1 

# The Economic **A nalysis**  **of the FDEP** 

**Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria**  **in**

**Florida**

DEP Contract No : SP699

For:

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 3560

Tallahassee, FL 32399

- 2400

(850) 245

- 8420 (office)

(850) 412

- 0652 (fax)

Web Site: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/evergladesforever/

By:

Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis

Florida State University

3200 Commonwealth Blvd.

Tallahassee, Fl. 32303

(850) 645

- 0191 phone

jharrington@cefa.fsu.edu

Web Site: http://www.cefa.fsu.edu

**January 20**  **, 201 2**  **Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis**

Florida State University

3200 Commonwealth Blvd. Suite 153

Tallahassee, Florida 32306

- 27702 

### Authors

Dr. Julie Harrington

Director, Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis, Florida State University, FSU

Research Complex, 3200 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl. 32303. Tel. (850) 644

- 7357.

Email: jharrington@cefa.fsu.edu

Mart ij n Niekus

Sr. Research er , Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis, Florida State University, FSU

Research Complex, 3200 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl. 32303. Tel. (850 ) 645

- 0191.

Email : mniekus @cefa.fsu.edu

Heejae L ee

Research Assistant, Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis, Florida State University,

FSU Research Complex, 3200 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl. 32303. Tel. (850) 645

-

0192. Email: hjlee @cefa.fsu.edu

Lilong Tao

Research Assistant, Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis, Florida State University,

FSU Research Complex, 3200 Commonwealth Blv d. Tallahassee, Fl. 32303. Email:

ltao @cefa.fsu.edu3 

### Acknowledgements

The Florida State University Office Center of Economic Forecasting and Analysis ( FSU CEFA)

would like to express its sincere thanks to the Florida Department of Environmental

Protection for its timely provision of water resources research cost data , in a l imited

timeframe , for the purpose of this research project

. FSU CEFA also acknowledges useful

information provided by the Cardno ENTRIX. Other parties that FSU CEFA would like to thank

include the University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Science

, Soil and Water

Engineering Technology, Inc. and Stormwater Management Academy in University of Central

Florida.4 

### Executive Summary

This report represents the research conducted by the Center for Economic

Forecasting and Analysis at the Florida State University on the economic analysis of

Numeric Nutrient Criteria in Florida adopted by the Environmental Regulation

Commission on Decembe r 8, 2011 . The FSU CEFA analysis examined and integrate d

some of the assumptions used in previous studies and developed some other

assumptions based on more current cost data

, and incorporate d current changes in

regulation rules. For example

, the definition of “stream” in the amended rule 62

-

302.200(36), do es not include ditches, canals and other conveyances, or segments of

conveyances, which are man

- made, or predominantly channelized or physically

altered. Therefore, the previous December 6, 2011 draft FSU CEFA cost estimat e was

revised and re

- calculated reflecting this amendment. T he highli ghts of the FSU CEFA

research analysis included the NNC cost estimation and economic analysis results

.

The r esearch data for this study were provid ed by the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP). FDEP classified w ater b odies into six categories.

The Numeric Nutrient Criteria in Florida was applied to all six classified categories,

however, the costs were primarily assigned to Categor y Three (C at 3 ) , those

waterbodies that would be deemed impaired under FDEP’s Numeric Nutrient Criteria

rule . As FDEP defined Category Five as “ those waterbody WBIDs with insufficient

information to determine if they fit in Category T hree or F our

, ” this study included a

proportion of Category Five (C at 5), or those waterbodies with classification “C at 5”

with a high likelihood of being reclassified as C at 3’s 1

The economic analysis consist ed of five sectors; Domestic Wastewater (DW) Sector,

Industrial Wastewater (IW) Sector, Urban Stormwater Controls (SW) Sector, Septic

System Sector, and the Agriculture Sector . These five sectors corresponded to sector

groupings consistent with the previous studies; namely, the EPA study and Cardno

Entrix stud ies . Each sector calcula tion is described in the following orders :

methodology, data and result for C at 3, and data and result for C at 5 to C at 3. .

Although each sectors ’ methodology varied, the domestic and industrial (DW and IW)

sectors cost calculations were based on the affected facilities ’ water capacity

multiplied by capital and maintenance cost (s). The Urban Stormwater ( SW ) and

Agriculture sector’s cost calculations we re based on the proposed NNC rule number

of “impacted acre s” multiplied by the assumed capital and mai ntenance cost s. The

1 For the cost analysis conducted for this study , the probability to be reclassified from a CAT 5 to a CAT

3 is estimated to be 17.54% based on the assessment data by WBID, provided by FDEP. Of the WBIDs

for which there was sufficient data to assess them, 429 WBIDs were impaired out of a total of 2,446

WBID’s (an 17

. 54% impairment rate).5 Septic system cost calculation s were based on the number of proposed NNC rule

estimated septic system s multiplied by the corresponding upgrade and/or

replacement capital and maintenance cost s

.

Table 1 provides a summary of the result s o f this study. The annual cost estimates

were presented by sector, and included low, median and high projections

. With

regard to cost estimates pertaining only to the C at 3 area, about $ 8.9 million would be

the estimated annual median cost. With the inclusion of additional waterbodies to be

reclassified from C at 5 to C at 3, the median costs were estimated to be a grand total of

about $ 65.8 million. The research team estimate d that that the m inimum and

maximum costs for implementation of the NNC rule w ould range from $5 0 .5 million

to $ 149.8 million per year

.

**Table 1**  **Summary of the Low, High and Median**  **Costs for the**  **NNC Rule in Florida**

Cat3 Low High Median Cost

DW $0 $0 $0

IW $0 $0 $0

SW $2,026,816 $7,972,144 $3,910,404

Septic $733,203 $2,133,694 $892,628

Agriculture $4,194,034 $4,194,034 $4,194,034

Total $6,954,053 $14,299,871 $8,997,066

Cat 5 to Cat 3

DW $1,838,810 $4,495,552 $2,394,744

IW $3,355,215 $34,566,580 $9,886,313

SW $14,365,292 $56,503,482 $27,715,437

Septic $8,370,000 $24,357,528 $10,189,944

Agriculture $15,624,333 $15,624,333 $15,624,333

Total $43,553,651 $135,547,476 $65,810,772

Grand Total

DW $1,838,810 $4,495,552 $2,394,744

IW $3,355,215 $34,566,580 $9,886,313

SW $16,392,108 $64,475,626 $31,625,841

Septic $9,103,203 $26,491,222 $11,082,573

Agriculture $19,818,367 $19,818,367 $19,818,367

**Grand Total** $50,507,704 $149,847,347 $74,807,8386 

### Table of Contents

**Authors**

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ii

**Acknowledgements**

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... iii

**Executive Summary**

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... iv

**Table of Conte nts** 

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. vi

**List of Tables**

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... viii

**Introduction**

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 1

**Background**

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 5

**Development of the Scope of Work**

................................ ................................ ................ 9

**Tasks**

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10

**II. Description of the Rule** 

................................ ................................ ............................... 11

**Proposed Rule Structure**

................................ ................................ ................................ . 11

**General Discussion on Proposed Rule Structure** 

................................ ....................... 12

**Additional Description of Hierarchical Approach**

................................ ..................... 12

**Discussion on Site Specific Alternative Criteria as NNC**

................................ ........... 13

**Criteria Based on Cause**

**- Effect Relationships** 

................................ ............................ 14

**Waterbody Types and Cases with Insufficient Information**

................................ .... 16

**General Assumptions for Calculation: Amortizations**

................................ .............. 17

**1. Methodology and Assumptions**

................................ ................................ ................. 19

**2. Data and Calculations for Cat 3**

................................ ................................ ................. 20

**3. Data and Calculations for Estimating the Likelihood of Being Reclassified** 

**from a Cat 5 to Cat 3 (Impaired)**

................................ ................................ .................... 21

**3. FSU CEFA applied the probability of 17.54% to the costs for each Cat 5** 

**sector based on the individual sector cost methodologies.** 

................................ ..... 21

**IV. Costs**  **to Industrial Wastewater (IW) Treatment Plants** 

................................ ..... 23

**1. Methodology and Assumptions**

................................ ................................ ................. 23

**3. FSU CEFA applied the probability of 17.54% to the costs for each Cat 5** 

**sector based on the individual sector cost methodologies.**

................................ ..... 25

**V. C**  **osts for Urban Stormwater (SW) Controls**

................................ ............................ 27

**1. Methodology and Assumptions**

................................ ................................ ................. 27

**2. Data and Calculations for Cat 3**

................................ ................................ ................. 28

**3. Cost Results by Counties for Cat 3**

................................ ................................ ............. 30

**VI. Co**  **sts for Septic Systems**

................................ ................................ ............................ 34

**1. Method and Assumptions**

................................ ................................ ........................... 34

**2. Dat a and Calculation for Cat 3** 

................................ ................................ ................... 347 **3. Total Costs Results by Counties for Cat 3**

................................ ................................ 36

**1. Methodology and Assumptions**

................................ ................................ ................. 40

**2. Data and Calculations for Cat 3**

................................ ................................ ................. 40

**3. Costs Results by Counties for Cat 3**

................................ ................................ ........... 43

**VII. Conclusions**

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 48

**References**

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 51

**Appendix A**

**– A**  **cronyms and Abbreviations**

................................ ................................ 53

**Appendix B**

**– Fact Sheet** 

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 558 

### List of Tables

Table 1 Summary of the Low, High and Median Costs for the NNC Rule in Florida

.. v

Table 2 Standard for Impaired Lakes

................................ ................................ ................ 6

Table 3 Standard for Impaired Streams

................................ ................................ ............ 6

Table 4. The State of Florida Area and Population by Counties

................................ ..... 8

Table 5 Amortization Standard (for Private Sector)

................................ ...................... 17

Table 6 Amortization Standard (for Public Sector)

................................ ........................ 18

Table 7 DW Facilities with Multi

- Category Entries Eliminated

................................ ... 21

Table 8 DW Costs for Calculation

................................ ................................ .................... 21

Table 9 Cost Result for DW Sector (Cat 5 to Cat 3)

................................ ....................... 22

Table 10 Cost Result for DW Sector by Counties (Cat 5 to Cat 3)

................................ 22

Table 11 IW Facilities with Multi

- Category Entries Eliminated

................................ .. 25

Table 12 IW Costs for Calculation

................................ ................................ ................... 26

Table 13 Cost Result for DW Sector (Cat 5 to Cat 3)

................................ ..................... 26

Table 14 Cost Result for DW Sector by Counties (Cat 5 to Cat 3)

................................ 26

Table 15 Years 1990 and 2005 Classification of Urban Stormwater WBID Acreage

. 28

Table 16 Years 1990 and 2005 Classification of Urban Stormwater WBID Acreage

. 28

Table 17 Capital Costs Per Acre

................................ ................................ ....................... 29

Table 18 Total Urban SW Costs (Cat 3)

................................ ................................ .......... 29

Table 19 Urban SW Costs by Counties (Cat 3)

................................ ............................... 30

Table 20 SW Costs for Calculation

................................ ................................ .................. 31

Table 21 Cost Result for SW Sector (Cat 5 to Cat 3)

................................ ...................... 31

Table 22 Cost Result for SW Sector by Counties (Cat 5 to Cat 3)

................................ 32

Table 23 Number of Septic Tanks

................................ ................................ .................... 35

Table 24 The Capital Costs and O&M Costs to Upgrade (Per Tank)

.......................... 35

Table 25 Total Costs of Affected Septic Systems (Cat 3)

................................ ................ 35

Table 26 Total Costs of Septic Systems, by Counties (Cat 3)

................................ ......... 36

Table 27 Costs for Calculation

................................ ................................ .......................... 37

Table 28. Cost Results for Septic System Sector (Cat 5 to Cat 3)

................................ .. 37

Table 29 Cost Result for Septic System Sector by Counties (Cat 5 to Cat 3)

............... 38

Table 30. Affected Agricultural Acres

................................ ................................ ............. 40

Table 31 Affected Agricultural Acres by C lasses( Cat 3)

................................ ................ 41

Table 32 Capital Costs of Agriculture (Cat 3)

................................ ................................ .. 41

Table 33 Agricultural Total Costs Results (Cat 3)

................................ .......................... 42

Table 34 Agricultural Total Costs by Counties (Cat 3)

................................ .................. 43

Table 35 Costs for Calculation

................................ ................................ .......................... 44

Table 36 Cost Result for Agriculture Sector (Cat 5 to Cat 3)

................................ ........ 45

Table 37 Cost Result for Agriculture Sector by Counties (Cat 5 to Cat 3)

.................. 46

Table 38 Summary of the Low, High and Median Costs for the NNC Rule in Florida

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 49

Table 39 Comparison Cost Results among FSU CEFA, EPA and Cardno ENTRIX (in

Million Dollars per Year)

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 501 

### Introduction

Since the inception of their water quality standards in the 1970s, Florida has used a

narrative nutrient standard to guide the management and protection of its waters.

Chapter 62

- 302.530, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), states that “in no case shall

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

nat ural populations of flora or fauna.” The narrative criteria also states 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

, FAC]. Man

- induced nutrient enrichment (total nitrogen or total phosphorus) shall be

considered degradation in relation to the provisions of Sections 62

- 302.300, 62

- 302.700, and 62

- 4.242, F.A.C.”

FDEP has relied on this narrative for many years because nu trients are unlike any

other “pollutant” regulated by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Most water quality

criteria are based on a toxicity threshold, evidenced by a dose

- response relationship,

where higher concentrations can be demonstrated to be harmful , and acceptable

concentrations can be established at a level below which adverse responses are

elicited (usually in laboratory toxicity tests). In contrast, nutrients are not only

present naturally in aquatic systems, they are absolutely necessary for the proper

functioning of biological communities, and are sometimes moderated in their

expression by many natural factors.

The FDEP has been actively working with EPA on the development of numeric

nutrient criteria for several years. FDEP submitted its initia l DRAFT Numeric Nutrient

Criteria Development Plan to EPA Region IV in May 2002, and received mutual

agreement on the Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development Plan from EPA on July 7,

2004. The FDEP revised its plan in September 2007 to more accurately reflect its

evolved strategy and technical approach, and FDEP received mutual agreement on

the 2007 re visions from EPA on September 28, 2007. Florida has been guided in their

development of numeric nutrient criteria by recommendations from a Technical

Advisory Committee (TAC) composed of technical experts from throughout the state.

The TAC review ed all available technical information to ensure that the resulting

criteria reflect the characteristics and aquatic life use of Florida’s diverse

waterbodies.

In 2008

, Earth Justice filed a lawsuit against the EPA on behalf of five environmental

groups **2**

2 Namely, the Florida Wildlife Fede ration, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the Environmental

Confederation of Southwest Florida, St. John's Riverkeeper, and the Sierra Club . The suit alleged that: 1) the EPA had previously determined that NNC is

necessary as described in the Federal Clean Water Act; and that: 2) the EPA was

obligated to pro mulgate numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. In January 2009, EPA

formally determined that numeric nutrient criteria were necessary for Florida’s

waters and s ubsequently entered into a consent decree with the envi ronmental

groups in August 2009 . EPA fina lized its rules for inland lakes and flowing waters on

Nov 14, 2010

. That rule face s at least eight legal and/or sc ientific challenges,2 including those from the State Attorney General

, State Commissioner of Agriculture,

and a lawsuit filed by the Florida L eague of Cities and the Florida Stormwater

Association

.

In the meantime, FDEP formally initiated rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria in

January, 2009, following receipt of EPA’s determination letter. Since then, F DEP has

held four publically noticed TAC meetings and three additional public rulemaking

workshops. Issues and concerns rose by stakeholders, both verbally and in writing,

were carefully considered, and modifications in the rules reflect the input.

EPA Numeric

. On Nov 3, 2011, the EPA g ave a tentative approval for a state

alternative to its NNC ru le

, the FDEP NNC proposal that was adopt ed by the state

Environmental Regulation Commission on December 8, 2011

. The rule has

subsequently been submitted to the Florida legislature for ratification.

Florida modified the rule in order to be tailored and as specific to, Florida, and for the

purpose of clarification or simpli fi cation of the rule language

. For example, FCG EC

and FWEA Utility Council introduced an amend ment to the FDEP propos ed Sectio n

62

- 302.200, F.A.C. to specifically 3

3 From: exclude ditches, canals and other conveyances, or

segments of conveyances, which are man

- made, or predominantly channelized or

(36) “Stream” shall mean, for purposes of interpreting the narrative nutrient criterion in paragraph 62

- 302.530(47)(b), F.A.C., a predominantly fresh surface waterbody with perennial flow in a defined

channel with banks during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions for its region within the state.

During periods of drought, portions of a stream channel m ay exhibit a dry bed, but wetted pools are

typically still present during these conditions. Streams do not include non

- perennial water segments,

wetlands, or portions of streams that exhibit lake characteristics (e.g., long water residence time,

increased width, or predominance of biological taxa typically found in non

- flowing conditions).

To:

(36) “Stream” shall mean, for purposes of interpreting the narrative nutrient criterion in paragraph 62

- 302.530(47)(b), F.A.C., under paragraph 62

- 302.531(2)(c), F.A.C., a predominantly fresh surface

waterbody with perennial flow in a defined channel with banks during typical climatic and hydrologic

conditions for its region within the state. During periods of drought, portions of a stream channel may

exhibit a dry bed, but wetted pools are typically still present during these conditions. Streams do not

include:

(a) non

- perennial water segments where fluctuating hydrologic conditions, including periods of

desiccation, typically result in the dominance of wetland and/or terrestrial taxa (and corresponding

reduction in obligate fluvial or lotic taxa), wetlands, portions of streams that exhibit lake

characteristics (e.g., long water residence time, increased width, or predominance of biological taxa

typically found i n non

- flowing conditions) or tidally influenced segments that fluctuate between

predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters during typical climatic and hydrologic

conditions; or

(b) ditches, canals and other conveyances, or segments of conveyances , that are man

- made, or

predominantly channelized or physically altered and;

1. are primarily used for water management purposes, such as flood protection, stormwater

management, irrigation, or water supply; and

2. have marginal or poor stream habitat or habitat components, such as a lack of habitat or substrate

that is biologically limited, because the conveyance has cross sections that are predominantly

trapezoidal, has armored banks, or is maintained primarily for water conveyance.3 physically altered from the definition for streams

. Therefore, the previous December

6, 2011 FSU CEFA cost estimat e was revised and re

- calculated reflecting this new

amendment.

While many states have adopted some version of numeric nutrient criteria to parts of

their water bodies 4 , Florida NNC rule would be the first one that is applied on a state

wide basis. Noticeably, this new numeric nutrient criteria would likely result in

greater regulatory costs in terms of its design

, implementation , and monitoring. The

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) acknowledges th at “the

derivation of specific numeric nutrient criteria to complement the narrative is very

complex”, since each waterbody can have very different and unique nutrient

requirements” 5

. In October , 2011, FDEP contracted with the Florida State University

Cent er for Economic Forecasting Analysis ( FSU CEFA) to conduct the cost and

economic analysis associated with implementation of FDEP’s proposed NNC rule.

Water b odies were assessed in segments (termed Waterbody IDs or WBIDs) for the

purpose of developing cost estimates for the implementation of the Department ’ s

Numeric Nutrient Criteria Rule . WBIDs were apportioned into the following six

categories for cost assessment purposes :

Category One

– WBIDs that are impaired for nutrients or dissolved oxygen with

nutrients as the causative parameter on Florida’s 303(d) list under categories 4a, 4b,

4e, or 5 and for which a TMDL has been established for either nitrogen or phosphorus

or both. For this category, the load reductions being required under these TMDLs wi ll

be compiled and the distribution of the data will be used to derive cost estimates.

Category Two

- WBIDs that are impaired for nutrients or dissolved oxygen with

nutrients as the causative parameter on Florida’s 303(d) list under categories 4a, 4b,

4e, or 5 and for which a TMDL has not yet been established for either nitrogen or

phosphorus are included . There are 720 such WBIDs based on our current

assessment. Therefore, it will be assumed that the expected load reductions for these

WBIDs will be simil ar to those in category one and the costs can be estimated using

the distribution of those load reductions.

Category Three

– WBIDs that would be deemed impaired under the D epartment’s

Numeric Nutrient Criteria rule. This category will include lakes, streams, and

estuaries which will be calculated as follows:

Lakes

– L ake WBIDs will be deemed impaired if they exceed either the

applicable annual chlorophyll a criterion

, the applicable maximum annual total

nitrogen

, or total phosphorus value in the D epar tment’s rule.

Streams

– stream WBIDs will be deemed impaired if they exceed the

applicable stream thresholds and the biology is deemed impaired under the

D epartment’s rule.

4 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/

.

5 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrien ts/faq.htm4 Estuaries

– estuarine WBIDs will be deemed impaired if they exceed the

applicable criteria established for that estuary under the D epartment’s rule

Category Four

– WBIDs that would be deemed unimpaired under the D epartment’s

Numeric Nutrient Criteria rule . This category will also include lakes, streams, and

estuaries which will be calculated as follows:

Lakes

– Lake WBIDs will be deemed impaired if they achieve the applicable

annual chlorophyll a criterion

Streams

– stream WBIDs will be deemed unimpaired if the achieve either the

applicable stream threshold or the biology is deemed unimpaired under the

Department’s rule

Estuaries

– estuarine WBIDs will be deemed unimpaired if the achieve the

applicable criteria established for that estuary under the Depart ment’s rule.

Category Five

– WBIDs for which there is insufficient information to determine if they

fit in c ategory three or four.

Category Six

– WBIDs for which there is insufficient information are placed on the

study list

.5 

### Background

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), recognizing the role of

site

- specific factors that affect numeric responses, proposes to base new standards on

establishing a systematic numeric interpretation of the existing narrative criteria

. A s was also the case for the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule at 40 CFR

131.43(e) [Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 233, Page 75762], this concept is

intended to implement Rule 62

- 302.530 (47) (b), FAC, which 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 aquatic flora or fauna.”

**1. What is**  **the standard for**  **impaired water?** 

In a nutshell , an impaired waterbody is one that does no t meet water quality

standards. These standards can be either numeric or narrative. The most current

version of FDEP’s numeric interpretation of the above mentioned narrative standard

states:

**For lakes** , the applicable numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient crit erion

in paragraph 62

- 302.530(47 ) ( b), F.A.C., for chlorophyll a are shown in the table

below. The applicable interpretations for TN and TP will vary on an annual basis,

depending on the availability of chlorophyll a data and the concentrations of

nutrients and chlorophyll a in the lake as described below. The applicable numeric

interpretations for TN, TP, and chlorophyll a shall not be exceeded more than once in

any consecutive three year period.

a. If there is suffic ient data to calculate the annual geometric mean

chlorophyll a and the mean does not exceed the chlorophyll a value for the

lake type in the table below, then the TN and TP numeric interpretations

for that calendar year shall be the annual geometric means of lake TN and

TP samples, subject to the minimum and maximum limits in the table

below. However, for lakes with color > 40 PCU in the West Central

Nutrient Watershed Region, the maximum TP limit shall be the 0.49 mg/L

TP streams threshold for the region; or

b. If there are insufficient data to calculate the annual geometric mean

chlorophyll a for a given year or the annual geometric mean chlorophyll a

exceeds the values in the table below for the lake type, then the applicable

numeric interpretations for T N and TP shall be the minimum values in the

table below

.6 Table 2 Standard for I mpaired Lakes

Long Term

Geometric

Mean Lake

Color and

Alkalinity Annual

Geometric

Mean

Chlorophyll a Minimum calculated

numeric interpretation Maximum calculated

numeric interpretation

Annual

Geometric

Mean Total

Phosphorus Annual

Geometric

Mean Total

Nitrogen Annual

Geometric

Mean Total

Phosphorus Annual

Geometric

Mean Total

Nitrogen

> 40 Platinum

Cobalt Units 20 μg/L 0.05 mg/L 1.27 mg/L 0.16 mg/L 1 2.23 mg/L

≤ 40 Platinum

Cobalt Units

and > 20 mg/L

CaCO 3 20 μg/L 0.03 mg/L 1.05 mg/L 0.09 mg/L 1 1.91 mg/L

≤ 40 Platinum

Cobalt Units

and ≤ 20 mg/L

CaCO 3 6 μg/L 0.01 mg/L 0.51 mg/L 0.03 mg/L 1 0.93 mg/L

1 For lakes with color > 40 PCU in the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region, the

maximum TP limit shall be the 0.49 mg/L TP streams threshold for the region.

**For streams** , if a site specific interpretation pursuant to paragraph 62

- 302.531(2 ) ( a)

or (2 ) ( b), F.A.C., has not been established, biological information shall be used to

interpret the narrative nutrient criterion in combination with n utrient t hresholds.

The narrative nutrient criterion in paragraph 62

- 302.530(47)(b), F.A.C., shall be

interpreted as being achieved in a stream segment where information on chlorophyll

a levels, algal mats or blooms, nuisance macrophyte growth, and changes in algal

species composition indicates there are no imbalances in flora or fauna, and either **:**

1. T he average score of at least two temporally independent SCIs performed at

representative locations and times is 40 or higher, with neither of the two most

recent SCI scores less than 35, or

2. T he nutrient thresholds set forth in the table below are achie ved.

Table 3 Standard for I mpaired Streams

Nutrient

Watershed Region Total Phosphorus Nutrient

Threshold1 Total Nitrogen Nutrient

Threshold1

Panhandle West 0.06 mg/L 0.67 mg/L

Panhandle East 0.18 mg/L 1.03 mg/L

North Central 0.30 mg/L 1.87 mg/L

Peninsular 0.12 mg/L 1.54 mg/L

West Central 0.49 mg/L 1.65 mg/L

South Florida No numeric nutrient

threshold. The narrative

criterion in paragraph 62

-

302.530(47 ) ( b), F.A.C.,

applies. No numeric nutrient

threshold. The narrative

criterion in paragraph 62

-

302.530(47 ) ( b), F.A.C.,

applies.7 **For spring vents** , the applicable numeric interpretation of the narrative nutrient

criterion is 0.35 mg/L of nitrate

- nitrite (NO3 + NO2) as an annual geometric mean,

not to be exceeded more than once in any three calendar year period.

**For Estuary**

, (1) Estuary

- specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient

criterion in paragraph 62

- 302.530(47)(b), F.A.C., are in the table in Page 9

- 11, NPR

62

- 302 11

- 1

- 11 FINAL

. The concentration

- based estuary interpretations are open

water, area

- wide averages. The interpretations expressed as load per million cubic

meters of freshwater inflow are the total load of that nutrient to the estuary divided

by the total volume of freshwate r inflow to that estuary.

(2) Estuarine and marine areas are delineated in the map of the Florida Marine

Nutrient Regions that may be obtained from the D epartment’s internet site at

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/swq

- docs or by writing to the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection, Standards and Assessment Section, 2600

Blair Stone Road, MS 6511, Tallahassee, FL 32399

- 2400.

(3) The Department shall establish by rule or final order an estuary specific

numeric interpretation of the narr ative nutrient criteria for TN and TP for Perdido

Bay, Pensacola Bay (including Escambia Bay), St. Andrews Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay,

and Apalachicola Bay by June 30, 2013, subject to the provisions of Chapter 120, F.S.

The Department shall establish by rul e or final order the estuary specific numeric

interpretation of the narrative nutrient criteria for TN and TP for the remaining

estuaries by June 30, 2015, subject to the provisions of Chapter 120, F.S. This

subsection shall not be implemented until Rule 62

- 302.531, F.A.C., is approved in its

entirety pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 131.21 and 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c). If any provision of

Rule 62

- 302.531, F.A.C., is later determined invalid, then this subsection shall not be

implemented.

**2. Current status**  **in Florida**

Table 3 provides a summary of recent state of Florida area and population by

counties in 2010. Florida consists of 67 counties which contains 31 small counties 6

.

6 According to 210.52(19), FS

, small count y is defined as population of county is below 75,000. Folloiwng

counties in Florida are small counties; B a ker, Bradford, Calhoun, Columbia, Desoto, Dixie, Franklin

, Gadsden

, Gilchrist

, Glades

, Gulf

, Hamilton

, Hardee

, Hendry

, Holmes

, Jackson

, Jefferson

, Lafayette

, Levy

, Liberty

, Madison

, Monroe

, Nassau , O keechobee

, Putnam

, Suwannee

, Taylor

, Union

, Wakulla

, Walton

, Washington8 Table 4 The State of Florida Area and Population by Counties

Coun ty Area Population (2010) County Area Population

, (2010)

Alachua 969.2 217,955 Lake 1

, 156.5 210,528

Baker 589 22,259 Lee 1

, 212 440,888

Bay 1

, 033.3 148,217 Leon 701.8 239,452

Bradford 300.1 26,088 Levy 1

, 412.4 34,450

Brevard 1

, 557.3 476,230 Liberty 843.2 7,021

Broward 1

, 319.8 1,623,018 Madison 715.9 18,733

Calhoun 574.4 13,017 Manatee 892.8 264,002

Charlotte 859.3 141,627 Marion 1

, 663.1 258,916

Citrus 773.5 118,085 Martin 752.9 126,731

Clay 643.7 140,814 Miami

- Dade 2

, 429.6 2,253,362

Collier 2

, 305.1 251,377 Monroe 3

, 737.5 79,589

Columbia 801.2 56,513 Nassau 725.9 57,663

DeSoto 639.5 32,209 Okaloosa 1

, 082.1 170,498

Dixie 863.8 13,827 Okeechobee 892 35,910

Duval 918.3 778,879 Orange 1

, 004.3 896,344

Escambia 893.9 294,410 Osceola 1

, 506.5 172,493

Flagler 570.8 49,832 Palm Beach 2

, 386.5 1,131,184

Franklin 1

, 026.5 11,057 Pasco 868 344,765

Gadsden 528.6 45,087 Pinellas 535.8 921,482

Gilchrist 355.5 14,437 Polk 2

, 010.2 483,924

Glades 986.2 10,576 Putnam 827.3 70,423

Gulf 755.8 13,332 Santa Rosa 1

, 155.3 123,135

Hamilton 519.4 13,327 Sarasota 725.3 192,695

Hardee 638.4 26,938 Seminole 344.9 117,743

Hendry 1

, 189.9 36,210 St. Johns 821.4 325,957

Hernando 589.1 130,802 St. Lucie 688.1 365,196

Highlands 1

, 106.4 87,366 Sumter 580.4 53,345

Hillsborough 1

, 266.3 998,948 Suwannee 692 34,844

Holmes 488.8 18,564 Taylor 1

, 232.1 19,256

Indian River 617 112,947 Union 249.7 13,442

Jackson 954.7 46,755 Volusia 1

, 432.5 443,343

Jefferson 636.7 12,902 Wakulla 735.8 22,863

Lafayette 547.9 7,022 Walton 1

, 238.2 40,601

Washington 615.9 20,973

Source: US Census Bureau 2010, and State Library of Florida9 

### Development of the Scope of Work

In order to fully assess the scope of work involved with the F DEP draft rule and

economic and cost analyses, four documents were provided as background

informational materials. The documents included “FDEP Review of the EPA’s

Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with

EPA’s Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida”, draft Chapter(s) 62

- 302 and

62

- 303, “EPA’s Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for

Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida”, and “Economic Analysis of the Proposed

Federal Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Flori da” by Cardno ENTRIX.

The documents provided two cost estimates for the proposed rule from the EPA and

Cardno ENTRIX. In summary, the cost estimates of the Cardno ENTRIX study are far

greater than the EPA estimates. Depending on the level of enforcement by the EPA,

the Cardno ENTRIX cost estimates range from $3. 4 to $ 4.7 billion for the “end of pipe”

criteria, and for the less strict “Best Management Practices” (BMP’s) and “Limit of

Technology” (LOT)

, the costs could range from $ 298

- $ 533 m illion. These ranges

were within a 95% confidence interval that represented operating

, maintenance, and

capital costs annualized over a 20

- year period.10 

### Tasks

Th e tasks associated with the following project are outlined below

.

**F DEP Rule A**  **nalysis**

**•** Literature Review

**•** Data collection

o CEFA will base the initial cost estimates on the Cardno ENTRIX most

recent/updated cost analyses (by county). If it’s determined additional

cost data is needed to perform the F DEP draft rule analysis (per

county), CEFA proposes to w ork with F DEP staff, and other data

sources in order to obtain pertinent cost data.

o Data validation/cleaning if needed.

o Conduct data and statistical analyses.

**•** Draft Chapter/Report on F DEP Rule Analysis Cost Estimation

**•** Draft report of Economic analyses

**•** Fin al report

FSU CEFA will provi de the final report to the F DEP no la ter than 5:00 p.m. on March

15, 2012 , and supply any needed clarifications or revisions by March 31 , 201 2

.11 

### II. **Description of the Rule**

**Proposed Rule Structure**

The narrative nutrient criteria would continue to apply to all bodies of water , and

numeric interpretations would be applied based on the scientific information

available. The narrative would be implemented using a systematic structure that

numerically int erprets the narrative nutrient criteria for each body of water in the

following hierarchical manner:

1. Established site specific numeric interpretations of the narrative criteria

(including TMDLs, SSACs, and other interpretations embodied in an official

De partment action) would be the primary interpretation of the narrative

nutrient criteria.

2. If “1” (above) is not available for a body of water , the interpretation of the

narrative criteria for a specific one would be based on established, quantifiable

nu trient cause and effect relationships where the nutrient concentrations

responsible for causing an imbalance of natural populations of aquatic flora or

fauna is understood (currently, this is limited to fresh water springs and

lakes).

3. If “1” and “2” (a bove) are not available, a combination of reference

- based

nutrient thresholds and biological information will be used (currently, this is

limited to fresh flowing bodies of water excluding largely intermittent

streams):

a. Waters achieving the nutrient th resholds that are also biological healthy

( e.g., using SCI and measures of floral health) are deemed to meet the narrative

criteria.

b. Waters that exceed the nutrient thresholds but also reflect balanced flora

and fauna ( e.g., using SCI and measures of f loral health) are deemed to meet

the narrative nutrient criteria.

c. Waters that meet the nutrient thresholds

, but are not biologically healthy

are deemed to not attain Aquatic Life Use Support goals. F DEP would target

these waters for a stressor identification study to determine the causative

factor(s ).

These waters are initially deemed to attain the narrative nutrient criteria

unless the stressor identification study links the adverse biological effects to

nutrients.

d. Waters that exceed the n utrient thresholds that are not biologically healthy

would be deemed to not attain the narrative nutrient criteria unless a stressor

identification study determines that nutrients are not the causative pollutant.

For “c” and “d”, if nutrients are identif ied as a causative pollutant, the Department will

develop a TMDL or SSAC, at which point the numeric interpretation would default to

the provisions of “1” after D epartment action. During these studies, confounding

factors (those other than nutrient effects ) will be considered.12 

### General Discussion on Proposed Rule Structure

• Attainment of the narrative criterion is assessed as a spatial average for the body of

water . If interpreted based on a TMDL or SSAC, the spatial component is as defined in

the TMDL or SSAC document. If based on a generally applicable dose

- response

relationship, it will be as stated in a manner consistent with the derivation of the

criterion. For reference

- based thresholds, the spatial extent will be determined by

site

- specific consid erations, such as relative system homogeneity, system

classification, biological expectations, or empirically measured responses. Waterbody

segments or aggregations of segments from a waterbody may be appropriate in

many, but not all cases.

• If there are both a TMDL and a SSAC for a given waterbody

, the most recently

adopted TMDL or SSAC would take precedence.

• Protection of downstream waters will be provided using a narrative, rather than

“downstream protection values”. In no case shall the loading of nitrogen or

phosphorus from a Class I or III fresh water stream or lake cause or contribute to an

exceedance of water quality standards in a downstream waterbody . Upstream actions

taken by the Department would consider downstream standards pursuant to this

narrative.



### Additional Description of Hierarchical Approach

**Discussion on TMDLs as NNC**

• Only State adopted nutrient related TMDLs would be eligible as site

- specific

interpretations of the narrative nutrient criteria.

• To be eligible, the nutrient TMDLs should be based upon prevention of imbalances

of flora or fauna [Rule 62

- 302.530 (47 ) ( b), FAC], but TMDLs for dissolved oxygen

(DO) (Rule 62

- 302.530 (47 ) ( a), FAC) would also be eligible if nutrients were

identified as a causative pollutant and the TMDL demonstrated that it would also

prevent an imbalance of natural populations of flora and fauna. As an example,

surplus anthropogenic nutrients could be shown to generate excess plant biomass

(periphyton, phytoplankton, or vascular plants), which coul d by themselves

constitute an imbalance in flora or result in habitat smothering (e.g., excess

periphyton accumulation), food web alteration ( e.g ., dominance of taxa that thrive in

nutrient enriched conditions), or low DO (from decomposition or respiration of

excess plant biomass), etc., that results in imbalances in fauna, as reflected by failing

SCI scores or other meaningful biological endpoint ( e.g

., sea grass and transparency,

etc.). If the TMDL is written to prevent this cycle and then achieve DO, it could be

eligible as the numeric interpretation of Rule 62

- 302.530 (47 ) ( b), FAC.

• Many TMDLs are expressed as loads instead of concentrations, but the loads do not

have to be translated into concentrations to be deemed the numeric interpretation of

the narrative nutrient criteria.13 • TMDLs may be modified based on new data, new science, or different targeted

endpoints (such as DO). When TMDLs are modified and readopted, they become the

new interpretation of the narrative.

• Future TMDL rules may include a response target (chlorophyll a, for example)

designed to implement the narrative nutrient criterion. Scientific information relating

to the response target and the bases for existing TMDLs is presented in the TMDL

reports, and this information can be us ed to establish a site

- specific listing threshold

for nutrient impairment pursuant to Rule 62

- 303.450, F.A.C.

• TMDLs may be written to achieve numeric nutrient values established in Chapter

62

- 303 (lakes or springs), or alternatively, be written to achie ve conditions necessary

to protect specific thresholds used for the TMDL would become the numeric

interpretation of the narrative pursuant to “1” of the hierarchy.



### Discussion on Site Specific Alternative Criteria as NNC

• The current restriction on establishing a SSAC for nutrients pursuant to Rule 62

- 303.800(2), F.A.C., would be eliminated.

• A structure to allow a predictable approach to developing nutrient SSACs (such as

the previously proposed Type III SSAC) would be included as part of the rulemaking.

The rule language will provide clear expectations on the water quality and biological

data needed to characterize existing nutrient concentrations and aquatic health, but

the specific number of stations required for ass essment will be determined on a site

specific basis.

• Since numeric nutrient criteria are intended to protect healthy, well

- balanced

natural populations of flora and fauna, and if the biology is found to be healthy, then

the existing nutrient concentrati ons are deemed protective. The nutrient SSAC will

need to address the natural variability in nutrient concentrations. Any SSAC must

demonstrate that the designated use is being protected.

• As part of Type III SSAC development, aquatic life use support mu st be

demonstrated. Waterbodies where the average of two temporally independent

Stream Condition Index (SCI) results is greater than 40 and that do not exhibit excess

algal growth or nuisance aquatic plants are biologically healthy.

• F DEP will consider p hytoplankton, periphyton, and vascular plant community

responses as additional evidence to demonstrate systems are meeting their

designated use. Impaired Waters Rule

- chlorophyll a metrics may also be used for this

demonstration.14 

### Criteria Based on Caus **e**

**- Effect Relationships** 

**Scope of Approach**

For springs and lakes, quantifiable nutrient cause and effect relationships provide the

basis for the numeric interpretation of the narrative nutrient criteria:

Springs: Nitrate criterion of 0.35 mg/L as an annual average.

Lakes: Use the existing chlorophyll/nutrient regression equations, acknowledging the

uncertainty in the equations by allowing for “modified” criteria when chlorophyll

targets are achieved.

**Discussion of Numeric Interpretations Based on Cause and Effect**

• The scientific bases for the spring and lake criteria have been previously presented

in F DEP 2009 document, “Development of Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida

Lakes and Streams”. In hig hly colored lakes (long term average >140 PCU) where

there is no longer a cause and effect relationship, the narrative nutrient criteria

should continue to apply.

• F DEP is re

- examining regionalization and morphoedapthic factors (color, alkalinity)

to est ablish more appropriate lake criteria for some situations.

• Paleoliminological evidence may provide the basis for alternate natural chlorophyll

targets in many Florida lakes, which could allow adjustment in the acceptable TP and

TN using the regression e quations.

**Flowing Waters (Streams)**

The FCG EC and FWEA Utility Council suggested a more specific and clear definition

of the rule amendment regarding streams.

According to the amended Rule 62

- 302.200, F.A.C. (36)

, “Stream” shall mean, for

purposes of interpreting the narrative nutrient criterion in paragraph 62

- 302.530(47)(b), F.A.C., under paragraph 62

- 302.531(2)(c), F.A.C., a predominantly

fresh surface waterbody with perennial flow in a defined channel with bank s during

typical climatic and hydrologic conditions for its region within the state. During

periods of drought, portions of a stream channel may exhibit a dry bed, but wetted

pools are typically still present during these conditions. Streams do not include : (a) non

- perennial water segments where fluctuating hydrologic conditions, including

periods of desiccation, typically result in the dominance of wetland and/or terrestrial

taxa (and corresponding reduction in obligate fluvial or lotic taxa), wetlands, po rtions

of streams that exhibit lake characteristics (e.g., long water residence time, increased

width, or predominance of biological taxa typically found in non

- flowing conditions)

or tidally influenced segments that fluctuate between predominantly marine and

predominantly fresh waters during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions; or

(b) ditches, canals and other conveyances, or segments of conveyances, that are man

made, or predominantly channelized or physically altered and;

1. are primarily used for water management purposes, such as flood protection,

stormwater management, irrigation, or water supply; and15 2. have marginal or poor stream habitat or habitat components, such as a lack of

habitat or substrate that is biologically limited, because the conveyance has cross

sections that are predominantly trapezoidal, has armored banks, or is maintained

primarily for water conveyance.

**Discussion of NNC Process for Streams**

• F DEP plans to use referenced

- based stream nutrient values, such as the EPA’s

p romulgated criteria, as thresholds during the process for numerically interpreting

the narrative criteria described in this document.

• Note that the reference

- based nutrient values were derived as waterbody geometric

means. Spatial application of these v alues to streams is determined by site

- specific

considerations, such as relative system homogeneity, system classification, biological

expectations, or empirically measured responses. WBIDs or aggregations of WBIDs

may be appropriate in many, but not all c ases.

• Reference based nutrient values were derived in perennial streams , generally

. Application of these values to intermittent streams is not appropriate given their

derivation and expression.

• Following amended rule 62

- 302.200, F.A.C., streams do not include ditches, canals

and other conveyances, or segments of conveyances, which are man

- made, or

predominantly channelized or physically altered

.16 

### Waterbody Types and Cases with Insufficient Information

In aquatic systems where insufficient information currently exists to accurately

interpret the narrative nutrient criteria, such as Class III wetlands, Class III flowing

waters in South Florida, and Class III intermittent streams, the narrative will contin ue

to apply, and the Department will numerically interpret the narrative criteria as the

information is developed.

**Implementation Considerations**

**Permitting**

• Nutrient effluent limits for facilities discharging to surface waters will be developed

through the Water Quality

- Based Effluent Limitations (WQBEL) process pursuant to

Chapter 62

- 650, F.A.C. Nutrient WQBELs developed to date were developed to attain

the narrative nutrient criteria, and these WQBELs will remain in effect unless a more

recent waste load allocation (WLA) is developed for the facility, the WQBEL is revised

pursuant to the WQBEL rule, or the WQBEL is superseded by an agency action. For

new or revised WQBELs, the WQBEL process will determine the approach that best

interprets the na rrative nutrient criteria as outlined in the hierarchical structure. The

site specific analysis performed as part of the WQBEL process can be written to

achieve “1”, “2” or “3” of the structure, depending on the available information or

result in a new int erpretation of the narrative that could be considered a D epartment

action relevant to “1”.

**Assessment**

• F DEP will revise the IWR to be consistent with the revisions to Chapter 62

- 302,

F.A.C., including provisions to directly implement the NNC for lakes and springs and

to directly assess TMDLs.

• For waters with nutrient TMDLs expressed as a load, attainment of the allowable

loads will be evaluated as part of the BMAP reporting process, and nonattainment will

be assumed until information is provided to p rove attainment (a combination of

model estimated loads of nonpoint sources and measured loads from point sources).

Waters should only be deemed to be in attainment if they meet the loads (or

concentrations) and targets ( e.g., chlorophyll) and a demonstrat ion that nutrients are

no longer causing biological imbalances. If the waterbody attains the allowable

loading but there is site

- specific information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna,

the TMDL would be revisited and revised as needed.

• As part o f these revisions, the D epartment is contemplating the creation of the study

list (in addition to the planning list and verified list) for waters that do not attain

water quality standards based on the evidence, but appropriate actions have yet to be

identified to rectify the situation. This is common for dissolved oxygen

nonattainment, biological nonattainment, and is anticipated for nutrient criteria

nonattainment. For example, waters that exceed reference

- based nutrient thresholds

will be placed on a “study list” unless there are bio

- assessment data indicating the

stream is healthy. Waters on the study list will receive a site

- specific physical,

chemical, and biological investigation to determine if aquatic life use support goals17 are attained (if the re were no bio

- assessment data available), and if aquatic life use

support is not attained, to then determine the causative pollutant(s). This process

constitutes a “stressor identification” study. If the stream is determined to be

impaired due to nutrient s (at least in part), the water will be listed on the verified list

for TMDL development, which will determine the reductions needed. This approach

places waters on the study list if there is a nonattainment condition based on the

current numeric interpret ation of the narrative criteria outlined above, and also

places waters on the IWR verified list for nutrients if they need a reduction in

nutrient loading to attain the narrative nutrient criteria or otherwise restore the

waterbody’s designated use.



### Gene **ral A**  **ssumption s**  **for Calculation**  **: Amortizations**

**1. Amortization** 

Previous studies use various a mortization methodologies

. FSU CEFA included two

separate am ortization methodologies, with regard to private and public sectors as

because the timeframe and the rate of time preference are different between private

and public sectors. Basically, for the Industrial Waste w ater, Septic System, and

Agriculture Sector FSU CEFA use d private sector amortization. F or the Domestic

Waste w ater and Stormwater s ector s

, FSU CE FA use d public sector amortization.

**1) P**  **rivate sectors**

CEFA calculated the amortization year and rate for private sectors based on the board

of governors of Federal Reserve System data 7 . For example, CEFA will use 20 years

and 6.40 %.

Table 5 Amortization Standard (for Private Sector)

**Period** 10 year 15 year 20 year 25 year 30 year

**I nterest rate**  6.10% 6.25% 6.40% 6.55% 6.70%

Source: HSHAssociates.com , adjusted by CEFA staff.

7 S ources

- Date, 15

- Year FRM, 30

- Year FRM, 1

- Year ARM retrieved from

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data/Annual/H15_TCMNOM_Y10.txt

- Instrument,"U.S. government securities/Treasury constant maturities/Nominal"

- Maturity,"10

- year"

- Frequency,"Annual"

- Description,"Market yield on U.S. Treasury securities at 10

- year constant maturity, quoted on

investment basis"

- Note,"Yields on actively traded non

- inflation

- indexed issues adjusted to constant maturities. The 30

- year Treasury cons tant maturity series was discontinued on February 18, 2002, and reintroduced on

February 9, 2006. From February 18, 2002, to February 9, 2006, the U.S. Treasury published a

factor for adjusting the daily nominal 20

- year constant maturity in order to estima te a 30

- year

nominal rate. The historical adjustment factor can be found at www.treasury.gov/resource

center/data

- chart

- center/interest

- rates/. Source: U.S. Treasury."18 **2) P**  **ublic sectors**

FSU CEFA calculated the amortization methodology for public sectors based on : the

Florida municipal bond rates (on water, sewerage and power sector)

. 8 FSU CEFA staff

used 10 years and 15 year moving average s of the bond rates projected 20 and 30

years from Year 2011. For example, for 20 years, FSU CEFA use d 4.90%.

Table 6 Amortization Standard (for Public Sector)

**Period** 20 year 30 year

**I nterest rate**  4.90 % 4.70 %

Source: Florida municipal bond rates, adjusted by FSU CEFA staff.

**2. Classification Categories for Analysis** 

As previously mentioned

, FDEP classified Florida’s waterbodies into six categories

. Within the six categories, the primary category of NNC Rule costs was Category Three;

C at 3. In addition, C ategory Five was : “ W BIDs for which there is insufficient

information to determine if they fit in Category three or four ” ; the economic analysis

also focuse d on the costs associated with the probability, or likelihood, of the C at 5 ’s

be ing reclassified in the near future, to C at 3’ s. Similar to previous studies, t he

economic analysis consist ed of five sectors: the Domestic Wastewater (DW )

, Industrial Wastewater (IW )

, Urban Stormwater (SW) , Septic System, and Agriculture

Sector s

. The following report framework was applied to the description of each sector:

the C at 3 and (C at 5 to C at 3 ) economic analysis data and methodology, and

associated result s.

8 Sources from http://florida.municipalbonds.com/bonds/search/wtr%20swr%20pwr/s_type:des c/category:1/19 

### III. **Costs to**  **Domestic W**  **astewater (DW) Treatment Plants**

**1. Method ology**  **and Assumption s** 

(1) Domestic wastewater facilities with NPDES permits discharging to surface

waters were included in the estimate. The list of domestic wastewater

facilities for which costs were estimated wa s provided by FDEP staff

.

(2) Costs for facilities discharging to a WBID

, which is currently impaired and for

which there currently exists (C at 1) or will in the future (C at 2) be a TMDL

, were attributable to the current rule. Costs for facilities discharging to a WBID

, which will become impaired (C at 3) under the FDEP Numeric Nutrient Criteria,

were attributed to the new rule.

(3) No costs were calculated for facilities discharging to a wetland or to a stream

in the South Nutrient Watershed Region. No costs were calculated for facilities

discharging to an estuary for which criteria are not proposed in the

D epartment ’ s rule. In addition, no costs were calculated for facilities

discharging to an estuary for which criteria are proposed since those crite ria

are being established to maintain existing nutrient conditions in those

estuaries; therefore, it is not believed that further nutrient reductions are

required.

(4) For intermittent discharges for Mechanical Integrity Testing 9 , discharges

under Florida’s A pricot Act 10 (Section Section 403.086(7), Florida Statutes

(F.S.) , intermittent discharges from golf course ponds 11 , and for intermittent

wet weather discharges from reuse facilities under certain conditions 12

9 Mechanical Integrity Testing discharges are for facilities using deep well injection. Such facilities

require a Mechanical Integrity Test once every five years. Since the testing is for a very brief duration

once every five years and is r equired to be conducted under circumstances where the nutrients won’t

harm the receiving water, it was not deemed practical or necessary to require additional treatment. , it was

10 The Florida Apricot Act of 1994 states that backup discharges for reuse facilities t hat are at AWT and

provide high

- level disinfection may discharge up to less than 30% of their permitted capacity annually.

Since these discharges are statutorily authorized, it was not deemed necessary to require additional

treatment.

11 Reclaimed water is often stored in golf course ponds (or other lakes ponds or lakes) which are not

waters of the State. Reclaimed water is only discharged to such ponds when the lake level is below the

level needed to ensure adequate stormwater storage and treatment volume requirements. As a result,

discharges from such ponds to water of the State are intermittent and consist primarily of stormwater

in response to storm events. Since such discharges are intermittent and only occur during times when

there is significant di lution available in the ponds and receiving waters it was not deemed necessary to

require additional treatment for such discharges.

12 Review of data for intermittent wet weather discharges from reuse facilities indicates that many of

those facilities gener ally discharge less than 15% of their total volumes. Since such discharges occur

only intermittently, involve relatively small volumes of effluent, and occur when there is significant

dilution available in the receiving waters, it was not deemed necessary to require additional treatment

for such discharges.20 assumed that no further improvements would be necessary in their level of

treatment unless an increase in their discharge was being requested.

Therefore, no cost was assumed for such discharges.

(5) For facilities with multiple discharge locations, costs we re calculated based on

the permitted facility flow and the primary discharge location.

(6) For facilities already at or better than advanced wastewater treatment (AWT),

no further treatment was assumed to be necessary to provide reasonable

assurance for permi tting discharge to surface waters. AWT is defined by

Section 403.086, Florida Statutes, as containing not more, on a permitted

annual average basis, than CBOD5 of 5mg/ L , suspended solids of 5mg/ L , total

nitrogen of 3 mg/L, total phosphorus of 1 mg/L and ha s received high level

disinfection. Therefore, no cost was assumed for such discharges.

(7) Unit capital costs to upgrade were based on “AWT

- upgrades cost data ” from

FDEP : The data was made more consistent since some had lacked an

“engineering cost” component. The relative engineering cost part was

assumed to be 25%. The unit capital costs were calculated relative to the MGD

capacities of the various facilities. The range of the unit capital cost data

(n=19) was subjected to a distribution analyses us ing @RISK software, and a

fit was established with a Lognormal distribution. Given the distribution, a

lower tail at 10% was established at $0.90, the medium at $3.30, and the upper

90% tail at $12. 36

.

(8) The u nit O peration & M aintenance costs were estimate d to be $0.56 per gallon

per year based on Cardno ENTRIX cost data

.

(9) The a mortization wa s for 20 years a t a 4.9% interest rate

, as described in the

general assumptions.



### 2. Data **and Calculation s**  **for Cat 3**

1) A ffected Facilit ies and Capacit ies

Costs for facilities discharging to a WBID that will become impaired (C at 3 and a

proportion of C at 5 ) under the FDEP Numeric Nutrient Criteria were attributed to the

new rule. FDEP provided a domestic wastewater dataset which contain ed

information concerning a total of 341 outfalls on 203 facilities in F lorida

. After

assigning the 341 outfall s to the six categories and eliminating facilities for which no

costs would be anticipated as described in the Methods and Assumptions section

, there were zero facilit ies a ssociated with only category 3 costs

.21 Table 7 DW Facilities with Multi

- Category Entries Eliminated

Total

O utfalls in

F acilities Outfalls with

Categorized C at 1 C at 2 C at 3 C at 4 C at 5 C at 6 MGD in C at 3

341 58 16 14 0 19 8 1 0



### 3. Data **and Calculation s**  **for Estimating the Likelihood of Being** 

**Reclassified from a Cat 5 to Cat 3**  **(Impaired)**

**Baseline Assumptions**

1. Using a data assessment performed by FDEP

, facilities in C at 5 will be

reclassified by FDEP as a Cat 3 or Cat 4

2. The probability to be reclassified from a Cat 5 to a Cat 3 is estimated to be

17.54% based on the assessment data by WBID, provided by FDEP . Of the

WBIDs for which there was sufficient data to assess them 429 WBIDs were

impaired out of a total of 2446 WBI D ( 17

. 54% impairment rate).

3. FSU CEFA applied the probability of 17.54% to the costs for each Cat 5

sector based on the individual sector cost methodologies.

**DW Cat 5 to Cat 3 Cost Calculations**

1. Cat 5 Data

After removing facilities for which no costs would be incurred (consistent

with the Methods and Assumptions), there are five facilities which would

incur costs in Cat 5.

The facility capacity total for the 5 facilities is 16.605 MGD.

By applying the probabilities of 17.54% to the facility ’s total capacity , a

facility capacity of 2.91 will be obtained.

2. DW Cost Data

Table 8 DW Costs for Calculation

**Capital Cost O&M Cost** 

Minimum : $0.90/ gallon

Median: $3.30 /gallon

Maximum: $12.36 /gallon $ 0.56/ gallon/year

3. The Capital Cost and O&M cost are multiplied by the (facility capacity *

MGD). Amortization is 4.9% for 20 years.22 4. Cost Results

Table 9 Cost Result for DW Sector (C at 5 to C at 3)

Capital Cost Annual Cost O&M Cost Total Annual Cost

M edian $ 9,599,036.50 $763,734.07 $1,631,009.52 $2,394,743.59

L ow $ 2,611,756.02 $207,800.76 $1,631,009.52 $1,838,810.28

H igh $ 36,003,166.60 $2,864,542.18 $1,631,009.52 $4,495,551.70

5. Cost Results for C at 5 to C at 3 by C ounties

Table 10 Cost Result for DW Sector by Counties (C at 5 to C at 3)

County Minimum Annual cost Maximum Annual cost Median Annual cost

Clay $99,665 $243,661 $129,796

Duval $1,705,371 $4,169,316 $2,220,961

Flagler $33,222 $81,220 $43,265

Nassau $554 $1,354 $721

Total $1,838,810 $4,495,552 $2,394,74423 

### IV. **Costs to**  **Industrial W astewater (IW) Treatment Plants** 

**1. Method ology**  **and Assumptions**

(1) Industrial wastewater facilities with NPDES permits discharging to surface

waters were included in the estimate. The list of industrial wastewater

facilities for which costs were estimated were provided by FDEP staff.

(2) The list of facilities wa s restricted to:

a. F acilities that have numeric discharge limitations for any form of

nitrogen and/or phosphorus in their NPDES IW permits,

b. F acilities that are required to report the concentration of any form of

nitrogen and/or phosphorus in their NPDES IW permits , and

c. O ther NPDES permitted IW facilities that are not currently required to

monitor nutrients, but are in the SIC categories for a and b, above.

(3) The following were specifically excluded from the cost analysis:

a. Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) (SIC 3822) developed for

Everglades restoration efforts within the Everglades Protection Area have

separate criteria and are not included.

b. Facilities discharging to a wetland or to a stream in the South Nutrient

Watershed Region.

c. Facilities discharging t o a WBID which is currently impaired and for

which there currently exists or will in the future be a TMDL and therefore have

costs attributable to F DEP’s current rule.

d. NPDES permitted facilities in various SIC categories that meet the

criteria in items 1 and 2, above, but which discharged during 10% or fewer

months within the past five years, based on U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA) Permit Compliance System (PCS) database, were not included

in cost calculations. It was assumed that no furthe r improvements would be

necessary in their level of treatment due to the infrequent nature of their

discharge.

(4) Costs for facilities discharging to a WBID

, which is currently impaired and for

which there currently exists (C at 1) or will in the future (C at 2) be a TMDL

, were attributable to the current rule. Costs for facilities discharging to a WBID

which will become impaired (C at 3) under the FDEP Numeric Nutrient Criteria

were attributed to the new rule.

(5) Discharge estimation assumptions are as follows :

a. The discharge flows were based on data obtained from the FDEP

P ermit C ompliance S ystem , as reported on D ischarge M onitoring R eport s from

permitted facilities for the five year period from January 1, 2005 through

December 31, 2009.24 b. For facilities with multiple discharge points (outfalls), flows from all

outfalls that potentially may discharge nutrients were used.

c. Estimated annual discharges were assumed for 340 days/year of

discharge, except for facilities that are known to have intermittent di scharges,

in which case the number of months per year during which discharge occurred

were i dentified from PCS 13

d. Monthly average flows were used as the flow basis in estimating annual

operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. .

e. Daily maximum flow data wer e used as a n approximation of maximum

design capacity for estimating capital costs.

(6) Estimated discharges for phosphogypsum processing facilities with associated

gypsum stacks (SIC 2874) were obtained from the Bureau of Mine

Reclamation. Gypsum stacks discharge treated industrial wastewater during a

five year closure period, followed by p ost

- closure treatment and discharge

over periods up to 50 years.

(7) Capital and operating costs for phosphogypsum processing facilities with

associated gypsum stacks (SIC 2874) were also obtained from the Bureau of

Mine Reclamation.

(8) Unit capital costs to upgrade were based on “AWT

- upgrades cost data ” from

FDEP : The data was made more consistent since some lacked an “engineering

cost” component. The relative engineering cost part was assumed to be 25%.

Unit Capital Costs were calculated as to the MGD capaci ties of the various

facilities. The range of unit capital cost data (n=19) was subjected to a

distribution analyses with the @RISK software package, and a fit was

established with a Risk Lognormal distribution. Given the distribution, a lower

tail at 10% w as established at $0.90, the medium at $3.30, and the upper 90%

tail at $12.36.

(9) Total capital cost is calculated by Affected Daily Maximum Flow * Capital Cost

in assumption (8).

(10) Unit O peration & M aintenance costs were $0.56 per gallon per year based on

Cardno ENTRIX cost data

.

(11) Total O&M cost per year is calculated by Affected Monthly Average Flow *

O&M Cost in assumption (10).

13 The estimate of 340days/year of discharge for continuously discharging IW facilities is

conservatively high to avoid under estimating costs. This approach seems appropriate because it

provides an es timate of the potential cost and operational burden for facilities operating at full

capacity Personal Communication, Allen Hubbard, Industrial Waste, FDEP.25 (12) A s mentioned earlier in the general assumptions, FSU CEFA will assume a rate

of 6.7% amortized over 30 years for the private sector and 4.7% amortized

over 30 years for the public sector.



### 2. Data **and Calculation s**  **for Cat 3**

1) A ffected Facilit ies and Capacit ies

The FDEP NPDES IW database wa s used which contain ed 158 data points with

variable outfalls. 118 outfalls in 87 IW facilities were classified into 6 categories by

FDEP staff. Excluding facilities which fell under either category 1 or 2 , only 3 outfalls

in 3 facilities are classified in category 3. However, one facility wa s “intermittent” and

based on the current IW assumption s , FSU CEFA didn’t include this facility in the cost

analysis. The other two facilities are categories that were removed because these

facilities discharge to wetlands and FDEP have not established criteria for wetlands in

NNC rul e

. Therefore, there is no affected facility by NNC rule

.

Table 11 I W Facilities with Multi

- Category Entries Eliminated

Total

outfalls Categorized

Outfalls C at1 C at2 C at3 C at4 C at5 C at6 MGD in C at3

203 118 19 40 0

(3=> 2 go for

wetland and 1 is

intermittent) 21 26 9 22.659 (aver.)

/62.83 (max.)



### 3. **IW Data**  **and Calculation s**  **for Cat 5 to Cat 3**

**Baseline Assumptions**

1. Using a data assessment performed by FDEP

, facilities in Cat 5 will be

reclassified by FDEP as a Cat 3 or Cat 4

.

2. The probability to be reclassified from a Cat 5 to a Cat 3 is estimated to be

17.54% based on the assessment data by WBID, provided by FDEP . Of the

WBIDs for which there was sufficient data to assess them, 429 WBIDs

were impaired

, out of a total of 2

, 446 WBID (17.54% impairment rate).

3. FSU CEFA applied the probability of 17.54% to the costs for each Cat 5

sector based on the individual sector cost methodologies.26 **I W Cat 5 to Cat 3 Cost Calculations** 

1. Cat 5 Data

After removing facilities for which no co sts would be incurred (consistent

with the Methods and Assumptions), there are five outfalls which would

incur costs in Cat 5.

Average flows total 9.305 MGD and maximum flows total 198.55 MGD for

those 5 outfalls.

By applying the probabilities of 17.54 %

, t he average flow and maximum

flow of 1.632 MGD

, and 34.83 MGD will be obtained.

2. IW Cost Data

Table 12 IW Costs for Calculation

**Capital Cost O&M Cost** 

Minimum : $0.90/ gallon

Medium: $3.30 /gallon

Maximum: $12.36 /gallon $ 0.56/ gallon/year

3. Capital cost is multiplied by (maximum flow * MGD), and O&M cost is

multiplied by (average flow * MGD). Amortization is 6.7% for 30 years.

4. IW Cost Results

Table 13 Cost Result for DW Sector (C at 5 to C at 3)

Capital Cost Annual Cost O&M Cost Total Annual Cost

Median $ 114,777,422 $ 8,972,338 $ 913,974 $ 9,886,313

Low $ 31,229,241 $ 2,441,241 $ 913,974 $ 3,355,215

High $ 430,496,400 $ 33,652,606 $ 913,974 $ 34,566,580

5. Cost Results for C at 5 to C at 3 by counties

Table 14 Cost Result for DW Sector by Counties (C at 5 to C at 3)

County Minimum Annual cost Maximum Annual Cost Median Annual Cost

Santa Rosa $7,957 $19,276 $10,326

Polk $3,347,258 $34,547,305 $9,875,987

Total $3,355,215 $34,566,580 $9,886,31327 

### V. **C osts**  **for Urban Stormwater (SW)**  **Controls**

**1. Method ology**  **and Assumptions**

(1) Florida was the first state in the nation to implement comprehensive

stormwater treatment programs in 1981 for all new urban development and

re

- development. This program specifies the BMPs to be used to treat

stormwater to specific performance standards (minimum level of treatment)

for all stormwater discharges during and after construction. Therefore, for th e

purpose of this estimate, it was assumed that implementation of urban

stormwater measures subsequent to the 1981 stormwater program would

achieve the proposed criteria, but that pre

- 1982 urban areas without such

measures would not.

(2) For calculating the costs associated with the NNC, FDEP staff performed GIS

analysis to find the urban area

- specific included within the target w ater b ody

IDs WBIDs for years 1990 and 2005. In 1990, the urban area that was included

in the target WBIDs was 2, 575 ,8 9 5 acre s , and the urban area was 3, 562 ,4 68

acres, in 2005. FDEP staff classified the urban areas in 1990 and 2005 by six

categories.

(3) FDEP has undertaken numerous retrofit projects to address pollutant loading

from municipal stormwater runoff, many of which required monitoring in

order to show the effectiveness of the retrofit. The data from these projects

have been compiled into a database by FDEP, which include information on

the acreage of the area which was retrofitted. This information was used t o

derive a cost per unit acre to retrofit urban areas for nutrient removal.

Utilizing the bootstrap analysis performed by Cardno

- ENTRIX on FDEP ’ s data,

the mean cost per acre for such retrofit projects was $2,800 per acre, with a

range around that mean o f $1,500 per acre to $5,900 per acre , ranging from

the 10 th to the 90 th percentile.

(4) The operation and maintenance costs were estimated based on existing

literature 14 . Although actual costs can often exceed this rate, a conservative

estimate of 5% of the capital outlay was chosen for this estimate.

(5) A 30

- year annualized cost was calculated using a n amortization rate of 4.7 %

.

14 The Use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Urban Watersheds

– U.S. EPA, 2004; Stormwater:

The Journal for Surface Water Quality Professionals, Nov.

- Dec., 2008.28 

### 2. Data **and Calculation s**  **for Cat 3**

1) A ffected Urban Stormwater Acres

Concerning the NNC cost calculation s, the c ategory 3 ’s were the primary focus

. About

51

, 7 17 acre s were classified as category 3 ’s according to year 2005 data

, and about

67

, 667 acre s were classified based on the year 1990 data. Ruling out multiple

category acres, the remaining representative acres (designated as category 3 ) were

20

, 141 and 27

, 73 4

, for years 1990 and 2005

, respectively. The category 3 acres

de creased about 27.4 % from years 2005 to 1990

. A nnually , there have been

de creases of about 2.1 1 %. E xtrapolate d to year 1982, the category 3 ’s acre age would

be 1 6

, 982 acre s

, representing a 38.8 % decrease from 200 5

. According to the

assumption (1), i t is estimated that about 16

, 982 acres would be affected by

implementation of the NNC rule.

Table 15 Years 1990 and 2005 Classification of U rban Stormwater WBID Acreage

#

_ WBID A cre s* C at 1

A cre s Cat 2

A cre s Cat 3

A cre s** Cat 4

A cre s Cat 5

A cre s Cat 6

A cre s

**1990** 5, 231 2, 575 ,8 9 5 111,524 422,313 20,141 626

, 40 1 8 39

, 491 123,558

**2005** 5, 833 3, 562 ,4 68 195

, 794 524

, 7 81 27

, 73 4 914

, 350 1,2 25

, 045 155

, 812

S ource: FDEP staff

* Acreage based on the WBIDs

– some WBIDs fell in multiple categories

** Ex cluding WBIDs which also fell in Categories 1 or 2

Table 16 Years 1990 and 2005 Classification of U rban Stormwater WBID Acreage

# WBID A cre s **C at**  **3 O**  **nly A**  **cre age**  **Cat 5**  **to Cat 3 A**  **cre age** *

**1990** 5, 231 2, 575 ,8 9 5 20,141 147,247

**2005** 5, 833 3, 562 ,4 68 27

, 734 214,873

S ource: FDEP staff

*Costs for Cat 5 to Cat 3 Acreage were based on 17.54% assumption of total Cat 5

acreage.

2) Capital Costs P er Acre29 Table 17 Capital Costs P er Acre

M in Max M ost likely

$ 1,500 $5,9 00 $ 2

, 894

S ource: Cardno ENTRIX (201 1 )

3) Total Costs

W e assumed an interest rate of 4.9 % over 30 years 15

. The t otal capital cost wa s

calculated by 1) Affected urban acres * 2) Capital costs per Acre

. The t otal O&M cost

per year wa s calculated by deriving 5% of the t otal cost

.

Table 18 Total Urban S W Costs (C at 3)

T reatment Acres Cost per Acre O&M Cost

(5%) Annual C ost

Min 16,982.14 $1,500 $75 $2,026,816

Max 16,982.14 $5,900 $295 $7,972,14 4

Most likely 16,982.14 $2,894 $145 $3,910,404

15 Based on FDEP methodology (2010).30 

### 3. **Cost Results by Counties for Cat 3** 

The f ollowing Table depict s the cost results by counties.

Table 19 Urban S W Costs by Counties (C at 3)

County 1990 Cat 3 Acreage R atio Minimum C ost Maximum C ost

Alachua 2.84 0% $286 $1,126

Calhoun 145.73 1% $14,665 $57,683

Citrus 3.62 0% $364 $1,433

Desoto 1394.99 7% $140,379 $552,156

Dixie .22 0% $22 $86

Escambia 4484.11 22% $451,238 $1,774,869

Franklin 76.87 0% $7,735 $30,425

Glades 4.57 0% $460 $1,808

Hardee 92.73 0% $9,332 $36,706

Hendry .84 0% $85 $333

Hernando 4044.63 20% $407,013 $1,600,917

Highlands 2.53 0% $254 $1,001

Hillsborough 8.51 0% $856 $3,369

Indian River 1528.05 8% $153,769 $604,823

Lake 1.60 0% $161 $632

Lee 1291.72 6% $129,986 $511,279

Leon 76.28 0% $7,676 $30,192

Manatee 1.02 0% $103 $405

Okeechobee 432.71 2% $43,544 $171,273

Orange 31.01 0% $3,120 $12,273

Pasco 3055.87 15% $307,513 $1,209,553

Pinellas 3035.87 15% $305,501 $1,201,638

Polk 181.53 1% $18,268 $71,852

Seminole 23.77 0% $2,392 $9,410

Taylor 208.38 1% $20,970 $82,482

Volusia 11.17 0% $1,124 $4,421

Total 20141.17 100% $2,026,816 $7,972,14431 

### 4. Data **and Calculation s**  **for Cat 5 to Cat 3**

1. Cat 5 data

In 2005, the Cat 5

- only acre s totaled 1,2 25

, 045 . Based on our SW

assumption whereby there will be an annual 2 .49 % de creas e for 23 years,

the base 1982 C at 5 acre s were extrapolated to total 686

, 241

. By assuming an estimated likelihood of 17.54%

, the affected area is

12 0

, 366 .7 2 acres.

2. Stormwater Cost Data

Table 20 SW Costs for Calculation

**Capital Cost O&M Cost (5% per year)** 

Most likely: $2,894

Minimum: $1,500

Maximum: $5,900 Most likely: $144.7

Minimum: $75

Maximum: $295

3. The C apital c ost is multiplied by 17.54% of the C at 5 acres

, and the O&M

cost is estimated at 5% of annual capital cost s

. The a mortization is 4.9%

for 20 years.

4. SW Cost Results

Table 21 Cost Result for S W Sector (C at 5 to C at 3)

Treatment Acres Cost per Acre O&M Cost (5%) Annual C ost

Most

Likely 120,366.72 $2,894.00 $144.70 $27,715,436.87

Min 120,366.72 $1,500.00 $75.00 $14,365,292.09

Max 120,366.72 $5,900.00 $295.00 $56,503,482.2232 5. Cost Results for C a t 5 to C at 3 by C ounties

Table 22 Cost Result for S W Sector by Counties (C at 5 to C at 3)

**County 1990**  **Cat 5 to Cat 3 Ratio**  **Minimum Annual**

**Cost Maximum Annual** 

**Cost**

Alachua 4766.57 3% $465,023 $1,829,092

Baker 1355.21 1% $132,213 $520,039

Bay 2231.23 2% $217,677 $856,198

Bradford 344.94 0% $33,652 $132,365

Brevard 3516.16 2% $343,034 $1,349,269

Broward 5.20 0% $508 $1,997

Calhoun 358.07 0% $34,934 $137,405

Charlotte 244.04 0% $23,809 $93,647

Citrus 866.95 1% $84,579 $332,677

Clay 4038.97 3% $394,040 $1,549,890

Columbia 1538.51 1% $150,096 $590,379

Dade 1.46 0% $143 $561

Desoto 453.61 0% $44,254 $174,064

Dixie 359.95 0% $35,117 $138,126

Duval 3518.49 2% $343,262 $1,350,164

Escambia 1764.96 1% $172,189 $677,275

Flagler 775.96 1% $75,702 $297,761

Franklin 43.97 0% $4,290 $16,872

Gadsden 2391.01 2% $233,265 $917,509

Gilchrist 22.36 0% $2,182 $8,581

Glades 5.74 0% $560 $2,202

Gulf 469.97 0% $45,850 $180,344

Hamilton 228.37 0% $22,280 $87,635

Hardee 282.54 0% $27,565 $108,421

Hernando 4629.85 3% $451,685 $1,776,628

Highlands 2725.98 2% $265,945 $1,046,052

Hillsborough 2738.91 2% $267,207 $1,051,013

Holmes 929.03 1% $90,636 $356,500

Indian River 1016.89 1% $99,207 $390,214

Jackson 2459.83 2% $239,979 $943,919

Jefferson 218.09 0% $21,277 $83,688

Lake 6390.62 4% $623,465 $2,452,295

Lee 440.76 0% $43,000 $169,135

Leon 2432.75 2% $237,337 $933,526

Levy 2316.26 2% $225,973 $888,825

Liberty 430.17 0% $41,967 $165,07133 Madison 224.46 0% $21,898 $86,133

Manatee 926.29 1% $90,368 $355,449

Marion 16699.88 11% $1,629,229 $6,408,301

Martin 423.38 0% $41,304 $162,464

Nassau 1944.47 1% $189,701 $746,158

Okaloosa 5462.08 4% $532,877 $2,095,982

Okeechobee 91.90 0% $8,966 $35,265

Orange 12396.18 8% $1,209,363 $4,756,829

Osceola 2468.86 2% $240,860 $947,384

Pasco 9076.18 6% $885,466 $3,482,833

Pinellas 2487.44 2% $242,673 $954,515

Polk 9378.36 6% $914,947 $3,598,790

Putnam 4196.46 3% $409,404 $1,610,321

Santa Rosa 2888.82 2% $281,832 $1,108,539

Sarasota 1887.48 1% $184,141 $724,290

Seminole 1626.54 1% $158,684 $624,157

St. Johns 1145.12 1% $111,717 $439,421

St. Lucie 200.28 0% $19,539 $76,854

Sumter 2292.68 2% $223,672 $879,777

Suwannee 809.65 1% $78,988 $310,688

Taylor 108.29 0% $10,565 $41,554

Union 228.48 0% $22,291 $87,677

Volusia 8136.13 6% $793,756 $3,122,107

Wakulla 308.32 0% $30,079 $118,311

Walton 4445.18 3% $433,669 $1,705,764

Washington 1080.39 1% $105,402 $414,582

Total 147

, 246.70 100% $14,365,292 $56,503,48234 

### VI. **Co sts for**  **Septic Systems**

**1. Method and Assumptions** 

(1) FDEP staff provided the number of septic tanks , derived from the FDEP GIS

analysis results

. The locations of the septic tanks were provided by the Florida

Department of Health. Only those tanks with STATUS = ACTIVE we re part of

the cost analysis

. Using the 100K National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), a GIS

layer representing streams, and lakes larger than two acres, was created. This

layer was then buffered by 500 feet (153 meters). FDEP staff calculated the

number of s eptic tanks that fell i nside the buffer

.

(2) Estimated constructi on costs were taken from an interim report prepared for

the FDEP entitled “Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Syst em s Evaluation

for Nutrient Removal”, January 7, 2010, Stormwater Management Academy,

University of Central Florida. It compare d different advanced s eptic systems

with conventional systems. 16 The septic systems costs with higher l evels of

n utrient removal (e. g., advanc ed or performance based systems) ranged from

$9,320 to $18,200 per unit. The o peration and maintenance costs were also

estimated from this report, which indicated values ranging from $200

- $1,800

per year.

(3) Regarding financing a s eptic system, FSU CEFA staff assumed a shorter

financing stream; as 20 years was viewed as not realistic, given 20 years is the

average life span of a septic system. FSU CEFA decided that anywhere from 5

- 10 years would be representative of a higher level septic system

, e.g.,

advanced or performance based system

. FSU CEFA staff assumed an interest

rate of 6.1% (see aforementioned assumption related to financing public and

private projects) over ten year s. The O & M costs were not tied to inflation.



### 2. Data **and Calculation for Cat 3** 

1) The N umber of S eptic T anks

The t otal number of septic tank s which would potentially be affected by

implementation of the NNC rule was 76,994

. T he number of septic tanks in category 3

is 1,201 (this total includes septic tanks in cat egory 3 which also are listed in category

1 or 2). The number of septic tanks with costs that could be incurred under the NNC

rule is 4 98 ( septic tanks which are listed in category 3 only )

.

16 Stormwater Management Academy (2010)

. UCF. Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems

Evaluation for Nutrient Removal

, p .335 Table 23 Number of Septic Tanks

T otal C at 1 C at 2 C at 3 C at 4 C at 5 C at 6

76,994 3,266 9,451 498 19,372 32,413 3,909

2) Costs to U pgrade P er T ank

Table 24 The Capital Cost s and O&M Costs to Upgrade ( Per Tank )

**Low High** 

Capital Costs To Upgrade Per Tank $9,320 $18,200

O & M per Septic System $200 $1,800

3) T otal Costs

W e assumed an interest rate of 6. 1 % over ten years (based on aforementioned

assumptions)

. The total cost of r eplacement wa s calculated by 1) N umber of septic

tanks * 2) Capital costs to upgrade per tank. The t otal O&M cost per year wa s

calculated by 1) N umber of septic tanks * 2) O & M cost per s eptic s ystem.

Table 25 Total Costs of Affected Septic System s (C at 3)

**Low High** 

Replacement Total Cost $4,641,360 $9,063,600

Total O & M cost per year $99,600 $896,400

Capital Investment Amortization 6.1 % over 1 0 y ea rs

Replacement Annual Costs $733,203 $2,133,69436 

### 3. **Total Costs Results by Counties for Cat 3** 

The f ollowing Table report s the cost results by counties.

Table 26 Total Costs of Septic System s, b y Counties (C at 3)

**County #of Septic Systems**  **Cat 3**

**Only Low**  **High**

Calhoun 1 $1,472 $4,285

Desoto 42 $61,836 $179,950

Dixie 1 $1,472 $4,285

Escambia 170 $250,290 $728,369

Franklin 4 $5,889 $17,138

Hardee 4 $5,889 $17,138

Hernando 101 $148,702 $432,737

Hillsborough 3 $4,417 $12,854

Indian River 36 $53,003 $154,243

Lee 2 $2,945 $8,569

Okeechobee 37 $54,475 $158,527

Pasco 24 $35,335 $102,829

Pinellas 48 $70,670 $205,657

Polk 2 $2,945 $8,569

Taylor 23 $33,863 $98,544

Total 498 $733,203 $2,133,69437 

### 4. Data **and Calculation s**  **for Cat 5 to Cat 3**

1. Cat 5 Data

There a re a total of 3 2

, 4 13 septic systems listed in C at 5.

Similar to the previous methodology regarding a probability of 17.54% in

being reclassified from a Cat 5 to a Cat 3, it was estimated that there were

5,685 septic systems which might be reclassified to a Cat 3.

2. Cost Data

Table 27 Costs for Calculation

**Capital Cost O&M Cost** 

Low: $9,320

High: $18,200

Median: $10,200 Low: $200

High: $1,800

Median: $400

3. The c apital cost and O&M cost s were multiplied by the number of septic

systems likely to be reclassified from a C at 5 to a C at 3. Amortization is

6.1% for ten years.

4. Septic System Cost Results

Table 28

. Cost Result s for Septic System Sector (C at 5 to C at 3)

Total Number of Septic Systems

to be Upgraded 5,685

Low High Median

Capital Costs To Upgrade Per Tank $9,320 $18,200 $10,200

O & M per Septic System $200 $1,800 $400

Tot al Annualized Cost $1,472.30 $4,284.53 $1,792.43

Instant Replacement Total Cost $52,984,200 $103,467,000 $57,987,000

Total O & M Cost per Y ear $1,137,000 $10,233,000 $2,274,000

Capital Investment Amortization 6.1% over 10 y ea rs

Instant Replacement Annual Costs $8,370,000 $24,357,528 $10,189,94438 5. Cost Results for C at 5 to C at 3 by C ounties

Table 29 Cost Result for Septic System Sector by Counties (C at 5 to C at 3)

**County Cat 5 to Cat 3**  **Ratio Low**  **Annual Cost**  **High A nnual Cost** 

Alachua 56 1% $82,892 $241,223

Baker 19 0% $28,663 $83,414

Bay 68 1% $99,935 $290,820

Bradford 15 0% $21,691 $63,124

Brevard 20 0% $29,696 $86,420

Calhoun 12 0% $17,818 $51,852

Charlotte 10 0% $14,203 $41,331

Citrus 32 1% $47,514 $138,271

Clay 317 6% $466,363 $1,357,162

Columbia 38 1% $55,261 $160,815

Desoto 27 0% $39,767 $115,727

Dixie 13 0% $19,625 $57,112

Duval 120 2% $176,629 $514,008

Escambia 63 1% $92,704 $269,779

Flagler 3 0% $3,873 $11,272

Franklin 1 0% $1,291 $3,757

Gadsden 109 2% $160,361 $466,665

Gilchrist 1 0% $1,549 $4,509

Gulf 14 0% $20,917 $60,869

Hamilton 14 0% $19,884 $57,864

Hardee 15 0% $22,724 $66,130

Hernando 121 2% $178,695 $520,020

Highlands 206 4% $303,936 $884,485

Hillsborough 142 2% $209,166 $608,694

Holmes 52 1% $75,920 $220,933

Indian River 180 3% $264,685 $770,261

Jackson 122 2% $179,986 $523,777

Jefferson 20 0% $29,955 $87,171

Lafayette 1 0% $775 $2,254

Lake 473 8% $696,187 $2,025,974

Leon 104 2% $152,614 $444,121

Levy 14 0% $20,142 $58,615

Liberty 9 0% $13,428 $39,077

Madison 4 0% $5,165 $15,029

Manatee 60 1% $88,573 $257,756

Marion 43 1% $63,525 $184,863

Martin 19 0% $27,631 $80,40839 Nassau 50 1% $74,112 $215,673

Okaloosa 163 3% $239,379 $696,616

Okeechobee 18 0% $25,823 $75,147

Orange 793 14% $1,167,973 $3,398,917

Osceola 115 2% $169,140 $492,215

Pasco 341 6% $501,482 $1,459,363

Pinellas 27 0% $39,767 $115,727

Polk 457 8% $672,172 $1,956,087

Putnam 153 3% $225,176 $655,285

Santa Rosa 142 3% $209,424 $609,445

Sarasota 36 1% $52,421 $152,549

Seminole 123 2% $181,277 $527,535

St. Johns 116 2% $171,465 $498,979

St. Lucie 6 0% $8,522 $24,799

Sumter 61 1% $89,606 $260,761

Suwannee 13 0% $19,109 $55,609

Taylor 18 0% $26,081 $75,899

Union 10 0% $14,719 $42,834

Volusia 302 5% $445,188 $1,295,541

Wakulla 2 0% $2,582 $7,515

Walton 148 3% $218,204 $634,996

Washington 56 1% $82,634 $240,472

Total 5685 100% $8,370,000 $24,357,52840 

### VII. **Agriculture Costs** 

**1. Method ology**  **and Assumptions**

FSU CEFA adhered to the majority of assumptions developed by an earlier study

conducted by FDACS

, UF & SWET (2010)

.

(1) FDEP staff provided FSU CEFA with WBID acre ages relating to agriculture.

(2) The estimated per

- acre costs for agricultural producers to implement BMPs

were taken from a report prepared for the South Florida Water Management

District 17

. The BMPs included the full range of typical owner

- implemented

practices , such as fertilizer management, grazing management, and live stock

exclusion from waterways.

(3) The initial capital cost estimates included materials, labor and engineering.

(4) The total annual costs included O&M (estimated at 20% of the capital costs)

and amortization of the capital investment at 6.4% interest over 20 years. 18



### 2. Data **and Calculation s**  **for Cat 3**

1) A ffected Acr eage s

The f ollowing T able portrays the agricultural WBID acre age s (by six categories)

totaling 5, 092

, 884. Using 5 .09 million acres as a baseline

, implementation of the NNC

rule will affect approximately 187 ,6 59 (category 3) acre s . Therefore, FSU CEFA

examined about 188 ,000 acres relating to cost s

.

Table 30

. Affected Agricultural Acres

Total Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4 Cat 5 Cat 6

5, 09 2, 884 276

, 259 847,423 97,056 1,231,307 2, 277 ,9 52 300,282

Ruling out the acres with costs associated across agricultural WBIDs which are also

listed under category 1 or 2

, FSU CEFA estimated that about 97

, 056 acres would be

17 Soil & Water Engineering Technologies, Inc. (SWET), 2008. Nutrient Loading Rates, Reduction

Factors and Implementation Costs Associated with BMPs and Technologies , Appendix A.

18 Based on FSU CEFA methodology.41 affected by implementation of the NNC rule ( category 3 only)

. The a ffected areas

were divided by 25 counties and 9 agricultur al class es ( F DACS). The f ollowing Tables

depict affected acres by agricultur al class.

Table 31 Affected Agricultural Acres by C lasses (Cat 3)

**FDACS Classification Acre(s)** 

Aquaculture 1

Beef Cattle Ranching & Farming 44,845

Citrus 1,194

Dairy Cattle & Milk Production 870

Hay Farming 4,558

Horse & Other Equine Production 628

Non

- citrus Fruit & Berry Farming 6,093

Ornamentals 600

Row Crops 38,268

T otal 97,056

Source: GIS estimation performed by FDEP staff.

2) Capital Costs

Table 32 Capital Costs of Agriculture (Cat 3)

**FDACS Per Acre Cost**  **Acre Capital**  **Cost**

Aquaculture $58 1 $76.56

Beef Cattle Ranching &

Farming $25 44,845 $1,134,571.71

Citrus $490 1,194 $584,876.21

Dairy Cattle & Milk Production $1,045 870 $908,974.02

Hay Farming $58 4,558 $264,352.46

Horse & Other Equine

Production $50 628 $31,074.90

Non

- Citrus Fruit & Berry

Farming $490 6,093 $2,985,411.23

Ornamentals $220 600 $132,088.81

Row Crops $220 38,268 $8,418,925.50

Total 97,056 $14,460,351.41

Source: FDACS, UF & SWET (2010)42 3) T otal Costs of Agriculture

FDACS

, UF & SWET (2010) used an amortization rate of 10% over 20 years.

According to the aforementioned methodology, FSU CEFA assumed 6.4 % over 20

years. The O & M cost was estimated based on 20 percent of the capital costs

.

Table 33 Agricultural Total Cost s Result s (C at 3)

**F DACS**  **Capi tal Cost**  **Annual Cost Total Annual Cost** 

Aquaculture $76.56 $6.89 $22.21

Beef Cattle Ranching &

Farming $1,134,571.71 $102,153.20 $329,067.54

Citrus $584,876.21 $52,660.38 $169,635.62

Dairy Cattle & Milk

Production $908,974.02 $81,841.10 $263,635.91

Hay Farming $264,352.46 $23,801.45 $76,671.94

Horse & Other Equine

Production $31,074.90 $2,797.88 $9,012.86

Non

- C itrus Fruit & Berry

Farming $2,985,411.23 $268,796.84 $865,879.09

Ornamentals $132,088.81 $11,892.85 $38,310.62

Row Crops $8,418,925.50 $758,013.03 $2,441,798.13

T otal $14,460,351.41 $1,301,963.63 $4,194,033.9143 

### 3. **Costs Results by Counties for Cat 3** 

The f ollowing Table shows the total costs results by counties.

Table 34 Agricultural Total Cost s by Counties (C at 3)

**County Acre**  **s Capi**  **tal Cost Annual Cost (**  **incl. 20% O&M)** 

Alachua .0 $0 $0

Calhoun 844.6 $125,834 $36,497

Citrus .0 $3 $1

Desoto 10

, 627.5 $1,583,392 $459,242

Dixie 215.1 $32,050 $9,296

Escambia 1

, 473.5 $219,538 $63,674

Glades 3

, 139.4 $467,746 $135,663

Hardee 10

, 599.6 $1,579,232 $458,035

Hendry 128.0 $19,069 $5,531

Hernando 11

, 046.8 $1,645,864 $477,361

Highlands 260.3 $38,784 $11,249

Hillsborough 2

, 319.7 $345,615 $100,241

Indian River 1

, 745.7 $260,090 $75,436

Lake .2 $37 $11

Lee 1

, 473.0 $219,467 $63,654

Leon 24.7 $3,682 $1,068

Okeechobee 41

, 044.1 $6,115,148 $1,773,618

Orange 9.2 $1,374 $398

Pasco 11

, 464.5 $1,708,088 $495,408

Pinellas 9.6 $1,426 $414

Polk 493.6 $73,538 $21,329

Seminole 3.8 $570 $165

Sumter 120.0 $17,873 $5,184

Taylor 6.5 $973 $282

Volusia 6.4 $957 $278

Total 97

, 056.0 $14,460,351 $4,194,03444 

### 4. Data **and Calculation s**  **for Cat 5 to Cat 3**

1. Cat 5 Data

There are a total of 2,277

, 952 Cat 5 acres in agriculture.

FSU CEFA calculated the “ C at5 to C at 3” cost by assuming a probability of

17.54% of Cat 5 acres.

2. Cost Data

Table 35 Costs for Calculation

**DACS Cost** 

Aquaculture $ 58.00

Beef Cattle Ranching $ 25.30

Citrus $ 490.00

Dairy Cattle and Milk Production $ 1,045.00

Hay $ 58.00

Horse and Equine Production $ 49.50

Non Citrus fruit and berry farming $ 490.00

Ornamentals $ 220.00

Poultry and Egg Production $ 58.00

Row Crops $ 220.00

Silviculture and Tree Plantation $ 22.00

Sod Production $ 110.00

Sugarcane $ 110.80

3. The capital cost is multiplied by the C at 5 acres and the O&M cost is

assumed to be approximately 20% of the c apital cost. Amortization is 6.4%

for 20 years.45 4. Agriculture Cost Results

Table 36 Cost Result for Agriculture Sector (C at 5 to C at 3)

**DACS Cat 5**  **Cost Capital**  **Cost Total Annual Cost** 

Aquaculture 1,843 $58.0 $106,903.13 $31,005.84

Beef Cattle

Ranching &

Farming 938,234 $25.3 $23,737,315.21 $6,884,694.71

Citrus 61,972 $490.0 $30,366,313.35 $8,807,348.06

Dairy Cattle & Milk

Production 1,589 $1,045.0 $1,660,196.89 $481,518.18

Hay Farming 329,765 $58.0 $19,126,376.28 $5,547,352.79

Horse & Other

Equine Production 86,187 $49.5 $4,266,243.15 $1,237,367.47

Non

- citrus Fruit &

Berry Farming 150,009 $490.0 $73,504,187.79 $21,318,918.70

Ornamentals 27,329 $220.0 $6,012,466.52 $1,743,836.49

Poultry & Egg

Production 2,241 $58.0 $129,982.00 $37,699.56

Row Crops 668,649 $220.0 $147,102,818.91 $42,665,229.44

Sod Production 10,134 $110.0 $1,114,776.73 $323,326.27

Total 2,277,952 $307,127,579.98 $89,078,297.51

Probability of Cat 5

to Cat 3 Cost* 399,55 3 $53,870,177.53 $15,624,333.38

*FSU CEFA calculated the costs based on the probability of 17.54% to be reclassified

from a “Cat 5 to a Cat 3”

.46 5. Agriculture Cost s by C ounties (For C at 5 to C at 3)

Table 37 Cost Result for Agriculture Sector by Counties (C at 5 to C at 3)

**County Cat 5 to Cat 3**  **Ratio Capital Cost**  **Total Annual Cost**

Alachua 14,225 4% $1,917,919 $556,267

Baker 2,121 1% $285,942 $82,934

Bay 951 0% $128,198 $37,182

Bradford 2,588 1% $348,973 $101,215

Brevard 4,563 1% $615,257 $178,447

Calhoun 3,281 1% $442,326 $128,291

Charlotte 1,507 0% $203,246 $58,949

Citrus 876 0% $118,163 $34,272

Clay 1,304 0% $175,767 $50,979

Columbia 6,083 2% $820,107 $237,861

Desoto 9,725 2% $1,311,213 $380,300

Dixie 1,498 0% $202,036 $58,598

Duval 1,148 0% $154,840 $44,909

Escambia 4,109 1% $553,991 $160,678

Flagler 2,749 1% $370,659 $107,505

Franklin 14 0% $1,925 $558

Gadsden 4,440 1% $598,569 $173,607

Gilchrist 2,557 1% $344,791 $100,002

Glades 3,602 1% $485,698 $140,870

Gulf 364 0% $49,130 $14,249

Hamilton 2,986 1% $402,623 $116,776

Hardee 16,640 4% $2,243,567 $650,717

Hernando 2,589 1% $349,098 $101,251

Highlands 6,527 2% $880,013 $255,236

Hillsborough 2,905 1% $391,606 $113,580

Holmes 8,149 2% $1,098,654 $318,650

Indian River 6,949 2% $936,872 $271,727

Jackson 22,331 6% $3,010,867 $873,262

Jefferson 5,414 1% $729,959 $211,715

Lafayette 2,232 1% $300,880 $87,266

Lake 17,232 4% $2,323,331 $673,851

Lee 25 0% $3,425 $993

Leon 1,740 0% $234,589 $68,040

Levy 14,985 4% $2,020,346 $585,975

Liberty 406 0% $54,793 $15,892

Madison 6,971 2% $939,852 $272,59247 Manatee 11,866 3% $1,599,901 $464,030

Marion 34,879 9% $4,702,661 $1,363,945

Martin 193 0% $25,998 $7,540

Nassau 2,305 1% $310,737 $90,125

Okaloosa 4,997 1% $673,711 $195,401

Okeechobee 6,743 2% $909,121 $263,679

Orange 9,370 2% $1,263,328 $366,412

Osceola 44,121 11% $5,948,636 $1,725,323

Pasco 10,304 3% $1,389,304 $402,949

Pinellas 53 0% $7,188 $2,085

Polk 31,698 8% $4,273,761 $1,239,548

Putnam 2,739 1% $369,351 $107,125

Santa Rosa 6,175 2% $832,522 $241,462

Sarasota 3,477 1% $468,791 $135,967

Seminole 746 0% $100,545 $29,162

St. Johns 624 0% $84,120 $24,398

St. Lucie 65 0% $8,746 $2,537

Sumter 16,734 4% $2,256,133 $654,362

Suwannee 7,856 2% $1,059,138 $307,189

Taylor 735 0% $99,111 $28,746

Union 1,665 0% $224,552 $65,128

Volusia 5,280 1% $711,886 $206,473

Wakulla 123 0% $16,581 $4,809

Walton 7,165 2% $966,069 $280,196

Washington 3,850 1% $519,062 $150,547

Total 399,553 100% $53,870,178 $15,624,33348 

### VII. **Conclusions**

Florida has adopt ed quantitative nutrient water quality standards to facilitate the

assessment of attainment of water quality standards a nd to protect state waters from

the adverse effects of nutrient over enrichment. Th e addition of excess nutrients not

only have a negative effect on Florida’s environment and public health, but can also

negatively aff ect Florida’s economy as explained more fully below. The FDEP Numeric

Nutrient Criteria rule (NNC rule) in Florida is an important component of Florida’s

efforts in decreasing these negative impacts.

This report represent s the research conducted by FSU CE FA concerning the economic

analysis of the FDEP Numeric Nutrient Criteria adopted for Florida. The FSU CEFA

analysis examined and integrate d some of the assumptions used in previous studies

and developed some other assumptions based on more current cost data

, and

incorporate d current changes in regulation rules. T he highli ghts of the FSU CEFA

research analysis included the NNC cost estimation and economic analysis results

.

The r esearch data for this study were provid ed by the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP). FDEP classified w ater b odies into six categories.

The Numeric Nutrient Criteria in Florida was applied to all six classified categories,

however, the costs were prim arily assigned to Categor y Three (C at 3 ) , those

waterbodies that would be deemed impaired under FDEP’s Numeric Nutrient Criteria

rule . As FDEP defined Category Five as “those waterbody WBIDs with insufficient

information to determine if they fit in Category T hree or F our

, ” this study included a

proportion of Category Five (C at 5), or those waterbodies with classification “C at 5”

with a high likelihood of being reclassified as C at 3’s 19

The economi c analysis consist ed of five sectors; Domestic Wastewater (DW) Sector,

Industrial Wastewater (IW) Sector, Urban Stormwater Controls (SW) Sector, Septic

System Sector, and the Agriculture Sector . These five sectors corresponded to sector

groupings consistent with the previous studies; namely, the EPA study and Cardno

Entrix stud ies . Each sector calculation described following orders; methodology, data

and result for C at 3, and data and result for C at 5 to C at 3. .

Although each sectors ’ methodology v aried, the domestic and industrial (DW and IW)

sectors cost calculations were based on the affected facilities ’ water capacity

multiplied by capital and maintenance cost (s). The Urban Stormwater ( SW ) and

19 For the cost analysis conducted for this study , th e probability to be reclassified from a CAT 5 to a

CAT 3 is estimated to be 17.54% based on the assessment data by WBID, provided by FDEP. Of the

WBIDs for which there was sufficient data to assess them, 429 WBIDs were impaired out of a total of

2,446 WB ID’s (an 17

. 54% impairment rate).49 Agriculture sector’s cost calculations we re based on the proposed NNC rule number

of “impacted acre s” multiplied by the assumed capital and maintenance cost s. The

Septic system cost calculation s were based on the number of proposed NNC rule

estimated septic system s multiplied by the corresponding upgrade an d/or

replacement capital and maintenance cost s

.

The following Table provides a summary of the result s of this study. The annual cost

estimates were presented by sector, and included low, median and high projections

. With regard to cost estimates pertaining only to the C at 3 area, about $ 8.9 million

would be the estimated annual median cost. With the inclusion of additional

waterbodies to be reclassified from C at 5 to C at 3, the median costs were estimated to

be a grand total of about $ 65.8 million. The rese arch team estimate d that that the

minimum and maximum costs for implementation of the NNC rule w ould range from

$5 0 .5 million to $ 149.8 million per year

.

**Table 38**  **Summary of the Low, High and Median**  **Costs for the**  **NNC Rule in Florida**

Cat3 Low High Median Cost

DW $0 $0 $0

IW $0 $0 $0

SW $2,026,816 $7,972,144 $3,910,404

Septic $733,203 $2,133,694 $892,628

Agriculture $4,194,034 $4,194,034 $4,194,034

Total $6,954,053 $14,299,871 $8,997,066

Cat 5 to Cat 3

DW $1,838,810 $4,495,552 $2,394,744

IW $3,355,215 $34,566,580 $9,886,313

SW $14,365,292 $56,503,482 $27,715,437

Septic $8,370,000 $24,357,528 $10,189,944

Agriculture $15,624,333 $15,624,333 $15,624,333

Total $43,553,651 $135,547,476 $65,810,772

Grand Total

DW $1,838,810 $4,495,552 $2,394,744

IW $3,355,215 $34,566,580 $9,886,313

SW $16,392,108 $64,475,626 $31,625,841

Septic $9,103,203 $26,491,222 $11,082,573

Agriculture $19,818,367 $19,818,367 $19,818,367

**Grand Total** $50,507,704 $149,847,347 $74,807,83850 Table 39 Comparison Cost Results among FSU CEFA, EPA and C ardno ENTRIX ( in Million

Dollars per Year)

Sector Low High Median Cost

CEFA(2012)

DW $ 2 $4 $2

IW $3 $3 5 $10

SW $1 6 $6 4 $32

Septic $ 9 $ 26 $1 1

Agriculture $2 0 $2 0 $2 0

**Total $5**  **0 $1**  **50 $**  **75**

EPA(2010)

DW $22 $38

IW $25 $25

SW $61 $108

Septic $7 $11

Agriculture $20 $23

**Total $135**  **$206**

C ardno

ENTRIX (2011)

DW $17 $66 $41

IW $164 $372 $270

SW $25 $115 $61

Septic $2 $18 $8

Agriculture $24 $42 $33

**Total $298**  **$533 $415** 51 

### References

Associated Industries of Florida, CF Industries Holdings, Inc., Florida Farm Bureau, Florida

Water Quality Coalition (Jan. 6, 2011). Retrieved from “ EPA Nutrient Rulemaking

Poised to Stymie Job Growth in Florida

Budell, R. , Stone, H., Clements, J., Hodges, A., Stevens, T., Rahmani, M., Borisova, T., and

Bottcher. D. (2010). "Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs of Proposed EPA

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Agriculture." from http://www.fl

counties.com/Docs/Legislative%20Division/Environmental/Economic%20impa

cts%20of%20EPA%20Numeric%20Criteria.pdf

. (AKA. FDACS, UF & SWET

(2010))

Carollo Engineers (2010). “ Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrien t Criteria at Florida’s

Domestic Wastewater Reclamation Facilities

. ” for Florida Water Environment

Association Utilities Council . Retrieved from

http://www.fweauc.org/PDFs/FWEAUC%20letter%20to%20Crist%20re%20N

NC%20Cost%20Implications%20for%20Fla%20POTWs%20 with%20attachmen

t.pdf ( AKA. “FWEA Report”)

Cardno ENTRIX (2010). “ Economic Analysis of the Proposed Federal Numeric Nutrient

Criteria for Florida ”

EPA (1997). "Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis." Retrieved EPA/630/R

- 97/001,

2010, from http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/montcarl.pdf

.

EPA (1998) "National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria".

EPA (2010). Preliminary estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits A ssociated with

EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida.

FDEP(2010). FDEP Review of EPA’s “Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and

Benefits Associated with EPA’s Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida”

FDEP(2010b). Susta ining Our Water Resources

. Annual Report on Regional Water Supply

Planning.

FDEP ( 2010 c) . TMDL Water Qu ality Restoration Grants. Online at

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/docs/tmdl

- grant

- nutrient

- costs

0210.pdf.

Fed. Reg. 75 (Dec. 6, 2010) 771

Grumbles, B. Letter to M. Sole, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 8 (Jan. 14,

2009).52 Harrington, J., T. Taylor, S. Lewers, Y. Liu, H.J. Lee, Z. Siddiqui, D. Duch, and R. Markell. Final

Report: Assistance Project for Wakulla County OSTDS Pr ogram, Florida

Department of Environmental Protection

, Oct . 2011.

Harrington, J., and J. Guo, “OSTDS and Decentralized Systems Wastewater Treatment

Program: Phase I and Phase II,” Final Report to the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, Nov. 2006.

Obreza, T

., Clark, M., Boman, B., Borisova, T., Cohen, M., Dukes, M., Frazer, T., Hanlon, E.,

Havens, K., Martinez, C., Migliaccio, K., Shukla, S., and Wright , A., (2010) “ A Guide

to EPA's Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida ”

. Retrived March

2011 revised version from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/SS/SS52800.pdf

Salomaa , E. and Watkins G. (2011) Environmental Performance and Compliance Costs for

Industrial Wastewa ter Treatment

– an International Comparison . Sustainable

Development Vol. 19. pp. 325

- 336

Soil & Water Engineering Technologies, Inc., ( 2008 ) . Nutrient Loading Rates, Reduction

Factors and Implementation Costs Associated with BMPs and Technologies for

Sout h Florida Water Management District . Retrieved from

http://www.sccf.org/files/content/docs/Preliminary%20Report%20rev2_sfwm

d.pdf ( AKA. SWET (2010) )

Spechler, R. (1994) “ Saltwater Intrusion and Quality of Water in the Floridan Aquifer System,

Northeastern Florida ” for U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water

- Resources

Investigations Report 92

- 4174

Stanley Consultants (2007) Wastewater Rate Study for City of East Moline

St. Petersburg Times (Nov. 4 2011), editorial.

Stormwater Management Academy (2010) Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems

Evaluation for Nutrient Removal , Interim Report for FDEP

Tuckfield Associates (2009) Report on Water and Wastewater Rate Study for Heritage Ranch

Community S e rvice District.

University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS). 2009. Review of

Nutrient Management Systems for Florida Vegetable Producers: A White Paper

from the UF/IFAS Vegetable Fertili zer Task Force. Publication #HS1156.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HS1156.53 

### Appendix A

**– A**  **cronyms and Abbreviations**

ANMP Agricultural nutrient management plan

BMAP Basin Management Action Plan

BMP Best management practice

BNR Biological nutrient removal

BOD Biochemical oxygen demand

C&D Construction and development

CAFO Confined animal feeding operation

cfs Cubic feet per second

CH Chlorophyll a

COI Cost of illness

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CSP Conservation Stewardship Program

CTA Conservation Technical Assistance

CWA Clean Water Act

DACS Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

DOH Department of Health

DPV Downstream protection value

DO Dissolved Oxygen

DOF Department of Forestry

EAA Everglades Agriculture Area

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentive Program

F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code

FC Fecal coliform

FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

FDEP Florida Depa rtment of Environmental Protection

FDOF Florida Division of Forestry

FDOH Florida Department of Health

F.S. Florida Statutes

FWRA Florida Watershed Restoration Act

GAC Granulated activated carbon

GIS Geographic information systems

GLCI Grazing Land Conservation Initiative

HABs Harmful algal blooms

HUC Hydrologic unit code

IPM Integrated pest management

IWR Impaired Waters Rule

LSJR Lower St. Johns River

MEP Maximum extent practicable

MIB 2

- methylisborneol

MLE Modified Ludzac k

- Ettinger

MS4 Municipal separate storm sewer system

NO2 Nitrate

NO3 Nitrite54 NOI Notice of intent

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NWIS National Water Information System

O& M Operation and maintenance

OCBWG Orange Creek Basin Working Group

OIG Office of Inspector General

OSTDS Onsite sewage treatment and disposal system

PAC Powered activated carbon

PCS Permit compliance system

Pt

- Co Platinum cobalt units

RA Reasonable assurance

RBC Rotating biological contactor

SBR Sequencing batch reactor

SCR Selective catalytic reduction

SDT Secchi disk transparency

SDM Secchi disk measurement

SFWMD South Florida Water Management District

SIC Standard industrial classification

SJWMD St. Johns Water Management District

SMP Strategic monitoring plans

SMZ Special Management Zone

SSAC Site specific alternative criteria

SWET Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc.

SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management

SWMP Stormwater management program

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

TSS Total suspended solids

UCT University of Cape Town

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USGS United States Geological Survey

WAFR Wastewater facility regulation

WBID Waterbody identification

WLA Wasteload allocation

WOD Works of the District

WQBEL Water quality

- ba sed effluent limit

WQI Water quality index

WQL Water quality ladder

WQS Water quality standards

WRF Water reclamation facility

WTP Willingness to pay

WWTP Wastewater treatment plant55 

### Appendix B

**– Fact Sheet** 

Economic Analysis for FDEP Numeric Nutrient Criteria

The FSU Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis (CEFA) performed an initial

economic analysis of FDEP’s Numeric Nutrient Standards approved by the Environmental

Regulation Commission on December 8, 2011. Estimates of the costs potentially

a ssociated with the FDEP proposed rule were provided to FSU CEFA by FDEP, and cost

analysis was performed by FSU CEFA for five industry sectors that may incur costs to

reduce nutrients sufficiently for Florida’s waters to be in compliance with the proposed

rule. It was assumed that such costs would potentially be incurred by entities in

waterbodies which do not appear to achieve the standards, based on an assessment by

FDEP. Costs for domestic and industrial wastewater facilities were estimated based on

t he cost associated with upgrading those facilities to advanced wastewater treatment.

Costs for agricultural and urban stormwater were based on the acreage and cost associated

with BMP implementation for those waterbodies 20 . Costs for septic tanks were bas ed on

the number of affected systems and costs associated with their upgrade. The initial

estimate 21

Sector

was revised to reflect the rule adopted on December 8 th , 2011. The revised

estimate is:

Low Cost High Cost Median Cost

Industrial Wastewater $3,355,215 $34,566,580 $9,886,313

Domestic Wastewater $1,838,810 $4,495,552 $2,394,744

Urban Stormwater $16,392,108 $64,475,626 $31,625,841

Agricultural Stormwater $19,818,367 $19,818,367 $19,818,367

Septic Tanks $9,103,203 $26,491,222 $11,082,573

Total $50,507,704 $149,847,347 $74,807,838

The Department’s rule represents a significant cost saving in comparison to the recently

adopted U.S. EPA rule. Estimates of those costs were performed by Cardno ENTRIX 22

Sector with assumptions similar to those assumed for the Department’s rule. The Cardno

ENTRIX estimated costs were:

Estimated Annual Costs (Million $)

Low Cost High Cost Median Cost

Industrial Wastewater $164 $372 $270

Domestic Wastewater $17 $66 $41

Urban Stormwater $25 $115 $61

Agricultural Stormwater $24 $42 $33

Septic Tanks $2 $18 $8

Total $298 $533 $415

20 Based on FDEP definition of Waterbody Identification (WBID)

21 Based on removal of the costs of associated canals from the total cost analyses.

22 Addendum to the Economic Analysis of the Federal Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida. Prepared for

the Florida Water Quality Coalition by Cardno ENTRIX. July 2011