091

LOCAL_FWATER -0.110

SOUTH -0.052

LN_INCOME2000 0.964

LN_INCOME2000*INCOME_APPROX -0.008

PERCENT_USER 0.011

CONSTANT -0.399

* From Van Houtven et al 2007 Table 5

Benefit Analysis Results:

Using the Van Houtven et al. parameter estimates and our best estimates of the values 

of the explanatory variables, we calculate WTP per person and total WTP for the 

incremental water quality improvements provided by moving from Florida’s water quality 

criteria to EPA more strict criteria (this only affects roughly four percent of waters). 

Total WTP is simply per person WTP times the population of Florida (assumed to be 

18,328,340). Results are presented below in Table 4.

Table 4: WTP for Water Quality Improvements in Lakes and Flowing Water for 

Moving from Florida’s to EPA’s More Strict Criteria

Baseline Per Person Total

WQI

5.92 $0.34 $2,339,167

6.5 $0.36 $2,450,497 

7 $0.37 $2,550,504

Unquantified Benefits. The numbers in Table 4 are underestimates of the total benefits 

for a number of reasons. First, we assume that the impaired water bodies do no better 

than the water quality standard, though some water bodies will clearly do better. 

Further, many unimpaired water bodies will also have reduced loadings as a result of 

these controls, and we do not account for these at all. For example, controls would 
January 2010 8

reduce pollution in an entire river, even if only one reach of the river is impaired. We did 

not account for the clearner water in the entire river. Note that the large number of 

unimpaired reaches suggests that the unquantied benefits could be a large multiple of 

the quantified benefits. The benefits analysis uses only the population of Florida, and 

since its waters are tourist destinations the large number of tourists who are willing to 

pay for cleaner water are not considered. In addition benefits may also be provided to a 

number of other sectors that are not quantifed in this analysis. These include benefits 

to:

 The Everglades ecosystem – cleaner source water to the Everglades 

 Agricultural and livestock production

 Commercial fishing

 Reduced need for treatment of drinking water source water

 Ecosystem Biodiversity and habitat protection

 Industrial users of source water

Because we did not have the water quality data to calculate the baseline level of water 

quality expected after Florida enacts its criteria but before EPA enacts its, we instead 

provide a range of baseline values starting at the pre-regulation baseline (from the 

CAFO data:5.92) and extending to the “swimmable” rating established by Carson and 

Mitchell (1993). Results are somewhat sensitive to the starting point – people are 

willing to pay more to clean up good water a little more than to clean up bad water a 

little bit. It should be fully noted that these estimates also depend on a number of 

assumptions that we have not rigorously tested or been able to validate in other data or 

the literature. Probably most importantly, our assumptions about the nature of Florida 

water quality and expected changes heavily influence the results. If changes are larger 

than we were able to roughly estimate then benefits may be substantially higher. 

References

Carson, R.T. and R.C. Mitchell (1993). “The Value of Clean Water: The Public’s 

Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable, and Swimmable Quality Water.” Water 

Resources Research, 29(7):2445-2425.

Cordell, K.H., C.J. Betz, G.T. Green, S. Mou, V.R. Leeworthy, P.C. Wiley, J.J Barry, and 

D. Hellertstein (2004). Outdoor Recreation for 21st Century America, A Report to the 

Nation: The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, Venture 

Publishing, State College, PA.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/4person.html (median income in Florida in 

2000)

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo_natl_ecobenefit_p4.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo_natl_ecobenefit_p3.pdf
January 2010 9

Dumas, C.F., P.W. Schuhmann, and J.C. Whitehead (2005). “Measuring the Economic 

Benefits of Water Quality Improvement with Benefit Transfer: An Introduction for 

Noneconomists.” American Fisheries Society Symposium X, 1-17.

Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305(b) Report and 303(d) List 

Update October 2008

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/docs/2008_Integrated_Report.pdf

Van Houtven, George, J. Powers, and S.K. Pattanayak (2007). “Valuing water quality 

improvements in the United States using meta-analysis: Is the glass half-full or halfempty for national policy analysis?” Resource and Energy Economics 29, 201-228.

Vaughan, W.J. (1986). “The Water Quality Ladder (Included as Appendix B in Mitchell, 

R.C., Carson, R.T., 1986. The Use of Contingent Valuation Data for Benefit/Cost 

Analysis in Water Pollution Control. CR-810224-02)” Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, 

Washington D.C.