Opportunities for reducing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) compliance costs: Lessons from the Chesapeake Bay

Environmental Science and Technology

Volumn 46, Issue 17, 2012, Pages 9256-9265

  Wainger, Lisa A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHESAPEAKE BAY; COMPLIANCE COSTS; COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES; COST SAVING; DESIGN RULES; GOAL SETTING; LOAD ALLOCATION; LOAD REDUCTION; MARGINAL RETURNS; MARKET DEVELOPMENT; REDUCING COSTS; SEDIMENT REDUCTION; TMDL PROGRAM; TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD; WATER QUALITY TRADING;

COST EFFECTIVENESS; COST REDUCTION; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE; WATER QUALITY;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

DISSOLVED OXYGEN;

COMPLIANCE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DESIGN; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; MARINE POLLUTION; MARKET DEVELOPMENT; POLLUTANT SOURCE; WATER QUALITY;

ARTICLE; BAY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GEOGRAPHY; NUTRIENT; SEDIMENT; WATER QUALITY; WATERSHED;

BAYS; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION; POLICY MAKING; UNITED STATES; WATER MOVEMENTS; WATER SUPPLY;

CHESAPEAKE BAY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84865755211     PISSN: 0013936X     EISSN: 15205851     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/es300540k     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Blankenship, K. Local officials worry that TMDL actions are much too costly Chesapeake Bay J. 2011, 21 (5) 1
2. Arrow, K. J.; Cropper, M. L.; Eads, G. C.; Hahn, R. W.; Lave, L. B.; Noll, R. G.; Portney, P. R.; Russell, M.; Schmalensee, R.; Smith, V. K.; Stavins, R. N. Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation? Science 1996, 272, 221-222
3. Ackerman, F.; Heinzerling, L. Pricing the priceless: cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 2002, 150, 1553
4. Wainger, L.; Mazzotta, M. Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: a framework for relating ecological changes to economic benefits Environ. Manage. 2011, 1-24
5. Sunstein, C. R. Congress, constitutional moments, and the cost-benefit state Stanford Law Rev. 1996, 48, 247-309
6. U.S. EPA. Ensuring results, ChesapeakeBay TMDL, U.S. EPAmid-Atlantic, Phase II Watershed Implementation Plans. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ ChesapeakeBay/EnsuringResults.html?tab2=1 (accessed January 9, 2012).
7. U.S. EPA. Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load for nitrogen,phosphorus and sediment. Final. Region 3 and Region 2. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ ChesapeakeBay/tmdlexec.html (accessed December 29, 2010).
8. U.S. EPA. Water Quality Standards Handbook: 2nd edition; EPA823-B-94-005; Chapter 2: Designation of uses (40 CFR 131:10); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water: Washington, DC. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/ swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter02.cfm.
9. Orth, R.; Williams, M.; Marion, S.; Wilcox, D.; Carruthers, T.; Moore, K.; Kemp, W.; Dennison, W.; Rybicki, N.; Bergstrom, P.; Batiuk, R. Long-term trends in submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Chesapeake Bay, USA, related to water quality Estuaries Coasts 2010, 33, 1144-1163
10. Niklitschek, E. J.; Secor, D. H. Modeling spatial and temporal variation of suitable nursery habitats for Atlantic sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci. 2005, 64, 135-148
11. Kemp, W. M.; Batleson, R.; Bergstrom, P.; Carter, V.; Gallegos, C.; Hunley, W.; Karrh, L.; Koch, E.; Landwehr, J.; Moore, K.; Murray, L.; Naylor, M.; Rybicki, N.; Court Stevenson, J.; Wilcox, D. Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: water quality, light regime, and physical-chemical factors Estuaries Coasts 2004, 27, 363-377
12. Funderburk, S. L.; Jordon, S. J.; Mihursky, J. A.; Riley, D. Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources; Habitat Objectives Workgroup, Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Bay Program; Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc.: Solomons, MD, 1991.
13. USCCAN, S. REP. NO. 92-414 (1971), reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3668, 3742. [40 CFR 130.7(c)(1)] 1972.
14. Parsons, P. A. Habitats, stress, and evolutionary rates J. Evolution. Biol. 1994, 7, 387-397
15. Landres, P. B.; Morgan, P.; Swanson, F. J. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems Ecol. Appl. 1999, 9, 1179-1188
16. Smith, M. D.; Knapp, A. K.; Collins, S. L. A framework for assessing ecosystem dynamics in response to chronic resource alterations induced by global change Ecology 2009, 90, 3279-3289
17. Batiuk, R. A.; Breitburg, D. L.; Diaz, R. J.; Cronin, T. M.; Secor, D. H.; Thursby, G. Derivation of habitat-specific dissolved oxygen criteria for Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2009, 381, S204-S215
18. U.S. EPA. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries; EPA 903-R-03-002; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office: Annapolis, MD, 2003.
19. U.S. EPA. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries: 2007 Addendum; EPA 903-R-07-003; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office: Annapolis, MD, 2007.
20. Shenk, G. Integrated Analysis Coordinator, EPA/Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis MD, Personal communication 2011.
21. Resh, V. H.; McElravy, E. P. Contemporary quantitative approaches to biomonitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. In Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates; Rosenberg, D. M.,; Resh, V. H., Eds.; Chapman: New York, 1993; pp 159-194.
22. Borja, A.; Dauer, D. M.; Díaz, R.; Llansó, R. J.; Muxika, I.; Rodríguez, J. G.; Schaffner, L. Assessing estuarine benthic quality conditions in Chesapeake Bay: a comparison of three indices Ecol. Indic. 2008, 8, 395-403
23. Davis, J. M.; Rosemond, A. D.; Eggert, S. L.; Cross, W. F.; Wallace, J. B. Long-term nutrient enrichment decouples predator and prey production Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2010, 107, 121-126
24. Johnston, R. J.; Besedin, E. Y.; Wardwell, R. F. Modeling relationships between use and nonuse values for surface water quality: a meta-analysis Water Resour. Res. 2003, 39, 1363
25. Hanley, N.; Wright, R. E.; Alvarez-Farizo, B. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive J. Environ. Manage. 2006, 78, 183-193
26. Breitburg, D. L.; Hondorp, D. W.; Davias, L. A.; Diaz, R. J. Hypoxia, nitrogen, and fisheries: integrating effects across local and global landscapes Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2009, 1, 329-349
27. Thompson, B. H. People or prairie chickens: the uncertain search for optimal biodiversity Stanford Law Rev. 1999, 51, 1127-1185
28. Mansfield, E.; Yohe, G. Microeconomics: Theory and Applications; W.W. Norton & Company, 2003.
29. Kemp, W. M.; Goldman, E. B. Thresholds in the Recovery of Eutrophic Coastal Ecosystems: a Synthesis of Research and Implications for Management; Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) Publication 08-002, 2008.
30. Morin, I.; Mitchell, D.; Praesel, L.; Stapler, R.; Zoltay, V. Development of Cost Curves and Quantification of Ecosystem Services Associated with Strategies Pursuant to the Executive Order to Restore the Chesapeake Bay; Abt Associates Inc. for U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development: Cambridge, MA, 2010.
31. U.S. EPA. An Optimization Approach to Evaluate the Role of Ecosystem Services in Chesapeake Bay Restoration Strategies; EPA 600/R-11/001; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, 2012.
32. Ghosh, G.; Ribaudo, M.; Shortle, J. Baseline requirements can hinder trades in water quality trading programs: evidence from the Conestoga watershed J. Environ. Manage. 2011, 92, 2076-2084
33. Claassen, R.; Cattaneo, A.; Johansson, R. Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 737-752
34. Ziombra, K. Evaluation of the influence of nitrogen on primary production using retrospective data, regression analysis, and modeling. Thesis, University of Maryland: College Park, MD, 2012.
35. Maryland Department of the Environment. Blue Plains WWTPBNR/ENR upgrade (Washington suburban sanitary commission). http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/ PressRoom/Pages/1081.aspx.
36. Maryland Governor's Office. Governor O'Malley seeks federal funding for clean water, Chesapeake Bay. http://www.gov.state.md.us/pressreleases/100311f. asp.
37. PA DEP. Final Trading of Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Credits-Policy and Guidelines (Revisions to the Interim Final Trading of Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Credits-Policy and Guidelines); 392-0900-001; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection: Harrisburg, PA, 2007.
38. Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA). Maryland Policy for Nutrient Cap Management and Trading in Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Watershed Phase II: a Guideline for the Generation of Agricultural Nonpoint Nutrient Credits; Annapolis, MD, 2008.
39. U.S. EPA. Guide for Chesapeake Bay Jurisdictions for the Development of Phase 2 Watershed Implementation Plans; 2011. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/ pdf-chesbay/GuideforthePhaseIIWIPs-3.30final.pdf.
40. U.S. EPA. Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results. http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/index.html.
41. Ribaudo, M. O.; Nickerson, C. J. Agriculture and water quality trading: Exploring the possibilities J. Soil Water Conserv. 2009, 64, 1-7
42. Ribaudo, M. O.; Gottlieb, J. Point-nonpoint trading: can it work? J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2011, 47, 5-14
43. Nickerson, C.; Ribaudo, M. O.; Higgins, N. The Farm Act's Regional Equity Provision: Impacts on Conservation Program Outcomes; USDA Economic Research Service, 2010; Vol. ERR 98.
44. Ruth, M.; Gasper, R.; Bagley, G.; Selman, M.; Marshall, L. Multiple Ecosystem Markets in Maryland: Quantifying the Carbon Benefits Associated with Nutrient Trading; Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER), University of Maryland, 2010.
45. Chesapeake Bay Environmental Markets Team. Considerations for Baseline Eligibility Applied to Water Quality Credit Programs Implemented under a Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL); USDA Office of Environmental Markets, 2010.
46. Breetz, H. L.; Fisher-Vander, K.; Garzon, L.; Jacops, H.; Kroetz, K.; Terry, R. Water Quality Trading and Offset Initiatives in the U.S.: A Comprehensive Survey; Dartmouth College: Hanover, NH, 2004.
47. Stavins, R. N. Transaction costs and tradeable permits J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1995, 29, 133-148
48. King, D. M.; Kuch, P. J. Will nutrient credit trading ever work? an assessment of supply problems, demand problems and institutional obstacles Environ. Law Reporter 2003, 33, 10352-10368
49. Moore, R. E.; Overton, M. S.; Norwood, R. J.; DeRose, D.; Corbin, P. G. Nitrogen credit trading in the Long Island Sound Watershed; Water Environment Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, 2000.
50. Virginia Nutrient Credit Exchange Association Website. http://www.theexchangeassociation.org/.
51. North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) and NC General Assembly, Rule 0.0238. Authority General Statute (GS), 1998. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/nps/neuse.
52. Shabman, L.; Stephenson, K. Achieving nutrient water quality goals: bringing market-like principles to water quality management J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2007, 43, 1076-1089
53. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR).Tar-Pamlico point source; NC Division of Water Quality. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/nps/tarpampointsource.
54. Latane, A.; Stephenson, K. Agricultural Nutrient Nonpoint Source Credits: A Comparison of State Crediting Procedures; Southern Agricultural Economics Association, Annual Meeting: Corpus Christi, TX, 2011.
55. Boyd, J. The new face of the Clean Water Act: A critical review of the EPA's new TMDL rules Duke Environ. Law Policy Forum 2000, 11, 39-87