U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Helen Fairley, GCMRC Sociocultural Program Manager

Presentation to the Technical Work Group

Phoenix, AZ November 15, 2011

Socioeconomics Plan FY2011
AMWG Motion from August, 2010

The AMWG supports implementation of 

studies to further our understanding of the 

socio-economics of adaptive management 

decisions within the AMP; this includes 

market, non-market, and non-use studies. 

Thus, AMWG directs TWG to further develop 

an economics implementation plan to be 

provided to the AMWG at its next meeting for 

possible implementation in FY2012.
FY 2011 – Near Term Activities

 GCMRC to acquire additional capacity to support SE 

work – seeking support w/in USGS and externally

 GCMRC to meet with WAPA to develop agreement for

 Modeling of CRSP power in relation to western power grid 

(WECC)

 Base case analysis

 Socioeconomics 101 Training 

 Modeling workshop 

 Specifics to be developed based on final needs assessment
AMWG Direction for Implementation Plan

The implementation plan (currently being developed by 

SEAGH) is to include the following components:

a. Information needs associated with each study or 

analysis and the prioritization of those needs;

b. scope and costs associated with each project and 

potential funding sources;

c. A description of how the information would be 

useful to the program, and

d. A more thorough review of the economic panel 

report
TWG – SEAHG Interaction / Planning

 SEAHG developed table summarizing 

recommendations from SE Expert panel

 TWG to review the table of recommendations and 

provide feedback to SEAHG by Nov 26, 2010

 SEAHG to prepare draft plan to address priority 

socio-economic information needs for consideration/ 

approval at January TWG meeting

 GCMRC to determine best methods to address 

priority INs in consult w/ WAPA, SAs, other experts

 GCMRC and TWG chair to present plan to AMWG at 

February 2011 meeting
Base Case Development

 Base case to provide foundation against which economic 

implications of past or future alternative flows can be compared

 Base case must reflect an agreed upon “standard” for MLFF 

operations 

 What is appropriate standard? 

 Does there need to be more than one?

 Analysis to be done by WAPA, per AMWG direction

 WAPA is preparing a “straw man” task description for GCMRC 

consideration

 GCMRC to provide final task direction to WAPA, coordinate peer 

review, and publication
Change Case Analyses

 What change cases (alternative operations) 

does TWG want to evaluate in FY11-12? 

 Is there a process for prioritizing which 

change cases to analyze?

 Need clearly defined parameters for this work 

to move forward
Socioeconomics 101 Training

 Training to provide TWG members and interested 

AMWG members with a basic general introduction

 Standard economic concepts, terminology, approaches

 Develop common language so that TWG can discuss 

economic info needs and potential future projects

 Consider Potential applications in AMP 

 NOT a workshop to revisit AMP information needs

 NOT a forum to debate what types of analytical 

methods should be used when or where

 SEAHG has provided recommendations for a more 

detailed course - beyond the original 101 concept 

 GCMRC suggests staying with basic training concept

 More detailed training can be provided in conjunction 

with modeling workshop, if desired and warranted
Proposed Outline for SE 101 Training

 Intro to basic economic concepts and terminology

 Differences betw economic & financial analyses

 Economics vs. socioeconomics

 Market vs. non- market analyses

 Intro to Market and Non-Market Evaluation Methods

 What are the needs/apps for these diff methods?

 Basic differences in assumptions, data, methods, uses

 Market Analyses

 Common tems, methods, data needed

 How to define scope and interpret results

 Non-Market Analyses

 Non- market vs. non-use – what are the differences?

 Common terms, methods, data needed

 How to define scope and interpret results
The field of science policy is...to a great extent a branch of 

economics, and its effective practice requires the kind of 

quantitative tools economic policy makers have available...

Much of the available literature on science policy is being 

produced piecemeal by scientists who are experts in their fields, 

but not necessarily in the methods and literature of the relevant 

social science disciplines...

It is a chronic affliction of social science that it is undervalued by 

those who could benefit most from its methodologies and its 

insights. I think the science of science policy is undervalued and 

underfunded despite its potential for providing a basis for 

understanding the enormously complex dynamic of today’s 

global, technology-based society. 

John Marburger, Director 

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Oct. 31, 2005, Washington, DC.