1

ACTION PLAN FOR THE SEAHG TO SPECIFY INFORMATION NEEDS FOR A 

PROPOSED AMP SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAM

SOCIOECONOMIC AD HOC GROUP OF THE TWG

BACKGROUND

In 2009 AMWG charged the GCMRC and TWG to develop a socioeconomic program 

proposal for review by AMWG. This effort has involved to prospectus development by the 

GCMRC and SAs, proposal development by a group of economists working with GCMRC and 

the TWG, and continued guidance, reviews and proposal input by the TWG Socioeconomic Ad 

Hoc Group (SEAHG). An outline of elements of a Proposed Socioeconomic Plan, including 

information needs, was developed by SEAHG in 2011 as a Table 3 which is attached as 

Appendix A. 

Critical in the initial program development process is specification and recommendation of a 

proposed set of socioeconomic information needs by the AMWG to the Secretary. This critical 

set of information needs becomes the primary basis for establishing a required set of science and 

management activities, i.e. the program to respond to these needs. 

Completing a proposed set of socioeconomic information needs by the SEAHG/TWG for 

recommendation to the AMWG is the specific subject of this prospectus. The effort utilizes the 

following outcomes of related work on the subject that has occurred in 2010 and 2011. 

• A summary of socioeconomic information needs developed by the SEAHG (Table 3, 

SEAHG 1/10/2010). This comprehensive list draws upon earlier work of the Science 

Planning Group (SPG 2006) as well as ongoing development efforts by the GCMRC and 

TWG on the Core Monitoring Plan (GCMRC 2009). This list of socioeconomic 

information needs is referenced in column 2 of Table 3 attached as Appendix A. 

• An expanded list of socioeconomic information needs related to wild land recreation 

developed by the Survey Instrument Ad Hoc Group (SIAHG 2011). These information 

needs as provided in the SIAHG final report are attached as Appendix B.

• An expanded list of socioeconomic information needs related to hydropower developed 

by the SEAHG in 2011 (SEAHG 2011). These information needs as provided in the 

SEAHG report are attached as Appendix C. 

These references are provided in this action plan to provide needed tracking as to how 

socioeconomic INs are being developed and to assure transparency regarding the SEAHG 

process.

PROPOSED APPROACH FOR MERGING SOCIOECONOMIC NEEDS OF THE 

SEAHG AND SIAHG AND DERIVING A FINAL SET

When one reviews the developed socioeconomic information needs by the SEAHG and 

SIAHG in Appendices A-C duplicity is clearly apparent. In addition, greater clarity may be 

needed in some of the INs. 
2

The SEAHG Co-Chair Dave Garrett, to assist a next step in our process, created a draft 

total list of Socioeconomic Information Needs by merging the information from Appendix A, B 

and C into column 1 of the following Table 1. Column one of Table 1 is then simply INs and 

questions from Table 3 combined with the new Recreation INs (R1-R13) from Appendix B and 

new Hydropower INs (H1-H11) from Appendix C. 

The SEAHG Co-Chair, at the request of the TWG Chair, has reviewed the list of INs and 

questions in column 1 and provided assessments of how these could be revised to a straw man 

set of INs in column 4 of Table 1 without losing or compromising the total information set. This 

revised set is provided to the full SEAHG for review and recommendation for change.

The TWG Chair has asked that you provide your comments on any revisions to column 4 

of Table 1 to SEAHG Co-Chair Dave Garrett by COB Thursday October 6. The revised draft 

will be developed by Garrett and provided to BOR for a TWG mail out Friday October 7. Please 

make the revisions as tract changes in the text or specify the change to Garrett by e-mail. 

TABLE 1: An approach for developing a straw man set of proposed socioeconomic 

information needs from our current draft socioeconomic needs and questions.

Draft Socioeconomic 

INs and Questions

from Appendices AC

Issues and or 

Concerns 

Recommended 

Revisions

Proposed New

Socioeconomic INs

GENERAL INs

GIN 1(IN 12.1)

Develop information 

that can be used by 

the TWG, in 

collaboration with 

GCMRC, to establish 

current and target 

levels for all 

resources within the 

AMP as called for in 

the AMP strategic 

plan.

The AMWG/TWG/

GCMRC/SAs/etc. are

using current

information to establish 

DFCs and or resource 

target levels for each 

resource

Delete and pursue 

through developed 

values for individual 

resource DFCs

None

GIN 2 (IN 12.2) 

Determine what 

information is 

necessary and 

sufficient to make 

recommendations at 

an acceptable level of 

risk.

TWG is pursuing an

approach for CMP 

information needs 

across resources that 

incorporates tradeoffs 

of risk, costs, benefits, 

etc., to improve 

recommendations

Delete and pursue in 

CMP process

None

GIN 3 (RIN 12.1.2)

What are the use 

Specific use and nonuse or market and nonDelete and pursue 

market and nonNone
3

(e.g., hydropower, 

trout fishing, rafting) 

and non-use (e.g., 

option, vicarious, 

quasi-option, bequest 

and existence) values 

of the Colorado River 

ecosystem

market values should be 

addressed for individual 

resources

market IN values by 

resource

RECREATION INs

RIN1 (IN 12.2) 

Determine what 

information is 

necessary and 

sufficient to make 

recommendations at 

an acceptable level of 

risk. 

May duplicate the TWG 

CMP development 

process

Delete and pursue in 

TWG CMP 

development process

None

RIN2 (RIN 11.2.2)

What is the baseline 

measure for resource 

integrity?

Too vague Revise and respond 

in specification of

DFCs by resource 

None

RIN3 (CMIN 9.1.1)

Determine and track 

the changes 

attributable to dam 

operations in 

recreational quality, 

opportunities and use, 

impacts, serious 

incidents, and 

perceptions of users, 

including the level of 

satisfaction, in the 

Colorado River 

Ecosystem.

Too general to develop 

information unless one 

includes the universe of 

recreation and all 

related socioeconomic 

change

Delete and develop 

specific recreation 

resource INs

None

RIN4 (CMIN 9.1.4)

Determine and track 

the economic benefits 

of river related 

recreational 

opportunities.

Too general Delete and use RIN5 None

RIN5 (RIN 12.1.1)

What is the economic 

value of the 

Minor edits Retain with edits RIN 1What is the

total market and nonmarket value of the 
4

recreational use of the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem 

downstream from 

Glen Canyon Dam?

recreational use of 

the Colorado River 

ecosystem 

downstream from 

Glen Canyon Dam? 

RIN 6 (R1.) What is 

the current total 

annual market value 

of the Lees Ferry 

trout fishery to the 

regional community, 

what are its

components, hotel, 

and restaurant, 

guides, retail 

purchases, etc. and 

what are its non-use 

values? 

Minor edit Retain with edits RIN 2 What is the 

current total annual 

market value of the 

Lees Ferry trout 

fishery to the regional 

community? What 

are its components; 

i.e., hotel and 

restaurant, guides, 

retail purchases, etc. 

and what are its nonmarket values?

RIN 7 (R 2.) What is 

the current total 

annual market value 

of Lees Ferry 

recreational boating 

industry, and what are 

its non-use values?

Edit for clarity Retain with edits RIN 3 What is the 

current total annual 

market value of Lees 

Ferry recreational 

boating industry, and 

what are its nonmarket values?

RIN 8 (R 3.) How 

have total annual use 

and market values for 

the Lees Ferry trout 

fishery and 

recreational boating 

changed in the preand post –rod 

periods?

None Retain as is RIN 4 How have 

total annual use and 

market values for the 

Lees Ferry trout 

fishery and 

recreational boating 

changed in the preand post –rod 

periods?

RIN 9 (R 4.) Do 

Lees Ferry 

recreational boaters 

and sports fishers 

express a significant 

difference in 

willingness to pay 

under differing flow 

conditions?

None Retain as is RIN 5 Do Lees Ferry 

recreational boaters 

and sports fishers 

express a significant 

difference in 

willingness to pay 

under differing flow 

conditions?

RIN10 (R 5.) How 

has demand for Lees 

Ferry and Grand 

None Retain as is RIN 6 How has 

demand for Lees 

Ferry and Grand 
5

Canyon recreational 

boating (including 

rafting to Lake Mead) 

and Lees Ferry sport 

fishing changed over 

the pre-and post-rod 

periods?

Canyon recreational 

boating (including 

rafting to Lake Mead) 

and Lees Ferry sport 

fishing changed over 

the pre-and post-rod 

periods?

RIN11 (R 6.) How 

has crowding, camp 

size, multiple 

campsites in an area, 

etc. affected the 

Grand Canyon 

experience and 

expressed values

Edit for clarity Retain with edits RIN 7 How has 

crowding, camp size, 

multiple campsites in

an area, etc. affected 

the Grand Canyon 

recreation experience 

and expressed 

market and nonmarket values

RIN 13 (R 8.) How 

does the social 

benefit of the Lees 

Ferry trout fishery 

differ for walk-in 

only and boating 

anglers?

None Retain as is RIN 9 How does the 

social benefit of the 

Lees Ferry trout 

fishery differ for 

walk-in only and 

boating anglers?

RIN14 (R 9.) Should 

case scenarios for 

contingent valuation 

more closely 

approximate expected 

real variance in 

operations.

Specific to NPS survey 

review

Delete None

RIN15 (R 10.) 

Regarding the Grand 

Canyon rafting 

experience, can 

questions be added to 

capture more clearly 

why people take this 

special trip, isolating 

specifically trio 

attributes like unique 

wilderness 

experience, solitude, 

scenic beauty, etc.?

Specific for NPS survey

review

Delete and quantify 

special attributes of 

Grand Canyon rafting 

experience in 

individual resource 

IN

None

RIN16 (R 11). 

Collect data on 

fishing alternatives 

Specific for NPS survey

review

Delete None
6

for users, focusing on 

anglers three favorite 

fishing locations in 

the southwest.

RIN17 (R 12). 

Consider additional 

survey information 

from regional fishing 

groups such as fly 

fishing groups, or 

licensed anglers to 

assess opportunity 

value foregone.

Specific for NPS survey

review

Delete None

RIN18 (R 13). The 

survey should reach 

and qualify anglers 

that visit walk-in 

areas only, boat 

upriver for angling 

only, and those that 

do both.

Specific for NPS survey

review

Delete None

HYDROPOWER INs

HIN 1 (IN 10.1)

Determine and track 

the impacts to power 

users from 

implementation of 

Record of Decision 

dam operations and 

segregate those 

effects from other 

causes such as 

changes in the power 

market.

None Retain as is HIN 1. Determine 

and track the impacts 

to federal 

hydropower 

consumers from 

implementation of 

Record of Decision 

dam operations and 

segregate those 

effects from other 

causes such as 

changes in the power 

market.

HIN 2 (RIN 10.1.1.) 

What would be the 

effects on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity 

and energy of 

increasing the daily 

fluctuation limit?

Minor edit Retain with edits HIN 2 What would 

be the biophysical 

effects (list) on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity 

and energy of 

increasing the daily 

fluctuation limit?

HIN 3 (RIN 10.1.2.) Minor edits Retain with edits HIN 3 What would 
7

What would be the 

effects on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity 

and energy of 

increasing the up

ramp and down ramp 

limit?

be the biophysical 

effects (list) on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity 

and energy of 

increasing the up

ramp and down ramp 

limit?

HIN 4 (RIN 10.1.3)

What would be the 

effects on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity 

and energy of raising 

the maximum power 

plant flow limit above 

25,000 cfs?

Minor edit Retain with edits HIN 4 What would 

be the biophysical 

effects on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity 

and energy of raising 

the maximum power 

plant flow limit 

above 25,000 cfs?

HIN 5 (RIN 10.1.4)

What would be the 

effects on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity 

and energy of 

lowering the 

minimum flow limit 

below 5,000 cfs?

Minor edit Retain with edits HIN 5 What would 

be the biophysical 

effects (list) on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity 

and energy of 

lowering the 

minimum flow limit 

below 5,000 cfs?

HIN 6 (RIN 10.1.5)

How do powermarketing contract 

provisions affect Glen 

Canyon Dam 

releases?

None Delete None

HIN 7 (SSQ 3-4.) 

What are the 

projected hydropower 

costs associated with 

the various alternative 

flow regimes being 

discussed for future 

experimental science 

(as defined in the next 

phase experimental 

design)?

Minor edit Retain with edits HIN 7 What are the 

projected costs to 

federal hydropower

customers associated 

with the various 

alternative flow 

regimes 
8

HIN 8 (CMIN 10.1.1 

(as redefined by 

SPG). Determine and 

track the marketable 

capacity and energy 

produced through 

dam operations in 

relation to the various 

release scenarios 

(daily fluctuation 

limit, upramp and 

downramp limits, 

etc.).

Duplicates HIN2, 

HIN3, etc.

Delete None

HIN 9 What are the use 

and non-use values of 

the CRE?

Too general Delete and pursue in 

individual resource INs

None

HIN 10 Segregate and 

evaluate impacts of 

differing proposed dam 

operation experiments 

on federal hydropower 

customers i.e., 

ramping, daily and 

monthly fluctuations, 

high and low flows, 

steady flows, base 

cases, etc.

Duplicates HIN 7 Delete None

HIN 11 Develop rapid 

response capability to 

evaluate impacts of 

alternative scenarios on 

various aspects of 

power production and 

related economic 

implications

Minor edits Retain with edits HIN 8 Develop rapid 

response capability 

with models to evaluate 

impacts of alternative 

proposed flow 

scenarios on all 

resources

HIN 12 Develop total 

economic impact on 

upper basin water users 

from alternative dam 

operations

Minor edits Retain with edits HIN 9 Develop total 

market and non-market 

impacts on upper basin

water users from 

proposed alternative 

dam operations

HIN 13 How do market 

and non-market values 

change in response to 

experiments, 

unanticipated events or 

other management 

actions?

Too vague Delete and pursue for 

individual resources

None

HIN 14 What are the Too general Delete and pursue for None
9

non-use values for 

different resources?

individual resources

HIN 15 What are the 

socioeconomic benefits 

and costs of Glen 

Canyon Dam 

operations and 

experiments to tribal 

communities?

None Retain as is HIN 10 What are the 

socioeconomic benefits 

and costs of Glen 

Canyon Dam 

operations and 

experiments to tribal 

communities?

HIN16 Can multiple 

cases be used including 

Pre-Rod and MLFF for 

change case analysis?

Not an information need Delete None

HIN 17 What is the

base case for power 

generation that should 

be used for change case 

analysis?

Minor edits Retain with edits HIN 11 Define the base 

case for power 

generation for change 

case analysis?

HIN 18 What are the

market impacts of

differing Glen Canyon 

flow regimes on 

customers relative to 

Pre-Rod?

Minor edits Retain with edits HIN 12 What are the 

market impacts of flow 

regimes on costs to 

federal hydropower 

customers relative to 

Pre-Rod?

HIN 19 What are the 

non-market impacts of

differing flow regimes 

on customers relative to 

Pre-Rod?

Minor edits Retain with edits HIN 13 What are the 

non-market impacts of 

various flow regimes 

on federal hydropower 

customers relative to 

Pre-Rod? 

HIN 20 Are there nonmarket values 

associated with Glen 

Canyon electrical 

power, and if so specify 

and determine these 

values

HIN 21 Are there nonmarket values 

associated with water 

released through Glen 

Canyon Dam, and if so 

specify and determine 

these values

CULTURAL RESOURCE INs

CRIN1 (RIN 11.2.1)

What are traditionally 

important resources 

and locations for each 

tribe and other 

 None Retain as is CRIN1 What are 

traditionally 

important resources, 

and locations for each 

tribe and other groups 
10

groups?

CRIN2 (RIN 11.2.2)

What is the baseline 

measure for resource 

integrity?

Too vague Clarify and revise CRIN 2 What is the 

baseline measure for 

resource integrity of 

cultural resources?

QUESTIONS

Q 1 Resolving 

questions of how 

market, non-market, 

use and non-use 

values should be 

integrated into Grand 

Canyon policy 

formulation would 

address questions J 

and F.

Non an IN Do not retain as IN; 

address in plan 

methods

None

Q 2 C Do we need to 

determine the value 

of "specialness" of 

resources, such as, 

hydroelectric power 

generation; visitor 

satisfaction; value of 

beaches to support 

rafting; values of high 

visibility wildlife e.g., 

peregrine falcon, big 

horn sheep; and value 

of a blue ribbon trout 

fishery?

This is better determined 

through assessments of 

non-market values for 

individual resources

Do not retain as IN;

include as IN under 

individual resources as 

appropriate

None

Q 3 D What are 

points of 

disagreement on 

methodologies and 

assumptions in regard 

to power analysis?

Not an IN Do not retain as IN. 

Pursue in plan methods

None

Q 4 E What would a 

consensus 

interagency 

methodology for 

modeling hydropower 

and recreation (e.g., 

fishing & rafting) 

Not an IN Do not retain as IN. 

Pursue in plan methods

None
11

economic outcomes 

look like?

Q 5 J What are the 

requirements for 

economic information 

in GCPA, ESA, 

NHPA, NEPA, 

CRSPA,?

Not an IN Do not retain as IN. 

Pursue in plan methods

None

Q 6 M Can the values 

of dependable power 

and water supplies be 

reflected in future 

economic analysis?

Not an IN Do not retain as IN 

addressed in 

hydropower INs

None

Q 7 N How much 

weight should nonuse values be given 

compared to market 

and non-market use 

values?

Do not retain as IN. Do not retain as IN. 

Address in plan 

methods

None

Q 8 T What are the 

non-use values for 

different resources 

(including the tribal 

perspective) so we 

can include these 

values in trade-off 

analysis?

Duplicate of Q 16 Do not retain as IN. 

Duplicated in Q16

None

Q 9 I What is the 

base case on optimal 

power generation?

Duplicated in hydropower 

INs

Do not retain as IN None

Q 10 W (partly) 

Determine impacts on 

marketed hydropower 

and recreation values 

of alternative flow 

scenarios in real time 

to support decision 

making.

Duplicated in hydropower 

INs

Do not retain as IN None

Q 11 S (partly) What 

is the total economic 

impact to upper basin 

water users from 

changes to power 

generation from base 

case?

None Retain as a HIN HIN 14. What is the 

total economic 

impact to upper basin 

water users from 

changes to power 

generation from base 

case?

Q12B How do high It is assumed question Response does exist None
12

flow and other 

experiments affect 

recreation (river 

rafting, fishing guides 

and other associated 

businesses, including 

tribes)?

references recreation

socioeconomic impacts

in other recreation

INs. Do not retain as 

IN

Q 13 O What is the 

economic benefit of 

river recreation to 

tribes?

Questions is partly 

answered in other INs

Do not retain as IN None

Q 14 L What is the 

socio cultural impact 

of recreational use in 

the Colorado?

Too vague but probably 

not fully addressed in 

INs

Clarify so explicit IN 

can be revised under 

cultural resources

None

Q 15 R What are the 

socioeconomic 

benefits and costs of 

hydropower 

generation from HFE 

to tribal 

communities?

Minor edit Retain with edits as 

CRIN 

CRIN 4 What are the 

market and nonmarket values of 

hydropower 

generation from 

HFEs to tribal 

communities?

Q16 T What are the 

non-use values for 

different resources 

(including the tribal 

perspective) so we 

can include these 

values in trade-off 

analysis?

Major edit; market and 

non-market values 

included but not for 

tribal values

Retain as CRIN CRIN 5. What are 

non use and nonmarket values for 

different cultural 

resources from tribal 

perspective

Q17 A What are the 

attributes of the river 

that are important to 

recreational users?

Exists in IN for 

recreational boaters

Delete or revise for 

INs for fisherman 

and other groups

None

Q18 B How do high 

flow and other 

experiments affect 

recreation (river 

rafting fishing guides 

and other associated 

businesses, including 

tribes)?

Included in current INs Do not retain as IN None

Q 19 G (partly) What 

are the use and 

nonuse costs and 

benefits of HFE 

Included in current INs Do not retain as IN None
13

including the 

marginal costs and 

benefits of changes in 

HFE duration and 

size?

Q 20 L What is the 

socio cultural impact 

of recreational use in 

the Colorado River 

on Native American 

values associated 

with resources and 

places in the Grand 

Canyon?

Included in revised IN Do not retain as IN None

Q 21 O What is the 

economic benefit of 

river recreation to 

tribes?

Included in revised IN Do not retain as IN None

Q 22 W (partly) 

Determine impacts on 

marketed hydropower 

and recreation values 

of alternative flow 

scenarios in real time 

to support decision 

making

Revise. Not clear how 

real time assessments 

are accomplished

Revise and retain as 

GIN

GIN 1. Determine 

impacts on marketed 

hydropower and 

recreation values of 

alternative flow 

scenarios with real 

time models to 

support decision 

making
14

APPENDIX A

TABLE 3 PROPOSED SOCIO ECONOMIC PLAN FOR 

FY 2011-2014 AND INFORMATION NEEDS
15

Draft: 1-10-2010

Table 3. Proposed Socioeconomic Plan for FY2011-2014, as recommended by the TWG 

Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group.

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

1 Socioeconomic 

research overall

and its application 

to GCDAMP 

decision-making.

Cost: TBD

N/A Resolving questions of 

how market, non-market,

use and non-use values 

should be integrated into 

Grand Canyon policy 

formulation would 

address questions J and 

F.

How will the market, nonmarket use and nonuse 

values be integrated into 

policy analysis? Policy 

should be developed in a 

collaborative effort between 

the AMWG, DOI and 

DOE/WAPA on how the 

dollar values of market, 

non-market and non-use 

values will be used in the 

different decision making 

processes such as NEPA 

analysis, adaptive 

management and in any 

benefit-cost analysis. 

2 Staffing.

Cost: TBD

Time: FY 2012 

and beyond

N/A N/A As GCMRC shifts to 

greater emphasis on 

socioeconomic studies, 

GCMRC staff with resource 

economics expertise will be 

required to conceptualize 

the required studies, to 

initiate RFPs and help 

secure study funding, and to 

provide study oversight. 

Resource economics staff, 

or outside consultants, may

be needed to help interpret 

study results and to outline 

the implications of these 

results for agency policy. 

Additional resource 

economics staff or 

contractors may be required 

to do this effectively. This 

assumes that most of the

socioeconomic research 

will be conducted by 

outside consultants. If some 

of the studies were to be 

conducted in-house, the 

requirement for additional 

staff would be much 

greater.

FY 2011
16

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

3 Economics 101

educational 

workshop.

Cost: TBD

Time: FY 2011

IN 12.1 Develop 

information that can be 

used by the TWG, in 

collaboration with 

GCMRC, to establish 

current and target levels 

for all resources within 

the AMP as called for in 

the AMP strategic plan.

IN 12.2 Determine what 

information is necessary 

and sufficient to make 

recommendations at an 

acceptable level of risk.

RIN 12.1.1 What is the 

economic value of the 

recreational use of the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem downstream 

from Glen Canyon 

Dam?

RIN 12.1.2 What are the 

use (e.g., hydropower, 

trout fishing, rafting) and 

non-use (e.g., option, 

vicarious, quasi-option, 

bequest and existence) 

values of the Colorado 

River ecosystem

C. Do we need to 

determine the value of 

"specialness" of 

resources, such as, 

hydroelectric power 

generation; visitor 

satisfaction; value of 

beaches to support 

rafting; values of high 

visibility wildlife e.g., 

peregrine falcon, big 

horn sheep; and value of 

a blue ribbon trout 

fishery?

D. What are points of 

disagreement on 

methodologies and 

assumptions in regard to 

power analysis?

E. What would a 

consensus interagency 

methodology for 

modeling hydropower 

and recreation (e.g., 

fishing & rafting) 

economic outcomes look 

like?

J. What are the 

requirements for 

economic information in 

GCPA, ESA, NHPA, 

NEPA, CRSPA,? 

M. Can the values of 

dependable power and 

water supplies be 

reflected in future 

economic analysis?

N. How much weight 

should non-use values be 

given compared to 

market and non-market 

use values?

T. What are the non-use 

values for different 

resources (including the 

tribal perspective) so we 

can include these values 

in trade-off analysis?

The panel recommended 

that GCMRC host a Non 

Use Values 101 workshop 

to help TWG & AMWG 

understand the relevance 

and value of this type of 

study for informing future 

decision making. However, 

the TWG felt that a more 

general workshop/training 

was needed initially to 

provide AMP stakeholders 

with a basic introduction to 

the concepts and rationales 

underlying socioeconomic 

studies in general, to clarify 

terminology, and to provide 

an overview of how various 

types of analyses (market, 

non-market, non-use 

studies) are conducted and 

how the resulting data could 

be to interpreted and 

applied to inform AMP 

decisions. This workshop is 

currently scheduled for 

March 7, 2011 in Phoenix. 

This educational workshop 

is not intended to cover 

non-use economics indepth, that will be covered 

during the non-use 

workshop now scheduled 

for FY 2012. Western may 

provide support for the 

Economics 101 workshop 

and to help GCRMC to 

identify presenters 

specifically to address 

power system economics. 

CREDA will also provide 

professional opinion to 

GCRMC on potential 

power system experts.
17

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

4 Define GCD 

operational base

case and change 

cases.

Cost: TBD

Time: FY 2011

Policy 

IN 10.1 Determine and 

track the impacts to 

power users from 

implementation of 

Record of Decision dam 

operations and segregate 

those effects from other 

causes such as changes 

in the power market.

RIN 10.1.1. What 

would be the effects on 

the Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and 

energy of increasing the 

daily fluctuation limit?

RIN 10.1.2. What 

would be the effects on 

the Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and 

energy of increasing the 

upramp and downramp 

limit?

RIN 10.1.3 What would 

be the effects on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and 

energy of raising the 

maximum power plant 

flow limit above 25,000 

cfs?

RIN 10.1.4 What would 

be the effects on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and 

energy of lowering the 

minimum flow limit 

below 5,000 cfs?

RIN 10.1.5 How do 

power-marketing 

contract provisions 

affect Glen Canyon Dam 

releases?

I. What is the base case 

on optimal power 

generation?

W. (partly) Determine 

impacts on marketed 

hydropower and 

recreation values of 

alternative flow scenarios 

in real time to support 

decision making.

S. (partly) What is the 

total economic impact to 

upper basin water users 

from changes to power 

generation from base 

case?

This task addresses the 

fundamental need to define 

a base case (i.e., a 

“standard”) against which 

proposed changes in GCD

operations can be evaluated 

in the future. The panel 

recommended that TWG 

select an operational 

scenario that reflects 

current (MLFF) operations. 

The base case needs to 

define monthly volumes, 

hourly (or even within 

hourly) outputs, amount of 

peak and off-peak power 

production, etc. There is 

disagreement of what the 

base case should reflect; 

pre-rod conditions or 

MLFF. We recommend 

developing a base cast that 

captures current MLFF 

operations. The TWG also 

believes there would be 

value in using this base case 

in the future to assess 

change relative to pre-rod 

operation such that the 

change from various 

operations could be 

assessed to show how 

moving from one scenario 

to the other either results in 

net benefits or costs. This 

step, defining the base cases 

and the change cases to be 

analyzed in the future is 

essential to further analyses.

TWG – we need to discuss 

this further as the ad hoc 

group did not reach 

consensus on this 

approach. We have 

disagreement over the 

base case, pre-rod or 

MLFF or potentially both.
18

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

5 Peer review of the 

WAPA GTMax 

power model.

Cost: $30,000

Time: FY 2011

SSQ 3-4. What are the 

projected hydropower 

costs associated with the 

various alternative flow

regimes being discussed 

for future experimental 

science (as defined in the 

next phase experimental

design)?

IN 10.1. Determine and 

track the impacts to 

power users from 

implementation of ROD 

dam operations and 

segregate those effects 

from other causes such

as changes in the power 

market.

CMIN 10.1.1 (as 

redefined by SPG). 

Determine and track the 

marketable capacity and 

energy produced through 

dam operations in 

relation to the various 

release scenarios (daily 

fluctuation limit, upramp 

and downramp limits, 

etc.).

Workplan: HYD 

10.R2.11-12 p. 150

WAPA will provide the 

GCMRC with a full 

description of the GTMax 

model including equations. 

GCMRC will organize and 

host a workshop involving 

technical staff from WAPA, 

a representative from 

National Argonne 

Laboratories, and a small 

group

of independent hydropower 

modeling experts. During 

this workshop, the 

functions, assumptions, and

data needed to run the 

GTMax model and possibly 

other models will be 

described in detail and 

demonstrated through 

hands-on involvement of all 

subject experts. GCDAMP 

stakeholders will be invited 

to observe the workshop,

but the focus of this 

workshop will be on 

providing an opportunity 

for independent experts to 

become thoroughly familiar 

with and be able to 

independently assess

GTMax and other relevant

models in terms of their 

potential suitability for use 

as an electrical power 

system economic 

forecasting tool and post 

hoc assessment tool in the 

AMP.
19

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

6 Power modeling: 

conduct the base 

case analysis and 

initial power 

modeling using 

currently available 

models and test 

“spill over” effects 

with the WECC.

Cost: TBD

Time: FY 2011

WECC = Western 

Electrical 

Coordinating 

Council (i.e., 

western grid).

IN 10.1 Determine and 

track the impacts to 

power users from 

implementation of 

Record of Decision dam 

operations and segregate 

those effects from other 

causes such as changes 

in the power market.

RIN 10.1.1. What 

would be the effects on 

the Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and 

energy of increasing the 

daily fluctuation limit?

RIN 10.1.2. What 

would be the effects on 

the Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and 

energy of increasing the 

upramp and downramp 

limit?

RIN 10.1.3 What would 

be the effects on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and 

energy of raising the 

maximum power plant 

flow limit above 25,000 

cfs?

RIN 10.1.4 What would 

be the effects on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and 

energy of lowering the 

minimum flow limit 

below 5,000 cfs?

RIN 10.1.5 How do 

power-marketing 

contract provisions 

affect Glen Canyon Dam 

releases?

CMIN 10.1.1 (as 

redefined by SPG). 

Determine and track the 

marketable capacity and 

energy produced through 

dam operations in 

relation to the various 

release scenarios (daily 

fluctuation limit, upramp 

and downramp limits, 

etc.).

I. What is the base case 

on optimal power 

generation?

W. (partly) Determine 

impacts on marketed 

hydropower and 

recreation values of 

alternative flow scenarios 

in real time to support 

decision making.

S. (partly) What is the 

total economic impact to 

upper basin water users 

from changes to power 

generation from base 

case?

Workplan: HYD 

10.R2.11-12 p. 150

Implement the report 

recommendation to 

complete the base case 

study for hydroelectric 

operations in FY 2011. The 

detailed description of the 

base case study will be 

prepared by GCMRC, with 

input from WAPA and 

appropriate experts, based 

on the description in the 

Socioeconomic Panel's 

report, and input from the 

GTMax workshop results, 

and any additional 

specifications by the 

TWG/AMWG. This base 

case study will also include 

an analysis of "spill over" 

with the WECC. The base 

case and spill over analysis

will be completed by 

WAPA and a report 

prepared at no cost to the 

AMP. The report will be 

submitted by WAPA to 

GCMRC for peer review. 

GCMRC will oversee the 

peer review process and use 

the Science Advisors as 

needed. WAPA will 

incorporate changes into the 

report based on comments 

received from the peer 

review process.

If WAPA’s power flow 

models demonstrate 

changes in flows at the 

border of WAPA’s system, 

or at interconnection points 

with other systems, then a 

more extensive modeling 

effort may be required, to 

check for changes in four 

indicators throughout the 

WECC (generation, 

transmission, reliability, 

and hub prices).

If needed in a second step, 

the panel recommended that 

GCMRC solicit outside 

consultants to perform the 

broader WECC analyses 

using models that are most 

appropriate for this purpose. 

The panel also suggested 

that GCMRC enlist 
20

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

FY2012

7 Non-use values 

workshop to 

incorporate review 

of the 1994 Non 

Use Value Survey

and update the 

questionnaire.

Cost: $0

Time: FY 2012

RIN 12.1.2 What are the 

use (e.g., hydropower, 

trout fishing, rafting) and 

non-use (e.g., option, 

vicarious, quasi-option, 

bequest and existence) 

values of the Colorado 

River ecosystem

RIN 12.1.3 How does 

use (e.g., hydropower, 

trout fishing, rafting) and 

non-use (e.g., option, 

vicarious, quasi-option, 

bequest and existence) 

values change in 

response to an 

experiment performed 

under the Record of 

Decision, unanticipated 

event, or other 

management action?

T, Q, G, C, N A new non-use value study 

is needed to properly assess 

resource values associated 

with Grand Canyon, and 

potential impacts to those 

values from dam 

operations. The focus 

would be on values that are 

important to tribes and the 

broader American public 

that are not dependent on 

human use or consumption 

for their value. Data on 

tribal values may be 

gathered as part of this 

study depending on the 

outcome of preliminary 

investigations. Preparing 

for this study will take 

considerable time; therefore 

the panel recommended that 

GCMRC and TWG start 

planning early for a future 

non-use value study, taking 

into account changes that 

have occurred in the canyon 

and to dam operations since 

1995. Initiating Step #1 –

discussion and review of 

old questionnaire – could be 

done at no additional cost to 

the AMP. However, TWG 

is recommending that this 

be accomplished in a 

workshop format to include 

a more detailed review of 

non-use economics.
21

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

8 Scoping activity: 

identify tribes for 

specific surveys of 

preferences and 

attitudes and 

determine if 

separate tribal 

studies are needed.

Cost: $5,000

Time: FY 2012

RIN 11.2.1 What are 

traditionally important 

resources and locations 

for each tribe and other 

groups?

RIN 11.2.2 What is the 

baseline measure for 

resource integrity?

B. How do high flow 

and other experiments 

affect recreation (river 

rafting fishing guides and 

other associated 

businesses, including 

tribes)?

O. What is the economic 

benefit of river recreation 

to tribes?

L. What is the 

sociocultural impact of 

recreational use in the 

Colorado?

R. What are the 

socioeconomic benefits 

and costs of hydropower 

generation from HFE to 

tribal communities?

T. What are the non-use 

values for different 

resources (including the 

tribal perspective) so we 

can include these values 

in trade-off analysis?

There is a need to better 

integrate tribal values in 

AMP decision making. This 

task is intended as a 

scoping activity to 

determine how tribal values 

should be assessed and then 

integrated into AMP 

decision making. Future 

activities per the panel’s 

recommendations are 

provided below but they are 

placeholders if scoping 

finds that a separate process 

is needed to specifically 

address tribal preferences 

and values. This scoping 

process should fully include 

the tribes and any similar 

processes they may be 

involved in (such as the 

surveys currently being 

conducted by the Hopi 

Tribe as part of their 

monitoring project).

9 Recreation Use 

Analysis:

Part A (Market): 

initiate recreation 

expenditure 

analysis of Glen 

Canyon anglers, 

day-use rafters, 

and Grand Canyon 

and Marble 

Canyon white 

water users 

including 

Diamond Creek to 

Mead rafters.

Part B (NonMarket): initiate 

development of 

survey instrument 

for recreation nonmarket use 

analysis and 

obtain OMB 

clearances.

CMIN 9.1.1 Determine 

and track the changes 

attributable to dam 

operations in 

recreational quality, 

opportunities and use, 

impacts, serious 

incidents, and 

perceptions of users, 

including the level of 

satisfaction, in the 

Colorado River 

Ecosystem.

CMIN 9.1.4 Determine 

and track the economic 

benefits of river related 

recreational 

opportunities.

RIN 12.1.1 What is the 

economic value of the 

recreational use of the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem downstream 

from Glen Canyon 

A. What are the 

attributes of the river that 

are important to 

recreational users?

B. How do high flow 

and other experiments 

affect recreation (river 

rafting fishing guides and 

other associated 

businesses, including 

tribes)?

C. Do we need to 

determine the value of 

"specialness" of 

resources, such as, 

hydroelectric power 

generation; visitor 

satisfaction; value of 

beaches to support 

rafting; values of high 

visibility wildlife and 

value of a blue ribbon 

trout fishery?

G. (partly) What are the 

use and nonuse costs and 

benefits of HFE 

The panel proposed that 

GCMRC undertake 

socioeconomic studies 

focused on recreational

values that include both 

market and non-market use

values for specific river 

reaches. While the panel 

suggested that economics of 

scale could be had by 

gathering recreational data 

on both market and non 

market aspects at the same 

time, this is really a 

program decision. Market 

data are easier to gather and 

can be analyzed easily. 

Data on recreational 

consumer surplus 

(preferences) will require a 

proper survey design and 

additional input from 

stakeholder groups. The 

expenditure data be 

gathered and analyzed

while the nonmarket survey 

instrument is being 
22

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

Cost: $150,000 -

$200,000

Time: FY 2012-

2013

Dam? including the marginal 

costs and benefits of 

changes in HFE duration 

and size?

L. What is the 

sociocultural impact of 

recreational use in the 

Colorado River on 

Native American values 

associated with resources 

and places in the Grand 

Canyon?

O. What is the economic 

benefit of river recreation 

to tribes?

W. (partly) Determine 

impacts on marketed 

hydropower and 

recreation values of 

alternative flow scenarios 

in real time to support 

decision making.

developed

The regional economic 

effects of GCD experiments 

and other DOI actions will 

be analyzed. This analysis 

would be devoted to the 

impact on the regional 

economy as a result of 

changes in expenditures 

resulting from these actions.

The groups of interest for 

this study would be Glen 

Canyon day use rafters and 

anglers and Grand Canyon 

Whitewater rafting of 

commercial and private 

boaters from Lees Ferry to 

Diamond Creek or Lake 

Mead and the Hualapai 

white water recreational 

enterprise that services 

Diamond Creek to Lake 

Mead. This expenditure 

data can be used in the 

IMPLAN regional inputoutput model to estimate 

the positive economic 

impacts to the surrounding 

counties and Indian 

Reservations in terms of 

direct and indirect personal 

income and employment 

generated. Indirect effects 

would capture the 

multiplier effects from 

subsequent rounds of 

spending in the surrounding 

region. Separate interviews 

with the guides and the 

tribes will be needed to 

obtain their expenditures 

associated with the guiding, 

access fees, food, and other 

costs. We recommend that 

the economic impact 

analysis use two impact 

areas. For consistency with 

past research, it would be 

appropriate to use the 

counties surrounding the 

Grand Canyon. However, 

since many outfitters have 

their base of operation in 
23

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

Nevada or Salt Lake City, it 

would be appropriate to 

show results using a 

broader multi-state 

economic impact area 

(Report page 16)

10 Power modeling: 

conduct change 

case analyses, and 

power flow studies 

that show the 

financial and 

economic 

consequences of 

GCD management 

alternatives on 

WAPA and

WAPA customers.

Cost: TBD

Time: FY 2012

RINS 10.1.1-10.1.5 I. What is the base case 

on optimal power 

generation?

W. (partly) Determine 

impacts on marketed 

hydropower and 

recreation values of 

alternative flow scenarios 

in real time to support 

decision making.

S. (partly) What is the 

total economic impact to 

upper basin water users 

from changes to power 

generation from base 

case?

This task would evaluate 

economic outcomes from 

alternative GCD operations 

in relation to the base case. 

TWG/AMWG/or DOI first 

need to define what 

“change cases” they want to 

analyze before this can be 

initiated (see task above).
24

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

11 [Contingent upon 

power modeling in 

FY 2011] 

WECC power 

analysis:

GCMRC to solicit 

firms for future 

WECC analysis 

and work with 

WAPA to 

establish 

framework for 

future economic 

and financial 

analyses if deemed 

necessary by 

power modeling 

completed in FY 

2011.

Cost: TBD

WECC = Western 

Electrical 

Coordinating 

Council (i.e., 

western grid).

IN 10.1 Determine and 

track the impacts to 

power users from 

implementation of 

Record of Decision dam 

operations and segregate 

those effects from other 

causes such as changes 

in the power market.

RIN 10.1.1. What 

would be the effects on 

the Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and 

energy of increasing the 

daily fluctuation limit?

RIN 10.1.2. What 

would be the effects on 

the Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and 

energy of increasing the 

upramp and downramp 

limit?

RIN 10.1.3 What would 

be the effects on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and 

energy of raising the 

maximum power plant 

flow limit above 25,000 

cfs?

RIN 10.1.4 What would 

be the effects on the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and 

energy of lowering the 

minimum flow limit 

below 5,000 cfs?

RIN 10.1.5 How do 

power-marketing 

contract provisions 

affect Glen Canyon Dam 

releases?

I. What is the base case 

on optimal power 

generation?

W. (partly) Determine 

impacts on marketed 

hydropower and 

recreation values of 

alternative flow scenarios 

in real time to support 

decision making.

S. (partly) What is the 

total economic impact to 

upper basin water users 

from changes to power 

generation from base 

case?

This project is contingent 

upon the power modeling 

done by WAPA in FY 2011 

to determine “spill over” 

effects to the WECC.

The panel believed there 

was a need to more fully 

analyze how proposed 

changes in GCD operations 

may affect the larger 

western electrical grid, thus 

influencing power market 

values. The need to 

evaluate the impacts on the 

WECC would be assessed 

in step 1 under power 

modeling in FY 2011 and 

2012. During FY2011, 

information generated by

the WAPA modeling effort 

would be used to develop 

budgets for FY2012 and 

beyond, once a 

determination is made 

about the potential 

geographical scope of 

economic effects and 

whether the expanded 

WECC-level analysis is 

deemed necessary to 

influence GCDAMP 

decision-making.

If determined that WAPA’s 

models are not sufficient to 

capture “spill over” effects, 

GCMRC should solicit 

outside consultants to 

perform the WECC 

analyses using models that 

are appropriate for this 

purpose. If these tasks are 

needed, GCMRC should 

enlist additional expertise to 

develop the RFQs for the 

power modeling work (see 

staffing).

FY2013
25

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

12 Recreation Use 

Analysis 

Continues: 

Part B (NonMarket): initiate 

recreation surveys 

of Glen Canyon 

anglers, day-use 

rafters, and Grand 

Canyon and 

Marble Canyon 

white water users 

including 

Diamond Creek to 

Mead rafters.

Cost: =$150,000 -

$200,000

Time: FY 2013-

2014

CMIN 9.1.1 Determine 

and track the changes 

attributable to dam 

operations in 

recreational quality, 

opportunities and use, 

impacts, serious 

incidents, and 

perceptions of users, 

including the level of 

satisfaction, in the 

Colorado River 

Ecosystem.

CMIN 9.1.4 Determine 

and track the economic 

benefits of river related 

recreational 

opportunities.

RIN 12.1.1 What is the 

economic value of the 

recreational use of the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem downstream 

from Glen Canyon 

Dam?

A. What are the 

attributes of the river that 

are important to 

recreational users?

B. How do high flow 

and other experiments 

affect recreation (river 

rafting fishing guides and 

other associated 

businesses, including 

tribes)?

C. Do we need to 

determine the value of 

"specialness" of 

resources, such as, 

hydroelectric power 

generation; visitor 

satisfaction; value of 

beaches to support 

rafting; values of high 

visibility wildlife and 

value of a blue ribbon 

trout fishery?

G. (partly) What are the 

use and nonuse costs and 

benefits of HFE 

including the marginal 

costs and benefits of 

changes in HFE duration 

and size?

L. What is the 

sociocultural impact of 

recreational use in the 

Colorado River on 

Native American values 

associated with resources 

and places in the Grand 

Canyon?

O. What is the economic 

benefit of river recreation 

to tribes?

W. (partly) Determine 

impacts on marketed 

hydropower and 

recreation values of 

alternative flow scenarios 

in real time to support 

decision making.

GCMRC should undertake 

socioeconomic studies 

focused on recreational 

values that include both 

market and non-market use

values for specific river 

reaches. In FY 2013, work 

would focus on the second 

phase of this project 

implementing the nonmarket use values surveys. 

This recommendation 

combines areas from Glen 

Canyon down to Mead in 

order to maximize 

efficiency in developing 

surveys.

The intent of the nonmarket use work is to 

determine the broader value 

of the resource to recreation 

users beyond the simple 

expenditure analysis under 

the market use analysis 

(above). This broader 

analysis of “willingness to 

pay” for changes in 

resource conditions would 

help the AMP in 

determining economic 

consequences of actions by 

including overall changes in 

benefits. For example, 

changes in operations might 

increase the value of power 

but might have a negative 

consequence on the overall 

benefits to recreational 

visitors or other user 

groups. This analysis would 

put dollar amounts on those 

changes in benefits and 

allow an economic analysis 

to be performed on 

GCDAMP decisions.
26

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

13 [Contingent on 

scoping results FY 

2012]

Prepare surveys of 

tribal preferences

and social values. 

The analysis could 

include 

consideration of 

both use and nonuse values and 

include sociology 

and 

socioeconomics.

Cost: $40,000

Time: FY 2013

RIN 11.2.1 What are 

traditionally important 

resources and locations 

for each tribe and other 

groups?

RIN 11.2.2 What is the 

baseline measure for 

resource integrity?

B. How do high flow 

and other experiments 

affect recreation (river 

rafting fishing guides and 

other associated 

businesses, including 

tribes)?

O. What is the economic 

benefit of river recreation 

to tribes?

L. What is the 

sociocultural impact of 

recreational use in the 

Colorado?

R. What are the 

socioeconomic benefits 

and costs of hydropower 

generation from HFE to 

tribal communities?

T. What are the non-use 

values for different 

resources (including the 

tribal perspective) so we 

can include these values 

in trade-off analysis?

This activity is dependent 

on the outcome of the 

scoping exercise in FY 

2012. Although it is 

important to consider tribal 

values in AMP decision 

making it is unclear 

whether these values 

require separate analyses or 

whether these values could 

be adequately considered 

during the use and non-use 

tasks described elsewhere 

in this plan. It is important 

that this research program 

incorporates tribal values so 

that decisions can 

incorporate those values in 

a meaningful way. A

socioeconomic research 

program needs to recognize 

not only the economic 

impacts but also the social 

impacts on the tribes that 

result from changes in dam 

operations. Socioeconomic 

impacts to Tribes may 

suggest both opportunities 

and constraints that should 

be considered as changes in 

river operations are 

contemplated. Information 

to be covered in this survey 

could include attitudinal

questions about preferences 

and impacts of flow 

regimes. Tribal 

representatives would be 

invited to participate in the 

development and testing of 

the survey.

14 Initiate OMB 

clearance to 

conduct surveys 

with focus groups 

in FY 2014 in 

order to develop a 

non-use values 

survey in FY 

2015.

Cost: $20,000

FY2014
27

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

15 [Contingent on 

scoping results FY 

2012]

Conduct tribal 

surveys for 

preferences and 

social values 

potentially 

affected by GCD 

operations.

Cost: $100,000

Time: FY 2014-

2015

O, L, R, B, T A socioeconomic research 

program for GCMRC needs 

to recognize not only the 

socioeconomic impacts but 

also the social impacts on 

the Tribes that result from 

changes in dam operations.

16 Conduct focus 

groups and 

piloting of NonUse Value survey, 

and initiate OMB 

clearance for full 

survey 

implementation.

Cost: $200,000

T, Q, G, C, N The panel recommended 

that GCMRC start to plan 

for a future non-use value 

study to be ready for actual 

implementation. These 

FY2014 tasks are part of 

the preparatory phase 

preceding implementation 

of the actual survey.

17 Develop "realtime decisionmaking 

spreadsheet" for 

power impacts and 

benefits.

Cost: $50,000 -

$100,000

To the extent that repeated 

analyses of power market 

impacts are required as part 

of the future decisionmaking it may well be 

possible to ease the 

calculations by developing 

a simplified responsesurface model, embodied in 

a spreadsheet, linking 

changes within the CRSP 

service area to impacts on 

prices and capacity 

requirements within 

WECC. The GTMax Lite 

model may be applicable to 

develop this, but only after 

adequate testing is done in 

tasks above.

FY2015
28

ROW

#

Proposed 

Study/Activity

AMP Info Needs TWG Questions to be 

addressed

Proposed Use by AMP 

(SEAGH Perspective)

18 Conduct full nonuse value survey.

Cost: $500,000

Time: FY 2015-

2016

T, Q, G, C, N By 2015, it will have been 

20 years since the Welsh et 

al. (1995) study was 

conducted. Much has 

changed including the 

management scenarios in 

the Grand Canyon and the 

demographics of the U.S. 

population, especially in the 

Four Corners Region. As 

recommended by the 

National Research Council 

in its report “Downstream”, 

these nonuse values are 

quite important to 

understanding the public 

benefits of alternative 

management strategies in 

the Grand Canyon. By tying 

flow-related changes to the 

environment to the non-use 

value survey, the 

incremental or marginal 

nonuse values can be 

estimated that are most 

useful for evaluating 

potential management 

actions in the Grand 

Canyon.

19 Implement Core 

Monitoring Plan 

for 

Socioeconomics. 

Cost: TBD

B, W, A, O, L, G, C, R The panel recommends that 

socioeconomic surveys be 

repeated every 2-3 years as 

a monitoring tool to assess 

how changes in GCD 

operations affect 

recreational values. This 

should be integrated into 

the Core Monitoring Plan. 

A placeholder for 

socioeconomics should be 

kept in the initial General 

Core Monitoring Plan.
29

APPENDIX B

SIAHG ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS AND 

RECREATION INFORMATION NEEDS
30

APPENDIX B

SIAHG ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS:

NPS RECOMMENDATIONS ON RECREATION INs

R 1. What is the current total annual market value of the Lees Ferry trout fishery to the regional 

community, what are its components, hotel and restaurant, guides, retail purchases ,etc. and what 

are its non-use values?

R 2. What is the current total annual market value of Lees Ferry recreational boating industry, 

and what are its non-use values?

R 3. How have total annual use and market values for the Lees Ferry trout fishery and 

recreational boating changed in the pre and post-rod periods?

R 4. Do Lees Ferry recreational boaters and sports fishers express a significant difference in 

willingness to pay under differing flow conditions?

R 5. How has demand for Lees Ferry and Grand Canyon recreational boating (including rafting 

to Lake Mead) and Lees Ferry sport fishing changed over the pre and post-rod periods?

R 6. How has crowding, camp size, multiple campsites in an area, etc. affected the Grand 

Canyon experience and expressed values?

R 7. How has Native American use of the Lees Ferry trout fishery changed from the period pre 

and post-rod?

R 8. How does the social benefit of the Lees Ferry trout fishery differ for walk-in only and 

boating anglers?

R 9. Should case scenarios for contingent valuation more closely approximate expected real 

variance in operations?

R 10. Regarding the Grand Canyon rafting experience, can questions be added to capture more 

clearly why people take this special trip, isolating specifically trip attributes like unique 

wilderness experience, solitude, scenic beauty, etc?

R 11. Collect data on fishing alternatives for users, focusing on anglers three favorite fishing 

locations in the southwest. 

R 12. Consider additional survey information from regional fishing groups such as fly fishing 

groups, or licensed anglers, to assess opportunity value foregone.

R 13. The survey should reach and qualify anglers that visit walk-in areas only, boat upriver for 

angling only, and those that do both.
31

APPENDIX C

SEAHG ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS AND 

HYDRO POWER INFORMATION NEEDS
32

APPENDIX C: 

SEAHG COMMITTEE FINDINGS ON HYDROPOWER INFORMATION NEEDS; 

8/30/2011

H 1. What are the use and non-use values of the CRE?

H 2. Segregate and evaluate impacts of differing proposed dam operation experiments on power 

users, i.e., ramping, daily and monthly fluctuations, high and low flows, steady flows, base cases, 

etc. 

H 3. Develop rapid response capability to evaluate impacts of alternative scenarios on various 

aspects of power production and related economic implications.

H 4. Develop total economic impact on upper basin water users from alternative dam operations.

H 5. How do market and non-market value change in response to experiments, unanticipated 

events or other management actions?

H 6. What are the non-use values for different resources?

H 7. What are the socioeconomic benefits and costs of Glen Canyon Dam operations and 

experiments to tribal communities?

H 8. Can multiple cases be used including Pre-Rod and MLFF for change case analysis?

H 9. What is the base case for power generation that should be used for change case analysis?

H 10. What are the market impacts of differing Glen Canyon flow regimes on customers relative 

to Pre-Rod?

H 11. What are the non-market impacts of differing Glen Canyon flow regimes on customers 

relative to Pre-Rod?