January 2010 1



### P RELIMINARY 

### E STIMATE OF 

### P OTENTIAL 

### C OMPLIANCE 

### C OSTS AND 

### B ENEFITS 

### A SSOCIATED WITH 

### EPA’ S 

### P ROPOSED 

### N UMERIC 

### N UTRIENT 

### C RITERIA FOR 

### F LORIDA January 2 0 10

U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency

Office of Water Office of Science and Technology 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460January 2010 2 

### Preamble The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E PA) 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 comp liance 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) currentl y 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 recentl y 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 anal ys is of the baseline costs for achieving the numeric criteria developed by FDEP. Thus, assuming no significant changes to FDEP’s dra ft 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 anal ys is of the benefits of EPA's proposed criteria. This estimate does not include the benefits of the baseline requirements.January 2010 1 

### E XECUTIVE 

### S UMMARY EPA conducted a preliminary estimate of the potential incremental c ompliance and state resource costs associated with EPA’s proposed nutrient criteria for lakes and streams in Florida. In cremental 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 analy sis, 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 (TMD L). The preliminary cost estimates described in Attachment #1 to this Report are based on criteria representative of these draft changes 1 , 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 complian ce 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) Mu nicipal 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 estimated 1 Agriculture 2 Nutrient management Riparian forest buffers Livestock fencing $1.1 $0. 2 $0. 01 Septic Systems 2 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 incrementall y impaired waters are not included. State resource costs include costs to complete TMDL s for 190 p otential incrementall y 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 p reliminary 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 TMDL s for which the current TN and TP targets are higher or lower than the proposed criteria
. Also, these costs may

be overestimated because the anal ys is 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
. EP A calculated a rough benefit transfer estimate of mean willingness to pay (WTP) of Florida residents for change in fresh water quality using the meta
- anal ys is 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 stri ngent EPA numeric criteria (this onl y affects roughl y four percent of waters). Results are presented in E S - 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 anal ys is 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 quantif

y in this analy sis. These include benefits to:

• The Everglades ecosy stem

– cleaner source water to the Everglades
• Agricultural and livestock production
• Commercial fishing
• Reduced need for treatment of drinking water source water
• Ecosy stem b iodiversity and habitat protection
• Industrial users of source water
.January 2010 1



### 1. E STIMA T E OF 

### P OTENTIAL 

### C OMPLIANCE 

### C OSTS EPA developed a preliminary estimate of the potential incremental c ompliance and state resource costs associated with EPA’s proposed nutrient criteria for lakes and streams in Florida. In cremental costs associated with the proposed rule represent the costs above and beyond those that would be incurred for compliance with the baseline
. For this anal ys is, 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 describe d in Attachment #1 to th is report are based on criteria representative of these draft numeric criteria 1 , and thus, represent potential baseline expenditures. 1.1 EPA P ROPOSED N UMERIC N UTRIENT C RITERIA 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) T otal Nitrogen T otal 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 Lakes 1 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 CaCO 3 ; chlorophyll - a ≤20 μg/L 1.00
– 1.81 0.030
– 0.087 Clear; > 50 mg/L CaCO 3 ; chlorophyll - a >20 μg/L 1.00 0.030 Clear; ≤ 50 mg/L CaCO 3 ; chlorophyll - a ≤20 μg/L 0.85
– 1.14 0.015
– 0.043 Clear; ≤ 50 mg/L CaCO 3 ; chlorophyll - a >20 μg/L 0.85 0.015 C olor >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, respectivel y .

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 FloridaJanuary 2010 3 Exhibit 3. Nutrient Criteria Regions for Streams in FloridaJanuary 2010 4

EPA is also p roposing 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 v alues, a specific EPA
- provided methodology , o r 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 b y the state through a re distribution 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 DPV s and criteria for the South reg ion (FDEP excluded the region from its draft criteria), and EPA combined FDEP’s Northeast and Peninsula regions into a single region. 1.2 I NCREMENTAL I MPAIRMENTS The incremental costs (cost savings) that may be associated with the proposed numeric nutri ent 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. In crementally

impaired waters are those waters exceeding EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria that do not exceed FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria (based on the anal y sis 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 TMDL s for any waters added to the state’s list of impaire d 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 Streams 1 Water Body Type Number of WBIDs

Sec tion 303(d) List Completed/Proposed TMDL Exceed FDEP Criteria Total Streams 127 2 45 3 638 810 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 identifica tion 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 Fl orida 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 increm entall y 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 incrementall y impaired WBIDs based on available data
. Exhibit 5. Summary of Identification of Potential Incrementally Impaired Waters Category Number of WBIDs Total Lake 1 Stream Nutrient Data in IWR Run 35 1,033 1,537 2,570 Sufficient Data Available 2 766 1,143 1,909 Not Listed/Covered by TMDL 3 251 387 638 Potentially Exceeding Criteria 4 58 132 1 90 Impairment is Uncertain 5 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 c riteria 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 w ater 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; f or 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 show s that 190 WBIDs would be incrementally impaired for TN and/or TP based on a 10% exceedance rate. The existing nutrient
- related TMDL s address an average of two WBIDs each. B ased on this average, FDEP may need to develop and adopt 95 additional nutrient TMDL s . As described in Section 3.2 (Incremental TMDL s) in the Attachment #1 to the report, average per TMDL costs could be $46,000. Total TMDLdevelopment 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 exceedanc es 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 analy sis 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 m ay apply . In addition, waters that are currentl y 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, the se 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 implementatio n of EPA’s proposed criteria, FDEP may delist waters currentl y 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 ultimatel y be adopted as s ite
- specific criteria. 1. 3 P OINT S OURCE C OSTS 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 likel y to discharge nutrients. Exhibit 6. Summary of Dischargers to Florida Waters Potentially Affected by the Proposed Rule 1 Discharger Category M ajor Discharg ers Minor Dischargers Total Municipal Wastewater 47 53 100 Industrial Wastewater2 50 44 94 General Permits 3 0 24 24 Total 97 121 218 Source: U.S. EPA (2009b). SIC = Standard Industrial Classification 1. Excludes dischargers to the Atlantic Ocean, Gu lf 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
. I ncludes 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 Att achment # 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, especiall y if the water is dominated b y WW TP discharges. In those cases where it may

be technologicall y infeasible to discharge at levels below LOT, the following alternatives would be considered : (1) the lakes criteria adjustment procedure or re allocation procedure of the DPV methodology for estu ary protection , (2) site
- specificJanuary 2010 7

alternative criteria, (3) restoration standards, (4) variances, or (5) UAAs and resulting changes to designated uses. S ite
- 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 L OT. Thus, any WWTP that does not have treatment processes capable of achieving the LOT (either existing o r necessary

to meet FDEP’s draft WQS changes) may incur incremental compliance costs associated with the proposed rule. Based on the anal ys is of municipal WWTP costs in Attachment #1 to this report and information on existing treatment processes in FDEP’s WAFR database and e lectronically 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 upgrade s 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 Val ley 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 t echnology 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 faciliti es would incur to retrofit existing treatment processes to achieve the LOT for TN and TP, total capital (one
time) 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). Th ese estimate s 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 Cap ital

Costs Annual

O&M Costs TN TP FL0141356 Collier County South Regional 8 Minor Yes No $3,278,852 $505,482January 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 Cap ital

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 Maisonett es 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 = opera tion 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 highl y site specific. Inaddition, dischargers implementing source control and process optimization under the baseline would not likely incur additional costs under the proposed rule. Thus, there are onl y five dischargers (all in the South region) that may incur costs under the proposed rule. T o illustrate the potential magnitude of costs, if dischargers spend an average of $25,000 per ye ar 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 N ONPOINT S OURCE C OSTS 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 30 3(d) list, existing TMDL s, 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 sy stems) represent controls for 653 WBIDs that fall within 556 watersheds; those costs do not include the controls ne eded for waters on the existing 303(d) list or with proposed or approved TMDL s (331 WBIDs within 236 watersheds).January 2010 9

For incrementall y impaired waters in the South region, a n 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 Region 1 Land Use Category Tot al 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 fo r the potential incrementally impaired waters. Preliminarily , it is uncertain if controls beyond those required under the baseline would be needed for the incrementall y 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 cost
effective mix of agricultural practices needed to attain reductions, site
- specific mo deling 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 impai red watersheds in the South region. Exhibit 10. Potential Costs of Agricultural BMPs on Incrementally Impaired Canals in South Region Practice Acres/Feet 1 Unit Cost 2 Total Cost (millions) Annual Cost

(millions per year) 3 Nutrient Management
– General Ag riculture 82,354 acres 4 $10/acre $0.82 $0.31 Nutrient Management
– Specialty Crop 106,708 acres 5 $20/acre $2.1 $0.81 Forest Buffers 2,351 a cres 6 $350/acre $ 0.82 $ 0.07 Land Rental for Forest Buffers 2,351 a cres 6 $39/acre/year NA $ 0.09

4 The total land use acres are b ased 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 c overed by a TMDL]
.January 2010 10

Exhibit 10. Potential Costs of Agricultural BMPs on Incrementally Impaired Canals in South Region Practice Acres/Feet 1 Unit Cost 2 Total Cost (millions) Annual Cost

(millions per year) 3 Livestock Fencin g 59,226 linear feet $1.13/linear foot 7 $ 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 an nualized 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 agric ulture 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 la nd use on both sides of water body )
. 7. Does not include additional livestock water facilities that may be needed. For septic s ys tems, upgrades to the sy stems could be needed to reduce nutrient loadings because septic sy stems have the potential to contribute TN and TP loads to nearby waters. Based on studies o f various advanced septic treatment sy stems, retrofit costs for upgrading existing septic sy stems to achieve nutrient removal could be in the range of $2,000 to $6,500. There are also approximately

34,440 septic sy stems located in watersheds draining to th e potential incrementall y impaired waters in the South region [b ased on location data for new and existing septic sy stems in the state (DOH, 2009 )]. Thus, assuming that upgrades would be made during repair of leaking/failing sy stems (as discussed in Sectio n 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 S UMMARY OF P OTENTIAL C OSTS 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 estimated 1 Agriculture 2 Nutrient management Riparian forest buffers Livestock fencing $1.1 $0. 2 $0.01January 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 Systems 2 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 incremental ly 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 incrementall y impaired waters are not included. State resource costs to complete TMDL s for the 1 90 p otential incrementally impaired waters could be approximately

$ 0.5 million per year, based on national average costs, assuming a 9
- ye ar implementation schedule. This estimate does not include the potential cost saving that could be associated with waters currentl y listed as impaired for nutrients that may not exceed the numeric criteria, or incremental costs and cost savings associated with completed TMDL s for which the current TN and TP targets are higher or lower than the proposed criteria . Also, thes e costs may be overestimated because the anal ys is 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 Se ction 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 L ake Okeechobee and the Everglades Agricultural Area is pumped into the Water Conservation Areas canals
. These discharges, in combination with a highl y altered hydroperiod, have affected water quality conditions. Construction of storm water treatment areas upstream of the Water Co nservation 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 achieve d as a result of ongoing restoration efforts in the Everglad es. 1. 6 D OWNSTREAM U SE P ROTECTION 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 anal ys is 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 th at all dischargers would h aveJanuary 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 anal ys is . 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 capab ilities 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 analy sis 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 L OT. If the facilities would receive end
of
- 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) site
specific 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 newl y impaired under the proposed rule from existing water quality monitoring data. The anal ys is 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 incrementall y 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 approximate ly

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 lan d use category , agriculture, and upgrades to failing septic sy stems. The agricultural costs include nutrient management on all agricultural acres (regardless of existing practices), forest buffers on all agricultural land bordering an incrementally impaire d 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 likel y representative of controls needed fo r instream compliance with downstream use requirements. For septic s ys tem costs, the costs reflect upgrades to failing s ys tems located in incrementall y impaired watersheds. The cost to upgrade septic sy stems to advance nutrient removal technologies will not likely vary with more stringent criteria. Thus, the difference in septic sy stem 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 pra cticable. 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 full y realized beca use implementation may

not yet be complete. Thus, the need for incremental controls on urban sources discharging to incrementall y impaired waters as well as waters with downstream protection requirements will depend on the concentration of nutrients in run off after implementation of existing storm water control program s , 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 incrementall y impaired water. 

### 2. P OTENTIAL 

### B ENEFITS 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, generall y 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 ty

pes 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
- anal ys is 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 calculate d WTP per person and total WTP for the incremental water quality improvements provided by moving from Florida’s numeric water qual ity

criteria to EPA ’s more stri ngent 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 1 2 . 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 payJanuary 2010 14

Unquantified B enefits. The numbers in Exhibit 12 are underestimates of the total benefits for a number of reasons. First, the anal ys is assume s that the impaired water bodies only attain the water quality standard, though some water bodies will attain higher water quality
. M any unimpaired water bodies will also have reduced loadings as a result of these controls. The benefits anal ys is also reflects only WTP of the population of Florida ; , since Florida waters are tourist destinatio n s , 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 quantif y in this analy sis. These include ben efits to:

• The Everglades ecosy stem

– cleaner source water to the Everglades
• Agricultural and livestock production
• Commercial fishing
• Reduced need for treatment of drinking water source water
• Ecosy stem b iodiversity and habitat protection
• Indus trial users of source water
.

### ATTACHMENT 1January 2010 i 

### Table of Contents Executive Summary
................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 1 1. Introduction
................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1
- 1 1.1 Background
................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 1
- 1 1.2 Scope of the Analy sis
................................ ................................ ................................ ... 1
- 1 2. The “Narrative” Baseline Analy sis
................................ ................................ ...................... 2
- 1 2.1 Waters Covered b y 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 Sy stems ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 2
- 5 2.3.5 Atmospheric Deposition
................................ ................................ ...................... 2
- 5 2.3.6 Legacy

Sources
................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2
- 6 2.4 Framew ork 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 Sy stems ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 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
- Impai red 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 In cremental Impairments
................................ ................................ ............................. 3
- 1 3.2 In cremental 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
- 1January 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 Sy stems ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 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
- 1January 2010 iii 

### List of Exhibits Exhibit ES
- 1. May

2009 Draft FDEP Nume ric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Streams in Florida
................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... ES
- 2 Exhibit ES
- 2. Summary

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

o f 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 Incrementall y 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 Criteria 1

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 2
- 4 Exhibit 2
- 4. Summary

of CWA Section 303(d) Listed Impairments for Nutrients in Fl orida 1

. 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 L and Use for Ba seline Impairments
................................ ................... 2
- 1 Exhibit 3
- 1. Incrementally Impaired Lakes in Florida
................................ ................................ . 3
- 2 Exhibit 3
- 2. Incrementally Impaired Streams in F lorida
................................ ............................. 3
- 3 Exhibit 3
- 3. Summary

of I dentification of Potential Incrementally Impaired Waters
................ 3
- 4 Exhibit 3
- 4. Summary

of L and Us e for Potential Incrementall y Impaired Waters
..................... 3
- 4 Exhibit 3
- 5. Density

Distribution of Septic Sy stems near Potential Incrementally Impaired Waters
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3
- 5 Exhibit 3
- 6. Summary

of Data Anal ys is for Existing CWA Section 303(d) List WBIDs
........... 3
- 7 Exhibit 3
- 7. Comparison of FDEP Draft Numeric Nutrient Criteria to Existing TMDL Targets 3
- 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 L and Surrounding Potential Incrementall y 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 D raft Numeric Nutrient Criteria (2009 dollars)
................................ ................................ ... 8
- 1 Exhibit 8
- 2. Uncertainties of the Anal ys is
................................ ................................ ................... 8
- 2January 2010 ivJanuary 2010 v 

### Ac rony ms and A bbreviations 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 CS P 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 GL CI 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 s ys tem NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy stem O&M Operation and maintenance OSTDS Ons ite sewage treatment and disposal sy stem PCS Permit compliance s ys tem Pt
- Co Platinum cobalt units RA Reasonable assurance RBC Rotating biological contactor RP Reasonable potential SBR Sequencing batch reactor SCR Selective catal ytic 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 TownJanuary 2010 vi

USDA Uni ted 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 plantJanuary 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 chan ges 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 , M arch 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 r ule herein. This report provides the anal ys is of the potential baseline costs for achieving the criteria developed b y FDEP. In developing its proposed rule, EPA revised its numeric nutrient criteria after the preliminary

analy sis 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 repres ent 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 ha s disapproved or in cases where it determines that a new or revised standard is needed to meet CWA requirements. Florida currentl y 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 phosph orus (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 Sy stem (NPDES) permit conditions for point source dischargers, and requirements for nutrient treatment controls on otherJanuary 2010 Executive Summary ES
- 2

sources (e.g., agriculture, urban runoff, septic s ys tems). 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 Regio n /Type of Water TN Criteria mg/L TP Criteria mg/L Clear Lakes 1 0.6 0.015 Colored Lakes 1 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 Stream s 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; col or < 40 Pt Co is a clear lake. This analy sis 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 anal ys is 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 A nalysis Exhibit ES - 2 summarizes the size and number of water body types [designated b y 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 - Coas tal 154 - 4,287,380 Estuary 573 313 4,180,390 Lake 1,305 18 1,454,542 Spring 124 176 - Stream, Excluding South Florida Streams 1 3,707 19,296 167,076 South Florida Stream 108 2,588 1,944 Total 2 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 currentl y uses a narrative nutrient s tandard 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 o f 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 stand ards contained in this chapter ( Chapter 62
- 302, F
. A
. C .) . Man
- indu ced 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 curr ent discharges from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) , industries, agriculture, urban areas, and septic s ys tems, 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 likel y 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 Pote ntially Affected by the FDEP Propos al 1 Discharger Category M ajor Dischargers Minor Dischargers Total Municipal Wastewater 47 47 94 Industrial Wastewater2 49 42 91 General Permits 3 0 23 23 Total 96 112 208 Source: U.S. EPA (2009b). SIC = Standard In dustrial 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 rep orts )
. 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 phosph orus for dischargers in these industries throughout the state. 3
. I ncludes dischargers in SIC codes of 2813, 2874, and 2875
. There are 28 large and 131 small municipal separate storm sewer s ys tems (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 , e fforts to reduce loadings from septic and legacy sources are site
- specific. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) uses a trophic state index (TSI) and chloroph yl l
- a concentrations, among other information, to assess nutrient impairment of lakesJanuary 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 ox ygen and 1 for biochemical ox ygen dem and that are not also impaired for nutrients; TMDL s for these impairments ty picall y limit TN and/or TP concentrations as means of achieving the targets. FDEP develops Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) to implement TMDL s. 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 rel y 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 TMDLeither by implementing BMPs or by conducting water quality monitoring. Incremental Impairments and TMDL Development Costs In crementally

impaired waters are those waters exceeding the numeric nutrient cri teria 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 n eed to develop and implement TMDL s 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 1 0% exceedance rate for listing, an additional 335 lake and 638 stream (97 3 total) WBIDs may exceed the proposed criteria for TN and/or TP
. Exhibits ES - 4 and ES - 5 show the potential incremental impairments. E xisting nutrient
- related TMDL s 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 TMDLcosts may be in the range of $34,000 total to address both nitrogen and phosphorus; t otal costs could be approximately $16 million . Currently , FDEP operates its TMDLsche dule based on a five
- phase cycle that rotates through the five basins over five ye ars . Under this schedule, completion of TMDL s for high priority waters will take 9 years; it will take an additional 9 years to complete the process for medium priority water s. If all of these incremental impairments are high priority and FDEP develops the new TMDL s 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 currentl y lists waters as impaired for nutrients based on a combination of TSI , chloroph yl l
- a concentrations, and information indicating nutrient enrichment . Thus, it is unclear whether it would delist waters currentl y 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 TMDL s 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 FloridaJanuary 2010 Executive Summary ES
- 6 Exhibit ES - 5. Incrementally Impaired Streams in FloridaJanuary 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 anal ys is of reasonable potential (RP) to exceed the water quality criteria. FDEP generall y follows the procedures in EPA’s (1991) T echnical Support Document for Water Quality
- Based Toxics Control (TSD) for other pollutants with numeric criteria. Medium to high strength untreated domestic wastewater typicall y 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 ty pical 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 propo sed TN criteria are below the LOT. Proposed TP criteria for flowing waters are at or below the L OT 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 co nditions would be needed to determine RP for each facility . However, because most WWTPs are likel y to discharge nutrients at concentrations above applicable criteria and over 80% of WWTPs are discharging to impaired waters [based on geographic information sy stems (GI S) overlay of WWTP locations with waters impaired under the baseline and the proposed rule] , for a p reliminary 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 site
specific data, we assumed the criteria would be applied end
- of
- pipe (i.e., no dilution). Applying c riteria 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, th ere 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 L OT [e.g., anaerobic
- an oxic oxidation (A 2 /O), modified Bardenpho, modified University

of Cape Town (UCT), oxidation ditches or other BNR coupled with chemical precipitation) would likely be in compliance with WQBEL s 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 retrofit s 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). Th ese estimate s reflect the average unit costs multiplied by total flows . Total flows do not include three master reuse sy stems classified as municipal WWTPs. These sy stems receive inflow from several WWTPs which are treating to the LOT; thus, any discharges to surface waters from the master reuse sy stems should meet numeric nutrient criteria. Treatment to red

uce 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 discharg e nutrients in Florida, needed measures and costs, if any , will be highl y site specific. However, to illustrate the potential magnitude of costs, if dischargers spend an average of $25,000 per ye ar on source control and process optimization to reduce nutri ent 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 th e land use in 12
- digit h ydrologic unit codes ( HUCs )January 2010 Executive Summary ES
- 9

surrounding the potential incrementall y 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 solel y 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 unlikel y. 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 incrementall y i mpaired 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 TMDL s for the potential incrementall y impaired waters. Preliminaril y, it is uncertain if controls beyond those required under the baseline would be needed for the incrementall y impaired waters to meet the numeric criteria. Ag riculture The distribution of point sources (including MS4s) in relation to the incrementally impaired waters sugg ests 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 b y nonpoint sources. Agricultural use accounts for more than 40 % of the land use in HUCs surrounding the potential incrementall y impaired waters
. Agricultural discharges in Florida do not receive dis charge 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 practic es to attain needed reductions from agricultural land. Nonetheless, nutrient management may be a cost
- effective practice given the potential to reduce fertilizer costs. However, i n areas where large reductions from agricultural sources are needed, nutri ent management alone would not likely be sufficient to reduce nutrients to levels necessary
. For example, SWET (2008a) indicates that nutrient management would result in ty pical TN and TP reductions ranging from 1% to 30% in the Caloosahatchee and St. Luci e 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 lateralJanuary 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 g entl y sloped areas; studies show that trapping or removal efficiency does not increase for wider buffers. Based on studies reviewed by Wenger (1999) , in gentl y 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 incrementall y impaired waters. However, to be effective in reducing nutrients from agricultural discharges, riparian buffers would likel y 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 incrementall y impaired receiving waters would provide incremental reductions in nutrients by keeping animals out of streams. The costs of practices to reduce nutri ents 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 pay ments for the installation of BMPs ( FL EQIP, 2009a). The pay

ment 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). Pay ments 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 productio n ( FL EQIP, 2009b). However, CREP provides rental pay

ments, cost - share assistance, and other financial incentives to encourage producers to voluntaril y enroll in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts. The average rental pay ment 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 incrementall y impaired watersheds. Exhibit ES - 7. Potential Costs for Agric ultural BMPs on Incrementally Impaired Waters Practice Acres/Feet 1 Unit Cost 2 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 acres 4 $350/acre $26.3 $2.1 Land Rental for Forest Buffers 75,200 acres 4 $39/acre/year NA $2.9 Livestock Fencing 11.8 million linear feet $1.13/linear foot 5 $13.3 $1.9January 2010 Executive Summary ES
- 11

Exhibit ES - 7. Potential Costs for Agric ultural BMPs on Incrementally Impaired Waters Practice Acres/Feet 1 Unit Cost 2 Total Cost (millions) Annual Cost

(millions) 3 BMPs = best management practices G IS = 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 EQI P (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 a dditional livestock water facilities that may be needed. Septic Systems Discharges from septic sy stems in Florida do not receive surface water discharge permits. However, numeric nutrient criteria may affect these sy stems through the TMDLand BMAP proce sses. Most of the existing nutrient
- related TMDL s identify failing septic sy stems as sources of nutrients to surface waters; properl y operated and maintained sy stems should provide equivalent to secondary

wastewater treatment. For TMDLs in which septic sy s tems are a potentially

significant source, FDEP usuall y 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 ins tallations in the county divided by

the number of repair permits for each ye ar. 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 take s an average of five years fo r 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. Howeve r, upgrades to the sy stem 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 sy stems, retrofit costs for upgrading existing septic sy stems to achieve nutrient removal could be in the range of $2,000 to $6,500. Based on location data for new and existing septic sy stems in the state (DOH, 2009), the number of sy stems in watersheds draining to the potential incrementall y impaired waters is appro ximately 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 flowi ng 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 th eJanuary 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 BN R 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 estimated 1 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 in cremental controls is uncertain. In addition, state resource costs to complete TMDLs for the 973 p otential incrementall y impaired waters could be approximately $2.5 million per year, based on national avera ge costs, assuming a 9
- year implementation sched ule. 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 T MDL s 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 b ased 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 currentl y no implementation procedures for translating the proposed numeric criteria into WQBEL s. 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 b e lower. The nonpoint source costs are driven b y the identification of potential incrementally impaired waters which is based on the existing state CWA Section 303(d) list for nutrients and adopted TMDL s. However, this analy sis 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 incrementall y i mpaired 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 ye t to be determined listing method.J anuary 2010 1. Introduction 1
- 1 

### 1. Introduction The Florida Department of Environmental Protection ( FDEP ) published draft numeric water quality standards (WQS) for nutrients applicable t o 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 Lakes 1 0.6 0.015 Colored Lakes 1 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, respectivel y. 1.2 Scope of the A nalysis This analy sis 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 fo r 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 Nation al 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 s ys tems). The purpose of this anal ys is is to provid e an estimate (within the limits of these uncertainties) of the potential costs that may ultimatel y be associated with FDEP’s numeric criteria. Actual costs will depend on the particular implementation strategy pursued b y 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)J anuary 2010 1. Introduction 1
- 2

efforts in Florida to date. The anal ys is methods also reflect a number of simplifying as sumptions 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 FloridaJanuary 2010 1. Introduction 1
- 4 Exhibit 1 - 3. Nutrient Criteria Regions for Streams in Flor idaJanuary 2010 2. Basel ine for the Analysis 2
- 1 

### 2. The “Narrative” Baseline A nal ys is 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 Streams 1 3,707 19,296 167,076 South Florida Stream 108 2,588 1,944 Total 2 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 un its 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 ben eficial 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 manag ement 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 nar rative 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 (t otal nitrogen or total phosphorus)January 2010 2. Basel ine 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 affirmativel y 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 exampl e, 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 anal ys is, 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 affec ted 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 WQBEL s are calculated based on EPA’s TSD (U.S. EPA, 1991). If sufficient data are not available to determine RP, rather than onl y requiring additional monitoring, the permit can be issued with an effluent limit based on Florida’s water quality criteria and an adminis trative 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 potentiall y impaired and includes these waters on a Plann ing List for further assessment. Then, FDEP assesses waters on the Planning Lis t through additional data gath ering 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 L ist which represents the CWA Section 303(d) l ist of impaired waters needing a TMDL.January 2010 2. Basel ine for the Analysis 2
- 3

Because the nutrient criteria are narrative, FDEP uses a trophic state index (TSI) and chloroph yl l
- 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 macrophy te 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 ox ygen 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.):
 al gal 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 chlorophyl l
- 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 naturall y 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 pale olimnological information indicates the lake was naturally greater than 40, or
 for any lake, data indicate that annual mean TSI s have increased over the assessment period, as indicated b y 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 historic al chloroph yl l
- a levels or historical TSI s). 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
- spec ific 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 thes e 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 sy stem (PCS) database indicates that there are 198 municipal wastewater dischargers, 245 industrial dischargers, and 34,508 dischargers covered underJanuary 2010 2. Basel ine for the Analysis 2
- 4

generic permits. 3 Some of these permittees discharge to estuarine waters, coastal waters, or South Florida streams (not affected b y proposed numeric criteria), and onl y certain ty pes of industrial and generic
- permitted dischargers discharg e nutrients. Existing numeric effluent limits for nitrogen and phosphorus in EPA’s PCS database provide preliminary indication of the ty

pes 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 Limits 1 Nitrogen Phosphorus 1475 Phosphate rock 13 14 1479 Chemical and fertilizer mineral mining, NEC 2 2 2015 Poultry slaughteri ng 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 Fertiliz ers, 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 W astewater treatment plants 135 95 7996 Amusement parks 4 4 9999 Nonclassifiable 1 1 Source: U.S. EPA (2009b). SIC = Standard industrial classification 1. M ay include dischargers to waters for which numeric nutrient criteria are not available . Does not i nclude 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 Dis chargers in Florida Potentially Affected by the FDEP’s Draft Criteria 1 Discharger Category M ajor 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 regulat e categories of wastewater facilities or activities that involve the same or similar types of operations or wastes. General (or generic, in Florida) p ermits require that all facilities or activities have similar permit requirements and conditions.January 2010 2. Basel ine for the Analysis 2
- 5

Exhibit 2 - 3. Summary of Dis chargers in Florida Potentially Affected by the FDEP’s Draft Criteria 1 Discharger Category M ajor Dischargers Minor Dischargers Total Industrial Wastewater2 49 42 91 General Permits 3 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
. I ncludes dischargers with SIC codes of 2813, 2874, and 2875
. Note that Exhibit 2
- 3 provides only a preliminary estimate of the number and ty pes of dischargers that may

be affected b y 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 Ag riculture 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 Sep tic Systems Nutrients from poorl y maintained or failing s eptic sy stems or onsite sewage treatment and disposal sy stems (OSTDSs) can threaten both surface and ground waters. In addition to runoff to surface water from mounded leach fields, nutrients can le ach into groundwater beneath the sy stem 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 sy stems are over 30 years old and were inst alled under standards less stringent than current standards. 2.3.5 At mospheric Deposition Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen can be a significant source of nutrient loadings to lakes and flowing waters . H owever, the specific sources of atmospheric nitrogen are not ty picall y wellJanuary 2010 2. Basel ine 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 Fl orida 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 Man agement District (SJRWMD) constructed a wetland s ys tem adjacent to the water body reportedly

to remove phosphorus from lake water and permanentl y bury it in marsh sediments. Algae, resuspended sediments, and particle
- bound nutrients are removed from lake w ater 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 L ake Ockeechobee, reducing upstream sources of phosphorus may

not produce immediate results in downstream s ys tems that have as similated phosphorus for ye ars because these s ys tems 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 rel y heavily on existing programs (e.g., NPDES program, BMP manuals). 2.4.1 Wastewater Point Sources The TMDLs and BMAPs generall y 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 L ower St. Johns River (LSJR) BMAP. 2.4.2 Storm Water To address nutrients from fertilizers, the Florida Departm ent 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 ur ban 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 publ ic. The rule also protect s water quality by restricting phosphorous and nitrogen applicationJanuary 2010 2. Basel ine for the Analysis 2
- 7

rates in fertilizers. 4 The rule became effective December 31, 2007 ; h owever, fertilizer licenses had until July

1, 2009 to change labels for compliance. Thus, the full benefit of the rule may not ye t be reflected in urban runoff loads. Storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer s ys tems (MS4s) are covered under EPA’s Phase I and Phase II storm water rules. The Phase I rule covers large and medium
- siz e MS4s [Clean Water Act Section 402(p) sources], and the Phase II rule covers small (s ys tems 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 authorize d in Chapter 403, Florida Statues ( F.S.) ] requires treatment of storm water from new development and redevelopment prior to discharge. The rule is a technol ogy- 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 sy stems be managed as needed to restore or maintain the beneficial uses of waters , and that water management districts establish storm water pollutant lo ad reduction goals to be adopt ed 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 b y FDEP and the water management distri cts 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 sy stems shall be reduced as necessary to restore or maintain the designated uses of waters. 2.4.3 Ag riculture 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 operati ons 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 b y 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 . H owever, farmer implementation of the BMP manual s provides a presumption of compliance with WQS for those pollutants addressed by the practices
.

4 A maximum of 0.25 lbs phosphorus oxide ( P 2 O 5 ) per 1000 sq. ft. per application and not exceed 0.5 lbs P 2 O 5 per 1000 sq. ft. per year. Application rates abov e these levels would require a soil sample of the application site to justify an increase in P 2 O 5 . 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 La wns 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. Basel ine for the Analysis 2
- 8

It also release s 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 Ri ver rel y 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 TMDLeither 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 pay

ment to convert cropland and marginal pastureland to native grasses, trees, wetlands, and related conservation buffer practices to improve water quality, soil, and wildlife habitat
 Conservati on T echnical A ssistance (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 de cisions on private, trib al, 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 practice s on eligible agricultural land
 Grazing Land Conservation Initiative (GL CI )

– N RCS provides financial and technical assistance to landowners to support improved management of grazing land resources ; successful in assisting landowners appl y 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 envi ronmental 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 likelih ood that the sy stem will receive toxic, hazardous or industrial wastes; where a sewer s ystem is available; or if any s ys tem or flow is currently regulated by FDEP , unless a variance from these prohibitions has been granted b y FDOH. The L SJR Executive Comm ittee (2008) indicates that the City of Jacksonville is implementing a phase out of its septic sy stems 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 LS JR Basin is needed to quantify the loads associated with septic tanks.January 2010 2. Basel ine for the Analysis 2
- 9

The Upper Ocklawaha River BMAP does not directly address septic s ys tems during the first five ye ars of implementation because these s ys tems represent a relativel y 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 sy stems (e.g., every 5 years in Green Swamp) and prohibit installation of new s ys tems in specific areas (e.g., new development sites in Groveland). The Orange Creek Watershed BMAP identifies controls for septic s ys tems to red uce bacteria levels. Specificall y, the Alachua County Health Department is investigating failing septic sy stems and plans to take appropriate corrective actions, as well as issue new, repair, and modification septic sy stem permits pursuant to F.A.C. or loc al ordinance. These efforts should also reduce nutrient levels. 2.4.5 At mospheric Deposition TMDL s often do not require load reductions from atmospheric deposition. However, in the L SJR watershed, the Seminole Electric Power Plant plans to install selective c ataly tic r eduction (SCR) controls that would significantly reduce their emissions of nitrogen oxides, and thus, the deposition of nitrogen throughout the basin ( LSJR TMDLExecutive Committee , 2008 ). Seminole Electric modeled the projected reductions in atmo spheric 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 p er 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 TMDL s, 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 sy stems. For example, in Lake Ockeechobee, it may be necessary

to integrate upland phosphorus control practices with regional treatment s ys tems on the lower tributaries to meet the lake TMDL (SWET, 2008b). In time the accumulated phosphorus in these sy stems will wash out to establish a new equilibrium with the inflow phosphorus levels. Thus, the regional treatment s ys tems 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 Wa ter 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 TMDL s .January 2010 2. Basel ine for the Analysis 2
- 10

2.5.1 Nutrient - Impaired Waters Exhibit 2 - 4 shows the number of water body segments or co unt of water body identification (WBIDs) labels listed as impaired for nutrients. Note that the list may include waters for which TMDL s have recently

been completed and approved. Exhibit 2 - 4. Summary of CWA Section 303(d) Listed Impairments for Nutrients in Florida 1 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 Ca tegory 5 and 4b waters. There are also 141 impairments for dissolved ox ygen and 1 for biochemical ox ygen demand that are not also impaired for nutrients; TMDL s for these impairments ty pically 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 TMDL s 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 B ody WBIDs Total N itrogen 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 3516 A 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% - - - - Imperia l River 3258E 18,865 25% 0.74 - - - Gordon River Extension 3278K, 3259C 34,822 29% 0.74 - - -January 2010 2. Basel ine for the Analysis 2
- 11

Exhibit 2 - 5. Summary of Nutrient - Related TMDLs for Lake and Rivers in Florida TMDL/Water B ody WBIDs Total N itrogen 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 54 5,203 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 325 59W 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: marin e 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. John s River ab
. Sawgrass Lake 2893X - - - 114,000 32% 0.09 Spring Lake 2987A 8,551 30% 0.959 1,810 65% 0.021January 2010 2. Basel ine for the Analysis 2
- 12

Exhibit 2 - 5. Summary of Nutrient - Related TMDLs for Lake and Rivers in Florida TMDL/Water B ody WBIDs Total N itrogen 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 1 521E - - - 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 Hancock Lower Saddl e 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) , respectivel y, 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 FloridaJanuary 2010 2
. Baseline for the Analysis 2
- 14 Exhibit 2 - 7. Baseline Impairments for Streams in FloridaJanuary 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 I mpairments 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 TMDL s, FDEP develops BMAPs in conjunction with local stakeholders. FDEP adopts these plans b y Secretarial Order to make them enforc eable. 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 activitie s . FDEP has adopted four BMAPs to date (Upper Ocklawaha, Orange Creek, L ong 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 L akes 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 benefi t surface waters in Alachua and Marion Counties, including Orange Lake, Lochloosa Lake, Newnans Lake, Tumblin Creek, Sweetwater Branch, Hogtown Creek, Lake Wauberg, Pay nes Prairie/Alachua Sink, and the Ocklawaha River. However, a June 2008 FDEP Office of Inspector General audit of the TMDLprogram noted: the Ocklawaha River is the only water body currentl y undergoing BMAP implementation; no water bodies have been removed from the impaired list; and it could take a number of ye ars before demonstrable effect s 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 CW A Section 303(d) list for nutrients or covered by a TMDL]
.January 2010 3
. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3
- 1



### 3. As sessing Incremental Impairments As sociated w ith 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 li stings and TMDL s. 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 I ncremental Impairments In crementally

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 TMDL s 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 periodicall y 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 cri teria for streams are based on nutrient region boundaries delineated in GIS files provided b y 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 exc eedances (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 Exhibit s 3 - 1 and 3 - 2 show a comparison of new impairments to n arrative baseline impairments and TMDLs for lakes and streams, respectivel y.
6 We excluded samp les 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 value s), 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 FloridaJanuary 2010 3
. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3
- 3 Exhibit 3 - 2. Incrementally Impaired Streams in FloridaJanuary 2010 3
. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3
- 4

Exhibit 3 - 3 summarizes the screening to identify potential incrementall y i mpaired 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 Available 1 766 1,062 1,828 Not Listed/Covered by TMDL 2 586 935 1,521 Potentially Exceeding Criteria 3 335 638 973 Impairment is Uncertain 4 81 0 81 IWR = Impaired Waters Rule m = meter MDL = minimum detection limit TMDL = total maximum daily load TN = total nitrogen T P = 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 c riterion). 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 incrementall y 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 sy stems in the potential incrementall y impaired water shed. 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 sy stems per square mile; <2 per acre for >128 to 1,280 per square mile; and >2 per acre for >1280 to 1,742 p er 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 WatersJanuary 2010 3
. Assessing Incremental Impairments 3
- 6

3.2 Incremental TMDLs The exhibits show 97 3 WBIDs that would be incrementall y impaired for TN and/or TP based on a 10% exceedance rate (using F DEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria) . The existing nutrient
related TMDLs address an average of two WBIDs each. Thus, based on this average, FDEP may need to develop and adopt 486 additional nutrient TMDL s . The process for developing TMDLs in Florida in cludes (FDEP, 2005):
 gathering and anal ys is 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 previousl y estimat ed the cost of developing TMDLs based on performing eight basic steps (U.S. EPA, 2001) :
 characterizing the watershed
 modeling and anal yz ing the water body and its pollutants to determine the reduction in the pollutant load that would eliminate the impairment
 allocating load reductions to the a ppropriate sources
 preparing an implementation plan
 developing a TMDL sup port 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 ty

pically range from about $6,000 to $154,000. The lower end of the range reflects the ty

pical 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 ty pical cost associated with TMDL s that are most difficult to develop, and for whic h 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 TMDLcosts 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 Employ ment 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 five
phase cycle that rotates through the five basins over five ye ars . Under this schedule, completion of TMDLs for high priority waters will take 9 years; it will take an additional 9 years to completeJanuary 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
- ye ar period schedule cycle, annual cost s 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 anal ys is of impairment under the proposed numeric criteria for the existing CWA Sectio n 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 Data 1 124 93 217 Potentially Exceed Criteria 2 98 80 178 Impairment Uncertain 3 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 suf ficient (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 col or 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 desc ribed 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 currentl y 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 TMDL s on a site
- speci fic 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 Nu meric Nutrient Criteria to Existing TMDL Targets TMDL Name WBID Water B ody 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 - B anana L ake and Canal 1549A Banana Lake Canal TN NS 1.72 ? B anana L ake and Canal 1549A Banana Lake Canal TP NS 0.75 ? B anana L ake and Canal 1549B Banana Lake TN NS 0.6 ? B anana L ake 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 Cre ek 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 L ake 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 Nu meric Nutrient Criteria to Existing TMDL Targets TMDL Name WBID Water B ody 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 Tra fford 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 Lowe r 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 Lo wer 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 Mun son 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 R iver 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 Nu meric Nutrient Criteria to Existing TMDL Targets TMDL Name WBID Water B ody 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 D itch 1668A Saint Joe's Creek TN NS 1.72 ? St Joe C. and Pinellas Park D itch 16 68A Saint Joe's Creek TP NS 0.119 ? St Joe C. and Pinellas Park D itch 1668B Pinellas Park Ditch No. 5 TN NS 1.72 ? St Joe C. and Pinellas Park D itch 1668B Pinellas Park Ditch No. 5 TP NS 0.119 ? Suwanee Basin 3422 Suwannee Basin TN NS 1.72 ? Suwanee Ba sin 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 Trou t 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 + U pper St Johns River 2893L St. John s R
. ab
. Lake Poinsett TP 0.09 0.119 - U pper St Johns River 2893Q Lake He ll n' Blazes TP 0.09 0.089 + U pper St Johns River 2893X St. John s 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 Nu meric Nutrient Criteria to Existing TMDL Targets TMDL Name WBID Water B ody 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 S outhern C hain of Lakes 1521 Lake Lulu TP NS 0.015 ? Winter Haven S outhern C ha in of Lakes 1521D Lake Shipp TP NS 0.015 ? Winter Haven S outhern C hain of Lakes 1521E Lake May TP NS 0.015 ? Winter Haven S outhern C hain of Lakes 1521F Lake Howard TP NS 0.015 ? Winter Haven S outhern C hain of Lakes 1521G Lake Mirror TP NS 0.015 ? Winte r Haven S outhern C hain of Lakes 1521H Lake Cannon TP NS 0.015 ? Winter Haven S outhern C hain of Lakes 1521J Lake Idylwild TP NS 0.015 ? Winter Haven S outhern C hain of Lakes 1521K Lake Jessie TP NS 0.015 ? mg/L = milligrams per liter NS = Not specified TM DL = 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 differenc e 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 Wastew ater 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 contro l 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 anal ys is of RP to exceed the water quality criteria. 4.1.1 Reasonable Potential FDEP generall y 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 typical ly 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 ty pical TN concentrations of 20 mg/L t o 30 mg/Land 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 c oncentrations 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 in crease 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 n ot be impaired under the proposed criteria based on instream monitoring data. 8 The 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 f low (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, respectivel y) 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 likel y to discharge nutrients at concentrations above applicable criteria and over 80% of WWTPs are discharging to impaired waters , fo r a p reliminary 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 site
specific 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 n ew 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, especiall y if the water is dominated by WWTP discharges; for waters with assimilative capa city, 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 anal ys is may be needed; s ite
- 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 end
of
- 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 con ditions in the treatment process (Metcalf and Eddy , 2003). There are a number of BNR process configurations available. Some BNR sy stems 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) 9 and timing ( Jeyanayagam , 2005). Common BNR sy stem configurations include:
 Modified Ludzack
- Ettinger (MLE) Process

– continuous
- flow suspended
- growth process with an initial anoxic stage followed b y an aerobic stage; used to remove TN
 Anaerobic
- Anoxic O xidation (A 2 /O) Process

– MLE process preceded b y 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 availabl e (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 proces s 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 an aerobic 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 th e 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 Exce llent None Modified (Five - Stage) Bardenpho Excellent Good SBR Moderate Inconsistent Modified UCT Good Excellent Oxidation Ditch Excellent Good Source: Jeyanayagam (2005)
. A2/O = a naerobic - a noxic o xidation BNR = biological nutrient removal MLE = Modifi ed 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 achiev e 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, respectivel y, at the Marshall Street plant and 2.04 mg/L and 0.20 mg/L , respectivel y, atJanuary 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 employ s 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 (Viess man 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 b y 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 u sed 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 s ys tems 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 APRI COT Act of 1994, whi ch 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 A

ffected Sources EPA’s PCS database indicates that there is one municipal WWTP with TN limits more stringent than the proposed criterion. Completed TMDL s 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 L OT 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 proposedJanuary 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 L OT (e.g., A 2 /O, modified Bardenpho, modified UCT, oxidation ditches or other BNR coupled with chemical precipitation) would likely be in compliance with WQBEL s 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 LO T (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 ex isting 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 Plants 1 Discharge Type Number of Dischargers

TN and TP to LOT 1 TN to LOT 2 TP to LOT 3 No LOT 4 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 = a naerobic - a noxic o xidation BMAP = Basin Management Area Plan BNR = biological nutrie nt 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 A 2/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 wit h wasteload allocations under a TMDL for TP of less than 0.1 mg/L. 4. Includes dischargers without LOT - capable treatment processes or t reatmen t 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 sy stems in Florida that achieve TN concentrations less than 3 mg/L and TP concentrations le ss than 0.5 mg/L , as well as estimates EPA derived from waste water treatment cost estimating software (CAPDETWorks). Note thatJanuary 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 $2 32 Average $0.41 $173 TN Less Than 3 mg/L and TP Less Than 0.5 mg/L 2 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 d enitrification 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 phosp horus WWTP = wastewater treatment plant 1. Capital and O&M costs updated from original reported year dollars ( May 2007 and July 200 7 ) to July 2009 dollars using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (index values of 7942 , 7959 , and 8566 for M ay 2007, July 200 7 , and July 2009, resp ectively). 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
- ty pe 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 i ndicative 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 maintenan ce (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). Th ese estimate s ref lect 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 sy stems classified as municipal WWTPs in PCS. These sy stems receive inflow from several WWTPs which are treating to the LOT; thus, any discharges to surface waters from the master reuse s ys tems 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 so urces 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 L SJR TMDL , Anheuser Busch improved pond nutrient removal with hyacinth manage ment, a baffle s ys tem to improve detention time, and the use of aeration in some zones at its L em 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
. Busb y , 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 L SJR TMDL(personal communication with T
. Busb y , Wildwood Consulting, August 2009). In most cases, it is more cost effec tive 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 m ost 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 highl y s ite specific. How ever, 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 TMDLand BMAP processes. This section provides discussion of how such changes may

affect contro l actions ; actual control actions will depend on site
- specific co nditions 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 incrementall y 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 GI S overlay of low, medium, and high density residential land surrounding the potential incrementall y impaired waters ( Exhibit 5 - 1 ) shows the distribution of urban land. 5.2 Potential Controls Under existing regulations, NPDES permits for MS4s require implement ation 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 rem oval 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 incrementall y i mpaired waters. For example, the L SJR BMAP lists a number of storm water control projects such as baffle boxes, retention/detention, street sweeping, and education with completio n 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 WatersJanuary 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, e xisting storm water regulations and TMDL s 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 TMDL s for the potential incrementall y 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 di schargers through the TMDL and BMAP processes. This section illustrates the ty pes of controls and costs that could be incurred; actual costs will depend on site
- specific co nditions and control strategies. 6.1 Land Use As shown in Exhibit 3
- 4 , agricultural u se accounts for more than 40 % of the land use in HUCs surrounding the potential incrementall y impaired waters
. Exhibit 6 - 1 shows the acreage of various agriculture land use categories within HUCs surrounding the potential incrementall y impaired waters. E xhibit 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 Past ure 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, t here 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 WatersJanuary 2010 6
. Agriculture 6
- 3

6.2 Potential Controls FDEP will identify

the magnitude of loading reductions needed from nonpoint sources in TMDL s for individual waters. Once identified, site
- specific modeling of controls would be needed to identify

the ex tent 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 quali ty 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 yi eld expect ations 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, i n 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 ty pical 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 gentl y sloped areas; studies show that trapping or removal efficiency does not increase for wider buffers. Based on studies reviewed by Wenger (1999) , in gentl y 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 incrementall y impaired waters. However, to be effective in reducing nutrients from agricultural discharges, riparian buffers would likel y 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 targ et manure handling and application on CAFOs and animal feeding operations. However, animals still have access to streams (SWET, 2006). Fencing of incrementall y impaired receiving waters would provide incremental reductions in nutrients by keeping animals o ut 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. TwoJanuary 2010 6
. Agriculture 6
- 4

statewide programs provide estimates of these costs. Florida’s Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) provides 100% cost share pay ments for the installation of BMPs ( FL EQIP, 2009a). The pay

ment amounts reflect statewide average costs of implementing the practices on a scale and s cope typical in Florida (personal communication with J. Bartine, USDA NRCS Florida State Office, July 2009). Pay ments 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 pay

ments, cost - share assistance, and other financial incentives to encourage producers to voluntaril y enroll in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts. The average rental pay ment 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 pay ment 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 pay

ment 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 p astures, 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 ye ars in Chesapeake Bay area states) and a discount rate of 7%
. 6.3.2 Forest Buffers The cost of installing a f

orest 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 pay ment of $350 per acre for riparian forest buffers (FL EQIP, 2009a). This pay

ment 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 appl y fertilizer and lime fo r establishment (FL EQIP, 2009b). Based on a 100
- ft wide buffer along the 6,200 water body miles bordered b y 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 pay ment 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 pay

ment of $1.13 per linear foot for fencing organic, muck soils (FLEQIP, 2009a). The pay

ment 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, stay s, and gates (FL EQIP, 2009b). There are approximately 11.8 million linear feet (2,237 miles) of lakes (perimeter) and streams in the incrementall y impaired watersheds that are bordered b y livestock farmland (based on GI S 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 ye ar 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 acc ounts 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 sy stems in Florida do not receive surface water discharge permits. However, FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria may affect these sy stems through the TMDL and BMAP processes. This section illustrates the ty pes of controls and costs that could be incurred; actual costs will depend on site
- specific co nditions and control strategies. 7.1 Potential Controls Most of the existing nutrient
- related TMDLs identify failing septi c s ys tems as sources of nutrients to surface waters; properl y operated and maintained systems should provide equivalent to secondary

wastewater treatment. For TMDLs in which septic s ys tems are a potentially significant source, FDEP usually calculates the p ollutant load based on the estimated septic tank failure rate. For example, in the Wekiva L ake Nutrient TMDL , the failure rate is calculated based on the total number of new septic installations in the county divided b y the number of repair permits for eac h 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 take s an average of five ye ars 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 Rate 1 Failure Rate 2 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 an nual 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 s ys tem 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 sy stem standards needed to achieve nitrogen reductions protective of gro undwater quality within the Wekiva Study

Area. DOH (2004) reports that a conventional septic tank and drainfield costsJanuary 2010 7
. Septic Systems 7
- 2

from $5,500 to $7,000 for a three
- bedroom home, and a comparable nitrogen
- reducing s ys tem 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 s ys tems in the area). Thus, incremental costs of upgrading to nitrogen removal would be $2,000. Note that these s ys tems are not specificall y designed to reduce phosphorus loads. Aquapoint manufactures the Bioclere onsite wastewater treatment s ys tem, which uses a fixed film biological trickling filter and clarifier to remove organics and nutrients from domestic wastewater. EPA (2003b) indicat es that TN concentrations from a Bioclere sy stem 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 sy stem for a single family

home to a new or existing conventional septic sy stem 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 s ys tem uti lizing fixed film biological filters. The s ys tem 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 Mas sachusetts) (U.S. EPA, 2003c). Biomicrobics manufactures the RetroFAST sy stem as a retrofit of existing septic sy stems to improve nutrient removal. The sy stem is a fixed
- film activated sludge process and ranges from $1,605 for 250 gallons/day to $1,875 fo r 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 sy stems in the state (DOH, 2009), the number of s ys tems in watersheds draining to the potential incrementall y 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
- spec ific 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 likel y 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 Mi nor 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 estimated 1 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 p otential incrementall y impaired waters could be approximately $2.5 million per year, based on nation al avera ge 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 increm ental costs and cost savings associated with completed TMDL s for which the current TN and TP targets are higher or lower than FDEP’s draft criteria
. 8.2 Uncertainties of the A nalysis 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 aJanuary 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. Un certainties 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 lan d used in livestock production would be needed on al l 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 achievin g LOT if t reatment 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 t hose 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 size d 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 wa ter 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 technol ogy 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 uncerta inJanuary 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 b y the identification of po tential incrementally impaired waters which is based on the existing state CWA Section 303(d) list for nutrients and adopted TMDL s. However, this analy sis does not account for those waters that may be impaired under the narrative criteria but are not yet o n the state’s CWA Section 303(d) list. The identification of potential incrementall y i mpaired 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 ye t 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 Sy stems (OWNRS) for Nutrient Sensitive Environments. In On
- Site Wastewater Treatment: Proceedings of the Eighth National Sy mposium on Individual and Small Community

Sewage S ys tems, 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/doc
pointsource_f

or_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. L os Angeles, CA. David McNaught, Joseph Rudek, and Elizabeth Spalt. htt p://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/2758_NCbuffers.pdf
. Everhart, Scott. 2009. SeptiTech Sales Representative. Personal communication. May
. F lorida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009a. Status Review and Key I ssues for the Nutrient Criteria to Protect Florida’s Lakes . Presented b y Ken Weaver, Standards and Assessment Section. June 3. F lorida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009b. Wastewater Facility In formation: 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/2005 TMDL _Report_final_2
- 25
- 05.pdf F lorida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Office of Inspector General (OIG). 2008. Total Maximum Daily L oad 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 Sy stems Installed i n Florida
. http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/OSTDS/statist ics/ostdsstatistics.htm
.January 2010 9. References 9
- 2

Florida Department of Health (DOH). 2004. Wekiva Basin Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Sy stem Study
. Florida Environmental Quality Incentive Program (FL EQIP). 2009a. FY 20 09 Statewide Pay ment Schedules. ftp://ftp
fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/FL/eqip/EQIP_FY2009Pay Sched_STATEWIDE_FINAL .pdf
. Florida Environmental Quality Incentive Program (FL EQIP). 2009b. State of Florida Pay ment Schedule Cost Descriptions, FY 2009. Florida Geological Data Library (FGDL). 2009. GI S Data: WBIDs. http://www.fgdl.org/download/index.html Harper, H. and D. Baker. 2007. Evaluation of Current Stormwater De sign 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: Janu ary 2005. Lower St. Johns River (LSJR) TMDLExecutive Committee . 2008. Exhibit 1 Basin Management Action Plan for the Implementation of Total Maximum Daily L oads 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. 2 003. 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: Tas k 1, 2, and 3. Final Report. Soil and Water Engineering Technology , Inc. (SWET). 2008b. Technical Assistance in Review and Analy sis of Existing Data for Evaluation of Legacy Phosphorus in the L ake Okeechobee Watershed: Task 3 Report, Legacy P Abatement Pl an. 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. L ake 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/20 07/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, Sec retary , 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 Sy stem Database. Accessed May 2009. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/adhoc.html
. United States Environmental Protection A gency (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
- R
03
- 004. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003b. ETV Joint Verification Statement : B ioclere TM M odel 16/12
. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003c. ETV Joint Verification Statement : S eptiTech ® M odel 400 S ys tem. 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 f or 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. Marc h 5.January 2010 A
- 1 

### Ap pendix 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 Cap ital

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 $34,8 80,942 $3,910,403 FL0039772 W. Carl Dicks WWTP 13.7 Bone Valley No No $42,317,697 $1,364,303 FL0128937 Clearwater City o f 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 S TP 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 Gai nesville - 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 B CUD /South Central Reg 5.5 Colored Yes Yes $0 $0 FL0025 151 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 Hun t Club S TP 2.9 Peninsula No No * $ 1,986,186 $ 106,460 FL0023922 Orange Park -Ash St S TP 2.5 Northeast No* No* $1,024,641 $157,963 FL0021903 Milton City o f (S TP ) 2.5 Panhandle Yes No $1,024,641 $157,963 FL0042625 Seminole Cty Dept of Evio Srv 2.5 Peninsul a Yes Yes $0 $0 FL0027511 William Tyson WWTP 2 Bone Valley No No $6,177,766 $199,168 FL0020109 Winter Garden S TP 2 Colored Yes Yes $0 $0 FL0043214 Martin Co Consolidated Reuse 1.97 Peninsula No ** No ** $ 0 $ 0 FL0039721 Clay Cty Ridaught Landing 1.87 5 Northeast No No $1,981,872 $222,182January 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 Cap ital

Costs Annual

O&M Costs TN TP WWTP FL0028126 Starke - Municipal S TP 1.65 North Central No No $5,096,657 $164,314 FL0026867 Blountstown - S TP 1.5 Panhandle No Yes $ 1,027,338 $55, 066 FL0029033 City of Quincy WWTP 1.5 Panhandle Yes No $614,785 $94,778 FL00 27731 Bonifay S TP 1.4 Panhandle No No $1,479,798 $165,896 FL0040495 MacC lenny WTP 1.3 Northeast No No $1,374,098 $154,046 FL0031402 F L State Hospital 1.3 Panhandle No No $1,374,098 $154,046 FL0026387 Perry S TP 1.25 Peninsula No No $1,321,248 $148,121 F L0027880 Jasper- WWTP 1.2 North Central Yes Yes $0 $0 FL0027570 Chipley City of (S TP ) 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 - S TP 1 Panhandle No No $1,056,998 $118,497 FL0038857 Apalachicola City o f 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

Ur ban Reuse System 40 Penin sula No ** No ** $ 0 $ 0 FL0127272 Pasco County Master Reuse

Syst em 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 - P GA WWTP 12 Peninsula No No $12,683,979 $1,421,96 5 FL0112895 G.R.U. S TP #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 U SA Nat Guard Camp

Blanding 0.9 Peninsula No No $951,298 $106,647 FL0102920 C CAFTS /Regional 0.8 Peninsula No No $845,599 $94,798 FL0020338 Mulberry S TP 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 - Pont e Vedra WWTF 0.5 Northeast No No $528,499 $59,249 FL0027669 Chattahoochee City of (S TP ) 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 Northeas t 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 - S TP #1 0.4 Peninsula No No $422,799 $47,399 FL0039896 Pebble Creek Village WWTF 0.4 Peninsula Yes Yes $0 $0January 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 Cap ital

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 S TP 0.35 Colored No No $369,949 $41,474 FL0043079 Hilliard 0.32 Northeast No No $338,239 $37,919 FL0038407 Calla han Town of 0.3 Northeast No No $317,099 $35,549 FL0020907 Bunnell WTP 0.3 Peninsula No No $317,099 $35,549 FL0117471 S JCUD - 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 (S TP ) 0.2 Panhandle No No $211,400 $23,699 FL0042315 Hastings S TP 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 S TP 0.06 Northeast No No $63,420 $7,110 FL0040215 Brittany Estates M HP 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 FL00 40207 Noma S TP 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 M HP 0.015 Peninsula No No $15,855 $1,777 F L0023426 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 M HP 0.005 Northeast No No $5,2 85 $592 FL0043176 Paradise Point S TP 0.005 Peninsula No No $5,285 $592 FL0115231 Bailey's M HP 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 techn ology 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, o r 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 Cap ital

Costs Annual

O&M Costs TN TP **Master reuse systems that receive inflow from several WWTPs.

### ATTACHMENT 2

P OTENTIAL 

### B ENEFITS 

### RESULTING FROM THE 

### P ROTECTION AND 

### RESTORATION OF



### F LORIDA 

### ’ S 

### L AKES AND 

### F LOWING 

### WATERS

January 2010January 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 harmfu l to many types of organisms and can significantly limit the ability of the water body to achieve its designated use. Wh en the additional nutrients are introduced, harmful aquatic plant life and algal bloom productivity substantially increases, which can d ecrease the amount of light and subsequent photosynthesis taking place in the deeper areas of lakes and rivers . W hen this excessive aquatic plant life dies, bacteria that decompose this organic matter appear in abundance. These bacteria tend to produce a b ad odor, significantly decreasing visibility, and deplet ing 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 t he 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 crit eria 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 seg ments 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 wat er 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, f ishing, 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 eventu ally 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 benefi t 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 minimu m standards and non - impaired waters that are downstream. A VeryRough Benefit Estimate: A rough benefit transfer estimate of mean willingness to pay (WT P) 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 valua tion publications, Van Houtven et al. select 131 value estimates from 21 publications (18 studies) published between 1 977 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 WT P value by capturing both use and non - use values. The water quality scale is based on Vaughan’s (1986) water quality ladder where water qualityJanuary 2010 3

improvements are described by steps up the ladder (boatable = 2.5, fishable =5.1, and swimm able = 7.0). Figure 1:

Van Houtven et al. assume that WT P for changes in water quality may be described by ( 0
. 1 ) 0 1 (,, , , ; ) WTP V Q Q R P S B  , where Q 0 and Q 1 are 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 VA RI ABLE DESCRIPTION LN_W QI_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) WQ I_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_ INCOME2000 1 Log 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_USER 2 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 ) 2 No 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 mo nths (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. W e are forced to assume that river and lake water quality is equal due to a lack of lake data. The average 6 - component Wa ter Quality Index (WQ I) for the state of Florida was 59.18798
. This is calculated by taking a weighted average of the WQ I 6 values all RF3lite reaches in Florida, where the weights are obtained by dividing the reach length by the total reach le ngth for the state. The W QI 6 value is calculated as a geometric mean of 6 water quality indicators: (1.2) w here SI i is the subindex value of the indicator and W i is the weight. The weights are obtained from the CAFO rule (seen in the third column below):January 2010 5

Fi gure 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 cha nge 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 W QI , 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 *9 1 * 23.03 *7 4.46 *9 7.80 *9 5.04 ) ((75.80 *9 1 * 23.03 *7 4.46 * * ) WQI TP TN  

 w here TP 2 and TN 2 are the new TP and TN subindex values
. Note that all of the subindex values in the above equation are between 0 and 100. I n the CAFO documentation, graphs are provided to translate from the T P 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.go v/npdes/pubs/cafo_natl_ecobenefit_p3.pdf , the source of Figure 2 and 3.January 2010 6

Figure 3:

Wh ile the equations that translate between the nutrient values and the s ubindex 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 subinde x is projected t o change by 0.082989. Therefore TP 2 = 97.90846 and TN 2 = 95.12299
. Plugging these into the W QI equation, we have ∆W QI = 0.0 072. 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. W e rely on the log - linear model because it has the advantage of implying that WT P approaches zero as the W Q 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 - anal ys is Coefficient Estimates LOG - LINEAR LN(W TP) LN_W QI_CHANGE 0.343 LN_W QI_CHANGE*W Q_REC_USE 0.414 WQ I_BASE 0.091 LOCAL_FW AT ER - 0.110 SOUTH - 0.052 LN_INCOME2000 0.964 LN_INCOME2000*INCOME_APPROX - 0.008 PERCENT_USER 0.011 CONSTANT - 0.399 * From Va n Houtven et al 2007 Table 5 Benefit A nalysis 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 W TP for the incremental water quality improv ements provided by moving from Florida’s water quality criteria to EPA more strict criteria (this only affects roughly four percent of waters). Total W TP is simply per person WT P times the population of Florida (assumed to be 18,328,340). Results are pre sented below in Table 4. Table 4: WTP for Water Quality Improvements in Lakes and Flowing Water for M ov ing from Florida ’s to EPA’s M ore S trict C riteria Baseline Per Person Total WQ I 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 d o 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 wouldJanuary 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 p opulation 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 hab itat 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 v alues 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 g ood 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 mo st 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 W ater: The Public’s Wi llingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable, and Swimmable Quality W ater.” Wa ter Resources Research, 29(7):2445 - 2425. Cordell, K.H., C.J. Betz, G.T. Green, S. Mou, V.R. Leeworthy, P.C. W il ey, J.J Barry, and D. Hellertstein (2004). Outdoor Recreation for 21 st 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.pdfJanuary 2010 9

Dumas, C.F., P.W . Schuhmann, and J.C. Wh itehead (2005). “Measuring the Economic Benefits of W ater Quality Improvement with Benefit Transfer: An Introduction for Noneconomists.” American Fisheries Society Symposium X, 1 - 17. Integrated W ater 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 W ater 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 W a ter Pollution Control. CR - 810224 - 02)” Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Wa shington D.C.