1 CCRWS 7/20/2009 Agriculture is Life. Stakeholder Meeting Watershed Protection Plan Development for the Cedar Creek Reservoir Watershed (CCRWS) July 20, 2009 Kaufman, Texas North Central Texas Water Quality Project (NCTXWQ) 2 CCRWS 7/20/2009 Economic Analyses of BMPs for Economic Analyses of BMPs for The Cedar Creek Reservoir Watershed The Cedar Creek Reservoir Watershed M. Edward Rister, Ronald D. Lacewell, Allen W. Sturdivant, Taesoo Lee, Raghavan "Srini" Srinivasan, Balaji Narasimhan, Clint Wolfe, David Waidler, Darrel Andrews, Mark Ernst, and Jennifer Owens Department of Agricultural Economics Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Spatial Sciences Laboratory Texas AgriLife Research, Dallas Urban Solutions Center Tarrant Regional Water District Agriculture is Life. Funding provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of A griculture ( CSREES) . Research conducted under Hatch p roj ect #s H-9050 and TEX09161. 3 CCRWS 7/20/2009 NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 1 of 5 NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 1 of 5 Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dr. Bruce Lesikar Justin Mechell Molly Griffin Ryan Gerlach Texas AgriLife Extension Service, County Agents (CEA) Ralph Davis, Kaufman County CEA Todd Williams, Rockwall County CEA Kaufman County Environmental Coop Marilyn May Kaufman County Master Gardener Association Brad Ackerman Agriculture is Life. 4 CCRWS 7/20/2009 NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 2 of 5 NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 2 of 5 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) State Steve Uselton Donna Long Local Julie Moore Ronnie Beerwinkle Glenn Lubke Texas State Soil and Water Conservation State Board (TSSWCSB) Lee Munz Aaron Wendt Kaufman-Van Zandt Soil and Water Conservation District Zach Kinsey Mark Wise Mike Benge Cecil Chaney Agriculture is Life. 5 CCRWS 7/20/2009 NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 3 of 5 NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 3 of 5 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Jon Mummert Art Crowe Rob Cook Bill Carter Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Adam Whisenant Richard Ott Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Urban Solution Center, Dallas Dr. Allan Jones Tamaron Hunt Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension, Texas Water Resources Institute Dr. Bill Harris Lucas Gregory Agriculture is Life. 6 CCRWS 7/20/2009 NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 4 of 5 NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 4 of 5 Espey Consultants, Inc. Bill Espey David Harkins Margarethe Berge Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. Alan Plummer Dr. Robert Adams Betty Jordan Bill Ratlif Ken Lawrence Ranjan Muttrah Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) Woody Frossard Agriculture is Life.
14
Embed
Economic Analyses of BMPs for The Cedar Creek Reservoir ...nctx-water.tamu.edu/media/1485/bmpeconomicperformancereport.pdf · Taesoo Lee, Raghavan "Srini" Srinivasan, Balaji Narasimhan,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1CCRWS7/20/2009
Agriculture is Life.
Stakeholder MeetingWatershed Protection Plan
Development for theCedar Creek Reservoir Watershed (CCRWS)
July 20, 2009Kaufman, Texas
North Central TexasWater Quality Project (NCTXWQ)
2CCRWS7/20/2009
Economic Analyses of BMPs forEconomic Analyses of BMPs forThe Cedar Creek Reservoir WatershedThe Cedar Creek Reservoir Watershed
M. Edward Rister, Ronald D. Lacewell, Allen W. Sturdivant, Taesoo Lee, Raghavan "Srini" Srinivasan, Balaji Narasimhan,
Clint Wolfe, David Waidler, Darrel Andrews, Mark Ernst, and Jennifer Owens
Department of Agricultural EconomicsDepartment of Ecosystem Science and Management, Spatial Sciences Laboratory
Texas AgriLife Research, Dallas Urban Solutions CenterTarrant Regional Water District
Agriculture is Life.
Funding provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture (CSREES). Research conducted under Hatch project #s H-9050 and TEX09161.
3CCRWS7/20/2009
NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 1 of 5NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 1 of 5Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Dr. Bruce Lesikar Justin MechellMolly Griffin Ryan Gerlach
Texas AgriLife Extension Service, County Agents (CEA)Ralph Davis, Kaufman County CEATodd Williams, Rockwall County CEA
Kaufman County Environmental CoopMarilyn May
Kaufman County Master Gardener AssociationBrad Ackerman
Agriculture is Life.4CCRWS7/20/2009
NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 2 of 5NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 2 of 5Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
State Steve UseltonDonna Long
LocalJulie MooreRonnie BeerwinkleGlenn Lubke
Texas State Soil and Water Conservation State Board (TSSWCSB)Lee MunzAaron Wendt
Kaufman-Van Zandt Soil and Water Conservation DistrictZach KinseyMark WiseMike BengeCecil Chaney
Agriculture is Life.
5CCRWS7/20/2009
NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 3 of 5NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 3 of 5Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
Jon MummertArt CroweRob CookBill Carter
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)Adam WhisenantRichard Ott
Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Urban Solution Center, DallasDr. Allan Jones Tamaron Hunt
Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension, Texas Water ResourcesInstitute
Dr. Bill HarrisLucas Gregory
Agriculture is Life.6CCRWS7/20/2009
NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 4 of 5NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 4 of 5Espey Consultants, Inc.
Bill EspeyDavid HarkinsMargarethe Berge
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.Alan PlummerDr. Robert AdamsBetty JordanBill RatlifKen LawrenceRanjan Muttrah
Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD)Woody Frossard
Agriculture is Life.
7CCRWS7/20/2009
NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 5 of 5NCTXWQ CCRWS Project Collaborators, 5 of 5
Numerous Stakeholders!!!!
Agriculture is Life.8CCRWS7/20/2009
Problem• Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD)
owns/operates four (4) major water-supply reservoirs (impacting 1.6 million) » realizing increased/problematic levels of:
● sediments● nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous)
» seeking to develop plan forreducing/preventing intrusion via most cost-effective portfolio of BMPs
• Several scenarios considered– (A) Baseline, focused on reducing P by 35%– (B) Sensitivity w.r.t. P reduction levels– (C) Sensitivity w.r.t. Combined Nutrient/Sediment
Reduction and Value of Sediment Reduction– (D) Sensitivity w.r.t. Categories/BMPs
• Results of importance– Objective function value (AE)– BMPs in the solution– Nutrient/Sediment Reduction Levels– Financial costs
– Initial construction– Operating & Maintenance plus Intermittent
Capital Replacement of Selected Components– Other details available 28
– Focused on reducing P inflow by 35% (72.8 ET)– 22 BMPs considered (challengers)– S.W.A.T. estimated effectiveness of BMPs– Subjective assessment of BMPs adoption
• Revised BMPs effectiveness levels– Calculated costs for each BMP
• Area affected / number of installations• Expected useful life• Initial construction costs (NPV)• Annual Operating & Maintenance plus Intermittent
Capital Replacement of Selected Components• Identified comparable annual costs (AE)
– Considered constraints on BMP implementation• Binary (none or all – 0,1)• Linked (one or the other, but not both)
P N SedReduce P, N, and Sed by 25% $ 1.38 $ 0.67 $ 0.70 $ 8.2 52.0 311.3 124.0KReduce P, N, and Sed by 30% $ 2.23 $1.33 $ 0.90 $10.1 62.4 469.5 148.8KBaseline, reduce P 35% $ 2.25 $1.40 $ 0.84 $13.0 72.8 392.4 126.5KReduce P, N, and Sed by 35% $ 3.87 $2.79 $1.08 $18.2 77.4 547.8 173.6KReduce P, N, and Sed by 40% $ 6.32 $4.10 $2.22 $35.3 85.9 626.0 199.1KReduce P, N, and Sed by 50% $ 8.63 $6.00 $2.63 $42.9 104.0 722.2 208.4K
meeting more than one target objective simultaneously
• Reducing P, N, and Sed by same %s simultaneously is more expensive than Baseline, for both Total AE and Cash ICC• In Baseline, N and Sed reduction < 35%• ?What is appropriate target N and Sed reduction
level?• Attention to N & Sed encourages attention to
different portfolio of BMPs• Some BMPs do not reduce Sed
P N SedBaseline, reduce P 35% $ 2.25 $1.40 $ 0.84 $13.0 72.8 392.4 126.5KSensitivity, Sed at $4,200 ac-ft $ 2.25 $1.40 $ 0.84 $13.0 72.8 392.4 126.5KSensitivity, Sed at $5,000 ac-ft $ 2.25 $1.40 $ 0.84 $13.0 72.8 392.4 126.5KSensitivity, Sed at $6,000 ac-ft $ 2.25 $1.40 $ 0.84 $13.0 72.8 392.4 126.5K
56CCRWS7/20/2009
CCRWSOptimal C2 Solution Observations• In all of these scenarios, the optimal solution
is the same as that for the Baseline• An exception is the optimal LP objective function
value which is lowered as follows, recognizing credit of the non-cash value attributed to reducing Sed levels by the equivalent of 59.2 ac-ft:• $4,200 $248,672• $5,000 $296,038• $6,000 $355,246
• More than $6,000 per ac-ft value is required to favor those BMPs more productive in reducing Sed but not in the optimal Baseline solution
Pasture and Rangeland 17.04 14.60 12.17 16.81 14.60 12.17
Urban 7.86 6.74 5.62 7.86 6.74 5.62
Channel 8.23 7.05 5.88 6.59 6.59 5.88
Waste Water Treatment Plants 5.10 4.37 3.64 9.57 9.57 9.57
Reservoir-in-Lake 4.37 3.74 3.12 6.55 6.55 3.33TOTAL ACROSS ALL
CATEGORIES 72.80 62.40 52.00 77.59 69.95 58.15
63CCRWS7/20/2009
CCRWSOptimal D1 Solution Observations
• Pasture category has difficulty @35% reduction• Channel category has difficulty @35% & 30%• No category difficulties @25%• Overall, no difficulties because integer nature of
WWTP and Reservoir-In-Lake BMPs provides excess reduction beyond needs of categories
• Ag Cropland, Urban, WWTP, and Reservoir-In-Lake categories have excess capacity• Much less Ag Cropland BMPs in optimal solution
than in Baseline• Enforcing each category to be accountable is
CCRWSOptimal D4 Solution Observations• Subjective interpretation of what might
happen is suggestive of more expensive solutions than the Baseline solution• Annual costs could more than double• Initial construction costs could be $1-$11 higher
• Identifying funding sources for BMPs in Baseline solution and encouraging the adoption/implementation of these BMPs appears economical
Overall Conclusions• 35% P reduction is achievable
• Baseline solution annual costs are approx. $2.25 million• ~$1.40 million for O&M plus Interm. Cap.
Replacement Costs• ~$0.84 million for Initial Construction / Sinking
Fund• Up front, time 0 costs are ~$13.0 million
• A portfolio of BMPs is optimal• Inclusion of ag-related BMPs is cost-effective• Some BMPs are relatively expensive and
ineffective • Optimal economic solution is based on a
myriad of factors
77CCRWS7/20/2009
What’s Next?
• Interested in your perspectives today.
• Preparing the final report.
78CCRWS7/20/2009
~ Bringing Economics, Finance, Accounting, and ~ Bringing Economics, Finance, Accounting, and Computer Modeling to Water Planning in the Cedar Computer Modeling to Water Planning in the Cedar
Creek Watershed and beyond!~Creek Watershed and beyond!~source: http://images.google.com