LEADER 03854nam  2200649Ia 450 
001 9910974934403321
005 20251117095738.0
010   $a9786613721457
010   $a9780309254960
010   $a0309254965
010   $a9781280880148
010   $a1280880147
010   $a9780309254946
010   $a0309254949
035   $a(CKB)2550000000104886
035   $a(EBL)3564264
035   $a(SSID)ssj0000665838
035   $a(PQKBManifestationID)11396037
035   $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000665838
035   $a(PQKBWorkID)10634806
035   $a(PQKB)10013406
035   $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3564264
035   $a(Au-PeEL)EBL3564264
035   $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10578459
035   $a(OCoLC)932320474
035   $a(Perlego)4739317
035   $a(BIP)38441036
035   $a(EXLCZ)992550000000104886
100   $a20120405d2012      uy         0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aurcn|||||||||
181   $ctxt
182   $cc
183   $acr
200 10$aReview of the EPA's economic analysis of final water quality standards for nutrients for lakes and flowing waters in Florida /$fCommittee to Review EPA's Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida, Water Science and Technology Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies
205   $a1st ed.
210   $aWashington, D.C. $cNational Academies Press$dc2012
215   $a1 online resource (142 p.)
300   $aDescription based upon print version of record.
311 08$a9780309254939 
311 08$a0309254930 
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references.
327   $a""Front Matter""; ""Acknowledgment of Reviewers""; ""Contents""; ""Summary""; ""1 Introduction""; ""2 Assessment and Commentary on EPA's Analysis""; ""3 A Framework for Incremental Cost Analysis of a Rule Change""; ""Acronyms""; ""Appendix A: Narrative, Numeric, and Proposed Florida Nutrient Criteria Processes Illustrated""; ""Appendix B: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff""
330   $aThe Environmental Protection Agency's estimate of the costs associated with implementing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida's waterways was significantly lower than many stakeholders expected. This discrepancy was due, in part, to the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency's analysis considered only the incremental cost of reducing nutrients in waters it considered "newly impaired" as a result of the new criteria-not the total cost of improving water quality in Florida. The incremental approach is appropriate for this type of assessment, but the Environmental Protection Agency's cost analysis would have been more accurate if it better described the differences between the new numeric criteria rule and the narrative rule it would replace, and how the differences affect the costs of implementing nutrient reductions over time, instead of at a fixed time point. Such an analysis would have more accurately described which pollutant sources, for example municipal wastewater treatment plants or agricultural operations, would bear the costs over time under the different rules and would have better illuminated the uncertainties in making such cost estimates.
606   $aWater quality management$zFlorida
606   $aWater quality$xStandards$zFlorida
615  0$aWater quality management
615  0$aWater quality$xStandards
676   $a628.11206759
712 02$aNational Research Council (U.S.).$bWater Science and Technology Board.
801  0$bMiAaPQ
801  1$bMiAaPQ
801  2$bMiAaPQ
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910974934403321
996   $aReview of the EPA's economic analysis of final water quality standards for nutrients for lakes and flowing waters in Florida$94357377
997   $aUNINA