August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 1 A Stakeholder Process for Formally Evaluating TMDL Recommendations Dominguez Channel Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory With Assistance From Dominguez Channel Stakeholders, EPA, and the Regional Water Board

August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 2 plumes plume TMDL allocation common data requirements are hydrological and land use data residential agriculture industrial parks

August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 3 Top level concepts for TMDL decision aid components TMDL allocation options Model selection and/or data selection Trading options Contaminant concentrations Cost/schedule Stakeholder input Diverse Concerns HealthHealth EnvironmentEnvironment Private industryPrivate industry Land UseLand Use Regulatory bodiesRegulatory bodies CongressCongress Interest groupsInterest groups Local economyLocal economy Indirect costIndirect cost Decisions/policies Scenario specs Metrics/attributes Value model Decision/policy evaluation Constraints

August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 4 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

August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 5 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 Concerns HealthHealth EnvironmentEnvironment Private IndustryPrivate Industry Land UseLand Use Regulatory bodiesRegulatory bodies CongressCongress Interest GroupsInterest Groups Local economyLocal economy Indirect CostIndirect Cost Diverse Concerns HealthHealth EnvironmentEnvironment Private IndustryPrivate Industry Land UseLand Use Regulatory bodiesRegulatory bodies CongressCongress Interest GroupsInterest Groups Local economyLocal economy Indirect CostIndirect Cost

August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 6 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 milestones have 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)

August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 7 Interest groups: constructed scale - public attitudes 1) remedy destroys contaminant (e.g., bio-degradation) and does not allow future releases 2) remedy removes contaminant from one medium to another 3) 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 contamination 5) pollution reduction, but lacking information to identify source(s) and proven technology to prevent further source contamination 6) no cleanup or pollution prevention technology but only institutional controls on exposure

August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 8 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 input

August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 9 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

August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 10 Value model Decision/policy evaluation 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.

August 7, 2002 TMDL/JS 11 Value model Decision/policy evaluation 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(x 1, x 2,...,x n ) =  w i v i (x i )(additive form) U(x 1, x 2,...,x n ) = [  (1+Kw i v i (x i ))-1]/K(multiplicative form) where: Uis the overall summary (utility/value) number; x i are the levels for individual attributes; v i are individual attribute utility/value functions (scaled between 0 and 1); w i 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  w i = 1 for the additive form); Kis a normalizing constant (computable by first solving for the variables C i = Kw i and then letting K = [  (1+ C i )-1] for the multiplicative form.