August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 1 A Stakeholder Process for Formally Evaluating TMDL Recommendations Dominguez Channel Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory With

August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 1

A Stakeholder Process for Formally Evaluating TMDL

RecommendationsDominguez Channel

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

With Assistance From

Dominguez Channel Stakeholders, EPA, and the Regional Water Board


plumes

plume

TMDL allocation common data requirements are hydrological and land use data

residential

agriculture

industrial

parks


Top level concepts for TMDL decision aid components

TMDL allocation TMDL allocation options options

Model selection Model selection and/or data and/or data selection selection

Trading optionsTrading options

Contaminant Contaminant concentrationsconcentrations

Cost/scheduleCost/schedule

Stakeholder inputStakeholder input Stakeholder inputStakeholder input

Diverse ConcernsDiverse Concerns• HealthHealth• EnvironmentEnvironment• Private industry Private industry • Land UseLand Use• Regulatory bodiesRegulatory bodies• Congress Congress • Interest groupsInterest groups• Local economyLocal economy• Indirect costIndirect cost

Decisions/policies

Scenariospecs

Metrics/attributes

Value model

Decision/policy Decision/policy evaluationevaluation

Constraints


Decisions/policies

Numerous options for data or modeling

Constraints and scenario specification

TMDL,Time horizons

Uncertainties: nature of site, future monitoring results, delays, government decisions, revised allocation performance

Metrics/attributes

Multiple concerns and stakeholders

Measures for how well diverse concerns are addressed

Decision/policy evaluation

Value tradeoffs

Overall cost

A decision aid helps to structure each of the key parts and logically put them together

A decision aid helps address the important features systematically


Metrics/attributes - desirable properties

comprehensive: cover all important aspects

non-redundant: do not double count

operational: can be estimated for alternative actions are meaningful to decision makers for tradeoffs

decomposable: simplify both consequence and value modeling (e.g., satisfy helpful independence assumptions)

minimal number: must show meaningful differences between alternative actions

Types of attribute scales:

- natural scales: commonly used such as time or $$

- constructed scales: discrete levels each associated with a well-defined description of conditions

(not meaningful: arbitrary 0-10 scales that are not defined)

Attributes formally measure the degree to which concerns are addressed by decisions

Diverse ConcernsDiverse Concerns•HealthHealth•EnvironmentEnvironment•Private Industry Private Industry •Land UseLand Use•Regulatory bodiesRegulatory bodies•Congress Congress •Interest GroupsInterest Groups•Local economyLocal economy•Indirect CostIndirect Cost

Diverse ConcernsDiverse Concerns•HealthHealth•EnvironmentEnvironment•Private Industry Private Industry •Land UseLand Use•Regulatory bodiesRegulatory bodies•Congress Congress •Interest GroupsInterest Groups•Local economyLocal economy•Indirect CostIndirect Cost


Health

Interest groups

Regulators

Environment

Land use(Socioeconomic)

Congress/ Local Governments

Indirect cost

Time to meet Federal TMDL for COC’s*

Time to meet State/Local TMDL for COC’s

Cumulative time by which milestoneshave slipped for regulatory agency

Loss of jobs; increased land values (may be handled chiefly as a constraint)

Attributes - Illustrative straw-man set

Land use (constructed scales)

Interest group (constructed scale)

Perception of effectiveness of regulations (constructed scales)

*COC = contaminant of concern

Private industry Competitiveness (constructed scales)


Interest groups: constructed scale - public attitudes

1) remedy destroys contaminant (e.g., bio-degradation) and does not allow future releases2) remedy removes contaminant from one medium to another3) monitored natural attenuation (and no further contamination or dispersion)4) pollution reduction, but either lack of information to clearly identify source(s), or lack of proven technology to prevent further source contamination5) pollution reduction, but lacking information to identify source(s) and proven technology to prevent further source contamination6) no cleanup or pollution prevention technology but only institutional controls on exposure


Scenario specifications model attribute levels given decisions

Simple strawman illustration notions

Interest group wants specific area excluded from trading

Businesses threaten to relocate if cost excessive

Stakeholder inputStakeholder input Stakeholder inputStakeholder input


Scenario specifications model attribute levels given decisions

Simple strawman sub-model notions: impact of trading

Ability to •improve clean up rate

•meet more stakeholder concerns

•produce more allocation options


Value model


A value model incorporates preference tradeoffs and attitudes to compare alternative policies/actions

• preferences for levels of individual attributes • tradeoffs among attributes for a watershed

A value model provides a summary number (utility or value) for each alternative consistent with the preference information, and consequence estimates for that alternative.


Value model


A value model incorporates preference tradeoffs and attitudes risk to compare alternative policies/actions

Multiattribute utility/value function theory provides defensible assumptions and practical functional forms for quantifying values.

U(x1, x2,...,xn) = wivi(xi) (additive form)

U(x1, x2,...,xn) = [ (1+Kwivi(xi))-1]/K (multiplicative form)

where:

U is the overall summary (utility/value) number;

xi are the levels for individual attributes;

vi are individual attribute utility/value functions (scaled between 0 and 1);

wi are scaling constants or weights reflecting the relative importance of the different attributes (tradeoffs) ranging from their worst to best levels (scaled between 0

and 1, with wi = 1 for the additive form);

K is a normalizing constant (computable by first solving for the variables Ci = Kwi and then letting K = [ (1+ Ci)-1] for the multiplicative form.

Documents

August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 1 A Stakeholder Process for Formally Evaluating TMDL Recommendations Dominguez Channel Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory With