Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![Mississippi River Water Quality and the Clean Water ACT]( "Mississippi River Water Quality and the Clean Water ACT")
Mississippi River Water Quality and the Clean Water ACT62,99 €![Nutrient Control Actions for Improving Water Quality in the Mississippi River Basin and Northern Gulf of Mexico]( "Nutrient Control Actions for Improving Water Quality in the Mississippi River Basin and Northern Gulf of Mexico")
Nutrient Control Actions for Improving Water Quality in the Mississippi River Basin and Northern Gulf of Mexico33,99 €![Opportunities to Improve the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment Program]( "Opportunities to Improve the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment Program")
Opportunities to Improve the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment Program56,99 €![Review of the Final Draft Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation]( "Review of the Final Draft Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation")
Review of the Final Draft Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation51,99 €![The Use of Systematic Review in Epa's Toxic Substances Control ACT Risk Evaluations]( "The Use of Systematic Review in Epa's Toxic Substances Control ACT Risk Evaluations")
The Use of Systematic Review in Epa's Toxic Substances Control ACT Risk Evaluations51,99 €![Integrating Multiscale Observations of U.S. Waters]( "Integrating Multiscale Observations of U.S. Waters")
Integrating Multiscale Observations of U.S. Waters71,99 €![Evolution of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement]( "Evolution of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement")
Evolution of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement30,99 €
The 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.
Hinweis: Dieser Artikel kann nur an eine deutsche Lieferadresse ausgeliefert werden.
Hinweis: Dieser Artikel kann nur an eine deutsche Lieferadresse ausgeliefert werden.