Socioeconomic PEP r

Socioeconomic PEP r

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

Helen Fairley, Sociocultural Program ManagerPresentation to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive ManTechnical Work GroupPhoenix, Arizona October 2, 2007
Review

• Funding for a socioeconomic 

recommended and approved 

• PEP was deferred with AMWG 

due to science planning prior

• Information needs workshop 

in April 2007

• Socioeconomic PEP now plan

spring (April?) 2008
Goal 9 MO and CM

• MO #Objective 9.1

Maintain or improve the quality an

recreational opportunities in Glen Canyons within the capacity of the River ecosystem to absorb visitor consistent with the NPS and tribacorridor Management Plans. 

• CMIN # Information Need 9.1

Determine and track the economiriver related recreational opportun
Goal 10 CMINs

• IN 10.1 Determine and track the imp

power users from implementation of RDecision dam operations and segregaeffects from other causes such as chathe power market.

• SPG CMIN 10.1.1 Determine and trac

marketable capacity and energy prodthrough dam operations in relation to various release scenarios (daily fluctuupramp and downramp limits, list commaximum flow limit of 25,000 cfs, minflow limit of 5,000 cfs.)
AMP Management Ob

MO 

#

Objective

12.1

Maintain or attain socio-economic d

adequate decision-making.
Research Information Need

to Management Objectiv

• 12.1.1 What is the economic value of t

use of the Colorado River ecosystem dofrom Glen Canyon Dam?

• 12.1.2 What are the use (e.g., hydropo

fishing, rafting) and non-use (e.g., optiquasi-option, bequest, and existence) vColorado River ecosystem?

• 12.1.3 How do use (e.g., hydropower, 

rafting) and non-use (e.g., option, vicaroption, bequest, and existence) values response to an experiment performed uRecord of Decision, unanticipated evenmanagement action?
IN Workshop Discus

• All agreed that CMIN 9.4.1 is an approp

consider for recreation, but they recomsocioeconomic aspects of additional resneeded to be considered (e.g., trout an

• Participants agreed to rank Goal 10 CM

want to mix CMINs from different goals 

• Workshop participants recommended c

of SPG CMIN to “dam operations” ratheoperations” to reflect Long-term experim

• Workshop participants agreed to focus 

SPG CMIN and IN 10.1 for ranking purp
Prioritization of Goal 10 

• CMIN 10.1 vs. 10.1.1: discussion en

each CMIN and why one CMIN might bhigher than another.

• 10.1.1 looks forward and considers all o

scenarios whereas 10.1 only looks back

• 10.1.1 provides the methods by which y

10.1.

• Ranking resulted in 10.1.1 be

higher than 10.1 at a ratio of 
Follow Up to IN Wor

• Report on IN Workshop prepared 

with participants for comment

• Workshop participants’ comments 

incorporated into report and propguidance that was sent to TWG o

• Comments on report and PEP guid

requested from TWG by 5/7/07

• Comments were received from GC

CREDA – did not require revision socioeconomic PEP guidance
Next Steps

• Socioeconomic PEP to be con

spring 2007 (potential presenpanelists have been contacteddates to be determined this m

• PEP will address both core mo

and research information needeveloping and implementing socioeconomic monitoring pro
The End

The End