projecting changes in physical conditions to select- 

 ed time periods, analyzing net income for the time 

 periods, and converting net income for the time pe- 

 riods to an average annual equivalent value. In 

 farm budget analysis, double counting can be 

 avoided by taking a holistic approach (including all 

 soil, water and land use conditions in a single farm 

 budget analysis). 



(b) Determination of land constraint Intensifica- 

 tion benefits for other crops are measured either as 

 a change in net income or as an efficiency gain de- 

 pending on whether there is an adequate supply of 

 suitable land in the region for growing crops other 

 than basic crops (that is, whether production is land 

 constrained). This determination requires a regional 

 (ASA) analysis of comparable lands. In order to 

 make this determination properly, care must be ex- 

 ercised to ensure that lands being evaluated are 

 fully comparable. Care must also be exercised in 

 order to obtain the proper determination of aggre- 

 gate acreages of basic and other crops for the top 

 25 percent of the farms. (See Section 2.3.5(d) (1).) 



(c) Benefit attribution. In flatland watersheds, 

 drainage and flood damage reduction benefits 

 cannot be separated analytically. Therefore, they 

 are arbitranly allocated on a 50/50 basis. The value 

 of benefits in other categories is determined on the 

 basis of changes in physical conditions with and 

 without the plan. The benefits are assigned accord- 

 ing to the following: the proportion of the change in 

 net income attributed to changes in soil moisture, 

 water inundation, drought and erosion; the propor- 

 tion of land use changes attributed to each of the 

 above; and changes in production costs attributed 

 to each of the above. Except for the problem with 

 drainage and flood damage reduction in flatland 

 watersheds, benefits can be measured indepen- 

 dently if proper assumptions are made to avoid 

 double counting. Double counting can be avoided 

 by making sure that total benefits measured inde- 

 pendently do not exceed total benefits from a holis- 

 tic farm budget analysis. 



(d) Residual damages. In evaluating with-plan 

 conditions, care must be taken to consider residual 



damages, that is, damages that would still occur 

 with implementation of the plan. 



(e) Land value analysis. Because proper land 

 value analysis is dependent on accurate appraisals, 

 the appraisals on which this analysis is based 

 should be performed by qualified land appraisers. 

 Adjustment of appraised values of lands compara- 

 ble to project lands to account for capital improve- 

 ments, costs of water supply, and other factors af- 

 fecting the values requires detailed knowledge of 

 local physical and financial conditions. 



2.3.9 Evaluation procedure: Data sources. 



(a) Interviews. Interviews with farmers and other 

 area residents are important for most of the cate- 

 gories of benefits to be evaluated. Interviews 

 should not be confined to farmers in the project 

 area. Data collected outside the project area serves 

 as a comparative basis for estimating damages and 

 yields in the project area. Use only interview forms 

 approved by the Office of Management and 

 Budget. In the project report, the questionnaire and 

 a summary of responses should be compiled and 

 displayed in such a way as to prevent the disclo- 

 sure of individual sources. 



(b) Physical specialists. Agronomists and soil sci- 

 entists can provide data to establish yield estimates 

 by soil type and the effects on production of soil 

 depletion or sediment deposition. 



(c) Universities and Federal agencies. Many uni- 

 versities and the Department of Agriculture have 

 developed typical enterprise budgets that can be 

 modified to reflect conditions in the area being 

 studied. 



(d) Land appraisers. Market values of project 

 lands and comparable lands should be provided by 

 qualified land appraisers. 



2.3.10 Report and display procedures. 



A clear presentation of the study results will fa- 

 cilitate review. Tables 2.3.10-1 and 2 are suggested 

 presentations. 



Table 2.3.10-1— Summary of Crop Benefits 

 (Farm Budget Analysis Mettiod) 



31 



