WORKSHOP PROSPECTUS TO GUIDE DEVELOPMENT 

OF A WORK PLAN AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO 

ADDRESS HIGH PRIORITY SOCIO-ECONOMIC 

INFORMATION NEEDS OF THE GCDAMP 

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER 

HELEN FAIRLEY, SOCIO-CULTURAL PROGRAM MANAGER 

JOHN HAMILL, CHIEF GCMRC 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 
PROSPECTUS TO DEVELOP A WORK PLAN AND REQUEST FOR 

PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS HIGH PRIORITY SOCIO-ECONOMIC 

INFORMATION NEEDS OF THE GCDAMP 

ISSUE 

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) has a longstanding and continuing need for improved socio-economic analysis regarding how 

alternative regulated flows from Glen Canyon Dam may affect downstream resources (NRC 

1994, 1999). Managers and policymakers need improved capacity for more comprehensive 

and accurate assessment of socio-economic impacts to resources such as sport fishing, 

hydropower, recreational boating, regional hotel and restaurant trade, etc. Currently, impacts 

to hydropower resources are provided by Western Area and Power Administration when 

changes in dam operations are being contemplated, but there is a need for additional 

assessments related to impacts on market exchange of goods and services, social 

infrastructure, and economic trade-offs associated with implementing various management 

actions. For example, when a high flow event or a sustained low steady flow event are being 

contemplated by the AMP, key biophysical and socio-economic impacts of the proposed 

action need to be evaluated. Currently the GCDAMP has capacity to provide reasonable 

assessments of biophysical and some cultural resource impacts; however, current data and 

plans do not exist for evaluating impacts of selected actions on socio-economic resources 

other than hydropower, such as the Lees Ferry trout fishing enterprise, recreational boating, 

or the general regional tourism industry surrounding the Grand Canyon. Furthermore, 

previous reviews of the GCDAMP by the National Research Council (1999) and other 

entities (e.g. Loomis and others, 2005) have identified the need for more expansive 

socioeconomic studies and assessments with which to conduct systematic trade-off analyses 

for improved decision making, In summary, the GCDAMP needs to conduct additional 

economic impact analyses and tradeoff analyses of biophysical and socio-economic 

resources under differing dam management scenarios to help inform alternative approaches 

to management and policy. 

2
PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A WORK PLAN AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 

TO ADDRESS HIGH PRIOITY SOCIOECONOMIC NEEDS OF THE GCDAMP

 Interest in expanded socioeconomic science activity and potential partnership of 

GCMRC and TWG in developing program objectives were discussed during the March 2009 

TWG meeting and April 2009 AMWG meeting. A motion was passed by AMWG at their 

April 2009 meeting requesting that GCMRC, TWG and the Science Advisors continue to 

address the following issue of concern: “Item 6.c. General comment on Goal 10. There is a lack 

of economic analysis capacity in the program to evaluate trade-offs or other economic concerns. Additional 

capacity should be considered. Unknown funding needs at this time.” Subsequently, at a TWG 

meeting on June 22-23, 2009, GCMRC agreed to organize a workshop in collaboration with 

WAPA, NPS, and other TWG stakeholders to further explore this issue and evaluate 

program needs, including funding, to conduct additional socio-economic analyses. This 

prospectus reflects the outcome of preliminary discussions and planning conducted by the 

GCMRC, in consultation with representatives from WAPA, NPS, and the Executive 

Director of the Science Advisors on July 29, 2009. 

Currently, the GCDAMP budget does not permit expansion of the socio-economic 

science program without other program reductions. The long standing and current interests 

of stakeholders may warrant GCMRC consideration of budget reallocations or the 

development of new funding partnerships with other agencies and institutions in the future. 

Regardless of how the funding issue is resolved, the current expressed need for a more 

robust socioeconomic science program will benefit from a partnership approach between 

the GCMRC, the SAs, and TWG. In this process GCMRC would collaborate with AMP 

stakeholders to identify needs for future socio-economic assessment work, and then develop 

these needs into an appropriate draft science plan. The science plan development and its 

oversight would be the responsibility of GCMRC. Below we describe the proposed plan for 

a workshop to achieve the aims identified above. 

PROJECT SCOPE 

GCMRC anticipates that development of a well-rounded socioeconomic program 

will require a phased approach. It is anticipated that Phase I (first 3-5 years) will focus on 

updating market-based value studies of key resources and formulating plans for a more 

3
expansive approach in future years. The second phase of research is anticipated to include 

trade-off analyses and non-use value studies. 

PROPOSED FALL 2009 TWG/AMWG WORKSHOP 

The following section outlines a proposed approach for refining socio-economic 

goals, information needs, and program scope to assist GCMRC in the development of a 

work plan and Request for Proposal (RFP) to address high priority socio-economic analysis 

needs of the GCDAMP. GCMRC believes a workshop involving GCDAMP groups (i.e., 

GCMRC, TWG, and Science Advisors), along with several outside experts, will be an 

effective means for clarifying status of existing knowledge, refining stakeholder information 

needs, and evaluating alternative approaches to meeting those needs. Information 

emanating from the workshop would be used by GCMRC to develop a work plan and RFP 

that would be implemented subject to available funding, AMWG review, and approval by 

the Secretary of the Interior. 

WORKSHOP PROSPECTUS 

 A three-part workshop is proposed, with one full day (8am-12 pm, 1-5 pm) 

dedicated to Parts I and II and the following morning devoted to Part III. Expected 

participants include TWG/AMWG members, selected GCMRC staff, Science Advisors, 

invited socio-economic researchers who have worked in the past or are currently working on 

socio-economic studies in the Colorado River Basin, plus a small panel of independent 

socio-economic experts who will serve as discussants during Part III of the workshop. 

Following conclusion of Part III, the panel of invited experts will meet independently of the 

larger group to develop a set of recommendations for GCMRC to use in developing a future 

work plan and RFP: 

Time and location of the workshop is proposed for December 2-3, 2009 at the Arizona 

Water District Office in Phoenix, Arizona. GCMRC will arrange necessary facilities and 

facilitation for the meeting. The GCMRC Sociocultural Program Manager, working with the 

SA Executive Coordinator and TWG Chair, will be responsible for summarizing key 

outcomes of the workshop in a GCMRC/TWG file report. The specific format, objectives, 

and proposed outcomes of the Workshop are outlined below:

4
• Part I: Summarize past NRC reviews and recommendations and update 

status of current socio-economic knowledge. GCMRC will provide a 

summary of past reviews and recommendations concerning needed socioeconomic analyses. GCMRC will solicit the involvement of socio-economic 

researchers currently working in the Colorado River Basin on various socioeconomic issues relevant to the AMP and invite them to summarize their studies 

and conclusions during this first part of the workshop. TWG members will have 

an opportunity to ask questions or make observations following these oral 

presentations. 

• Part II: Clarify TWG Information Needs, i.e., identify areas of socioeconomic science to be pursued over next 3-5 years and 5-10 years, and 

general outcomes to be derived. Collection and assessment of impact data, 

development of impact assessments, and development of tradeoff models have 

been identified as potential needs of the AMP program and outcomes of future 

socio-economic studies. In April 2007, GCMRC conducted an information 

needs workshop focused primarily on identifying socio-economic information 

needs related to Goal 10 (hydropower.) Areas of known socio-economic and 

resource interest in the GCDAMP extend beyond hydropower, however, and at 

a minimum include economic impacts to recreation resources such as sport 

fishing, commercial and private boating, hotel and restaurant enterprises, guide 

services, etc. As noted above, GCMRC anticipates that development of a wellrounded socioeconomic program will require a phased approach, with Phase I 

(first 3-5 years) focused on updating market-based value studies of key resources 

and formulating plans for a more expansive approach in future years. The second 

phase of research is anticipated to include trade-off analyses and non-use value 

studies. Therefore, after identifying/clarifying overall socioeconomic program 

information needs in a general sense to be conducted within a ten-year 

timeframe, Part II of the workshop will specifically focus on identifying the 

information needs to be addressed in Phase I and prioritizing those research 

interests within a five-year timeframe. 

5
• PART III: Solicit external expert advice for framing future Work 

Plan/RFP and specify general science process to be followed: During Part 

III, the invited panel of independent experts will briefly review the information 

and discussions of Part I and II and provide some preliminary feedback to 

workshop participants in terms of logically prioritizing the identified information 

needs to best meet program goals and identifying some potential approaches and 

strategies to meet those needs over five and ten-year time frames. The panelists 

will use this opportunity to clarify previous research findings and identify 

perceived knowledge gaps, concerns and priority interests of AMP stakeholders. 

 Immediately following conclusion of the workshop, the independent panel will meet 

independently of the larger group to outline and begin drafting a report to help frame the 

direction and future development of a five-year socioeconomic work plan and RFP(s). 

(GCMRC believes that regardless of the information needs identified, an open competition 

RFP process will best support program needs in the future.) Taking into account past 

program reviews and the current state of knowledge identified in Part I of the workshop, 

along with TWG/AMWG information needs identified during the second part of the 

workshop, the panel will recommend potential approaches, methodologies, and anticipated 

time frames to address the identified socioeconomic needs of the GCDAMP. GCMRC will 

use these recommendations as a starting point for developing a short- term (3-5 year) and 

long term (10 year) work plan and future RFP(s) to address the highest priority studies 

identified through the workshop process. It is anticipated that the results of the workshop 

will be used by GCMRC to draft a work plan by February 1, 2010 for consideration by the 

TWG and AMWG. 

WORKSHOP BUDGET 

It is anticipated that the workshop will cost approximately $30,000, not including TWG 

participant time and travel costs. A preliminary workshop budget is shown below: 

6
7

Budget

Socio-economic research presenters (honoraria): $10,000 

Socio-economic research panelists (honoraria): $12,500 

Workshop Facilitator: $5,000 (contracted services) 

Facilities, miscellaneous: $2,500 

TOTAL $30,000 

 GCMRC and Science Advisors costs for planning and attending meetings are already 

incorporated into existing budgets. WAPA and NPS have agreed to cover travel costs for 

some individual presenters. GCMRC proposes to carry forward unused funding 

(approximately $16,000) from the FY09 Goal 10 monitoring project to cover most the costs 

for the invited panelists and facilities. GCMRC is seeking additional funding, perhaps from 

the unused portion of Reclamation’s FY09 TWG facilitator budget, to cover the costs of 

hiring a facilitator for the workshop and TWG member travel costs. We anticipate that with 

these combined sources of carry-over and appropriated funding, most elements of the 

workshop budget can be covered with existing funds.