w

Hidden Economic Impacts of Harmful Algae Blooms

Apoorva M. Sampat and Victor M. Zavala Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering University of -Madison

Gerardo Ruiz-Mercado U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati OH

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the authors and do not 1 represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Take Away Messages

- 1 kg of Excess P Results in an Economic Loss of USD 74.5

- Upper Yahara Watershed has 288 tons/yr excess P => Loss of USD 22 x 106/yr

- Accounting the Economic Impact Activates Waste Processing Market Motivation: Harmful Algae Blooms

- A Single Dairy Cow Produces 20 tons/yr of Waste

- Wisconsin has 1.3 x 106 Dairy Cows Yahara Watershed Region

Algae Bloom in Madison, WI

Soil Phosphorus Flux

Phosphorus Runoff Leads to Algae Blooms 3 Motivation: Organic Waste Management

Dairy Farm Cropland Fertilizers

43.3 Anaerobic Digester

Dairy Manure Managem ent: Treatem ent Tec hnol ogies | Dairy Manure Managem ent |Agri c ultur e Progra m | Region 9 | US EPA 9/ 14/ 15, 3:54 PM

http://www .epa.gov/r egion9/ag/dairy/technologies.html 43.25 Pacific Southwest, Region 9 Serving: Arizona, Califor nia, Hawaii, Nevada, Pacific Islands, Tribal Nations 45 Dairy Manure Management in the San Joaquin V alley Technologies for Treating Dairy Manur e

Technology Assessment

43.2 Many technologies ar e currently promoted for treatment of dairy manur e, and it can be di fficult to determine their practical feasibility . The Agriculture Program and the California Air Resources Board co-chaired the Dairy Manur e Technology Feasibility Assessment Panel . This panel evaluated and published a r eport on technologies for managing dairy manur e under conditions pr evalent in Califor nia's San Joaquin V alley. The University of Califor nia Cooperative Extension is curr ently evaluating additional technologies. We will post the r esults from that process here. Other groups are also conducting technology assessments, notably Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc. , which evaluates technologies and funds pilot pr ojects to tr eat all types of manur e. N N Treatment Systems and Pilot Pr ojects

e e 43.15 Many of the available technologies addr ess only a portion of dairy manur e, leaving the r est untreated. For example, anaer obic digestion converts or ganic carbon in manur e to d

d carbon dioxide and methane; this "bio-gas" can be bur ned to generate electricity and heat. But the pr ocess does not tr eat the dissolved nutrients and salts that can degrade water and soil quality . Combinations of complementary technologies could comprise a compr ehensive dairy manur e treatment system. Below is a generalized model of such u u t t a system; many variations ar e certainly possible. i i t t a a Several projects in Califor nia that incorporate one or mor e WWTP L L dairy manure treatment technologies ar e currently under

construction or in operation. Information about the ° ° 44 components of a potential compr ehensive system or Waterbody 43.1 projects that implement these technologies ar e linked to the Comprehensive Manur e Treatment diagram.

This diagram shows some possible technologies that could be combined into a compr ehensive tr eatment system. No dairy is likely to use all of these; rather , the diagram indicates possibilities that could be combined as appropriate for the specific needs of each dairy .

43.05 Solids can be composted to make bedding and soil amendments or converted to ener gy and bypr oducts through anaerobic digestion or gasification/pyr olysis. Liquids can be used for irrigating and fertilizing cr ops or recycled to flush the bar ns. When used for irrigation, available technology (flow meters, monitoring of nitr ogen content in lagoon water , timing to crop needs, etc.) can ensur e that nutrients ar e applied to cr ops at agronomic rates, pr eventing 43 Regional Network 43 Local Networkleaching and run-o ff. The liquid can be further tr eated by denitrification to make inert N2 gas, and/or by tr eatment with chemicals to pr ecipitate the phosphor ous and fine particulates, and/or by r everse osmosis to r emove Blue boxes indicate pr ocesses. Green boxes indicate pr oducts with economic value. *Current practice on -92.5 -92 -91.5 -91 -90.5 -90 -89.5 -89 -88.5 -88 -87.5 -89.65 -89.6 -89.55 -89.5and concentrate the-89.45 salts. Both denitrification-89.4 and Califor-89.35nia dairies or pilot pr oject-89.3 in place. Entire flow -89.25diagram, PDF (1 pg, 12K) -89.2About PDF -89.15 reverse osmosis r equire large amounts of ener gy, which could be supplied by the digester or the gasifier . ° Longitude W Biogas from digesters and syngas° Longitude fr om thermal conversion pr ocessesW pr oduce electricity , heat, and fuel that can be sold into the grid, or used on the dairy , possibly to power further tr eatment pr ocesses.

Many Additional Components Could be Added:

feed and drinking water management to r educe nutrients in manur e improved lagoon design (size, shape, lining, etc.) to pr event leaching and overflows frequent collection of manur e to reduce off-gassing of VOCs collection and bio-filtration of gases fr om feed and cows

http : / / w w w .ep a.gov/ r egion9/ag/dairy/technologies. htm l Pag e 1 of 2 Waste Management is a Complex Supply Chain Problem with Product Transformation

4 s Stakeholder Perspective for Waste Management

Government Agencies Transportation Providers

Suppliers

Customers Technology Providers ISO: Independent System Operator Social Welfare

Excess P

Product Supplier Transp. Tech. Environmental Revenue Cost Cost Cost Cost

Key: Treat Environment as one of the Stakeholders

[1] Sampat, A. M., et al. (2019). Coordinated Management of Organic Waste and Derived Products. Computers & Chemical Engineering. st Study Area

Nodes considered: • 55 beef farms, 148 dairy farms (> 99% P from animal waste)

• 1,167 land nodes

• P Surplus Ratio: 1.46

Study Area: Upper watershed (within Dane County)

Goal: Quantify Economic Impacts of Harmful Algae Blooms

6 • Secchi Depth affects Property Value and Recreation Activities SecchiFor tDepthhe Upper (WaterYahara Wa t Clarityershed Re Metric)gion • P Surplus: 288 tons/yr • Secchi• P RDepthunoff :affects 10% Property Value and Recreation Activities

For theLak Uppere Men dYaharaota TotWatershedal Phospho Regionrus (TP) • P Surplus: 288 tons/yr • Initial TP: 53 g/L • P Runoff: 10% Measuring Secchi Dept • New TP after Runoff: 110 g/L Mendota Total Phosphorus (TP) For stratified natural [2]: ln(SD) = 2.10 - 0.44 ln(T P ) • Initial TP: 53 휇푔/퐿 Measuring Secchi Depth • New TP after Runoff: 110 휇푔/퐿 Lake Mendota Secchi Depth (SD) • InitiaForl SD stratified: 0.97m natural lakes [2]: • New SD after Runoff: 0.63m

Lake Mendota Secchi Depth (SD) Decrease in Secchi Depth: 0.34m • Initial SD: 0.97m • New SD after Runoff: 0.63m [2] Richard Allan Lillie, Susan Graham, and Paul W. Rasmussen. equations and regional predictive equations 7 for Wisconsin lakes. Bureau of Research, WDecreaseisconsin Depa inrtm Secchient of Na tuDepth:ral Resou r0.34mces, 1993.

[2] Richard Allan Lillie, Susan Graham, and Paul W. Rasmussen. Trophic state index equations and regional predictive equations for Wisconsin lakes. Bureau of Research, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1993. 7 p Property Value

15.6% Reduction in Property Value per Meter Loss in Secchi Depth (SD) [3]

Loss in Property Value = Decrease in SD x Dodd’s Factor x Med. Property Value x Lots x Private Property

• Lake Mendota Shoreline: 33.8km • Average lot size: 55m • Total Lots: 619 • Private Properties: 85% • Median Property Value: 269,100 USD

From P Runoff • 0.34m loss in Secchi Depth • Loss in Property Value: 7.46 million USD Lake Petenwell, WI

Loss in Property Value: 25.9 USD/kg excess P

[3] Walter K. Dodds, Wes W. Bouska, Jeffrey L. Eitzmann, Tyler J. Pilger, Kristen L. Pitts, Alyssa J. Riley, Joshua T. Schloesser, and Darren J. Thornbrugh. Eutrophication of U.S. freshwaters: Analysis of potential economic damages. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(1):12–19, 8 2009. t Recreational Activities

Probability of Participation Frequency of Trips (swimming, ) By Participants

1 n No Yes 2 3 …

Logit Model Negative Binomial Model

Hurdle Model (Loss in Trips)

x USD Cost per Trip

Loss in Recreational Activities

[4] Janne Vesterinen, Eija Pouta, Anni Huhtala, and Marjo Neuvonen. Impacts of changes in water quality on recreation behavior and benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(4):984–994, 2010. 9 r Recreational Activities (Participation Probability: Logit Model)

Odds Ratio Change in Secchi Depth

[5] Janne Vesterinen, Eija Pouta, Anni Huhtala, and Marjo Neuvonen. Impacts of changes in water quality on recreation behavior and benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(4):984–994, 2010. 10 [6] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin outdoor recreation demand. Technical report, 2011. a Recreational Activities (Frequency: Negative Binomial)

Incidence Ratio

[7] U.S. and Wildlife Service. 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Technical report, 2008. 11 Recreational Activities (Loss)

• Dane County Population: 536,416

Loss in Recreational Activities: 45.4 USD/kg excess P

[8] Pam Kaval and John Loomis. Updated outdoor recreation use values with emphasis on national park recreation. Final Report, 12 Cooperative Agreement, pages 1200–99, 2003. c Cleanup Cost (Suck The Muck)

Physically Remove P from Riverbed

• Total Project Cost: 12 million • Phosphorus Removed: 870,000 pounds

Clean Up Cost: 3.0 USD/kg excess P

[9] Dane County Lake & Water Resources Department. Legacy Sediment Removal Project. Url: https://lwrd.countyofdane.com/Legacy- Sediment-Project 13 r Results Summary

Environmental Cost

[10] Models adapted from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Phosphorus reduction in Wisconsin water bodies: An economic impact analysis. Technical report, 2012. 14 c Case Study: Waste Processing Technologies

Separation Final Use Solid Fraction

Granulation Animal Waste Liquid Fraction Pellet Struvite Recovery Final Use Digestate Struvite

Processing Locations

• Current Market Values for Recovered Products is not High Enough → No Processing Takes Place

Dry Market

• External Market Driving Force is Needed 15 se Case Study: Phosphorus Imbalances

Environmental Cost: 0 USD/kg P Environmental Cost: 74.5 USD/kg P Imbalance Ratio 43.293° N 102.5

43.206° N

101.25

43.118° N

43.031° N 1 89.602° W 89.486° W 89.365° W 89.247° W

Break-Even Value

Accounting Environmental Cost Balances Phosphorus w

Thanks!

The authors acknowledge support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (grant 2017-67003-26055), from the National Science Foundation (grant CBET-1604374), and from the U.S. EPA (contract number EP-18-C-000016).

17