Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:03:18.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tradeoffs among Ecosystem Services, Performance Certainty, and Cost-efficiency in Implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Lisa A. Wainger ,
George Van Houtven ,
Ross Loomis ,
Jay Messer ,
Robert Beach  and
Marion Deerhake
Lisa A. Wainger*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland CES Chesapeake Biological Lab
George Van Houtven
Affiliation:
Agricultural, Resource, and Energy Economics and Policy Program, and Marion Deerhake is a senior research environmental scientist at RTI International in North Carolina
Ross Loomis
Affiliation:
Ecosystem Services Research at RTI International in North Carolina
Jay Messer
Affiliation:
RTI International in North Carolina
Robert Beach
Affiliation:
Agricultural, Resource, and Energy Economics and Policy Program at RTI International in North Carolina
Marion Deerhake
Affiliation:
Agricultural, Resource, and Energy Economics and Policy Program, and Marion Deerhake is a senior research environmental scientist at RTI International in North Carolina
*
Corresponding Author: Lisa A. Wainger ▪ Chesapeake Biological Lab ▪ University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science ▪ P.O. Box 38 ▪ Solomons, MD 20688 ▪ Email wainger@umces.edu.
Get access

Abstract

The cost-effectiveness of total maximum daily load (TMDL) programs depends heavily on program design. We develop an optimization framework to evaluate design choices for the TMDL for the Potomac River, a Chesapeake Bay sub-basin. Scenario results suggest that policies inhibiting nutrient trading or offsets between point and nonpoint sources increase compliance costs markedly and reduce ecosystem service co-benefits relative to a least-cost solution. Key decision tradeoffs highlighted by the analysis include whether agricultural production should be exchanged for low-cost pollution abatement and other environmental benefits and whether lower compliance costs and higher co-benefits provide adequate compensation for lower certainty of water-quality outcomes.

Keywords

Chesapeake Baycost-effectivenessecosystem servicesenvironmental policyoptimization modelpollution controlTMDLwater quality trading
Type
Selected Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , April 2013 , pp. 196 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, D.M., Alig, R.J., Callaway, J.M., McCarl, B.A., and Winnett, S.M. 1996. The Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM): Model Structure and Policy Applications 1996. Research Paper PNW-RP-495, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
Boyd, J., and Banzhaf, S. 2007. “What Are Ecosystem Services? The Need for Standardized Environmental Accounting Units.” Ecological Economics 63(2): 616–626.Google Scholar
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2002. Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Estimation for Point Sources in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Task Force, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2004. “Updated CBP (2002) Spreadsheet.” Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. Google Scholar
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2009. “Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, Phase 5.2: Nonpoint-Source BMP File.” Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. Available at ftp://ftp.chesapeakebay.net/Modeling/phase5/Phase52_Loads-Acres-BMPs/P52_NonPointSourceBMPs_111609.xls (accessed August 4, 2010).Google Scholar
Copeland, C. 2005. Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of Pollutants. Report for Congress Order Code 97-831 ENR, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Duke, J.M., McGrath, J.M., Fiorellino, N.M., Monteith, T.S., and Rosso, E. Forthcoming. “Additionality in Water Quality Trading: Evidence from Maryland's Nutrient Offset Program.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Wetlands: Protecting Life and Property from Flooding. EPA, Washington, D.C. Available at www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/Flooding.pdf.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to Restore Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay: A Revised Report Fulfilling Section202a of Executive Order 13508. EPA, Washington, D.C. Available at http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/file.axd?file=2009%2fll%2f202a+Water+Quality+Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. 2010a. Chesapeake Bay Phase 5 Community Watershed Model. Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. Available at ftp://ftp.chesapeakebay.net/modeling/P5Documentation.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. 2010b. Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load. EPA, Washington, D.C. Available at www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBay/tmdlexec.htm.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. An Optimization Approach to Evaluate the Role of Ecosystem Services in Chesapeake Bay Restoration Strategies. Report 600/R-11/001, EPA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
GAMS Development Corporation. 2012. “General Algebraic Modeling System.” GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, D.C. (www.gams.com).Google Scholar
Ghosh, G., Ribaudo, M., and Shortle, J. 2011. “Baseline Requirements Can Hinder Trades in Water Quality Trading Programs: Evidence from the Conestoga Watershed.” Journal of Environmental Management 92(8): 2076–2084.Google Scholar
Hanson, J.C., and McConnell, K.E. 2008. “Simulated Trading for Maryland's Nitrogen Loadings in the Chesapeake Bay.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 37(2): 211–226.Google Scholar
Hellerstein, D. 2010. “Challenges Facing USDA's Conservation Reserve Program.” Amber Waves 8(2): 28–33.Google Scholar
Hudy, M., Thieling, T.M., Gillespie, N., and Smith, E.P. 2008. “Distribution, Status, and Land Use Characteristics of Subwatersheds within the Native Range of Brook Trout in the Eastern United States.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28(4): 1069–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. 2010. “Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866.” U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. Available at www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/scc-tsd.pdf.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006. “Appendix 3: CH4 Emissions from Flooded Land: Basis for Future Methodological Development.” In 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4—Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_p_Ap3_WetlandsCH4.pdf.Google Scholar
King, D.M., and Kuch, P.J. 2003. “Will Nutrient Credit Trading Ever Work? An Assessment of Supply Problems, Demand Problems, and Institutional Obstacles.” Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis 33: 10352–10368.Google Scholar
Kling, Catherine. 2011. “Economic Incentives to Improve Water Quality in Agricultural Landscapes Some New Variations on Old Ideas.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93(2): 297–309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, I., Mitchell, D., Praesel, L., Stapler, R., and Zoltay, V. 2010. Development of Cost Curves and Quantification of Ecosystem Services Associated with Strategies Pursuant to the Executive Order to Restore the Chesapeake Bay. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc. for the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development.Google Scholar
Murray, B., Jenkins, A., Kramer, R., and Faulkner, S.P. 2009. Valuing Ecosystem Services from Wetlands Restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecosystem Services Series NI R 09-02, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
Murray, F.J., Marsh, L., and Bradford, P.A. 1994. New York State Energy Plan, Volume 2, Issue Reports. Albany, NY: New York State Energy Office.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2011. “2008 Survey: Rent, Cash, Cropland—Expense Measured in Dollars per Acre.” NASS, USDA, Washington, D.C. Available at http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov.Google Scholar
National Resource Conservation Service. 2006. “National Geospatial Datasets.” USDA National Cartography and Geospatial Center, Fort Worth, TX. Available at www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov.Google Scholar
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. “U.S. General Soil Map (STATSG02).” USDA, Washington, D.C. Available at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov.Google Scholar
Neely, H. 2008. “Restoring Farmland to Wetlands: The Potential for Carbon Credits in Eastern North Carolina.” Master's thesis, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
Nickerson, C., Ribaudo, M.O., and Higgins, N. 2010. The Farm Act's Regional Equity Provision: Impacts on Conservation Program Outcomes. Economic Research Report 98, Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Nowak, D.J., and Crane, D.E. 2000. “The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model: Quantifying Urban Forest Structure and Functions.” In Hansen, M. and Burk, T., eds., Integrated Tools for Natural Resources Inventories in the 21st Century. Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference. General Technical Report NC-212, Forest Service, USDA North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., and Stevens, J.C. 2006. “Air Pollution Removal by Urban Trees and Shrubs in the United States.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4(1): 115–123.Google Scholar
Reinecke, K., and Kaminski, R. 2005. “Draft Revision and Update of Table 5 (Duck Use-Days).” Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Waterfowl Working Group, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Ribaudo, M.O., and Gottlieb, J. 2011. “Point-Nonpoint Trading—Can It Work?” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 47(1): 5–14.Google Scholar
Ribaudo, M., Hansen, L., Hellerstein, D., and Greene, C. 2008. The Use of Markets to Increase Private Investment in Environmental Stewardship. Economic Research Report 64, Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Richkus, K.D., Wilkins, K.A., Raftovich, R.V., Williams, S.S., and Spriggs, H.L. 2008. Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest during the 2006 and 2007 Hunting Seasons: Preliminary Estimates. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD.Google Scholar
Rosenberger, R.S., and Loomis, J.B. 2001. Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Use Values: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 revision). General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-72, Forest Service, USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. 2010. “Optimization and Decision Heuristics for Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Strategies.” Environmental Modeling and Assessment 15(5): 345–359.Google Scholar
Shabman, L., and Stephenson, K. 2007. “Achieving Nutrient Water Quality Goals: Bringing Market-Like Principles to Water Quality Management.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43(4): 1076–1089.Google Scholar
Shortle, J. 2013. “Economics and Environmental Markets: Lessons from Water-Quality Trading.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 42(1): 57–74.Google Scholar
Shrestha, R.K., and Alavalapati, J.R.R. 2004. “Effect of Ranchland Attributes on Recreational Hunting in Florida: A Hedonic Price Analysis.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 36(3): 763–772.Google Scholar
Tol, R.S.J. 2005. “The Marginal Damage Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Assessment of the Uncertainties.” Energy Policy 33(16): 2064–2074.Google Scholar
Tol, R.S.J. 2008. “The Social Cost of Carbon: Trends, Outliers, and Catastrophes.” Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 2: 2008–2025.Google Scholar
Fish, U.S. and Service, Wildlife. 2011. “National Wetlands Inventory.” Available at www.fws.gov/wetlands/NWI/Overview.html.Google Scholar
Van Deusen, P., and Heath, L.S. 2011. Carbon On-Line Estimator (COLE) web applications suite. NCASI and USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Available only online: www.ncasi2.org/COLE.Google Scholar
Van Houtven, G.L., Loomis, R.J., Baker, J.S., Beach, R.H., and Casey, S.E. 2012. Nutrient Credit Trading for the Chesapeake Bay: An Economic Study. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
Wainger, L., and King, D. 2007. Establishing Trading Ratios for Point −Non-Point Source Water Quality Trades: Can We Capture Environmental Variability without Breaking the Bank? Technical Report TS-523-07, University of Maryland CES Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, MD. Available at http://waingerlab.cbl.umces.edu/docs/ScoringWatQualityTrades_TechRptR1.pdf (accessed October 26, 2009).Google Scholar
Wieland, R., Parker, D., Gans, W., and Martin, A. 2009. Costs and Cost Efficiencies for Some Nutrient Reduction Practices in Maryland. NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office and Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD. Available at www.envtn.org/uploads/Final_BMP_Cost.pdf.Google Scholar