Topics in Watershed EconomicsCentral Region

Economists Teleconference March 18, 2009

Dale PekarNational Water Management Center

Agenda: 10:00AM Intros and Review Agenda

10:05 AM NHQ update and Q&A10:15 AM Dale Pekar, Watershed Economics

11:00 AM State by State Economic Notes.11:15 AM Q&A

Topics• Ready References: P&G, NWSM, NREH 611, 40 CFR 1500, 40

MAQ’s• Time Period Terminology• Defining the “No Action”• Display of the NED Account• Development of the NED Plan• Priority of Direction: NEPA

P&GNWSM

• Period of Analysis, Evaluation Period, Design Life, Project Life, Implementation Period

• All Reasonable Alternatives Developed• Alts Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study• Purpose and Need Connection to Alternative Formulation• Responsiveness to Issues, Concerns, Opportunities

Ready References (All Available Online and Downloadable from David B’s Website)

• P&G—Careful, every electronic copy I’ve seen has been somewhat corrupt. To make a quick check of your electronic copy, try to find “inched a detailed” or “easy planning”. If you find them, you’ll likely find other errors.

• NWSM• NREH 611• 40 CFR 1500• 40 MAQ’s

Time Period Terminology

Installation/Implementation Period plus the Evaluation Period equals the Period of Analysis.

Period of Analysis must be the same for all alternatives.

There is no requirement to

have a 100-year evaluated life for a watershed project.

Evaluated Life Direction—Watershed Projects in General“Watershed projects installed under Public Law 83-566 contain land treatment, structural, and nonstructural practices that are planned to solve related soil, water, air, plant, and animal resource problems. The projects are planned to function over a period of generally notless than 25 years nor more than 100 years.” (NWSM 508.00)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Evaluated Life Direction—For Dam Rehab ProjectsNWSM Circular 7 at Section 508.44(c) specifies a minimum evaluated life of fifty years.

And of course, the reasonability

requirements in NEPA direction and in P&G

sometimes indicate the need to consider a

shorter evaluated life.

“Design Life” and “Service Life” as defined in the O&M Manual are terms to be avoided as some people interpret their respective definitions as excluding that portion of the evaluation period following the first scheduled replacement.

• Design Life (O&M Manual)“The intended period of time that the practice will function successfully with only routine maintenance; determined during design phase.”

• Service Life (O&M Manual)“The actual period of time after installation of a practice, during which the practice functions adequately and safely with only routine maintenance; determined by on-site review.”

Two Types of Alternatives--”Action” Alternatives (may be any

reasonable number of alternatives)--”No Action” Alternative (only one “No

Action”—the most likely future conditions if none of the “Action” Alternatives were to be implemented)

There’s always actionin the “No Action”

• Has to be. The “No Action” describes the most likely future condition if none of the “Action” alternatives (the Future With Project Plans) were to be implemented.

• “[O]ver a period of generally not less than 25 years nor more than 100 years” (NWSM 508.00), things are going to change. This is especially so when we recognize that we have a dam that does not meet current safety and performance standards.

The “No Action” in NEPA Is the same thing as the

“Future Without Project” in P&G

The “No Action” is the most likely future condition if none of the

“Action” Alternatives is implemented.

P&G calls the “No Action” the:--Future Without--Future Without-Plans--Future Without-Project Conditions --Without Project--Without-Project Condition--Without-Project Conditions--And so on

Develop All* Reasonable Alternatives

Alternatives Must Be Consistent with the Purpose and Need

Statement

Function as an Interdisciplinary Team

NED Account Display

In Dam Rehab Projects: It will normally be the case that clarifying footnotes are needed to explain away apparent inconsistencies among the Summary and Comparison of Candidate Plans Table and the values shown in Tables 1-6.

OPTION A—TOTAL VALUES(Values are shown as totals, rather than as differences from the values

associated with the No Action Alternative.)

No Action Decommissioning Rehabilitation Beneficial Annual -0- 5,600 25,000 Adverse Annual 2,500 4,300 22,400 Net Beneficial -2,500 1,300 2,600

OPTION B—TRADITIONAL NWSM DISPLAY (The “No Action” is used as a reference. The values for the other

alternatives are shown relative to it)

No Action Decommissioning Rehabilitation Beneficial Annual -- 5,600 25,000 Adverse Annual -- 1,800 19,900 Net Beneficial -- 3,800 5,100

OPTION C—TOTAL VALUES WITH THE COSTS OF THE “NO ACTION” TRACKED INSTEAD AS

AVOIDED-COST BENEFITS FOR THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES (Values are shown as totals, rather than as differences from the values

associated with the No Action Alternative)

No Action Decommissioning Rehabilitation Beneficial Annual -0- 8,100 27,500 Adverse Annual -0- 4,300 22,400 Net Beneficial -0- 3,800 5,100

OPTION D—TRADITIONAL NWSM DISPLAY WITH THE COSTS OF THE “NO ACTION” TRACKED INSTEAD AS

AVOIDED-COST BENEFITS FOR THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES (The “No Action” is used as a reference. The values for the other

alternatives are shown relative to it)

No Action Decommissioning Rehabilitation Beneficial Annual -- 8,100 27,500 Adverse Annual -- 4,300 22,400 Net Beneficial -- 3,800 5,100